U.S.A. 2004:
The Choice of a Lifetime
Voter turnout in (U.S.) Presidential elections
| Year | Voting Age Population | Turnout | % Turnout of VAP |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 202,746,417 | 123,535,883 | 55.27% |
| 2000 | 205,815,000 | 105,586,274 | 51.30% |
| 1996 | 196,511,000 | 96,456,345 | 49.08% |
| 1992 | 189,529,000 | 104,405,155 | 55.09% |
| 1988 | 182,778,000 | 91,594,693 | 50.11% |
| 1984 | 174,466,000 | 92,652,680 | 53.11% |
| 1980 | 164,597,000 | 86,515,221 | 52.56% |
| 1976 | 152,309,190 | 81,555,789 | 53.55% |
| 1972 | 140,776,000 | 77,718,554 | 55.21% |
| 1968 | 120,328,186 | 73,211,875 | 60.84% |
| 1964 | 114,090,000 | 70,644,592 | 61.92% |
| 1960 | 109,159,000 | 68,838,204 | 63.06% |
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/U.S._presidential_election
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1996/summ.htm
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm
http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000turnout/reg&to00.htm
|
Boston Herald Bush, Cheney merit four more years October 20, 2004 Certainly, both John Kerry and George Bush love this country. Both are men of good will, deep faith and vast intellect. But only one would never sacrifice principle for political advantage. One of these men says he craves the respect of the world. The other by his words and deeds commands it. Bush
took the political risk of his life by invading Iraq because he was
not willing to risk the lives of more innocent Americans at home. And
he did it with the support of a coalition of willing, courageous
leaders from other nations. Under George Bush's leadership, we deposed
a brutal dictator intent on attaining weapons of mass destruction and
put a man in prison who hated America with the same kind of ferocity
that sent hundreds of thousands of his own people to mass graves. |
Atlanta
Journal-Constitution In the real world, Kerry a better fit October 9, 2004 Bush has shown he lacks flexibility, competence, while challenger looks for policies that will work. Too often, Bush has seemed to disdain rational analysis of a situation in favor of a rigid, unbending ideology that recognizes no shading of gray. The world that Bush describes, and the world as it exists, are often two different places. During his time in public life, Kerry has proved himself to be an intelligent, diligent student of world and national affairs with the courage to take the lead at times when others would shirk the burden. Furthermore, Kerry has surrounded himself with competent people who are more interested in policies that actually work than in policies that meet some test of ideological purity. He understands that in a rapidly changing world, flexibility is a far more useful trait than rigidity. |
| Chicago
Tribune George W. Bush for president October 17, 2004 A President Kerry certainly would punish those who want us dead. As he pledged, with cautiously calibrated words, in accepting his party's nomination: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." Bush, by contrast, insists on taking the fight to terrorists, depriving them of oxygen by encouraging free and democratic governments in tough neighborhoods. As he stated in his National Security Strategy in 2002: "The United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. ... We cannot let our enemies strike first." Bush's sense of a president's duty to defend America is wider in scope than Kerry's, more ambitious in its tactics, more prone, frankly, to yield both casualties and lasting results. This is the stark difference on which American voters should choose a president. |
The New York Times John Kerry for President October 17, 2004 We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core. The international outrage over the American invasion (Iraq) is now joined by a sense of disdain for the incompetence of the effort. Moderate Arab leaders who have attempted to introduce a modicum of democracy are tainted by their connection to an administration that is now radioactive in the Muslim world. Heads of rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, have been taught decisively that the best protection against a pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons themselves. |
|
UNION-TRIBUNE Bush for president October 17, 2004 Uncertain times demand steady leadership. The war to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq was largely a consequence of Bush's post-Sept. 11 resolve to stay on the offensive against threats to America's security. Hussein's open defiance of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions and the nearly universal belief that Baghdad possessed prohibited weapons of mass destruction posed a danger that Bush refused to ignore. Today we know that the U.S. intelligence assessment – along with those of other Western nations – was egregiously flawed in assuming that Hussein was harboring stockpiles of chemical and biological arms. This must be recorded as a blunder of historic proportions. But it does not alter the reality that the bloodstained regime in Baghdad represented a genuine threat, including the potential for al-Qaeda to gain a new foothold if not a new sponsor. In our view, the world is indisputably more secure with Saddam Hussein behind bars. The decision to go to war was the correct one. We reach this conclusion while recognizing the ferocious insurgency currently under way in Iraq, and the terrible toll it has taken on American lives and resources.
|
The
Washington Post Kerry for President October 24, 2004 We find much to criticize in Mr. Bush's term but also more than a few things to admire. We find much to admire in Mr. Kerry's life of service, knowledge of the world and positions on a range of issues -- but also some things that give us pause. On balance, though, we believe Mr. Kerry, with his promise of resoluteness tempered by wisdom and open-mindedness, has staked a stronger claim on the nation's trust to lead for the next four years. So Mr. Bush has not earned a second term. But there is a second question: Has the challenger made his case? We say yes. Mr. Kerry has the better approach. None of these issues would bring us to vote for Mr. Kerry if he were less likely than Mr. Bush to keep the nation safe. But we believe the challenger is well equipped to guide the country in a time of danger. Mr. Kerry brings a résumé that unarguably has prepared him for high office. He understood early on the dangers of non-state actors such as al Qaeda. To pave the way for restored relations with Vietnam in the 1990s, he took on the thankless and politically risky task of convincing relatives that no American prisoners remained in Southeast Asia. While he wrongly opposed the first Persian Gulf War, he supported the use of American force in Bosnia and Kosovo. |
|
WASHINGTON TIMES President Bush for a safer world October 19, 2004 President George W. Bush sees the rise of global Islamist terrorism as an evil force and mortal threat, the causes of which must be extirpated, root and branch, in a global struggle. He believes that it is insufficient to merely track down the existing terrorists and contain the rogue states with capacity for weapons of mass destruction that may support them. Rather, he proposes, (and has begun to act upon the belief in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan and the Horn of Africa, among other places) to transform --by military means if necessary-- the sick societies of the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia that have given rise to the appeal of terrorism. Mr. Kerry's proposed solution seems to recapitulate Winston Churchill's description of the coming of the Second World War: "the malice of the wicked was reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous ... the counsels of prudence and self restraint [became] the prime agents of mortal danger ... the middle course adopted from desires for safety and a quiet life led direct to the bulls-eye of disaster." As between Mr. Bush's possible over-estimation of the scope of the solution and Mr. Kerry's clear under-estimation of it, we believe that true prudence calls for the maximum effort proposed by Mr. Bush. On that basis alone, we support Mr. Bush in the current election. As a man of faith, he will continue to stoutly defend the right to life and the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman — both in his legislative and appointive responsibilities. As a strict constitutionalist, he will defend the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and will appoint judges who will not legislate from the bench. What we can expect, and must demand of our presidents, is a clear vision and a firm hand on the tiller from the bridge of the ship of state. And one other thing: The moral uprightness to deserve the responsibilities with which we would vest him. President Bush has those virtues, and has performed those duties heroically through desperate years. He deserves, and the nation would be well served by, his re-election to those duties.
|
Chicago
Sun-Times Time to shift command to Kerry October 24, 2004 Four years ago, this newspaper endorsed George W. Bush. Culture wars were eclipsed by real war on Sept. 11, 2001, and suddenly our visions of ever-expanding American prosperity and influence were exposed as pretty illusions...[Bush] told the country we were at war, but a war that would demand nothing of us except that we keep shopping. And he took us into Iraq. We supported the president, because we believed along with him that the Iraqi threat he outlined was real and felt he did what he could to enlist the U.N. and the world community in what seemed like a just and necessary course of action. With the fall of Baghdad, however, the dynamics in Iraq quickly changed. We found, not the weapons of mass destruction we expected, but a fierce insurgency we hadn't, one the Bush administration seemed willfully and woefully unprepared to face. Meanwhile, our success in Afghanistan was endangered by a shift in focus to Iraq. The president's handling of the past year in Iraq -- his dismissal of those who warned him about the difficulty of reorganizing the country, his neglect of deep problems that are costing American lives there -- made us doubt his ability to bring our involvement there to a successful conclusion. Kerry offers a different leadership style that would give us a new start internationally -- an awareness of the world outside our borders, an acknowledgment that the United States is a world leader, not a rogue state, and as such we have responsibilities to treat those who we would count as friends in a certain manner. Bush has mocked this as kowtowing to France. We see it as diplomacy. We also like how Kerry thinks -- his thirst for information, his ability to judge situations on their merits. Yes, he sometimes changes his mind, but what the Republicans tar as waffling strikes us as flexibility. We want leaders to stay the course only when the course is a good one. Perhaps that is the ultimate reason for endorsing John Kerry. The course America is on today feels wrong -- our attempts to defend ourselves have somehow drawn the contempt of the world, and we think much of that is due more to style than to substance -- not to what we've done, but how we've done it. |
|
Dispelling illusion: "offense is the best defense" President
Bush now tells us that offense is the best defense and we are safer at
home because we are fighting the terrorists abroad. The argument
resonates strongly with an electorate fearful of terrorism — but it is
a Siren's song. |
|
| home |
2006-12-12