At Newspapers That Backed Bush in 2004: New Worries, But Few Regrets (For Now)

By: Joe Strupp and Miki Johnson As the 2004 race for president wound down, E&P kept the only national tally of editorial endorsements for President Bush and Senator Kerry. By Election Day, the totals stood at nearly a dead heat (just like the election), with 213 for Kerry and 205 for Bush.

One year later, with the president's approval rating slipping into the 30s and no end in sight, we thought it would be interesting to find out if many, or any, of the newspapers that endorsed George W. Bush are feeling any ?buyer's remorse.?

In surveying the responsible parties at a fair cross-section of more than a dozen pro-Bush papers scattered across the country, we found that no one said flatly that they wished they had endorsed differently in 2004, or said they would likely favor a Democrat next time around. Joe Crawford, editorial page editor of the Grand Rapids (Mich.) Press, said, "There has been no discussion that we made a mistake," declining to elaborate further.

But nearly all of the others did express disappointment in several aspects of the president's second-term performance.

The Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss., came closest to admitting regret over its 2004 endorsement. The editorial board had supported Al Gore in the 2000 election, and its opinion section editorial director, David Hampton, said the paper probably would have done the same again if Gore were running last year. But given a choice again today between President Bush and John Kerry, Hampton said the board probably would still pick Bush.

Hampton pointed out, though, "We have been critical of foreign policy throughout this administration." He noted the board also opposed Bush's Supreme Court appointments, income tax cuts, and recent slashes to the early childhood development program Head Start. "I think there has been some slippage of support [among editorial board members].?

Hampton also said the 2004 endorsement deeply divided the board, which is usually marked by consensus, largely because both candidates were seen as weak. Larry Allison at the Press-Telegram in Long Beach, Ca., said his small edit board also was more divided than usual over the 2004 endorsement, and they remain ambivalent about the president's performance.

"We have no regrets because there wasn't a better alternative [in 2004]," Allison said. "But that does not mean that I and others aren't unhappy or distressed with the way Bush has handled the selling of the war.?

The Cincinnati Enquirer in key swing state Ohio is disappointed that weapons of mass destruction didn't turn up in Iraq, said editorial page editor David Wells. "Now that we're there [in Iraq], we've got to see it through to its conclusion," Wells said, standing by the paper's decision to endorse Bush.

Recently, The Enquirer has run editorials criticizing the White House for downplaying the Libby indictment, FEMA for its ?horribly slow? response to hurricane Katrina, and the administration for what seemed like shallow searches for Supreme Court nominees.

Weak federal response to Katrina was a common target for two other editorial boards that nevertheless still stand by their 2004 Bush endorsements, the Omaha World-Herald and The Albuquerque Journal.

The Florida Times-Union is worried about Katrina too, but more because it has further strained a federal budget the editorial board already considers out of control, according to Michael P. Clark, it's editorial page editor for the past six months.

"There seems to be no will anywhere in Washington to cut spending," Clark said. "We do have some concerns about the future, but we don't see any meaningful debate coming from the Democrats."

At The Boston Herald, Editorial Page Editor Rachelle Cohen, who decides endorsements along with Publisher Patrick J. Purcell, said the paper had "no regrets, but we have been critical of the past FEMA director and called for him to be fired. That was a disaster, but not one to be placed entirely at his [Bush's] doorstep. He took the heat for it."

Cohen also cited the paper's criticism of the Harriet Miers nomination, calling it "lukewarm at best." She added that Bush's Iraq policy was "responsible" and "proceeding at pace in terms of the democratization and rebuilding of Iraq."

She also stressed that the paper still deemed Bush a better pick than Kerry. "On balance, are we glad he, rather than John Kerry, is in the White House? Yes, we are." Then she added, "It is in large part about the other guy. If it were a Bush-Kerry race today, we would still be with Bush."

Bernie Jones, opinion page editor at the San Diego Union-Tribune, said he is just one of several editorial board votes that influence the endorsement. But he admitted the paper had been critical of Bush in the recent past for his spending policies and reluctance to address the torture issue.

"I think he'd have more of a chance," Jones said of Kerry when asked what the endorsement might be if the two met in an election today. "We have another year of his presidency with different things to judge. That would enter into the equation." But, he made clear that "because of our Republican tradition, I don't think we would take back our endorsement."

Randy Bergmann, editorial page editor of the Asbury Park Press in Neptune, N.J., pointed out that the paper's original Bush endorsement was far from a whole-hearted cheer. "It was very tepid," he said. "It was almost anti-Kerry more than pro-President Bush, mostly because of the tax policies and the war. We had more concerns about Kerry and his tax policies, very liberal policies."

Bergmann added that the endorsement was a group choice by the editorial board, but pointed out it had been a split vote in 2004. "I imagine it would be split again," he said, noting that Bush would have more to answer for at this point. "I think he would have a tougher time now. There are certainly a lot of conservative Republicans who have a problem with him. A lot would depend on who he is running against."

At the Las Vegas Review Journal, Editorial Page Editor John Kerr stopped short of saying his paper would take back its endorsement. But he said Bush has not made them happy on certain issues. "I wouldn't say we regret it," he said. "But there is certainly a level of disappointment in his embrace of the big spending in Congress and backing off Social Security reform. We are disappointed, but we certainly don't believe if Mr. Kerry were elected that things would be any better on those issues."