Surely it comes as no surprise that this column, and this newspaper generally, support Sen. John Kerry for president. It was clear to us back in January 2001--the paper's first-ever edition hit the streets just two weeks before the inauguration--that George W. Bush's election was a harbinger of bad things to come. We were right, though we claim no great prescience on that point.

President Bush has been wrong on almost every issue over the past 3 1/2 years. As our cover story points out, it's hardly just Bush's mishandling of Iraq that has polarized the nation and the world. Sometimes, his wrongness has nothing to do with the basic differences between conservatives and liberals. Scads of prominent conservatives in recent months have endorsed Kerry because they are so alarmed and disappointed by Bush and his policies.

I won't try to summarize the entire case for Kerry. Kerry has presented his positions admirably in the first two debates, and I simply don't have space to delve into the fine points of foreign and domestic policy. Instead, I will highlight three key issues that, I hope, will help convince the few remaining undecided voters to mark their ballots for Kerry.

The economy

The U.S. economy is in bad shape. It's not entirely Bush's fault. With the bursting of the dotcom bubble, the economy was already going south before he took office, and 9/11, also not Bush's fault, sunk us into recession. The problem is that Bush has not done anything to try to fix it except hand his rich friends a hefty tax break.

The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times both have been publishing in-depth articles profiling the shrinking middle class and the reduced sense of employment security among working Americans. Good jobs are being shipped overseas, incomes aren't keeping pace with inflation, costs of living are rising and retirement prospects are declining. The L.A. Times outlines the situation:

"A broad array of protections that families once depended on to shield them from economic turmoil--stable jobs, widely available health coverage, guaranteed pensions, short unemployment spells, long-lasting unemployment benefits and well-funded job training programs--have been scaled back or have vanished altogether."

Bush unapologetically supports these trends, arguing that people are better off relying on themselves to get through rough times. Easy for him to say, of course. He's been rich and comfortable his entire life--never once worrying about being laid off or hit with a catastrophic medical bill.

Kerry has enjoyed a similarly charmed life, but it's clear he better understands the challenges faced by the middle class. While he has not proposed anything so dramatic or compelling as FDR's New Deal, Kerry wants to deter companies from outsourcing jobs overseas and he wants many more Americans to have access to affordable health care. He actually would try to make life a little better for regular people.

Telling the truth

After Kerry returned from Vietnam, he told a Senate committee in 1971 that many U.S. soldiers were committing atrocities in Southeast Asia--that the My Lai Massacre was not an isolated case. Bush allies, such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, claim that Kerry lied about the conduct of his fellow soldiers. But military records kept in the National Archives--and recently declassified--back up Kerry's assertions.

The Village Voice, in a Sept. 22 cover story by Nicholas Turse, reveals an extensive record of barbaric acts against the Vietnamese people, including rape of children, cutting off of arms, ears and fingers, decapitations, electrical torture and random shooting of civilians.

The point, besides refuting the ridiculous Swift Boat Veterans, is that Kerry has an unusual habit, for a politician, of telling the truth. In 1971, Kerry put his neck on the line to tell the American people the truth about what was happening in Vietnam. It was a courageous move that gave the antiwar movement much-needed credibility. Thirty-four years later, Kerry is accusing President Bush of not telling the American people the truth about Iraq, and he's right again.

Yucca Mountain

A recent Las Vegas Sun/KLAS Channel 8/KNPR poll indicates that while a large majority of Nevadans remains opposed to Yucca Mountain, they don't think it's a particularly important issue in the presidential race. I agree--to an extent. This election is important on a national and international scale. The issues at stake are much more pressing than where the nation's nuclear waste will be stored.

However, the fact that President Bush blatantly lied about his intentions regarding Yucca Mountain should tilt undecided voters in Kerry's favor. Kerry has an excellent environmental record and has vowed repeatedly and without equivocation that he would kill the Yucca Mountain project. This shows a commitment to Nevada's well-being that Bush would never make.

It's worth noting, too, that Kerry is a strong advocate of renewable energy. If the nation were to expand its research and use of solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources, Nevada--with its sunny climate and wide open spaces--would be a primary beneficiary in terms of investment and jobs. Bush, by contrast, supports fossil fuels that pollute our skies and reinforce our troublesome and precarious dependence on foreign oil.

Vote for Kerry. Unlike Bush, he has your best interests at heart.