Bush vs. Kerry: My Endorsement
Hugh Hewitt has asked writers to blog on why voters should pull the lever to reelect President Bush, and why they shouldn't support Senator John Kerry on November 2.
Obviously, I'll be voting for President Bush. Why? First, on the issue of foreign policy, I fully agree with what we are doing in Iraq, and although there have been massive hurdles and many mistakes in the short term, I believe the liberation of Iraq, toppling and capture of Saddam, and the upcoming national elections are the best way in the long term to tackle the culture of violence, fear, and oppression that colors Middle Eastern politics. In contrast with the punchless policies of President Clinton (seemingly sought to be adopted by Kerry), I believe President Bush's willingness to take the fight to the terrorists and terror supporting countries will show that sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Do not ever forget that 9/11 happened.
Domestically, Bush needs to do more to reign in spending. As a small government conservative, I'm dismayed at the spending spree of the last couple of years, particularly on the discretionary side. Rather than increasing spending, I think the Republicans need to do more to restrain it during the next four years. But here is where John Kerry loses my vote. Kerry says Bush was irresponsible for cutting taxes. Then he says in the debates he wants to lower taxes more while raising them only for the "rich." And he has a "plan" for everything. In other words, taxes will be raised and there will be more spending. Additionally, the higher taxes on corporations and the "rich" will mean more companies heading overseas and higher prices for you and me. More government intervention is promised by Kerry. Philosophically, I couldn't possibly vote for Kerry on this basis. Bush's record on the spending/deficit issue is shaky, but you can't discount 9/11 and the war on terror when talking about the economy. Kerry's plans would be an absolute disaster for any continued recovery.
Why I won't vote for John Kerry. First, on the foreign policy front, he seeks to impose on the United States the same mediocrity the flaccid, impotent Old Europe currently wallows in. He also takes an unrealistic and/or inconsistent view on what can be done in Iraq. Sending the troops home by the end of his first term smacks to me of preemptive surrender. By declaring we will not stay the course, he gives hope to the terrorists and insurgents, and demoralizes our military forces. Remind anyone of 1971? Eight years of the same type of Clintonian timidity resulted in the bold 9/11 attack. There is no getting around that. Four to eight more will severely cost us at home and abroad militarily, politically, and strategically.
Domestically, John Kerry seeks to take away your Constitutional right to representative government. The appointment of justices who seek to legislate from the bench is a liberal favorite. This issue is even more important than last election. Justices don't live forever. I also do not believe that the wealth gap between the poor and the rich in this country is the boogeyman John Kerry and liberals deem it to be. In fact, free markets policies in the US have done exactly what they are supposed to do, allow all boats to rise, including those of the least fortunate. What is more, Senator Kerry's absolute absence of accomplishment in 19 years on Capitol Hill is a stunning reminder of his aloofness and inability to tackle issues of national importance.
Finally, President Bush demonstrated to me the height of presidential leadership and fairness when confronted with the stem cell issue. He knew a substantial percentage of his voters helped him to office based on his vow to protect human life at all stages. His compromise was politics as it should be: provide some of the federal funding sought by researchers on the one hand, while protecting the lives of the innocent on the other. He found the best middle ground possible for all Americans, damn the popularity of the decision. Senator Kerry's utter indifference to principle and to human life as demonstrated by his bafflingly callous and inconsistent position on abortion demonstrates to me that he does not have the steadfastness or the thoughtfulness to lead beyond his political base. An American president must lead all Americans, and in some cases, must make difficult, unpopular decisions for the benefit of the nation. President Bush has shown that ability, particularly in response to 9/11 and subsequent events.
Please vote for the reelection of President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004.
Obviously, I'll be voting for President Bush. Why? First, on the issue of foreign policy, I fully agree with what we are doing in Iraq, and although there have been massive hurdles and many mistakes in the short term, I believe the liberation of Iraq, toppling and capture of Saddam, and the upcoming national elections are the best way in the long term to tackle the culture of violence, fear, and oppression that colors Middle Eastern politics. In contrast with the punchless policies of President Clinton (seemingly sought to be adopted by Kerry), I believe President Bush's willingness to take the fight to the terrorists and terror supporting countries will show that sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Do not ever forget that 9/11 happened.
Domestically, Bush needs to do more to reign in spending. As a small government conservative, I'm dismayed at the spending spree of the last couple of years, particularly on the discretionary side. Rather than increasing spending, I think the Republicans need to do more to restrain it during the next four years. But here is where John Kerry loses my vote. Kerry says Bush was irresponsible for cutting taxes. Then he says in the debates he wants to lower taxes more while raising them only for the "rich." And he has a "plan" for everything. In other words, taxes will be raised and there will be more spending. Additionally, the higher taxes on corporations and the "rich" will mean more companies heading overseas and higher prices for you and me. More government intervention is promised by Kerry. Philosophically, I couldn't possibly vote for Kerry on this basis. Bush's record on the spending/deficit issue is shaky, but you can't discount 9/11 and the war on terror when talking about the economy. Kerry's plans would be an absolute disaster for any continued recovery.
Why I won't vote for John Kerry. First, on the foreign policy front, he seeks to impose on the United States the same mediocrity the flaccid, impotent Old Europe currently wallows in. He also takes an unrealistic and/or inconsistent view on what can be done in Iraq. Sending the troops home by the end of his first term smacks to me of preemptive surrender. By declaring we will not stay the course, he gives hope to the terrorists and insurgents, and demoralizes our military forces. Remind anyone of 1971? Eight years of the same type of Clintonian timidity resulted in the bold 9/11 attack. There is no getting around that. Four to eight more will severely cost us at home and abroad militarily, politically, and strategically.
Domestically, John Kerry seeks to take away your Constitutional right to representative government. The appointment of justices who seek to legislate from the bench is a liberal favorite. This issue is even more important than last election. Justices don't live forever. I also do not believe that the wealth gap between the poor and the rich in this country is the boogeyman John Kerry and liberals deem it to be. In fact, free markets policies in the US have done exactly what they are supposed to do, allow all boats to rise, including those of the least fortunate. What is more, Senator Kerry's absolute absence of accomplishment in 19 years on Capitol Hill is a stunning reminder of his aloofness and inability to tackle issues of national importance.
Finally, President Bush demonstrated to me the height of presidential leadership and fairness when confronted with the stem cell issue. He knew a substantial percentage of his voters helped him to office based on his vow to protect human life at all stages. His compromise was politics as it should be: provide some of the federal funding sought by researchers on the one hand, while protecting the lives of the innocent on the other. He found the best middle ground possible for all Americans, damn the popularity of the decision. Senator Kerry's utter indifference to principle and to human life as demonstrated by his bafflingly callous and inconsistent position on abortion demonstrates to me that he does not have the steadfastness or the thoughtfulness to lead beyond his political base. An American president must lead all Americans, and in some cases, must make difficult, unpopular decisions for the benefit of the nation. President Bush has shown that ability, particularly in response to 9/11 and subsequent events.
Please vote for the reelection of President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004.
posted by Mike C | 3:52 PM
2 Comments:
President Bush's predilection for spending pales in comparison to the orgy of spending that would surely ensue should, God forbid, Kerry be elected!
Let's get Bush in. (We can work to give him an injection of fiscal restraint later.)
The worst thing we could do is to sew dissent in the ranks of conservative voters. (The very thought makes me wretch!)
You have a great blog. I found it on Hugh Hewitt's site. Hope you stop by mine... I'm not too good at working it (oh well)
:)
Post a Comment
<< Home