Editorial: Why unless he does something REALLY stupid I am voting for George W. Bush

Editorial: Why unless he does something REALLY stupid I am voting for George W. Bush

I voted for Harry Browne twice, before that I worked for the Perot Candidacy. I never believed there was a hill of beans difference between the two parties. But after watching hours of the 2004 Democratic National Convention I sit looking at the screen with the awesome realization “John Kerry is so bad, I need to vote for George W. Bush.”

Now, let me take a step back. While I often cast my vote for the candidate I felt best represented my values, I did so knowing he wouldn’t win. But then I felt it was more important I vote for what I believe, but I am a bit older now and my hair is a bit thinner and I have realized something. Florida is a state where the margin will most definitely be thin, and Florida may be one of a few states that push it to Kerry (or to Bush) so I have to accept the reality. Every vote not for Bush or Kerry lowers the number they need to get to the largest plurality.

So I have to ask myself, reasonably, do I feel more comfortable with Bush or Kerry in the white house. Or is it essentially a wash. I have come to realize thanks to the Presidency of Bill Clinton very little done at the White House will impact my life. Of those things that do I have come to the determined feeling John Kerry will not make the United States a better place 4 years from now despite his best claims, his actions in the current age of history we are in may make things worse.

So, let me go into the serious issues of the flawed humanity of John Kerry that makes me feel uncomfortable with his hand firmly on the football.

Vietnam: No single human being in public life so represents every side of the tortuous conflicted time in this country. John Kerry is the Soldier coming home, the man spitting on the soldier, and the government which abandoned the Vietnam Vet. These sins could be forgivable except in the manner John Kerry has used each role and uses each role for his personal gain. He will not state he used deceptive tactics against the war, which he did, he will only say he regretted hurting this people. But he will then embrace them as his band of brothers. In John Kerry’s world his actions that have turned so many vets against him for years before this point are all “mean spirited” republican assaults. It is this inability to accept that in any of his roles he made a wrong choice, and that he can amend those choices by admitting to this.

In addition to being most emotionally disturbing, he then attacks President Bush for not admitting to Mistakes he made in his governance of the country. Some mistakes, John Kerry says he himself would still support knowing then what he knows now. Can a man who views no sense of responsibility, no understanding of the hurt he has caused so many be able to make serious moral judgments? Can he make the choice to send our young men into war without giving him political cover from all sides of every angle? These are serious questions about John Kerry’s ability to serve as president in our current age.

Worse, these calculations which have caused so many raw nerves in this social discord, have served to enrich him personally, and members of his own family, so how can we trust his ability to make the call based on what is right or not? When John Kerry first ran for congress he spoke well of his record in Vietnam, when he could not win that primary he became anti-war. He would slander men he served with, become a public face for the anti-war movement to enrich himself. Again, these things would by themselves be forgivable if John Kerry would say something as simple “When I opposed the war, I did a lot of things that were wrong. And I hurt a lot of people and families. I thought using phony testimony to help end the war was justified.” A simple statement could allow him to be the War-Hero he once tried to be.

But John Kerry refuses to show that he has changed his mind, that all of his positions are true especially the contradictory ones. Is this not the same flaw he has attacked the president for on numerous occasions? These reaches beyond hypocrisy when taken with the total of his candidacy and the challenges the next president faces.

How can a President who admitted to committing war crimes stand before the world to ensure American Justice? How can a president who used Doctored testimony to end one war ensure us that he would not use doctored testimony to start another? How can a man who ordered the destruction of documents some claim showed that we still had soldiers alive in Vietnam stand for the open and honest government so many people feel, rightly, they are not getting? Some of the Major flaws of the Bush Whitehouse are seen in the Post-War years of John Kerry. But he refuses to admit he did anything wrong, so how do we know we won’t see the exact same behaviors? And how will these behaviors be “better received” with President Kerry then they are with President Bush?

John Kerry talked his whole youth about emulating JFK; he picked a duty station similar to his and lobbied to get out of the war a decorated soldier. He left the war for a cushy desk job when so many other men were suffering, does this not attack his claims of “serving his country when it needed him?” or does this show a man who choose to use the military as many men had before him, as the wounds of valor necessary for public life? If he left his “band of brothers” behind to try to enter congress, what does that say about John Kerry’s ability to lead men into battle as president? What does that say about his ability to be tested under fire?

And, if these things were Just during the war they could be excused. But these actions picking at the wounds of Vietnam, served over his entire public life. His “Christmas in Cambodia” came whenever he tried to speak against clandestine acts of the government. Instead of speaking on the rightness or wrongness of the issue, he invents a part of this experience to justify his position. As a reporter for the Boston Globe says “John Kerry is defined by Vietnam” but this definition has not been in working for V.A related issues-Kerry took very few steps to get them more money.- Nor for the living conditions of US soldiers –Kerry helped push for Defense department cuts, and reductions in troop strength.- John Kerry’s Vietnam is like his Rosetta Stone he uses it to translate his issues, his beliefs, for salt of the earth America.

Did John Kerry commit war crimes in Vietnam, to me that is less important then what Vietnam taught John Kerry. And from the Soldier, to the Protestor, to state official, to the senate has served to teach John Kerry a better way to sell John Kerry. This is a lesson that didn’t need to be taught. John Kerry needed to learn about brotherhood, about valor, about sacrifice, or any of the myriad of other virtues that have made public servants from Bob Dole to George McGovern the leaders they were. In John Kerry it has served to facilitate a shallow character.

John Kerry Lt. Governor: As Lt. Governor John Kerry did author executive orders; he assisted Michael Dukakis in the administration of the Bay State. Whose major corporations have moved out, to climates of less taxation and regulation. He authored an Executive Order against a civil defense to atomic war. And this again shows the flaws in John Kerry the leader.

In a Nuclear war, total destruction would have never happened. Both sides would eliminate the ability of the enemy to put out a strong conventional force on the field. When John Kerry wrote this order, the soviets would have needed to so act in order to have tactical advantage. If they struck just one city in Massachusetts, which would be more likely then decimating the whole state, this order would have consigned all those people to their deaths.

Were Nuclear weapons a valid defense policy device? When you take them out of the theoretical stage only deterrence factors Justify atomic weapons or their use. Many reasonable people felt that they were Immoral, but many more reasonable people used that threat to bring peace and bridge the Soviet and free worlds. This was not ended by protests, this was not ended by withdrawing from the convention, this was ended by saying ‘I’ll use this if you make me, but please for the love of god don’t make me.”

To protest this policy, enshrined in law and written by John Kerry is a policy that would have lead to people’s deaths if Atomic weapons were ever used. Just as John Kerry slandered his fellow soldiers for his political advantage, for a “Moral” protest act he would risk the lives of the citizens of a whole state. What does this say about his judgment? What does this say about the choices he would make as President?


Senator John Kerry: It seems he has emulated JFK in not making a presence known in the senate in three terms, a most extraordinary act. In his tenure on the intelligence committee he has missed the public meetings and refused to make his attendance of the private meetings public. If John Kerry as the senator was serving as a zealous committee member, showing these records would ad to his credibility.

John Kerry participated in a committee to wipe the slate clean of the Vietnam War, but it only caused more heart ache

Senator Kerry Sat with his head in his hands in Tom Daschle’s office unable to think of what to do on 9-11-01.

He has made no major legislative effort, how does that show his ability to lead the country to a vision? He was unable to heal the wounds of our nation with a bipartisan commission dedicated for that purpose. How can he heal divisions in this country, and in the world? And who do you want as a President, a man who is at a loss of what to do or a man who wants to make those responsible pay?

Candidate Kerry:

Candidate Kerry impugns George Bush for a service discrepancy in the Air National Guard, but when his service is impugned did he open up his records as the president did? No, he called the men liars. He threatened to sue. He blamed the republicans for it.

So which man is better, the man who opens up his records and takes false slings. Or the man who swings at his enemies with a vicious sword?

John Kerry fabricates stories about himself, and about people in other states to add to the veracity of his message, a fault that is all to common in politicians but with his other flaws is this something we can have in a man like John Kerry?

He makes a 55 hour speech which was nothing but a ramble, with a month of preparation. With writing and re-writing until the last minute before it was to be given. If a man cannot write a speech he knows he needs to do for months, how can he make critical spur of the moment choices which affect the lives of millions?

He placed those advocates who argued for the Democratic Party and John Kerry off tv, and placed those who advocated for anybody but bush on tv. If he cannot make the case for himself, how can he make the case to congress? How can he make the case to the nation?

He avoided the league of mayors meeting, instead of negotiating a deal with the police union. If he cannot get a union-which supports him- to allow him to make a policy speech of importance, how can he rally our allies –who are ambivalent at the moment- to our side?

Conclusion:

You can make the case for the flaws of president bush, and I could make the flaws for the President. But we can say George Bush does make decisions he feels are right. He does make choices he feels defends this country. John Kerry leaves me feeling he is more interested in John Kerry.

I could talk about his actress hopping after his first campaign drove his wife into a fit of depression. How he married into more money then himself, but these character flaws are less substantial then the others. And they are part of the same sense that a different set of rules apply for John Kerry then do for the rest of the world.
I didn’t want to vote for the President this election, but when the choice comes down to whom I trust to defend this country I feel John Kerry would make our nation weaker. And while we are hemorrhaging, at least the hemorrhaging isn’t getting worse.

So, I vote to stay the course then to risk this nations future with a man who has shown himself to be of a less then dependable character.