Posted on 10/19/2004 11:28:38 PM PDT by goldstategop
I didn't vote for George W. Bush in 2000.
Though faced with a dismal choice that year, I chose to sit out the presidential election – even though Bush's opponent, Al Gore, was part of an administration that spent years terrorizing me and other critics of Bill Clinton, using all the awesome power of the federal government.
In fact, ever since 2000, my news organization has been the target of a $165 million lawsuit by Gore's chief fund-raiser in Tennessee. It seems the former vice president and his supporters there believe a devastating 18-part investigative series on Gore's history in his home state contributed mightily to his defeat in Tennessee – and, thus, a loss of electoral votes and the White House.
Still, I couldn't support Bush in 2000 because I did not believe he would govern according to the limits of the U.S. Constitution. That is my minimum standard requirement for support of any candidate for federal office.
Until recently, I was planning to sit out the 2004 presidential election, too, for the same reason.
When it comes to the U.S. Constitution, Bush doesn't get it. He doesn't understand the strict limits on federal authority. He doesn't understand how this sets us apart as a free nation from all others in the world.
However, three years ago, this nation was attacked as it has never been attacked before. We find ourselves in a global conflict with a radical ideology of evil comparable to our titanic battles of the past with Nazism and communism. It's a fight to the finish. It's a fight for our lives. It's a fight that will never end until one side or the other is vanquished.
I have come to conclusion that, like it or not, Osama bin Laden and his jihadist allies have one short-term goal above all others – defeating George W. Bush at the polls Nov. 2.
A victory by John Kerry, a lifelong appeaser of totalitarianism, would hand the terrorists their biggest morale boost since Sept. 11, 2001. If you doubt what I am saying, look no further than the "endorsement" of Kerry by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. Arafat is the father of modern-day Arab terrorism.
So this election for me is not so much about Bush. It's about you. The election has now come down to something very simple. It is your chance to send the terrorists a message. It is your moment to make the terrorists hear from you.
A mandate for Bush will send the terrorists just such a message. It will tell them we have stood up as a nation. It will tell them we will continue to hunt them down – no matter how long it takes and no matter what the cost.
A close election – or, God forbid, a Kerry victory – will actually encourage the terrorists. It will send them the message that you are tired and weary and that your will to fight them to the death is giving out.
Ask yourself today: Will America be safer with Bush or Kerry in the White House?
That's how simple the choice is today. All other considerations merely muddy the water and complicate what is seen by our enemies as a clear choice.
If we were at peace, this might be an opportune moment to consider building a third party. It might be a great chance to protest the choices we have. But we are not at peace. We are at war.
A Kerry victory – or even a close election, decided days or weeks after the vote – will increase exponentially the danger our country faces, the risk to our children, the threat to our way of life.
That's what this election comes down to for me. It's not about Bush. It's not about Kerry. It's about you. It's about the message you send to the enemy – to the beast.
If we rise up Nov. 2 and send the beast a message, we will have taken our most dramatic step toward victory in this global conflict.
This is your moment to make your voice heard – all the way to the caves in Afghanistan, the terrorist cells in Chechnya, the dismal slums of Fallujah and teeming streets of Gaza.
It's time for you to be heard. It's time to fight back. It's time to make your stand.
Vote for George W. Bush Nov. 2.
Farah and buchanan both in one...yawn...day.
Farah sounds like a fiscal conservative like me who really dislikes large government. I am in the same mindset as Farah. Bush may not always get it right, but at least he knows how to define evil, and has the will fight it.
How many times has America flinched? Iran under Carter. Pulling US troops out of Lebanon. I mean we haven't flinched near as many times as the Europeans, but we have flinched enough that the enemy is still more than willing to test our resolve.
The last strict constitutionalist President was George Washington !
Washington probably wouldn't make Farah happy.
"Joseph Farah Swallows Pride And Urges Vote For President Bush Nov. 2."
It's about time. I stopped reading WorldNetDaily, when Farah turned it into a Bush bashing site.
Smart decision on Farah's part--after Bush is re-elected, we'll still have a constitution--and our heads will still be attached, too.
Kerry is so dirty with mullah money and love of the anti-US, anti-Israel UN--
--not to mention Kerry's affirmation of al Sadr as "a legitimate voice"--
Farah's more of a libertarian - he dislikes government, period. That's why he hates the conservative label on the grounds conservatives are "conserving" everything that needs to be swept away if we are to get back to the kind of country the Founders bequeathed to us. As he said, he thinks President Bush hasn't gone in the direction we need to go. But he reluctlantly has come to endorse Bush since despite everything many small government folks detest about Bush, the truth is if this country is destroyed by its enemies, what we want won't matter. Right now, the first and foremost duty of the President is safeguarding America from its enemies. President Bush gets it and Senator Kerry doesn't. Its that simple.
So do most of us but Farah is way out there sometimes.
You say it's up to us? Well I think Bush has followed the law and took the right measures to protect the United States. I support President Bush all the way for another 4 years. I will not sell out our security and interests to the United Nations or subject our military to the World court. There, 3rd world countries that hate America and American values would seek revenge on our military.
 WHAT A NUISANCE!
  |
"I stopped reading WorldNetDaily, when Farah turned it into a Bush bashing site."
I did the same.
About time! Glad to see he realized we are fighting for survival.
I stand corrected.
I should have said I stopped reading Joseph Farah on WND not that I stopped reading WND.
I kind of liked Harding and Coolidge, myself, but then, they were dead before I was born.
In 1929,after the crash, the first reaction of the government was that, since there had been too much speculative cash in the system, creating a bubble, the right thing to do was to tighten government spending and lending. By the time they loosened the reins of fiscal and monetary policy it was TOO LATE.
There is a time and place for fiscal conservatism. But 2001-2002 was NOT IT. The wild party of the dot-com bubble (aided and abetted by Clinton's gang at treasury, who had a deliberate policy of jacking up the US dollar to suck money into the US stock and bond bubble) was the BIGGEST financial bubble in history! The bursting of that bubble, compounded by 911, created a serious danger of a deflationary collapse. That was no time for fiscal or monetary conservatism. It was time to SPEND and LEND.
The "downside" of Bush's economic policies was a decline in the US dollar. But this has only amounted to reversing the untoward gains of the Clinton years, brought on by his massive tax increases. Tax increases, everywhere in the world and every time, lead to a rise in currency value. A rising currency is great for wall street, but very bad for US farming, mining, and manufacturing. Farmers in particular have favored a lower value for the dollar since the beginning of time :).
It is interesting that the 1920's were similar to the 1990's in that stock markets boomed (along with a rising US dollar) while farmers suffered. Bush's policies offered some quick and much needed relief to all US commodity producers. Bush's policies were not fiscally conservative, but they were right for the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
