U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites) smiles while speaking at a campaign rally in Lakeland, Florida, October 23, 2004. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Posted on 10/23/2004 11:49:03 PM PDT by kimmie7
President Bush has leadership country needs
Sunday, October 24, 2004
On Nov. 2, Americans face a crucial decision.
Do we stick with a commander-in-chief who has sound judgment, an unwavering commitment to the war on terror and who has a clear vision for where he wants to take this country?
Or do we vote for the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate who is for tax increases, more government intrusion in our lives and whose campaign statements and Senate record raise serious questions?
It is important to look at both men’s records to contrast the major differences between them.
President George W. Bush has a long list of accomplishments in his nearly four years in office.
He helped pass with bipartisan support the No Child Left Behind Act, which raises the performance bar for our schools and holds them accountable for poor academic achievement. He obtained passage of a prescription drug package for seniors, oversaw the creation of the Department of Homeland Security to defend our borders, has offered tax relief across the board to millions of Americans, increased pay for the military and strengthened it, created hundreds of thousands of new jobs as a result of tax relief, secured over 100,000 acres of wetlands for conservation and he fought for and signed into law a bill outlawing the horrific practice of partial-birth abortions.
But most important, he has waged the war on terror in a superb manner.
Since the cowardly attack on Sept. 11, 2001, Bush acted firmly and removed the oppressive Taliban government in Afghanistan in a matter of weeks. They are now a democratic country after holding their first election ever this month. Women in this country are no longer held back from voting, and young girls are again able to receive an education.
The administration has severely crippled al-Qaida’s ability to launch further attacks against us by arresting or killing a large percentage of their operatives.
He has also remained steadfast in the war in Iraq, which has been one of the most critical issues of this campaign.
It is interesting to note that the soldiers bearing the brunt of the war support the president by a 3-to-1 ratio. Sixty-nine percent of our troops trust Bush more compared to only 24 percent for Kerry. These numbers are very telling.
Our troops realize, even if some on the home front don’t, that it is better to engage the terrorists on their own turf than on our soil.
Bush and his opponent have stark differences on almost all issues.
It is important to look at Kerry’s Senate record and rhetoric on the campaign trail.
In his 20 years in the Senate, Kerry can correctly boast that he put 100,000 more cops on the streets. Still, there are relatively few pieces of legislation that have passed with his name on it. He has voted for tax increase 98 times, opposed the death penalty for terrorists, voted for a 50-cent-per-gallon gas increase, voted for gun control, voted against the first Gulf War – which had United Nations support – voted against almost all defense systems that helped us win the Cold War and voted to slash intelligence spending after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act – which was promoted by former President Clinton – and most recently voted for the Iraq war, but against the $87 billion to supply our troops in harm’s way.
Sen. Kerry has a lackluster Senate record, and he frequently wavers on the issues.
He called the war in Iraq “the wrong war, at the wrong place and the wrong time.”
What kind of message does this send to our allies and our troops on the field?
He accused Bush of misleading us into war on faulty intelligence, but Kerry saw the same intelligence the president did. For the record, the intelligence agencies of most western countries, including France, believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, as did the United Nations.
On May 3, 2003, Kerry said, “President Bush made the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein and when the president made the decision, I supported him and I support the fact that we did disarm him.”
In 2001, he called Hussein a renegade and an outlaw who needed to be dealt with.
But now he declares that if elected he will bring our allies, France and Germany, back to the table, even though both countries are on record as saying they wouldn’t cooperate even if Kerry were elected.
How do you bring allies to the table when you say it’s the wrong war?
His surrogates called Iraqi Interim President Allawi a “puppet” and Kerry called the allies in Iraq the “coerced and bribed.”
This is not how you build allies, this is how you alienate them.
Kerry has also mentioned that we must pass a “global test” before going to war.
This is a shorthand for needing other countries’ permission to defend ourselves.
Bush is on record that he will never seek another country’s permission to defend America.
The first Gulf War had a larger coalition and U.N. approval. Why then did Kerry vote against that war?
Simply put, Sen. Kerry has been on the wrong side of national security on too many occasions.
Cultural and moral issues also separate the two candidates.
Bush doesn’t believe that there should be a litmus test on Supreme Court appointments; Kerry does. Bush believes that every life, even the unborn, is precious. But Kerry, who is Catholic, has gone against his church’s stance and said that he is pro-choice.
One of the most important issues facing America this year is the issue of gay marriage.
In John Kerry’s home state of Massachusetts, judges went against the people’s will and legalized gay marriage.
Bush has proposed a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, which is needed to protect the majority who hold this view.
Kerry is opposed to gay marriage, but supports civil unions.
We will admit that Bush has made some mistakes during his presidency, but during this time of war and uncertainty he is by far the better choice to lead us for the next four years. His determination and resolve are what we need during this critical time in our history.
Kerry is the wrong person, at the wrong place, at the wrong time in history. His presidency would be a clear and present danger to our country when our families and freedom are more at risk than any time since World War II.
We therefore endorse President Bush and urge voters to re-elect him on Nov. 2.
I'm biased, but I thought this was well-thought-out and very well written.
Oh, you're soooooooooooo observant. KY may be a good bet, but this is Old Democrat territory, and it never pays to be cocky.
It's late, and I'm tired after working at home, part-time at work, and part-time at Repub Headquarters so I'll only say this once....
Get some manners, Newbie.
Welcome to FR.
Leadership country needs is the key. I have to go along with the idea that we need less of what Kerry offers but we also need a lot less of what Bush offers. We don't need more and larger authoritarian government, larger deficit spending, illegal immigration, and a war on terror that is creating more terrorists than it is eliminating. The leadership on these issues is lacking in one respect, SMART.
Louisville's Courier Journal (Curious Urinal?) endorsed John Kerry this morning. No surprise there.
But they also endorsed Anne Northup (R) for Congress. THAT was a surprise.
Just to clarify for everyone, the Park City Daily News is in Bowling Green, Ky., home of Western Kentucky University.
I don't know about the Herald, but the Courier did something fairly amazing today -- they endorsed Anne Northup after 8 years of trying to tear her to pieces.
hmmmm
I never saw the Herald-Misleader's endorsement for a presidential candidate. I know that of all the State Senate and State House races in the area, they endorsed ONLY one Republican . . . Bill Farmer (88th District House). Bill might not have gotten that endorsement either if his opponent wasn't the most liberal candidate I have ever heard of in Kentucky.
They probably still would have given Lamin Swann (the opponent) the endorsement, but Swann worked for the Herald a few years ago. Something tells me he left on not-so-good of terms.
Hmm...IMHO, I guess that her opponent was SOoo Corrupt and/or Stupid, that even LCJ couldn't support him. ...even, if they held their noses/put bags over their heads. :))
IMHO, He/She/It probable wanted to throw their wooden shoes into the printing press and/orthey slept w/ "some" editors' same-sex parnters. ..can't help it tonight, I'm ready for BEAR! :^)
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.