For those of you who know me, it will come as no surprise that I am voting for George W. Bush. But the reasons I am voting for Bush are not the same reasons that I voted for him in 2000. In 2000, it was purely ideological. I’m a conservative Christian, Bush is a conservative Christian. It was a simple choice.
Despite the slow economy, Bush has kept his promises. He cut taxes for every American. He signed an education reform bill that garnered the support of Democrats and Republicans alike, including Ted Kennedy. Bush’s response to the attacks of 9/11 earned him approval ratings in the 90’s.
Admittedly, Bush’s first term has had a slew of problems. He inherited an economy that was declining. Nine months into office, America suffered the worst attack in her history. Understandably so, the economy plunged into a recession. But three years later, despite an economy that has grown robustly at times, jobs have not. Bush has failed to enact policies that have created new jobs. His challenger, John Kerry, points out that he is the first president in 70 years to preside over an economy that has lost jobs. Bush has turned record surpluses into deficits. I’ll admit the last four years on the domestic front have been a disappointment (to say the least).
The sad truth is that Bush has not been a great president. Unfortunately, this year’s election has not produced a viable alternative. In evaluating my choices it came down to Bush and Kerry. No other candidates are viable, and thus a vote for them would be a vote wasted. So I decided to break down the candidates with respect to the issues that concern me the most.
On social issues:
It is Bush who strives to protect the lives of unborn children. John Kerry on the other hand, claims to be pro-life, but he has voted for federally funding abortions, against the partial birth abortion ban, and against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Numerous times throughout the debates, he referred to abortion as a “Constitutional Right.”
John Kerry has voted repeatedly to infringe on Americans’ 2nd amendment rights. Despite his little hunting trip last week, gun owners know his record. Not surprisingly over 60% of gun owners favor Bush.
John Kerry claims he’s against gay marriage, but when the amendment to protect the institution of marriage was voted on in the Senate, he and his running mate didn’t even bother to vote.
Unfortunately, Kerry's record show him to be too far to the left on many key social issues.
On the economy:
Kerry has slammed Bush for the previously mentioned deficits, but has proposed twice as much new spending as Bush and claims he will not repeal the Bush tax cuts on working families. So either the deficits will get worse, he won’t spend the money he claims, or he’ll raise taxes. All three scenarios threaten to worsen our economy, not improve it.
On social security/medicare:
The
Washington Post ran an interesting article recently explaining how both candidates lacked any real vision with regard to this issue. We’ll call this a push.
Iraq/the War on Terror:
For all his criticism of Bush’s execution of the war on terror in the Iraq War, Kerry’s plan looks strikingly similar to the Bush plan. Kerry constantly decries Bush’s failed leadership, yet he has failed to even once elaborate on how he would’ve done things differently.
His position on Iraq has shifted with the political winds. He voted for the war (prior to the democratic primaries), then against the funding (when he found himself trailing Howard Dean in the polls). Then he said knowing what he knows now, he still would’ve voted for the war (after securing the nomination and seeking to move back into the middle). Then he called Iraq, “The wrong war at the wrong time.” Does Kerry have a position? Or is it simply dictated by whatever is politically expedient at the time?
Would a President Kerry be willing to take action when a threat emerged? He has shown throughout his career a desire to seek UN approval before taking military action. And, in fact, even after getting UN approval in the run-up to Desert Storm, Kerry still voted against the war. Bush has claimed that if it were up to Senator Kerry, “Saddam Hussein would still be in power”. But it seems to me that if it were up to Senator Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in Kuwait.
It all boils down to this: John Kerry wants to be president. What has he done in 20 years in the senate to warrant being president? Why isn’t he running on his record? Why isn’t he touting his achievements? What key legislation is he responsible for?
John Kerry wants to be Commander-in Chief. Aside from criticizing the president, what would he do differently than the current administration? Why isn’t he promoting his plan? Why doesn’t he offer specifics? Why is there no substance to his answers?
In a time of vast uncertainty, John Kerry simply presents too many more questions and not enough answers to earn my vote.
For all his faults, George W. Bush has shown the conviction necessary to prosecute the war on terror and lead our nation through these difficult times. Sure there will be setbacks and losses, there are in any war. But what this country needs now, more than simply angry rhetoric, and empty promises is a leader with the strength and resolve to make the difficult decisions necessary to win. I hope that the rest of America will make the right choice on Tuesday, and give George W. Bush four more years.
