There are many reasons why I am passionate about who should be the President of the United States. This forthcoming election may well be the most important this country has seen in almost 150 years. Not only the direction of America, but the course of the free world is at stake.
While there are many people who agree with my choice, and many who do not, there are very few who are apathetic about the whole process. As discussed in an earlier column, this country has become very polarized. It is no longer enough to favor one candidate over another. In 2004, emotions are so extreme that we tend to hate the opposition.
Therefore, I am not going to write about why I am not planning to vote for a particular candidate. Instead, I will discuss the reasons why I am not a Democrat. In my next article, I will explain the reasons I am a Republican. That way, I will show my belief that George Bush should win in November, not because I dislike Senator Kerry, but because I believe he is the better candidate to lead the country.
Reason #1. Senator Ted Kennedy
Senator Kennedy has served his country for many years as an elected official. Unfortunately, much of the reason for his popularity has always been based on the fact he is the brother of John and Robert, two almost mythical figures in American history. The truth is Senator Kennedy has, for many years now, become a caricature of himself. In comparing the soldier’s treatment of Iraqi prisoners to Saddam Hussein’s torture chambers, Kennedy shows that common sense and decorum have no place on the Senator’s agenda. Kennedy’s behavior has become such a liability that even John Kerry has begun distancing himself from him.
Reason #2 Representative Nancy Pelosi
Aside from the fact that she’s a far-left wing “San Francisco” Democrat, Pelosi is the House Minority leader in Congress. She is the first woman to ever hold this position. Unfortunately, her view of America is highly questionable. Her statements are mean-spirited and downright rude. She holds no regard for the office of the President, unless it suits her political gain. Watching the Democratic response to the State of the Union address was just pitiful. It was almost as disgusting and immature as Ted Kennedy’s and Hillary Clinton’ reactions.
Her lack of clarity during the buildup to the war in Iraq proved just how out of touch she really is. Her comment, "If we invade Iraq, we will show our military power. If we can eliminate the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction without invading, we will show our strength," is a testament to how foolish and delusional she, and the liberal left truly are.
Reason #3 Kerry’s Popularity Among Democrat Leaders
In 1980, Jimmy Carter won the nomination by defeating Senator Kennedy, by a 2-1 margin. In every primary season since, once a winner was determined, the entire party leadership came out in support of their nominee. This year, however, the situation is very, very different. Recently, Howard Dean commented that Kerry was a weak candidate and that “electability is a real issue” for him. Senator Joe Lieberman stated that we, “don’t need a waffler in charge of our country’s future”, in speaking of Kerry. DNC Hispanic Caucus Chairman Alvaro Cifuentes said (in regard to the Hispanic community), “The reality is that we're entering May and the Kerry campaign has no message out there.”
If Kerry’s own people don’t care for him, why should we?
Reason #4 The Hillary Factor
Will she run? Will she wait till 2008? It’s amazing that after 8 years of scandals, interns, cover-ups and overall sleaze, we can still contemplate the possibility of a Clinton presidency so soon. As you recall, Hillary was the First Lady who decided to tackle health care to disastrous results. Her plan was so misguided that even the liberal wing of the party was against it. Her tirades against the “right-wing conspiracy” were just silly. In February, Clinton remarked that Iraqi women were better off under Saddam Hussein.
Hillary’s use of humor in insulting Mahatma Gandhi was shameful and if it were made by a Republican, he/she would have been raked over the coals. The hypocrisy exhibited by Clinton, considering her own record, only fuel the hatred others feel towards us.
Reason #5 Hollywood
Why do we care so much about the opinions in Hollywood. I envision a commercial for the Democrats where Martin Sheen comes out and says, “I’m not really the President, but I play one on TV”. Actors and actresses live in a fantasy world where make believe becomes reality. These are people who couldn’t possibly relate to everyday Americans, as long as they are in the spotlight as the “world’s most beautiful people”. By the very fact that they are on TV or movies, many people look to them for an escape from reality. Yet, here they are, visiting Saddam Hussein (Sean Penn) and Fidel Castro (Robert Redford) as well as speaking out against the government, as if they have a real understanding of politics and foreign affairs.
In Cannes, this week, Michael Moore won an award for Fahrenheit 911, a political hate-fest against George Bush. The audience in France gave him a 20 minute standing ovation. This is the same man who won the Academy Award for Best Documentary last year for Bowling for Columbine. This movie has since been proven to be an immense fabrication of the truth. But in Hollywood, what matters more than truth is the ability to make a good movie.
Reason #6 The Liberal Media and War
There are many people who believe we lost the Vietnam War. In truth, it wasn’t ours to lose. President Kennedy felt the need to send troops to that region in order to stem the tide of communism. However, when things went downhill, instead of pulling out, he committed more troops. His rationale was that he feared an outcry from the conservatives. In fact, over the next seven years, Kennedy and his successor continued to invest troops in order not to win, but to insure not to lose. The images that were sent back via TV, brought war to our homes as never before.
The only comparison between the Vietnam War and the current war is that, according to Thomas Sowell, “Communist officials in Vietnam have publicly admitted that they were losing the war on the ground there but were depending on winning the war politically in the American media.” Today, just like then, the Islamofacists count on our weak resolve to wage war against them. They know that the liberal left cannot move forward out of the Vietnam era.
Reason #7 The Multilateral Lie
On November 8, 2002, the United Nations Security Counsel passed resolution 1441, which called for Saddam Hussein to, once again, prove that he has complied with the previous UN demands to disarm his weapons of Mass Destruction and allow inspectors to see that proof. This was not the first time the UN passed such a resolution, but it was known at this point, that if he did not comply, the UN would force him out through military means.
Throughout his presidency, President Bush utilized the UN and deferred to them many times. Unlike President Clinton, who went into Kosovo, without the UN’s blessing, President Bush worked with the world organization in pursuit of justice and concern for the safety of the free world. This was the ninth such resolution made regarding Hussein’s deliberate refusal to comply and the 36th resolution made regarding Iraq, since 1990, when Hussein invaded Kuwait. However this time, Bush decided he’d had enough of Saddam’s games. In order for the UN to have any legitimacy, Bush realized that if Saddam was not stopped now, it would be too late.
On May 3, 2003, the Governments of France, Germany and Russia released a joint statement in opposition to using force. President Bush felt strongly that after 12 years of stalling, it would be foolish to wait any longer. Although France, Germany and Russia were not in favor of a war in Iraq, many other countries were, including England, Spain, Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, Israel and 17 others.
The democrats continue to call this unilateral. I call it a coalition. As we were to soon learn, the reason our dear friends in France, Germany and Russia opposed the war was that each had a financial stake in keeping Hussein in power. Only now are we beginning to learn the full extent of the “oil for food” program that lined Hussein’s pockets as well as those of our “friends”.
These are the people the presumed Democratic nominee for President wants to involve in the security decisions for America. Without these three countries, regardless of the many others who voted with the US, Bush is acting ”unilaterally”.
Reason #8 The Immaturity Factor
One of the chief complaints about the Bush administration is the supposed secrecy in the White House. Democrats lambasted Bush for not allowing Condoleezza Rice to testify openly during the 9/11 Commission hearings, even though she had already given her testimony privately. Furthermore, the commission took a new low in decency by turning this inquiry into a platform to criticize the administration.
One week later, President Bush was called to testify to the commission. Former Senator Bob Kerrey was very critical of the President for having his Vice-President, Richard Cheney present with him as he testified. Bush’s rationale was that Cheney would be called to testify anyway and since the questions would be the same, if would not make sense to spend anymore time than necessary. Kerrey was so outraged that he and fellow commissioner Lee Hamilton excused themselves from the inquiry to other, more important things. Kerrey left due to a meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister and Hamilton was late for a meeting with Senator Pete Domenici, to discuss his upcoming political campaign.
Both of the reasons pale in comparison to what the commission stands for and what the office of the President stands for. Not only is this inexcusable behavior abhorrent, it also shows how lightly the 9/11 commissioners take the hearings. Clearly, the Democrats on the committee have taken this extraordinary task and turned into a lynching of the President and the administration.
Reason #9 The Blame for 9/11
The purpose of the 9/11 Commission was to determine how the disaster happened and what to do to insure it does not happen again. However, due to partisanship on both sides, the hearings have turned into a blamefest. Richard Clarke, a disgruntled former aide to Secretary Rice, criticized the Bush administration for their “lack of awareness” regarding the threat of Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The make a further mockery of the hearings, Clarke went so far to say that Rice “looked like she had never heard of Osama bin Laden before”. In fact, all of this is stated in his book, “Against All Enemies”. The Democratic Party went crazy with glee over this revelation.
After Rice’s testimony, everyone else realized that Clarke had made statements that contradicted his own book.
In addition, people began to realize that in eight years of President Clinton, America was attacked relentlessly, and our responses were shamefully feeble. In fact, in 1998, after the African Embassy bombings, bin Laden was quoted as saying that he knew America was weak by their response to terror attacks. Yet, the Democrats continue to blame George Bush. Rudy Giuliani put it best this past week when he said, "The anger has to be directed at the people who attacked us."
Another instance of a lack of maturity was the reaction Senators Kennedy and Clinton during the State of the Union address. The contempt they showed for the President was terribly distasteful and childish.
Then comes the latest news from Texas. President Bush, while riding a bicycle, fell and scraped himself up pretty badly. According to the Drudge Report, and verified from other sources, Senator Kerry asked, “Did the training wheels fall off?” Aside from the fact that as a United States Senator, he should be a better role model than this, Kerry is the same man, who after falling on the ski slopes cried, "I don't fall down. That son-of-a-bitch ran into me," referring to the Secret Service detail assigned to protect him.
Reason #10 Lack of a Cohesive Platform
The Democratic Party would like to win this November. They have felt cheated ever since Bush “stole” the election from Al Gore. Ever since then, they have made every attempt to mock, insult and abuse the President. In their opinion, the only issue that’s important is winning the White House back. John Kerry has announced his new slogan, Let America Be America Again. In making this announcement Kerry said, "(I am) talking about…tapping into that value system that people think makes this country strong. What is it that makes us strong, and what do we have to do to get that back, to let America be America? Strength means people being able to do better in their jobs. Strength means having the courage to stand up to special interests that steal the agenda here in Washington. Strength is fighting to have health coverage for children."
This all fine and good, except it’s hollow and meaningless. In more than one occasion, Kerry states that he has a plan for America, or is working on a plan. Unfortunately, he hasn’t produced one. At least not one that that has not been shown to fail in the past. On Kerry’s website, linked from Democratic National Committee’s site, Kerry lists the issues he said he is working for. Unfortunately, he seems to take obvious ideas (against war, against unemployment, for better health care), and make it sound like the Republicans are for war and unemployment and against better health care.
In addition, Kerry often finds himself at odds with the very issues he has endorsed. He claims to have voted for the war, before he voted against it. For example, in a September 2003 interview on Face the Nation, Kerry stated, “I don’t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We’re not going to cut and run and not do the job.” However, just a few days later, he did just that, voting against the bill to authorize $87 billion dollars to finance the war he agreed with.
Furthermore, he voted to create the Patriot Act, saying, “Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.” However, again he flip-flopped, claiming just four months later, “We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.”
It is never good policy to run on a single platform. Yet the Democratic Party does just that. They have embraced the “anyone but Bush” mantra at all costs. By not presenting a viable alternative to the Republican platform, the Democrats will attract only those on the far left side of the nation. In trying to include everyone, they excluded themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment