What This Election Is All About
">Link
Neville Chamberlain, the John Kerry of his time
Hugh Hewitt asks: "In 250 words or less, why vote for Bush and what's wrong with Kerry?"
I will vote for George W. Bush; there has never been any doubt about that. I’ll write this post for those who are still not sure for whom to vote, but are leaning Bush. I believe there are hundreds of thousands of such voters.
Kerry is the Neville Chamberlain of our time. I believe Kerry is intelligent, patriotic, well-educated, and well-meaning. But he is tragically wrong about the war against Islamofascism. (I use the term “tragically” in the classical sense. Kerry has a tragic flaw, he does not even know he is flawed, and if he is elected I fear that flaw will eventually result in disaster for himself and millions of Americans.)
An excellent blogger named Peter Mulhern summed up Kerry’s flaw perfectly:
Kerry said something else today that shows even more clearly how little he
understands about the world: “It is completely consistent that you can
see[Saddam] as a threat and deal with him realistically just as we saw the
Soviet Union and China and others as threats and have dealt with them in other
ways.” Kerry seems to be saying that since we didn’t have to invade the Soviet
Union we shouldn’t have had to invade Iraq. Give me the old time
deterrence, it’s good enough for me.
It’s great sport for Democrat true believers to make fun of Bush’s syntax, but there is a choice to be made on November 2, and we need to get serious about it. What is to be done about Islamofascism? I personally believe Kerry, if elected, will get many thousands of Americans, maybe many, many more, killed right here in our country. I hope I am wrong, but that's what I think.
To the Kerry/Michael Moore true believers, GWB can never do anything right. No, Bush has not conducted the Iraq war in the flawless manner in which Kerry and all other Democrats would conduct it (we all know, after all, that mistakes are never made in war, right?). But Bush is not afraid to use force. The overwhelming evidence in John Kerry's record is that Kerry is indeed afraid to use force, or is at least so reluctant to use it as to endanger all of us.
That's about all there is to it, as far as I am concerned. Those who disagree should cheerfully vote for Kerry and stop calling Bush a dummy. Those many thousands of voters who are nervous about Kerry should simply go with their guts and vote for Bush, the man who is willing to fight, and to take enormous political hits as a result.
What is morbidly fascinating about this election is that so many Americans seem willing to entrust their security to John F. Kerry. Some pessimists have said that we need to elect Kerry, and to suffer a disaster here in America on his watch, before more Americans will understand the need to defeat Islamofascism utterly.
Like most of you, I love my country too much to let that happen without a fight. I live in Los Angeles, but I’ll be working Ohio get-out-the-vote during the 96 hours before the election.
I think I blew the 250 words, Hugh.
posted by Lowell Brown at 9:19 AM
|
8 Comments:
Sometimes it takes more than 250 words to say what needs to be said. You said it very well. I am a mother and want to see my children and grandchildren grow up. Kerry is scary. I have no confidence that the man who turned his swiftboat to run away can lead the ship of state. No way.
Posted by Laiura Lee Donoho
After giving his speech onboard the USS. Abraham Lincoln, I had a deep feeling of pride for my country and my President. I was just one of the 5,000 plus sailors that he met and shook hands with that day. I said, "It's an honor to meet you Mr. President." He put his hand on my shoulder and said, "No son, it's me that's honored to meet you. Thank you for your hard work."
No cameras, no media, no nothing. -- Just a very genuine, honest man. That's my President November 2.
Posted by Cory Alexander
As a retired Army intelligence officer I will vote for Bush for several reasons, not least of which is at least I know that what I see is what I'll get. He says where he stands, and what actions he plans to take. There are no "go to my web page to read my plan" (as Kerry said in one of the debates.
Bush knows where he was and who was President in Dec 1968, alas, Kerry does not appear to be certain.
Finally, Kerry reminds me of the characture of the senator in the original Manchurian Candidate that was sitting at a table and saw a "Heinz 57" ketchup bottle and came up with that number for commies in government. There must be at least 57 varieties of Kerry.
Cheers
Posted by Tom Cagley
Kerry's "paper tiger" plan to rely more on multilateralism and dialogue - including dialogue with the mullahs, clerics etc. in order to convince them that we are not at war with Islam - must be bin Laden's dream (dead or alive), contrary to those who beleive that Bush has been Bin Laden's dream. Just the American electorate backing away from Bush will appear to be a repudiation of Bush's offensive stance in the war on terror. This may create some reassurance among the peaceful Muslims who would never have joined jihad in the first place but our apparent retreat from the Bush doctrine will only embolden those who are already inclined towards jihad. It is folly to imagine that the election of Kerry will soothe those who would have otherwise joined jihad - they hate America too much (ditto for anti-American sentiment throughout the world). Of course Kerry seems to have a dangerously overinflated opinion of himself as the consummate diplomat who can solve all international conflicts through the force of his personal charm (charm?). I think Kerry is channeling his father here. He would make a great Secretary of State but not a good POTUS. He is a talker, a dialoguer but he is paralyzed in the face of decision. Thats what accounts for his meager Senate accomplishments over 20 years. Look how long it took him to choose his VP. The democrats may euphemistically call this "nuance" but if Kerry is unable to make even simple decisions about his campaign without consulting 20 or more advisors on the phone each evening - it suggests that he doesn't know where he stands on things. It suggests indecision on the minutia of life. His presidency - like his senate career - would be characterized by paralysis of action. Is that what we need in a POTUS at this dangerous time in our history?
Posted by Caroline
I will vote for George Bush. He certainly would not be a very successful used car salesman but I think history will treat him very kindly.
I am very disturbed with the campaign that the media has been waging against President Bush. I think it is criminal the way they have been misleading the public and I think they have the blood of many american soldiers on their hands for their deceitful performance. I wish that there was some way that I as a indviduals could counteract them. Meanwhile I can only hope that more Americans will come to their senses by election day.
Posted by Ken Burtchaell
Speaking of paralysis - if phsysignomy tells us something about the person inside (Bush's swagger for example) then Kerry's physiognomy - which has been likened to Lurch or even the handiwork of a mortician - perhaps also tells us something. This is a paralyzed man. The Botox is redundant - and if Kerry is elected I predict that the botox will have turned out to be a prophetic metaphor for his presidency.
Posted by Caroline
I agree with Ken. I too am deeply disturbed by the MSM and their constant assaults on Bush and their general negativity. I have turned to the web and the blogs for information. But, what to do? Turn them off, unsubscribe and watch them go away. Vote with your eyes and pocketbook and hope that others so the same. For the record, I put out my Bush Cheney yard signs as soon as I was allowed by local ordinances, but never even considered the alternative. In my mind, we are already winning the GWOT (elections in Afghanistan, re-election of Howard Man of Steel and upcoming elections in Iraq), but we need to keep GWB in office to continue to take the fight to the terrorists. 4 more years. Cheers
Posted by Anita guy
As President Putin said yesterday:
"International terrorism has as its goal to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term . . . . If they achieve that goal, then that will give international terrorism a new impulse and extra power."
This is the elephant in the room that the President’s campaign cannot mention: a vote for Kerry is a vote to hand the terrorists a mighty public relations and recruiting victory.
No matter what Kerry would do in the war on terror, or what he says he would do, it is beyond dispute that he is seen in the world as the “anti-war” candidate. This, of course, results from Kerry’s “wrong war” rhetoric, among many other comments. Thus, the terrorists and the rest of the world see this election as a referendum on America’s resolve, and a reflection on the success or failure of the terror campaign of bombings and beheadings.
Because the Bush campaign cannot make this point clearly, and because the media won’t, we must. Please convince your neighbors and friends that we cannot hand the terrorists a victory by electing Kerry. Kerry did not have to run on an anti-war platform, but he did. That position has dire consequences in the world.
Posted by father concerned about security
Post a Comment
<< Home