Monday, October 25, 2004

Why Should You Vote For Bush?

A colleague came up to me and suggested I take on this topic before the election. As they see it, since I can out-bark a tree or a large dog, surely I can convince folks the differences between a Bush Presidency and a Kerry Presidency. "And show the internet some more behind the curtain details!"

I thought about it awhile due to its importance and have decided to take on the task. For those of you who read my blog but intend upon voting for Kerry or Nader, perhaps I can explain to you the differences which would distinguish the various President's administrations and terms. Bear with me please,as this will be a long read.

A presidency is much more than just the President, it is the people they appoint to their cabinet and the appointees to countless other government offices overseen by the Executive Branch. When one looks at the value of a President one can measure him by many standards but the quality of the people they bring along is extremely important.

John Kerry stunned the political world by picking John Edwards as the man who is a heartbeat away from the presidency. Edwards time in politics is two years and is completely undistinguished. It would be hard to find someone in the Senate with less qualifications than John Edwards. So why did he pick him? To pull southern voters? Edwards hails from North Carolina and perhaps Kerry expected to win the state. Bush is leading there 48% to 40%, so that was clearly a long-shot at best. He certainly didn't pick him for his qualifications, so why did he pick him? His hair? The video of Edwards preening with his compact is disturbing to say the least, but vanity doesn't keep him from receiving votes from the uninformed. Maybe some folks even like a VP who carries a woman's compact to check his hair regularly. It's entirely possible there is a constituency there that will respond to that.

Again, why? All we are left with is the Quayle-syndrome. This is defined as a Presidential candidate picking a younger running mate to make the ticket look a bit younger, while making him look more experienced and venerable. Does this help the country? Absolutely not. A rather slimy trial lawyer who has 'channeled the dead' in the courtroom to convince a jury as our President is a disturbing, incredulous thought. It might happen in a poorly scripted movie, but is not credible for real life. That Edwards, a retiring trial lawyer, could afford to buy his way into office in North Carolina is quite understandable--that he could be our President is not.

So Kerry has already illustrated a significant difference from George Bush. He has chosen a running mate that does absolutely nothing for the country. He has picked someone horribly unqualified for the position he is to be placed in. This is the very first decision a President makes. Kerry has made an absolutely awful selection and it illustrates and foreshadows the choices he would make for his cabinet and various appointments. How can one take him seriously with a running mate like John Edwards? It is very difficult.

So what sort of cabinet could we expect? Who would be the new Secretaries of State and Defense? Who would be the new National Security Advisor? Anyone remember Madeline Albright? The UN representative turned Secretary of State who managed to toast Kim Jong il, celebrating the deal which gave them fuel in exchange for them not proceeding on their nuclear ambitions? This is the sort of selection we could expect from Kerry. Folks who share his globalist notions. Unfortunately this is not in America's best interests, and the voters should remember this.

Kerry would be expected to pick one of his many "endorsement" generals to be Secretary of Defense (which is one of the main reasons career generals endorse opposing candidates), or he might appoint someone from outside the military altogether. The generals don't mind this of course because they are in it for the pork contracts and contractor payoffs that Rumsfeld shut down. Rumsfeld brought fiscal responsibility and modernization to our military focusing on expenditures on drones and new technology that would be useful in the wars of the future. He shut down the projects which were unnecessary and designed to fight Russia in Europe.

Let's talk about Rumsfeld for a second. He's 73 now, I believe, and is hated by the press for his brusque responses to inquiries and he is equally hated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff whose pet projects and kickback retirement nest-eggs he has disturbed. Let's look at the Iraq war and his decision to go with a plan that moved fast to secure Baghdad and get Hussein out. It worked. It worked amazingly well. The big army 300,000 troops plan came with a much higher price tag. Not just in logistics, food, gas and supplies but in lives as well. The generals' predicted a casualty rate of between 7000 and 15,000 to get Saddam out, destroy Saddam's elite republican guard and take Baghdad. Many of those lives would have been friendly fire and simple accidents which occur when one has more folks around and more missions to supply them. Rumsfeld's decision was a sound one. I believe he made the right decision. Let's look at Abu Ghraib as well. Some folks want to lay that on his doorstep as well. However as time goes on we see that Abu Ghraib was almost solely the creation of a few perverted officers who let things get out of hand and abused their positions. Rumsfeld surely wanted results from the interrogations since he was well aware that the Zarqawis of the world would be included in the terrorists and rebels captured attacking Americans. The folks in Abu-Ghraib were not jaywalkers or litterers. Most were rebels captured in attacks on American and Iraqi security forces. I see in Rumsfeld a qualified and competent senior executive who has saved the US billions of dollars in his management approach.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice is another fine selection and her extensive knowledge of Russia has been used to form one of the strongest alliances with Russia the United States has ever had. That would be lost under a Kerry presidency and Putin has endorsed Bush. This is very important and must be taken into consideration as well. Russia as an ally is very important and is the wave of the future. Russia will help us offset China. A Russia allied closely to the US will also help keep the Brussels globalists from trying to usurp American authority and counter their obstinate anti-US positions on almost all issues. Voters should remember this when Kerry talks about global support. The only folks Kerry seems to care about are the one's who care the least about the US, mainly France and Germany. A Kerry presidency would destroy the gains we have made with Russia and pander to the EU globalists and folks like billionaire George Soros who has spent millions of dollars in an attempt to weaken American economic power and spent just as many millions in trying to get Kerry elected. A Kerry presidency will weaken the economic underpinnings of the US and strengthen the third world.

The US under Kerry would be weaker around the world. In his lingo that means "respected." Yes, they "respect" those who do their bidding and don't get in their way.

Now domestic policy. What would Kerry do to our economy. His tax increase on the so-called "rich" would put a huge dent in employment as corporations tighten their belt. His desire to increase the minimum wage, would throw another million or two Americans out of work as their jobs would be outsourced overseas or to illegal Mexicans who would work for less. Yes, our borders would be even more assaulted as companies would seek cheap labor to keep in business and compete with the companies around the world who pay far lower wages. Basically, the Kerry plan would take our recovering mild-recession and turn it into a full-scale depression. As folks would get laid off their credit rating would be destroyed and they would lose their homes. Home ownership would take a hit and Kerry's plan would only increase the misery index and the unemployment rates.

That was just his tax plan. What about his healthcare plan? Guaranteeing all Americans health insurance under some socialized healthcare would be the quickest way to increase mortality and malpractice rates in the US. It would provide coverage for the many at the expense of all. A government run healthcare would soon lead to the poor quality healthcare received in Canada or that is appearing in belt-tightened Germany. The expense for this would set a whole new group out of work and be impossible to pay for without gutting defense or a huge across the board tax increase. Probably both would be necessary. For those who plan to get ill and need a doctor's care at sometime during their life, this is a pretty good reason to vote for George Bush.


No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments are moderated. Civil discourse is invited, however profanity, insults and advertising are prohibited. Thank you for your contribution. Your post will appear after a moderator has reviewed it.