« GW v Kerry -- summation | Main | Jacques Kerry »

October 18, 2004

Symposium - Why GW and not Kerry

I have certainly not hidden or been coy about my partisanship (which, by the way, is not a bad word in the context of opinion pieces). Not only am I voting for GW, but my position has become more solidified and my enthusiasm for GW has grown throughout the campaign season. For all the third-party voters (and I, too, was one for three election cycles) who dismiss this vote between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee, never before (in my lifetime) has the chasm between the parties and the candidates have been more clear.

The Democratic Party is dominated by, and it almost indistinguishable from, the Left. So let me make this clear. The Left is not interested in liberty, they are interested in "equality." Keep that in mind as I list the reasons why I will vote for GW.

Kerry has demonstrated, through the debates, through his 20 year record in the Senate, that he is not included on even one point of the above list.

GW believes the Iraq war was morally correct. Kerry believes it was a mistake. GW believes Islamist terrorism is the most important challenge facing us this century, Kerry wants to "get back" to a place where it was a "nuisance."

Kerry's muddled, empty and basically amoral stance on foreign policy is no more elegantly dissected than by someone far from being a "Republican shill" as done by Martin Peretz, editor in chief of the New Republic, in Los Angeles Times

Save for the U.S. veto in the Security Council, Israel loses every struggle at the U.N. against lopsided majorities. In the General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission, Muslim states trade their votes to protect aggressors and tyrannies from censure in exchange for libels against the Jewish state. The body's bloated and dishonest bureaucracies are no better, as evidenced most recently by the head of the U.N. Palestine refugee organization, who defended having Hamas militants on his staff.

I've searched to find one time when Kerry — even candidate Kerry — criticized a U.N. action or statement against Israel. I've come up empty. Nor has he defended Israel against the European Union's continuous hectoring. Another thing that bothers me about Kerry is the deus ex machina he has up his sleeve: the appointment of a presidential envoy. It's hard to count how many special emissaries have been dispatched from Washington to the Middle East to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. What's easy to see is that none of them has gotten to "yes."

Kerry has no moral clarity on Israel. He sends his sister to Australia to attempt to undercut the election of an American ally in Iraq. He viciously attacks Iraqi interim PM Allawi when he comes to the US to thank America for liberating his country. John Edwards publically discounts the recent voting in Afghanistan as a foreign policy win for Bush.

Domestically, who is Kerry surrounding himself with? Who will come in into a Kerry White House to blow on Kerry's weathervane? Michael Moore. Jesse Jackson. Jimmy Carter. These are people who believe in "equality" in lieu of liberty. There are "gaps" between rich and poor? Make laws that "redistribute" money from earners to needers. Not everyone at any one time is covered by health insurance? Have the government take over delivery of health care. Bean counting at jobs/universities/graduate schools show some groups are lesser/more represented? Pass more laws based on cosmetics not content.

And do remember to demogogue anyone who opposes such laws and policies as evil, children-hating, minority-hating, elderly-hating boogeymen.

Not only can we not afford a Kerry Presidency, nor can we even afford a close race. The thuggery of the Democrats, from shooting up Republican HQ's to the DNC election manual advising lying about voter intimidation to ACORN's registration fraud, every person who is at all worried about a Kerry win must vote, even in blue states. The win, even in the popular vote, for GW must be large. I'm in a blue state, California, and my biggest hope is that Bush/Cheney supporters will go to the polls and push this state purple.

The best thing for the Democratic Party would be a decisive spanking on Nov 2. It would force them to actually look in the mirror for who is at fault for their loss. And just maybe, they would shake themselves of the anti-American Left and get back into being a strong, moral, liberal, loyal opposition to the Republican party. Good ideas come from valid competition. Bring back the valid alternative to the Republican Party.

Hugh Hewitt is running an online symposium here on this question.

Posted by Darleen at October 18, 2004 09:42 AM

Comments

Hi Darleen:

Loved meeting you. I agree with everythin you posted, however I would like to add my .02 and add to this bullet.

GW believes in "teaching to fish" rather than "providing the fish."

Posted by: song_and_dance_man at October 18, 2004 02:06 PM

Give a man to fish and you feed him for one day.

Teach a man to fish, and he drinks beer all day in a boat.


Posted by: song_and_dance_man at October 18, 2004 02:08 PM

Song & Dance

I had a great time yesterday! (to those wondering "what the heck" a nice little group of us commenters from Little Green Footballs met for talk and adult beverages in the People's Republic of Santa Monica")

Oh my...love the beer quote! LOL.. I'm gonna remember that (probably steal it, too)

:-)

Posted by: Darleen at October 18, 2004 03:06 PM

Excellent. I got here from the link on Hewitt's site.(congratulations!) The difference between Bush and Kerry is the difference between T-rex, and Barney. It's the difference between a stance and a pose.(my contributions on Hewitt last week)
I had a great time Sunday. Take care.
JWM

Posted by: JWM at October 18, 2004 04:45 PM

Great blog! I agree with everything you just wrote.

Posted by: Zelda at October 18, 2004 04:48 PM

What is meant by love of the republic in a democracy? Love of the republic in a democracy is love of the democracy. Love of democracy is that of equality -- Montesquieu, praised by John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay (all conservatives) and Thomas Jefferson, James Madison

The New Republic is crap, from my perspective. They declared the Second Intifada is over. The bombings keep going, though. They declared Sharon has won. The bombings keep happening. They say Bush should be more like Sharon.

They are way too pro-Israeli-torture, Israeli-assasination, Israeli-water-stealing, Israeli-home-razing, and anything else Israel wants to do.

Posted by: Josh Narins at October 18, 2004 09:26 PM

Josh

Democracy, republic and especially our Founding Brothers were not about equality where it concerns egalitarianism. That is the province of the Left... the equality of outcome or results.

Liberty is the freedom to go where each person's talents, in voluntary interaction with others leads. We are not born equal. We do not have the same skills or aptitudes. You may draw better than me. Your neighbor may play an instrument better than you.

But even Kurt Vonnegut parodied this totalitarian impulse of the Left towards equality in Harrison Bergeron.

BTW, it is to America's moral credit that we stand by Israel. And it's very telling that Arafat has now endorsed Kerry.

Posted by: Darleen at October 18, 2004 09:44 PM

Bush Voters are xneophobic, homophobic and mysognistic. They hate the elderly and American values in general. They are cowards who decapitate woman and children remotely with 'smart bombs'. They are traitors who should be treated as such.

Posted by: Osama TheAmericanBaptist at March 10, 2005 03:59 PM