|
Editorials: Editoriality Archives - Animations Commentary Pandora's Box! Video What Is? Contact Us Voices of the People Home |
The last four years have been interesting ones in the arena of presidential politics. I had highly—if not naively—suspected, that the 2004 election was going to be much like 1984. In the early 80s, Ronald Reagan had demonstrated that the U.S. can be a strong yet dependable ally in world politics and defense, and that an economy can be kick-started with a little tax cut and a lot of positive reinforcement. Reagan won in a landslide in 1984, taking every state in the Electoral College but for Mondale’s Minnesota and the District of Columbia.
History repeats itself, and sure enough, the world was in crisis in the early 00s, just as it was in the early 80s. Tough, deliberate leadership ruled the day, and it wasn’t much longer that the Cold War ended. In the early 80s, we kids drew pictures of atomic bomb blasts and thought viscerally about “The Day After.” Reagan, with a touch of humor and a heavy dose of optimism, carried us all—kids and adults—through the decade more properous, more faithful, and more safe. It stood to reason that the Democratic-led House kept quiet and passed legislation absolutely germane to Reagan’s vision, having seen that the people indeed supported a President who, on several occasions, discredited the accusation of not being smart enough for the job as leader of the Free World. The parallels and comparisons are striking. George W. Bush has proven himself and proven that in spite of how much he is discredited, and how much his opponents nit-pick him, and how much the world community disparages his vision, he can still lead and provide a sense of optimism to the Western World.
But, apparently, friends of mine, as well as a majority of U.S. citizens on the West and East Coasts, and most of Western Europe, do not agree. They are either disappointed in George W. Bush, don’t like him personally, are disillusioned by the Iraq War, or take to heart the unrelentless bashing by CNN pundits, CBS anchors, New York Times editorializers, and the vast Hollywood bastion led by the disingenuous Michael Moore. I know of three men in particular—all very close in age to me, all friends for more than five years, all self-professed Independents—who have not sworn allegiance to the President. All three of them have met with me on separate social or professional occasions. Each occasion was intended to be politics-free. Each time, the politics of the day was the central discussion.
Since we live in Texas, I thought that pressing the issue in each case was probably like spitting in the wind—it wouldn’t have much effect and would probably come back to bite me anyway. But I feel motivated, moved to get the word out about W. I think he is sorely misunderstood, mainly because of his difficulty in communicating, but also because there is a huge backlash over his 2000 win, and probably also from the huge Republican backlash against Clinton and his eight years of shennanigans.
The President’s slipshod performance in the first debate and the focus on Cheney’s wisecrack in the second (I contend that he was referring to never having met Edwards in the Senate) has changed the course of the polls. How 15% of the voters in this country can change their mind so swiftly about something less than a month away and as serious as a heart attack blows my mind. I have outlined in other articles in my blog before why the Democratic platform, and not just individual Democrats, leave a bitter taste in my mouth. My distaste and distrust starts with Jimmy Carter and sees no end as long as folks like Terry McAuliffe, Al “Psycho” Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Eleanor Clift, Juan Williams and Molly Ivins continue to spout nonsense and demagoguery from their bully pulpits. Because I am an emotional guy, it cuts me right to the quick when these folks say things only designed to pluck a voter’s heartstrings. Why nobody else can see what it is these folks do and why it doesn’t stick with them, I will never know.
So sure, I’m biased toward the right. Sure, I’ll most likely vote Republican because I’ve voted straight ticket since 2000 and see no reason to change. So if someone asks me, Why would I [otherwise] vote for George W. Bush, what would I say?
I have heard from more than one person that they will vote for Kerry because of his war record—that he boldly ventured to Vietnam while W used his daddy’s influence to sit the war out in the cozy National Guard.
Well, then I guess you voted for Dole in ’96, then, if you base your vote on war record. Dole was a wounded World War II hero. Clinton skipped out on the Vietnam War and professed in word and deed his disdain for the military and military service. When the issue of Clinton’s in absentia war service came up in ’92, John Kerry said, “The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our Nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.”
Hey, that’s a great statement. So it stands to reason that every other word out of John Kerry’s mouth should not be “Vietnam.” W’s record during Vietnam shouldn’t even be an issue, since he actually served. But somehow it is. And somehow Kerry’s been able to wow voters with four months of Navy service and stretch it over 30+ years. I realize I’m not a veteran myself, so maybe this affiliation for someone who has served is very tantalizing. I can say, though, that my father was a 31-year Air Force vet who flew in campaigns over Europe and Vietnam. My great uncle was drafted at age 37 into the Corps of Engineers and laid line in France during WWII. He received one Purple Heart for a year and half of duty. I appreciate the incredible sacrifice these men made and I pray every day for the safety and security of Marines currently in battle in Iraq. So to me, with these men in mind, to hear Kerry use his four months of service as the entire basis for his qualifications as President (you would think the way he talks sometimes, he's not that different from Eisenhower), it cheapens what any other serviceperson has done. To never hear from the horse’s mouth what he did over there to get all of those medals in such a short period of time lends credence the SWIFT Boat ads. To suggest that he “ran right to duty” when it has been reliably reported that Kerry sought deferment to Paris is reprehensible. A military service is a great asset for someone who wants to lead. But it should not be the only reason we vote for a guy, and I think the sincereness, particularly in the case of John Kerry, of that service should be looked at very closely.
Another argument I hear ad infinitum is the “WMD” argument. We had no reason to go to Iraq because Saddam didn’t have any Weapons of Mass Destruction. There was no connection to Iraq and 9-11, so we’re barking up the wrong tree. The war is going badly because W didn’t have a plan, guys are dying every day.
Mine is an old argument, but it is true: September 11 changed everything. It changed our attitudes about Islam, about the Middle East, about war, about peace, about our national security, about the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary, about working in tall buildings, about travel, about flying; it changed how we regard our neighbors, our families, our co-workers, our sources of income, our economy--it changed everything. It may have been all well and good to try to pinpoint and target the bombers of the USS Cole and bring them to justice by holding a trial in New York City. But when 3,000 people died on our own turf, the rules changed. And George W. Bush recognized that. He expressed in his speeches right after 9-11 that this was going to be a long war. It was no longer about some random expatriate sheik hiding out in the hills of Afghanistan. It was about war with a whole community of malefactors and miscreants.
I often hear the argument that Afghanistan was a good idea, but Iraq wasn’t. Then I ask this: suppose we chase the Taliban and Osama out of Afghanistan. Where would they go? What world leader do you suppose would offer safe haven to the people The Congress and 90% of Americans professed as our sworn enemies? George W. Bush said repeatedly that our fight was not just limited to these specific terrorists but also to the sovereign nations that harbor them. Iraq was once run by a terrorist. The cause of so much festering hatred in the Middle East was fueled by Saddam Hussein. It stands to reason that a terrorist is going to find a nice home in Iraq. So the alternative was…? We let the UN pass more useless resolutions and Saddam surrenders on his own? The guy was a nut-case. Do you think he’d really sit down and talk with world leaders the way he sat down and talked to Dan Rather?
And many question the legitimacy of the Iraq War because Marines are still dying over there, the Sunni Triangle is a hotbed of hostility and there’s no end in sight.
We took the war to the terrorists. On 9-11, the terrrorists were here. When we took the war to Iraq, the terrorists said, “Oh shit! The Americans are over HERE!” I know every life is sacred and every death is a horrible sacrifice for families, but Marines are paid to fight. If you want some good news about what’s going on over there, I suggest you read Victor Chrenkoff’s column on opinionjournal.com. It appears once a week and highlights the events in Afghanistan and Iraq. I’ll tell you right now over the last year, it’s been more good than bad. It’s a shame the networks don’t want you to think that.
Many of the same pundits who decry the Iraq War decry W because he didn’t tackle Iran or North Korea. To me this is the ultimate in naivite. How would we tackle, even broach the subject with Iran, without a level of stability in its neighbor Iraq? Iran’s leaders would have no motivation toward diplomacy if Saddam Hussein were still in power. If we were compelled to invade Iran, it would mean thousands, not 1,000, casualties, and Saddam Hussein could pick us off, one by one, as we tried to enter Iran over the Kirghiz Mountains. Plus, they already have nukes. As for North Korea, as W said in the first debate, why push for bilateral solutions when that’s what the current Administration’s been berated for on Iraq? Why dismantle the six-member diplomatic coalition in favor of bilateral talks a la Clinton (which didn’t work)! The pundits who bemoan the Iraq policy in favor of a “take the fight to Iran” policy have failed to mention that reforms are going on in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen and Libya that have never been there before!
I hear that W doesn’t care about domestic issues, in particular, the environment.
I’ve thought about it, and I don’t really have a good answer for why W’s tack on the environment has been so half-hearted. But if you do a search online for W’s Crawford working ranch, you’ll discover that it’s infinitely more ecologically-responsible than any one of John Kerry’s five mansions. Rain receptacles fill a stock tank for home use, he has cleared acres of brush and planted native grasses, he has solar-powered generators running power on the ranch. What W and Cheney concluded in their energy report (which was pre-9-11, so no one remembers) was that it really is up to individual initiative to be more environmentally-conscious. Now that sounds like a cop-out, but it’s true. Think about the cost to us all, to the Republic as a whole, if the government started imposing strict regulations on our water usage, our electricity usage, our gasoline usage, or our cigarette smoking. And at what point would it be an infringement on our Constitutional rights? I’ve known an environmental extremist or two in my lifetime. They lived in tents. Is that the sort of lifestyle you want to be foisted upon you? W has said before he thinks that humans and nature do not necessarily have to be opposing forces. I worked at a large energy company whose CEO was unabashedly Republican and the company had a large reclamation department. There were numerous examples and case studies where this company used its millions of dollars to plant trees, protect wildlife and reclaim land better than its original condition. Why Republicans don’t publicize this kind of activity is weird to me. Perhaps it exposes them to other criticism on emissions or fuel consumption.
And to say W’s done nothing about the environment is a false statement, also. He has pushed a program called the Clear Skies Initiative. The details of which, I don’t know, because the environment is secondary to me (believe it or not, I used to subscribe to Sierra Magazine). But one point I’ve made to one friend of mine is that if it weren’t for 9-11, we would know more about it. Remember in August of 2001, and Bush made a national speech from his ranch about stem-cell research, and his proposal to tackle the issue? I contend that if the focus were not on terrorism and 9-11, we would know a lot more about it.
And as far as ANWAR goes, well, W called it like he saw it. He knew we were going to be facing difficulties with Nigerian, Venuzuelan and Middle East exports, so we need to depend on ourselves to supply the oil demand. Which would you rather have? A section of ANWAR explored and exploited, or lower gas prices? Given that the science of exploration has advanced so significantly, that natural habitats, human and non-human, will not be disturbed by exploration, I’d have to say the latter. But W has even taken steps beyond the supply of oil. I know in at least one speech, he’s proposed the allocation of funds toward hydrogen fuel cell research. Like the AIDS issue, that’s one more forward-thinking initiative than Clinton or Clinton’s party ever thought to push.
And finally, I hear that people don’t like Bush because they think that he’s an idiot. He can’t talk, and he says dumb things all the time.
Lord help me if I ever had to stand up before an audience of any of you. Look, you can’t tell me with a straight face that a guy who graudated from Harvard and Yale with any kind of G.P.A. is dumb. Now, degrees aren’t everything. So, putting that aside, let’s look at what remains. True, George W. Bush struggles with words. Abraham Lincoln hated going before crowds and speaking, and he is one of our nation’s highest revered presidents. And one of the original champions of freedom, Moses, whom five books of the Bible are dedicated to, talked with a stutter. I know W’s quirky, I know he’s not a showman the way Reagan or Clinton were. But try listening to the context of what he’s saying. Think about the overall message.
If you watch any more of the debates, remember this: Kerry is an orator, W is a rhetorician. While there have been great orators in the history of the world, it is the rhetoric that sticks with us and carries us over the years. William Jennings Bryan, three-time loser of the presidency, was a great orator. He could wow a crowd into thinking he was the next Messiah. But do his words stick with us today? Few of us can remember from our history lessons what William Jennings Bryan was all about. Do John Kerry’s words stick with you 24 hours after he says them? To me, no, no more than a Rodney Dangerfield monologue. In my opinion, Kerry’s words are empty-set politics: he sure makes it sound important when he says it, but if you sit and think about what he’s saying, it bears little significance or importance to the Republic as a whole. When W speaks, I focus on his quirks, true, but his words stick with me for days on end. If you want a prime example of what I mean, search the Web for his speech to the joint session of Congress just a few short days after 9-11.
A case in point is John Kerry’s frequent mention in the first debate about the U.S. suffering 90% of the casualties. It sounds like a big, bad number when he says it, but if you think about it, why is it significant? What is the overall number? Who is second in line? Does it diminish the job these men and women have done? How many of those casualties were in combat? How many were accidents? Do we forget that we led the fight? Do we forget that 30 other countries are in the fight with us? Why is it relevant now, when the result would be the same? Would Kerry be appalled by a lower number? 75% perhaps? So are we supposed to be happy about more Polish casualties?
Listen to the tone in Kerry’s voice when he talks. Turn off the TV and listen to him on the radio. You will notice a difference. When you’re not engaged in his oratorial skills that he’s had 20 years to refine in the Senate, you focus on what he’s really saying. You realize that he uses every debating ploy in the book. I find his tone very patrician and very non-genuine. When a world leader comes to meet with John Kerry, is he going to shout at him? Is he going to be a good listener? Or is he just going to try to impress him?
And Lord help me if I’m ever judged by the way I walk. As W wittily said of his swagger at the Republican National Convention, “In Texas we call that walking.” Some see an arrogant swagger—I see a man who walks with confidence and a spring in his step. If I had to vote on physical demeanor alone, I would vote for W. Kerry, like the former VP Al Gore, looks like the walking dead. No amount of fake tan or botox will ever change it.
What do we need from a President? Someone who can lead. And one of the things that W had done that Clinton failed to do was surround himself with people that can do the best job. When he picked Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, John Ashcroft, Don Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice to be in his cabinet, he was choosing the best and the brightest. Some leaders lack humility and are unable to work with their bright counterparts. W knows he can’t do the job alone. W, having had a father who was already in the White House, knew who those people were. I can’t think of a better group of people as high up in the Executive Branch who could be better postured for response after 9-11. I thank the Lord for their presence every day. I could cite their records at length, but one characteristic of Don Rumsfeld strikes me as the most poignant: He ran to the fire when the Pentagon was hit. If you ever have the opportunity to watch an A&E biography about any of these people in W’s cabinet, I recommend it. You will wonder why it is that the Left works so hard to brand negative labels on these folks.
This blogger essay is going beyond six pages now. Over the last few years, ever since I graduated from college, I’ve made it a point to pay more attention and to focus my independent research in two things: politics and religion. The two things some wise sage from Roman times told us never to discuss in social situations. And while I’ve not crossed the Rubicon of evangelical Christianity, I do feel some peculiar moral and spiritual obligation to speak out at length in favor of elected leaders I think are worth a damn. If this were 1984, I would be writing about Reagan. It’s 20 years later, Reagan has left these earthly bounds, and now we need to follow the living. And in spite of all his quirks and all the criticism, I still stand behind W.
W’s no Reagan, but I think he’s worth writing at length about. Moreso, because his message has been incredibly muted and his reputation unequivocally distorted.
