Why vote for George W. Bush?
Everyone has his own reasons for who he plans to vote for, and often it is as simple as blind ideology. Is this my reason? No, not this time. When I voted for Dukakis in 1988, that was blind ideology. That was also my first election, and I grew up in a union household so I thought that I was a Democrat. I was also only 20 years old and idealistic. I didn't know what the real world was all about.
By 1992, I stopped voting blindly. I voted after carefully considering all the positions and voted with my head. I voted for Bill Clinton. I didn't agree with all of his positions. I was still young but I found him more appealing and hopeful than the alternative, George H.W. Bush. I felt that after 12 years of a Republican Executive Branch it was time for a change. Times were different back then. I didn't harbor any ill will towards Bush the Elder, I just felt that we needed a new direction.
As I aged, my positions shifted further toward reality and the Democrats went further and further to the left. I liked Clinton because he seemed comfortable in the center, and I disliked Gore because he did not. In that same spirit, I voted for George W. Bush in 2000.
So here we are in an election battle the likes of which I've never seen. We all knew that it would be this way though, didn't we? After the 2000 election the country was divided. It was unavoidable. George Bush didn't cause it even though the left likes to blame him. The 2000 election caused this division, and if Al Gore had won, it would be the same. Neither man would have a happy electorate right now. That is a sad fact of life.
Back to my reasons for voting for Bush: Is he a great right-wing Republican? No, not at all. He spent too much money, he expanded Medicare and that is a "right wing" no-no. He supports amending the constitution to "protect marriage". I disagree with that vehemently. Fortunately for Mr. Bush, that isn't my primary concern. Even more fortunate for the President, I know damn well that John Kerry will bleed me like an old-fashioned doctor using leeches to cure me with his spending. In any case, domestic policy is not my number one priority and it shouldn't be yours either.
My number one concern is the War on Terror. I am a Security Mom, and national security supercedes everything else for me this election. The Wisconsin State Journal endorsed President Bush for precisely this reason and the editors said all that I could say about this. The money quote:
President Bush tells people what he will do. Sen. John Kerry tells people what they want to hear. Bush is confident in action even when mistaken. Kerry is comfortable in passivity even at high cost.
I will let them
explain it to you:
Kerry has a surprisingly low-profile Senate career over 20 years. He voted against the Persian Gulf War, betraying his comfort with passivity, and he believes too faithfully in the power of talk through diplomacy and government process to solve all problems. But Kim Jong Il doesn't parley, he only threatens; terrorists don't engage in talks, they just kidnap people and kill them.
Through chat, Kerry hopes to reduce terror to a "nuisance," an unseemly and ill-chosen term that suggests the grisly beheadings of a few Americans now and then is an acceptable and unavoidable consequence of our envied position of privilege in the world.
And, of course, there is the nagging bugaboo of Kerry contradictions: So he votes to go to war but not to pay for it? And does he want to be seen as a war hero or an antiwar hero? No matter: Whether he touts four months in Vietnam or a few years on the antiwar barricades, neither experience qualifies him to lead the country.
At least Bush offers clarity in intent, which is as important to relations with allies as in sending messages to enemies. In a second term, Bush will not shrink from challenge or shirk his responsibility to act in the nation's best interest, even when that path takes his administration into a political minefield. Kerry, despite his oratorical flourishes calibrated to "strength" and "resolve," will walk more meekly in the face of growing dangers.
Bush has presided steadfastly over extraordinarily consequential times. He rose to the unprecedented challenge posed by the attacks on America of Sept. 11, 2001. He has effectively overseen a transformation of government from deliverer of largesse to provider of security. He promotes a positive, and yes, idealistic view of the power of democracy. Should we expect anything less from the leader of the free world?
No president performs flawlessly. Yet in the end, strong reservations about Kerry's overall suitability for the presidency outweigh our sharp disappointment with Bush's prosecution of the war in Iraq.
That my friends is why I will be voting for George W. Bush.
On the lesser important side: I agree with partial privatization of Social Security, I don't believe that we can solve all the woes in our country by bludgeoning the pocketbooks of people that make over $200,000 a year. To do so is punishing success and that is just unAmerican.
Is it fair that "the rich" received a bigger tax cut than the poor?
Hell yes, it is. They pay more, so naturally any cut in their tax bracket will net them a larger cut. It's their damn money and they earned it.
Tax Cut Example for Dummies™ :
Let us say that a store had a sale. Everything was 20% off. I bought a sweater for $50 and received my discount of $10 that sounds right, right? You decide to buy a big screen T.V for $2000 and you received a discount of $400. That sounds fair, right? Do I have a right to complain that I didn't get a $400 discount? No, that is stupid right? I paid $40 bucks for a sweater and if I started screaming for a $400 check because you got one, you'd think me insane. Wouldn't you? It's the same with taxes.
Yes, I know but the poor are squeezed by payroll taxes and that isn't fair. Is that what you are thinking? You are wrong. It is fair. The poor want to collect Social Security, they are depending on it being there for them. If they want it they must invest in it just like everyone else. Our society should offer helping hands not hand outs.
Taxing the rich isn't going to punish the super rich
, it's going to punish the "working" rich. You know what the difference is? The super rich have their money hidden, they inherited it, they pay taxes on dividends not real income so like Teresa Heinz Kerry they are only paying 13% rates on their "income". The working rich are people like doctors, lawyers, bankers, small business owners. People that work 60+ hours a week to make their money and they pay through the nose for it. The only way to make things more fair is to fix the tax code not bleed hard working people because they are successful, so we can bring others up out of poverty. It didn't work well in the Soviet Union and it won't work well now either.
Unfortunately, John Kerry hasn't learned that lesson, and
living off of wealthy women
being "rich" hasn't helped him reach that conclusion yet.
Not So Humbly Submitted By: Rosemary Esmay, The Queen of All Evil
(You Missed Me, Didn't You?)