Opinion
Re-elect George Bush to the presidency
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Mark A. Baumgardner:
- Wisconsin election ripe with voter irregularities (January 24, 2005)
- As absurd as March snow (December 1, 2004)
- Good morning, Milwaukee (November 17, 2004)
- ASM resolution wasteful (November 10, 2004)
- Re-elect George Bush to the presidency (October 27, 2004)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
“I don’t know what I’m going to find on Jan. 20, the way the president is going. If the President just does more of the same every day and it continues to deteriorate, I may be handed Lebanon, figuratively speaking. Now, I just don’t know. I can’t tell you. What I’ll tell you is, I have a plan.” — Senator John Kerry, Oct. 8, 2004, Englewood, Colorado
Many Americans remember hearing, “It’s the economy, stupid” — one of the most memorable lines from Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. While Kerry has not yet resolved his message into one sentence, the quote above, in which he expresses great pessimism for America and claims to have a plan (although does not know), perhaps summarizes his campaign better than any other.
For those whose obsessive hatred of George W. Bush allows them to look past empty rhetoric, distortions and lack of true leadership, John Kerry is the clear choice for president. However, for those who seek a president with vision and leadership on both international and domestic policy, President Bush deserves the job for another four years.
The world changed forever Sept. 11, 2001, and Bush understood this. Terrorists had declared war against the United States long ago, as exemplified by attacks on the Khobar Towers in 1996, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 and the World Trade center bombing of 1993. The previous administration handled these attacks mostly as crimes, rather than acts of war.
In contrast, after September 11, Bush began fighting terrorists abroad, before they strike at home. Furthermore, he understands that spreading democracy and liberty to Afghanistan and Iraq represents an important step forward, not only as a moral victory against the terrorists’ ideology, but also as a victory for world peace, as throughout history, no two democratic nations have fought each other.
Kerry, however, recently called previous attacks “a nuisance” and discussed terrorism in the same context of fighting gambling and prostitution, raising questions about his judgment. Perhaps he supports a return to failed policies, but considering his indecisiveness on one front of the war on terrorism (Iraq), Americans cannot know for sure.
One could legitimately argue that Bush, without finding weapons of mass destruction, mistakenly held over certain intelligence officers, but with the timing of Sept. 11 early in his presidency, he found himself in a no-win situation: retain existing officers and risk consequences, or train new officers and face potentially disastrous rookie mistakes.
Even without the discovery of weapons of mass destruction stockpiles, Saddam Hussein was himself a terrorist, and the world became safer with his capture. Kerry himself argued in January, “This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction, unlike other people on this Earth today, not only against other people but against his own people … He would have continued to terrorize the people, just in their minds, because of 30 years of terror in Iraq.” Exactly!
Kerry said this in response to NBC’s Tim Russert pressing him on a statement in which he said, ” … those who believe we are not safer with [Saddam Hussein’s] capture don’t have the judgment to be President or the credibility to be elected president.” With this, Kerry replaced Howard Dean as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, after only months earlier voting against the $87 billion in funding for the war, perhaps attempting to match Dean’s anti-war stance.
In one argument, Kerry has shown consistency, as he constantly demands more international support for the existing coalition of 30 nations in fighting terrorism. Yet, he voted against the first Gulf War with the support of 34 nations and United Nations approval. At the same time as calling for international support, he has called supporting U.S. allies “coerced” and “bribed.”
Lost and confused? Many people are.
Besides national security, and partly as another benefit of fighting terrorism abroad, Americans have enjoyed a strong economy in the latter part of Bush’s presidency. Over the past four quarters, the U.S. economy has grown by 4.8 percent, with a 5.4 percent unemployment rate in August, comparable to 3.9 percent and 5.1 percent, respectively, that Clinton enjoyed in 1996. Additionally, the largest economic quarterly growth in nearly 20 years occurred shortly after Bush’s tax cuts. Kerry, true to his liberal form, seeks to repeal a portion of these tax cuts, potentially hurting numerous small businesses.
On other domestic issues, Kerry has also lived up to his liberalism, supporting legislation to advance human cloning and opposing any meaningful legislation to reduce the number of abortions. While this column has criticized Bush for funding embryonic stem-cell research, he has proven himself to be far more in the mainstream than Kerry on right to life issues.
While Clinton offered voters a clear and concise reason along with “New Democrat” ideas to elect him over George H. Bush in 1992, Kerry has offered neither in his race against George W. Bush. American voters now see a world with more liberty and democracy and a robust economy at home — great news for the American people, but bad news for Kerry, who seeks reasons to remove Bush from office.
President George W. Bush, especially when faced with the greatest act of war against the homeland, has proven himself as an effective leader, both on foreign and domestic policy, and deserves reelection.
Mark A. Baumgardner (mbaumgardner@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in electrical engineering.
29 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
A nice rehash of the Bush party line but it completely ignores the truth: W is NOT a leader. He is, and always has been, a follower of the neo-cons who "constructed" our disastrous foreign policy and has thus presided over the most drastic and complete failures of foreign policy in our recent history. You, like the other Bushites, take the "nuisance" quote completely out of context and ignore the deficit, inconsistencies and outright lies of this administration, beginning with the one that went "I am a uniter, not a divider." There is not room for complete refutation of your illogical reasons for supporting a failed president, but thanks for proving once again that an education doesn't always open minds.
Mark, what about those pesky civil unions that Bush's party is against, but apparently he is not? He just said so on ABC the other morning....swimming up stream? Is he leading on this topic or was this a last ditch effort to court voters with a position he doesn't believe in...making him...a flip-flopper?
C'mon Mark. The "failed policies" of dealing with terrorism were the policies of both the right and the left prior to 9/11. And here's a daring fact for you to consider.
The world didn't change post 9/11. Nothing is different. There is no war on terror! How about wrapping your mind around that one?
Bush is playing the biggest mistake of his presidency into his strongest card, and it's failing (that's Iraq). Everyone thought that Kerry wouldn't be able to touch Bush on foreign policy this election, he'd just bash him on the economy.
Turns out Kerry slaughtered (tough metaphor there, I know) Bush in the foreign policy debate, and seems to have most Americans convinced that Iraq is a bloody mess, and Bush's fault. While most of the American public (wrongly) believes Bush can get them out of it, Kerry will do better.
Plus, Bush has overseen the most anemic economic recovery in ages. He hasn't even created enough jobs to cover the increase in the population. When Republicans point to his slightly shrinking unemployment, they conveniently ignore the bigger picture, which is that Bush can't create enough jobs period to keep up with the number of people that enter the workforce every year. That's called a failure of economic leadership if I've ever seen one.
Nice try Baumgardner, but Bush is going down.
Sorry, the above comment was from me, I forgot to put my name on it.
mark,
why do you and republicans continue to link iraq and 9/11? THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. your lack of honesty and integrity is exactly what is so wrong about the neocons, bush, and the modern republican party. you lie, distort, and smear the truth. you should be ashamed of yourself. where is your integrity?
Lets do a little thinking exercise. Go back to mid-August 2001. Now lets say we deploy troops to Afghanistan and kill hundreds and maybe thousands of members of Al-Queda. After we go in we find nothing indicating an attack is imminent to the U.S., those bleeding heart democrats cry afoul. Because of this PROACTIVE action, 3000 American (many of which I'm sure were democrats) were unknowingly saved. Tragically, this was not the case. The simple point is that there was no immediate threat to the U.S. on September 10, 2001. 9/11 changed all this. The U.S. going into Iraq was merely a proactive measure to ensure the safety of all of its citizens, many of which are you Democrats that protest the war.
Mike
Come on, we all know Iraq and 9/11 are linked. Iraq existed on 9/11 -- there's your link!
Mike,
You're still assuming Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Both Iran and North Korea posed greater threats to the US after 9/11 than Iraq, but we didn't invade either of them. We invaded Iraq because Bush had a score to settle.
Mike,
By your logic, we should basically wipe out every other country besides the US. How do you know that a group from Mexico isn't plotting against us right now? What about Canada? England? Why not? We were friends with Iraq once. How do we know that these other "allies" won't attack us on our own soil? Every country for itself!
Thinking exercise? Your brain is getting a little flabby. You're an idiot.
OK just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (I'm not saying that's for sure the case, just putting it out there for the sake of argument). In either case, this is a war on terrorism (all terrorism), not a war only against those who attacked us on 9/11. Likewise, WWII was not a war only against those who attacked Pearl Harbor. We went after Germany then for the same reason we go after Iraq today. Germany was a front on WWII, just as Iraq is a front on the war on terrorism. John Kerry's comments in January point to the fact that he apparently understood this at one point.
As for Iran and North Korea, diplomacy has not yet run its course with these countries, where it had in Iraq. Also, did Iran and North Korea attack us on 9/11? I seriously doubt that some of those who opposed the Iraq war wouldn't raise that question. There's no consistency in the arguments here.
E GADS WHAT A STUPID COLLEGE STUDENT YOU ARE . GO TO IRAQ SO THE INSURGENTS CAN BLOW YOU UP IN THE NAZI PRESIDENTS WAR
Um, you just typed in all caps and used the term "E GADS" Who is the stupid college student now?
WHEN BUSH STARTS THE DRAFT LET IDIOTS LIKE YOU BE DRAFTED BE FIRST. WE NEED MORE FODDER FOR THE TERRORIST BUSH BREEDS SO GO FIGHT HIS WAR.
Why do we have to sign a loyalty oath to attend a Bush rally? You say we need to spread democracy to the Middle East.This is an arrogant neoconservative idea. There are one billion muslims on earth, I suggest you join the army and go fight them for George B., the deserter and alcoholic. You're not learning anything at U. W.
Yeah, Bush isn't going to start the draft. Actually, that idea has been floated by 2 Democrats (Sen Hollings of SC and Rep Rangel of NY), but I'll let you ignore that fact. Maybe you can keep posting more lies IN ALL CAPS like the derranged old man you are.
THERE ARE BLACK HELICOPTERS OUTSIDE MY WINDOW! JOHN ASHCROFT IS ON TO ME. QUICK QUICK, HIDE MY FARENHEIT 9/11 DVDS BEFORE THE FEDS TAKE THEM AWAY.
WHY HAS THIS INTERNET FORSAKEN ME?!
You are all so right - Iraq, the war on terrosim, of course.. that is where all the terrorists are, damn muslims and their uncivilized mantras.. Nevermind Sudan, nevermind Indonesdesia, N Korea, Iran, Spain. Nevermind, these terrorists don't matter
Mike what about the terrorists that this war is creating - what do you think that 12 year old standing on the street watching his mother bleed to death from random bullets, or the woman whos family was killed in a stray bomb. This war is creating terrorism, not preventing it
"E GADS WHAT A STUPID COLLEGE STUDENT YOU ARE . GO TO IRAQ SO THE INSURGENTS CAN BLOW YOU UP IN THE NAZI PRESIDENTS WAR"
I want to get rid of Bush as much as anyone, but calling him a Nazi doesn't help anything. All it does is trivialize what real Nazis did in Europe 60 years ago.
"Also, did Iran and North Korea attack us on 9/11? I seriously doubt that some of those who opposed the Iraq war wouldn't raise that question. There's no consistency in the arguments here."
Iraq didn't attack us either. The 9/11 commission says so. Leading members of both parties say so. The only people who disagree are Bush and his supporters.
To the anonymous poster who said we invade Iraq for the same reasons we fought Germany in WWII, wtf are you thinking?
Your logic is ridiculous.
We fought Germany for the same reason we fought Italy because they were allies to Japan in an already existing war. We did not just speculate that Germany and Italy had WMD and disregard the views of almost the entire world. Germany had also conquered most of Europe, when we invade Iraq they could barely defend themselves let alone invade most of the middle east.
But heh, you can keep trying to justify an unjustifiable war. You will just continue to fail.
Is Iraq Better Off? Ask the Iraqis
By Steven E. Moore
Steven E. Moore is a Sacramento-based political consultant. A longer version of this article appears in the forthcoming issue of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal. Website: www.TheTruth AboutIraq October 20, 2004
John Kerry is playing the prophet of doom in the most important foreign policy initiative of our generation. In Pennsylvania, Kerry described Iraq as "the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." In New York, he opined that murderous cleric Muqtada Sadr "holds more sway in suburbs of Baghdad than Prime Minister [Iyad] Allawi." In Columbus, Ohio, the senator claimed to have a more accurate perspective on the situation in Iraq than did the interim prime minister, whose favorability rating of 73% among Iraqis, it's worth noting, is higher than Kerry's 48% favorability rating among Americans in the latest polls. Kerry, of course, has never set foot in Iraq. I was there from July 2003 to April 2004, conducting about 70 focus groups and a dozen public opinion polls and advising L. Paul Bremer III, then the civilian administrator, on Iraqi public opinion. Whatever you might hear from Kerry, Michael Moore, the mainstream media and anyone else to whom defeating President Bush is more important than the fate of the Iraqi people, those who know best what's going on in Iraq -- the Iraqis themselves -- are optimistic about the future. Iraqis consistently say in nationwide polls that the situation in their country is improving. In polls over the course of the summer, for example, more than half of Iraqis said their country was on the right track. The vast majority of Iraqis -- 72% -- see the same benefits in democracy as Americans do: the hope for peace, stability and a better life. Most polls show that 75% of Iraqis want to vote for their leaders rather than have clerics appoint them. In a recent speech, Kerry charged that Saddam Hussein's brutality "was not, in itself, a reason to go to war." Iraqis disagree, as should any supporter of human rights. Nearly 55% of Iraqis say that toppling Hussein was worth the price of the current difficulties. These figures are easy to understand when you look at another set of numbers. In an Op-Ed article circulated this year among the more than 200 independent newspapers now published in Iraq, an Iraqi democratic activist observed that Hussein tortured and killed as many as 750,000 of his own people. Iraqis don't understand the debate about whether Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. To them, Hussein was a weapon of mass destruction. UNICEF, hardly an apologist for the Bush administration, estimates that 5,000 Iraqi children a month died of starvation and malnutrition while Hussein siphoned funds from the U.N.'s oil-for-food program to build his palaces and enrich French politicians. Americans are only now learning of the extent of Hussein's corruption of this humanitarian program; the Iraqis have known about it for quite some time. When asked to rate their confidence in the U.N., Iraqis gave the organization a 2.9 on a scale of 1 to 4, with a 4 meaning absolutely no confidence. In contrast, more than 60% of Iraqis tell pollsters that the Iraqi government has done a good job since the June 28 hand-over. Polling in Iraq is done much as in any developing country. Interviews are conducted face to face by highly trained Iraqi interviewers. For a 1,500-person sample, for instance, 75 qada (the Iraqi equivalent of precincts) would be chosen at random, with interviews conducted in 20 randomly chosen households in each. Though difficulties abound, the cooperation rate is usually more than 80% -- much higher than in the U.S. Iraqis are amazed that, for the first time, somebody cares about their political opinion, and they frequently want interviewers to interview cousins and friends. From 20,000 to 30,000 insurgents, many from outside Iraq, are trying to prevent Iraqis who want democracy from achieving it. Kerry has said he would begin withdrawing U.S. troops six months after his inauguration. Iraq's autocratic neighbors are vigorously supporting the efforts of extremists to derail Iraqi self-government. Hastily withdrawing U.S. troops for political reasons would be a mistake for which we would pay for decades. A look at the nightly news confirms the finding that six out of 10 Iraqis are worried about security, but what's being given short shrift are the strides being made and the intensity of Iraqi optimism.
Here a link for you click on:
"I initially had many doubts about George W. Bush. Actually, that's not quite fair. The truth is, I despised the man. But then something happened."
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000108.html
Here are a couple of links from factcheck.org regarding Kerry's do-nothing record in the Senate. He's been there 19 years and has litte to show for it.
***
Kerry Exaggerates Role in Some Key Legislative Battles
He says he "led the fight" on several fronts, but few bills bear his name.
http://www.factcheck.org/article134.html
***
Just How Many Bills Has Kerry Passed?
Bush said Kerry passed five bills. Kerry said he's passed 56. Who's right? That depends on the definition of "passed" and "bills."
http://www.factcheck.org/article282.html
Shoot me. Please. A fork in the eye will also do.
Mark,
I am voting for George W. Bush because I think he has both the economy and the foreign policy moving in the right direction. It is true, however, that you are taking the Kerry 'nuisance' quote out of context. I assume you know you are doing that and, like many people on both sides, believe that the ends justify the means. They do not.
All rhetoric aside, Kerry and Bush have both said that the war on terror is winnable but it is not possible to obliterate terrorists. As long as religious nuts of all flavors believe the world is doomed unless their view of God prevails, you will have whackos desperate enough to fly planes into buildings.
I am hoping that, free of the need to be re-elected, G.W. will push our MidEast allies towards democracy as hard as he is pushing Iraq. The Saudis in particular seem to have a hard time with this concept. He will be remembered with the same affection as Reagan if he can democratize the Middle East. He is much more likely to achieve that goal than Kerry or any Democrat.
Rocco
"I am voting for George W. Bush because I think he has both the economy and the foreign policy moving in the right direction."
The economy: Bush is the first president since Hoover to preside over a net loss of American jobs. And Hoover had the Great Depression start on his watch; Bush claims the US economy was already in recession when Clinton was still president.
Foreign policy: The whole world hates us.
Yep, sounds like the right direction to me.
about the draft.....do you know that a vote is required in the house to re-instate the draft? Didn't think so.
The world hating us, which is an overstatement in any case, doesn't make the world right. Freedom and liberty, not isolationism and totalitarianism, will make us safer. The U.S. makes its own foreign policy, not the U.N.
The jobs created since the tax cuts show that the economy IS bouncing back after the dot-bomb and post 9/11 slump. At least TRY to be objective, willya?
None of the other stuff matters -- the president doesn't write the laws on abortion, gay marriage, or any other social policy. He does lead the way on foreign policy and economic policy.