Re-elect George Bush to the presidency

Re-elect George Bush to the presidency Written by Mark Bumgardner for The Badger Herald

“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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge