Posted on 10/15/2004 7:18:44 AM PDT by justme346
|
It's about national security. That's the key issue on the minds of Americans planning to vote in the Nov. 2 presidential election. They must decide whether Republican President George W. Bush or Sen. John F. Kerry, a Democrat, can provide the leadership to safeguard America from foreign terrorism. Americans aren't fools. They know that without safe cities and towns, America will lose its greatness. Our cherished freedoms and sacred liberties will be diminished, along with our opportunities for economic prosperity and our basic pursuit of happiness. Our children and their children will live vastly different lives if we fail to guarantee a future free of turmoil. Islamic extremists, both here and abroad, have one purpose: To destroy America and halt the spread of democracy and religious tolerance around the globe. They'd like to be plotting in our streets right now. They'd like to be sowing murder and mayhem with suicide bombers and hostage-takings, and spreading fear in the heartland and everywhere else. They'd like to be wearing us down and bringing our nation to its knees. Since the devastating terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, one American leader has maintained an unbending resolve to protect our homeland and interest against Islamic savages and those foreign governments appeasing them. That leader is President Bush. While out-of-touch U.S. politicians and world leaders have attacked President Bush's tactics, they can't question his steely commitment to keep America safe. In the ashes of ground zero, where nearly 3,000 innocent Americans perished, President Bush vowed to find the perpetrators, in domestic cells and distant lands, and bring them to justice. He said he will do all that is humanly possible and necessary to make certain that terrorists never strike again on U.S. soil. Can anyone deny that President Bush has not delivered? America the terrorists' No. 1 target has recovered from its tragic wounds and rebounded. It remains safe to this day. What might a lesser leader ! have done, faced with the daunting task of deciding America's course against withering, partisan attacks from Democrats, media propagandists, disingenuous U.N. officials and disloyal White House operatives selling their souls for profit during a time of war? A lesser leader might have caved in. President Bush has stood his ground. In this year's election, the question isn't whether we are safer now than we were four years ago. We already know the answer. Sure we are and that's because of President Bush. The critical question is: Four years from now, will America be safer than it is today? In our book, Americans have to place their trust in President Bush. He's proven to be as sturdy as a mighty oak when it comes to saying what he means, meaning what he says and acting decisively. When it comes to the war on terror, President Bush means to keep our military strong and our country secure. John Kerry, on the other hand, has all the attributes of the shape of water when it comes to telling us what he believes and what he'd do for America. Like incoming and outgoing tides, Kerry is content to go with the flow. In a dangerous world infested with sharks, Kerry would be chum at America's expense. We in Massachusetts know John Kerry. He got his first taste of politics 32 years ago in the cities and towns of Greater Lowell. In his 20 years in the U.S. Senate, Kerry, a Navy war hero, hasn't risen above the rank of seaman for his uninspiring legislative record. He's been inconsistent on major issues. First he's for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, then he opposes it. First he's for the war in Iraq, then he's against it. First he's for a strong U.S. defense, then he votes against military weapons programs. First he's for the U.S. Patriot Act, the n he opposes it. Kerry's solution to stop terrorism? He'd go to the U.N. and build a consensus. How naive. France's Jacques Chirac, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and other Iraq oil-for-food scam artists don't want America to succeed. They want us brought dow! n to their level. And more and more, Kerry sounds just like them. In a recent campaign speech, Kerry said America was in the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. No doubt John Kerry sincerely wants to serve his country, but we believe he's the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.! Americans should think back three years ago to the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center. There among the mist lay the images and memories of fallen firefighters, police, a Catholic chaplain and ordinary working citizens moms, dads, sons, daughters. President Bush, through heartfelt tears, told us never to forget the twisted carnage and the massacre of the innocents. Yet some of us are forgetting. President Bush told us the attacks must never happen again. Yet some of us are wavering because of the brave sacrifice of soldiers that our nation's security demands. Well, President Bush hasn't forgotten. Nor has he lost the courage and conviction to do what is right for America. We know if there is one thing the enemy fears above all else, it is that George Bush's iron will is stronger than his iron won't. The Sun proudly endorses the re-election of President George W. Bush http://www.lowellsun.com/Stories/0,1413,105%7E4746%7E244 |
Well.....
Bush's "hometown newspaper" had a circulation of something like 225. How high could the Lowell Sun possibly be???
< /sarcasm>
If I had to guess right now, I think that Mort Zuckerman and the NY Daily News will come down on Bush's side.
TS
Now didn't that teeny, weeny paper in Crawford, TX endorse Kerry...and it was all over the place in the MSM? Correct?
So, "The Lowell Sun" goes for the prez no one says anything.
Mighty curious. Mighty curious.
BTW, Lowell, MA is a good place to be FROM! Ugh.
ping
On their knees with their lips firmly planted on Kerry's buttocks, as usual.
over 50,000 circulation
http://www.lowellsun.com/
it's a real newspaper, not a newsletter like the Crawford Icono
No one can really answer that question. To me the real question is who do I think will do a better job fighting terrorism - Dubya or Fonda?
HF
My thoughts exactly.
Thw=e newsletter in Crawford was one man's opinion, who did not even live in Crawford. The good people of Crawford have subsequently boycotted his rag and he is on his way out of the newsletter business.
Thw=e newsletter in Crawford was one man's opinion, who did not even live in Crawford. The good people of Crawford have subsequently boycotted his rag and he is on his way out of the newsletter business.
Thw=e newsletter in Crawford was one man's opinion, who did not even live in Crawford. The good people of Crawford have subsequently boycotted his rag and he is on his way out of the newsletter business.
There are plenty of folks here in MA (I'm a life-long MA resident myself) that know what Kerry is. Believe me, we don't like the humiliation brought down on this beautiful state by the radical leftists that have held it in an iron grip for decades. We're working on changing that.
Kerry will carry MA, but I think it will be suprisingly close. If it weren't solely for the communist fortress that is Boston and Cambridge, we'd be a Bush state.
In my hometown, Bush/Cheney lawnsigns (including the one in my yard) outnumber Kerry/Edwards signs 2:1. It's not at all unusual to a car with both MA plates and a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker.
That is the point of the question, really.
When you vote, you are taking a [calculated] risk for the future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.