Posted on 10/10/2004 3:26:05 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Bush's resolve to finish the job in Iraq and protect the nation fromincoming threats is proven. And he has been successful protecting the homeland since the attacks of Sept. 11. He did not ignore or decide only to talk about terrorist attacks on Americans. He pursued justice in Afghanistan, has not relented in the search for Osama bin Laden and has made borders more secure.
War in Iraq, somewhat but not at all directly related to terrorism, has become a total blunder. Still, it was inevitable to attack for numerous reasons something Kerry will not concede, even after authorizing the use of force. Iraq was indeed a threat, even without stockpiles of WMDs. Saddam Hussein was a threat to his own people, and he planned to be a threat to other nations, as soon as the world community looked away. And while the Bush team acted in part based on flawed intelligence, we do not believe its aim was to deceive.
Bush's leadership, even with his many mistakes, is more appealing than Kerry's lack of leadership.
While Kerry might do better for the environment, there are few issues on which he is clearly preferable to Bush. Kerry promises the type of big government and an entitlement mentality that frightens us. His program proposals cannot coexist with security needs, bring down the deficit or be paid for by raising taxes on a small percentage of citizens. His class warfare backfires in ideology and on paper.
For these reasons and more, Bush should be re-elected. We can't hold out for a magical candidate.
Suggest reading or scanning the full article ( not long), to get the flavor.
I like it, because it lays out the argument for Democrats who are anti-Bush, and still gives them a reason to change their minds and vote for Bush.
You might want to save it and e-mail it to all your liberal friends.
Where is "The Columbian" from?
OK, here is the full article. We don't need to excerpt this, but I didn't want to post the full article, because you might have stopped reading after the first paragraph, before getting to the good stuff. As I said, it's a great article for your recalcitrant liberal anti-Bush friends, to get them to see the light.
======
Not being Bush, or being anyone but Bush, simply isn't enough to replace our commander in chief.
Many Americans hoped some magical candidate would appear with better answers to ending the insurgent uprising in Iraq, curbing terror worldwide and offering promising plans for domestic issues such as health care, the national deficit and a flawed tax system.
But that hasn't happened. Instead, we are left with: George W. Bush, who offers partial solutions and determination but has a serious credibility problem with many Americans; John Kerry, who offers too few solutions, but a lot of confusion and a Swift boatload of criticism, much of it misplaced; and no-name (plus Nader) third-party candidates who cannot win.
The Columbian tepidly supported George W. Bush in 2000. We are even more tepid in supporting his re-election. But this presidential race, for us, comes down to leadership and the candidates' overarching principles on policy issues, since neither has a solid enough track record to go by.
While both the Bush and Kerry campaigns have waged a war of half-truths and misstatements, Bush's resolve to finish the job in Iraq and protect the nation fromincoming threats is proven. And he has been successful protecting the homeland since the attacks of Sept. 11. He did not ignore or decide only to talk about terrorist attacks on Americans. He pursued justice in Afghanistan, has not relented in the search for Osama bin Laden and has made borders more secure.
War in Iraq, somewhat but not at all directly related to terrorism, has become a total blunder. Still, it was inevitable to attack for numerous reasons something Kerry will not concede, even after authorizing the use of force. Iraq was indeed a threat, even without stockpiles of WMDs. Saddam Hussein was a threat to his own people, and he planned to be a threat to other nations, as soon as the world community looked away. And while the Bush team acted in part based on flawed intelligence, we do not believe its aim was to deceive.
Bush's leadership, even with his many mistakes, is more appealing than Kerry's lack of leadership. Having Sen. John Edwards as his running mate doesn't help Kerry on foreign policy, either. The nation is facing dire foreign policy decisions for which neither man is at all equipped to handle.
As for the candidates' overriding principles on second-tier issues, Bush has the advantage. Again, only because Kerry is so weak.
Bush has encouraged reckless federal overspending even in discretionary areas, especially education. Bush and the Congress have been as bad as a college student with a new credit card. And the current administration's views on the environment have given us the opportunity to write scathing editorials on a regular basis. Remember the plan to count hatchery fish as if they were full-fledged salmon? More than fishy.
While Kerry might do better for the environment, there are few issues on which he is clearly preferable to Bush. Kerry promises the type of big government and an entitlement mentality that frightens us. His program proposals cannot coexist with security needs, bring down the deficit or be paid for by raising taxes on a small percentage of citizens. His class warfare backfires in ideology and on paper.
For these reasons and more, Bush should be re-elected. We can't hold out for a magical candidate.
=====
The Columbian
Serving Clark County, Washington State
Van-Tastic VANTUCKY. My hometown!
ehhhhhhh.....What?
Somewhat but not at all?
I think that more and more liberals are going to come to this conclusion in the coming weeks. Deep down, they know they don't hate Bush, they know they have been manipulated, and although they don't like his policies, they do know that the war on terror must be fought, and it must be fought by someone like GWB.
I guess even faint praise is praise. (This is not a reflection on the poster, but on the article.)
At least they recognize that Kerry has nothing to offer, and that we are better off with President Bush.
It is a fair assessment.
Although I would not put any priority on the environment right now...since if terror has a few successes, the rest will ALL BE ACADEMIC.
Bush is RIGHT IN THIS ELECTION -- WITHOUT A-N-Y DOUBT.
The paper has been a commie rag for years. They endorsed Carter against Reagan etc.
The dead must be rising from graves in Vancouver, Washington, for the Columbian to endorse George W. Bush.
Try adding a couple of commas or dashes and it will parse much better: "...somewhat--but not at all directly--related to terrorism."
"Many Americans hoped some magical candidate would appear with better answers to ending the insurgent uprising in Iraq, curbing terror worldwide and offering promising plans for domestic issues such as health care, the national deficit and a flawed tax system."
"magical candidate"?!? Sorry boys and girls, but this is hard, cold reality. Islamic nuts are desperate to kill every Christian and Jew, AND destroy the freedoms we have grown so accustomed to! There is NO ONE [not even Hillary] who has a magic wand that will cure this country's problems.
"...has a serious credibility problem..." Yep, thanks to the MSM, Soros' billions, etc., the stalwart courage of President Bush has been spun into " serious credibility problem".
"if terror has a few successes, the rest will ALL BE ACADEMIC. "
Exactly. Here is a good summary from another article:
"Most of the people who died on 9-11 had a job with health care and retirement benefits. The air at ground zero became an environmental disaster within seconds. A strong economy depends on keeping commercial airline ballistic missiles from being launched into Wall Street. Social security is more than an adequate pension; it requires living long enough to retire. “No Child Left Behind” has taken on special meaning with the news that federal agents have advised school district officials in Georgia, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon and California that al Qaeda may have American children in their cross-hairs. The most important thing isn’t finding WMDs in Iraq—it’s not finding them here.
On November 2, keep in mind what mattered most on 9-11."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1240906/posts
Really? Ver-r-r-r-r-y interesting! I grew up in SE WA, in the Tri-Cities, but haven't lived there for 16 years. Wonder if the TC Herald will come around?
"The dead must be rising from graves in Vancouver, Washington, for the Columbian to endorse George W. Bush."
Yes, I agree. While not a resident of that area, I travel on biz to Vancouver and Portland alot. I talk with many people and occasionally look at the "FISH WRAPPER" on the Portland side...The Oregonian newswpaper, for those not familiar with it. Totally leftist news rag and state government...and they wonder why they have problems...
It is absolutely great to see this happening on the Washington side...I know many residents there who are probably very elated!!!!
That's the flavor I got, that they are coming from an "anyone, but Bush" stance, but had just enough common sense left, that despite of their ideological notions, they realize that BUSH IS THE RIGHT LEADER, AT THE RIGHT TIME, AT THE RIGHT PLACE, AS PRESIDENT OF THE US.
Don't they realize that even if terrorists kill them, they may still be able to register and vote?
Nope. Doesn't work for me. Those are not either/or propositions.
Maybe if it said, "somewhat, but not entirely...."
But even then, the addition of "but not entirely" would be superfluous. Somewhat by its very definition means "not entirely".
This is just plan lousy writing.
No, what it means is that the OWNER of the paper told them to endorse Bush and the EDITORS of the paper were forced to write an editorial they don't agree with.
Actually, this happens a lot. A nutso left-wing whack-job paper actually endorses the Republican they all despise. It's because the guy that signs the checks made them do it.
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.