Posted on 10/15/2004 5:39:13 AM PDT by crushkerry
What? You think because of our site name, our endorsement for President is going to be biased? Well you would be right. We are biased. The only difference between us and let's say, oh, The New York Times, is that we're not going to insult your intelligence and pretend to be non-partisan.
The whole purpose for starting this site was to do our little part in ensuring that John Kerry never became President of the United States. And for nearly a year we've been pointing out - or beating into your head - the many reasons why we don't think he's fit to be dog catcher let alone President. We're going to briefly touch on those many reasons later in the endorsement.
However, unlike over half of John Kerry supporters we're just not voting against something. We can tell you why we're voting for President Bush more than we're voting against John Kerry. While we'd vote for a potted plant over John Kerry, we're far from the right wing equivalent of the "Anybody But Bush" voter. We actually believe in what President Bush is trying to accomplish. Not 100% of the time, as we also point out below, but there is far more reasons to vote for Bush than there are to vote against Kerry.
So it's without further adieu that we issue our first ever endorsement for President of the United States.
It is, to borrow a phrase from the Speaker of the House, our high honor and distinct privilege to endorse President George W. Bush for a second term as President of the United States.
Our endorsement is based on one overriding event, which really trumps any other issue - 9/11. Not the actual event, but President Bush's response to it and his strategy for doing all he can to ensure that such heinous mass murder never again reaches our shore.
It is often said that a moment makes the man. Would we be endorsing President Bush so strongly if 9/11 never happened? We wish we knew. We'd much rather go back to worrying about such trivial issues as school uniforms, teenage smoking, and how much money to spend on this or that domestic program. But history did not give us, or President Bush, that luxury. Instead, in one day mass murderers with an ideology of hate forever transformed our nation, the Presidency of George W. Bush, and how we judge all those who want to be President in the future.
Within days of that vicious and unprovoked act of war (we don't use such trite and PC words as "tragedy" - a hurricane or tornado is a "tragedy") President Bush laid out what we feel is the best way to guard against such future attacks - the doctrine of preemption. The President is often criticized by the mainstream press and academic types for seeing the world in black and white and not shades of gray. To that criticism we say "Thank God".
The President sees this for what it is - a war. We are engaged in a winner take all struggle between the forces of good and the evil of Islamofascists. We prefer President Bush's policy of hunting down and killing these animals - in as great a number as possible - before they hit us. We saw the horror of 9/11. We pray not to see Chapter 2.
The President clearly sees that in this war there is no room for negotiation, no room for talk and idle threats, and most importantly no need to kow tow to the global organizations and nations (save Saudi Arabia) that excuse and secretly root for these murderous animals. The President and his advisors have clearly seen the mistakes of the past (from both parties) and that allowing threats to gather until they are imminent is an invitation to disaster. He realizes that the only way to prevent that is to hit them first and hit them hard because dead terrorists can't kill Americans. We have no doubt that the President wakes up every day asking himself how to keep us safe and prevent another 9/11.
We also think it's a fair question to ask who Osama Bin Laden and his ilk are rooting for in this election. In fact, that's the only questions anyone should ask. We're pretty sure the answer isn't George W. Bush. For all their rhetoric about wanting to visit Allah for 72 virgins these lunatics know that it will be harder to accomplish that mission so long as George W. Bush is President of the United States. We also think it is telling that since that awful day no similar attacks have occurred. You think that's for lack of trying or desire? We don't. We think that George Bush's aggressive and offensive terror policy has disrupted the terrorist network so much that instead of figuring out how to fly planes into buildings, they're wondering if their next safe house is going to get blasted by a Predator missile.
The war in Iraq is central to the war on terror, and a perfect illustration of why we support the President. Let's look at the facts. One year after 3,000 Americans were slaughtered by 19 men with box cutters let's look at what the President was staring at. The President had intelligence from every source that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The same Saddam who invaded Kuwait in 1991 and was later found to have an advanced WMD program. The same Saddam who gassed the Kurds with those weapons. The same Saddam who refused to abide by 17 UN Resolutions to disarm and kicked out weapons inspectors in 1998. The same Saddam who was bribing the UN and its member nations to lift the sanctions. The same Saddam who was harboring Abu Nidal and other terrorists. The same Saddam who was paying $25,000 to terrorist suicide bombers. And the same Saddam who was a sworn enemy of the United States.
Faced with all that, and quickly having grasped the lessons of 9/11 President Bush gave Saddam the ultimatum that should have been given years ago - either disarm, account for the weapons you say you destroyed or be overthrown. Saddam didn’t' listen and George Bush showed him that he meant business. But more importantly President Bush showed other wannabe Saddams that their reign could be short if they defied the President on issues of American national security. As Mark Steyn said - we don't fight in Iraq so we have to fight everywhere else. We fight in Iraq so we don't have to fight everywhere else. For Exhibit "A" of the consequences of this statement see Libya, who gave up their WMD and nuclear components without a shot being fired.
Are there some things we wish would have gone better in Iraq? Sure. Did we go in with enough troops initially? Did we have a perfect post war plan? Obviously not, but as the military says, no plan survives the first encounter with the enemy. There may be problems with the specifics, but the decision to go to war was 100% the right one, and even knowing then would we know now would not change that decision.
Was there a massive intelligence failure? Absolutely, but the Duelfer report actually bolstered the correctness of the President's decision. We know the Iraqi's had the systems in place to quickly stockpile WMD's once the sanctions were lifted - and Saddam was bribing everyone to get rid of the sanctions. So suppose Iraq was 5-10 years away from reconstituting their stockpiles. Why is there a need to apologize for that. Better you kill the mugger coming out of his house to buy bullets rather than when the loaded gun is at your head.
The decision to invade Iraq, whether you feel it was right or wrong (we think it was necessary) is a decision which, President Bush alone deserve the credit or blame. Has it, as some claimed escalated the stakes in this global war against terror, inspiring some who perhaps previously had not been so inspired, to hate and kill Americans? Perhaps. But declaring war on Japan meant declaring war on Germany, too. And the stakes in this war are no less dire than in World War II. The President made the only responsible choice left available by the terrorists. We don't want, and never wanted to be at war. But since we must be, let us have at the helm a man who recognizes the threat and understands the enemy and the stakes we face.
Further, we at crushkerry.com are not neo-cons in the strictest sense of the world. But neither are we anti neo-cons (a good number of whom we simply call "anti-Semites", and no, we're not Jewish). Do we know whether the President's overall strategy bid to bring democracy to some of the sandpits of the fourth-world sandpits with insane religious ideologues will eventually succeed? Who knows? Much of that answer will depend on whether or not those people in those sandpits are willing to fight for themselves to join the 21st century. But the attempt by the President to bring them freedom, which we think every human being strives for, is the only hope that part of the world has to right itself.
On the domestic side we feel the President offers far more to offer to Americans than John Kerry. First, he deserves a great deal of credit for the signature domestic accomplishment of his first term - the two largest tax cuts in American history. Not only were these tax cuts necessary to lessen the impact of the recession he inherited, they are what kept us from near financial ruin after the combination of 9/11, corporate scandal, and the bursting of the technology bubble.
The tax cuts also illustrate the President's idea of an "ownership society" whereby people get to keep more of what they own, which makes them less dependent on government. From the creation of Health Savings Accounts to what we hope is the signature domestic achievement of his second term - a path to privatization of social security - the President's goal of giving Americans more of a stake in their financial future is a laudable and conservative goal.
On social issues we also feel that the President is the far better choice to lead the nation. To put it bluntly, he's pro-life and we are strong believers that abortion will be looked at in 100 years just as we look at slavery today. A horrible scar on the history of a nation. The idea of 1 million children killed a year is simply horrifying. The next President will likely get to reshape the Supreme Court. The appointment of strict constructionists would hopefully ensure and end to this judicially sanctioned barbarism.
But in the meantime the President was smart enough to realize Roe v. Wade was not going to be overturned. So he skillfully went about signing legislation like the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and the Conner Peterson Act, all of which chip away at Roe because with each such pieces of legislation (which nearly everyone agrees on), it gets harder and harder to not consider the fetus as a human being. Someday a brilliant jurist will use the logic of a 4 year old and figure out abortion is simply the killing of a human being.
The other hot social issue is gay marriage. Our conservative leanings on this issue are to let the state legislatures of each state decide whether or not their population wants it. We certainly would vote against it, but if Massachusetts wants to go ahead and destroy a sacred institution that's been the building block of a stable society for thousands of years, well then, they just might be free to do that. Just so long as they don't make those of us in other states recognize it. And herein lies the problem. It is the judicial tyranny of unelected judges that is forcing this issue upon us, especially since it would never be accomplished through the people. It is the issue of such judicial tyranny that the President has come down for an amendment to ban gay marriage. Again, this was not an issue he asked for, but one that was forced on him by outsiders - the MA Supreme Court. And to keep them from making a mockery of the separation of powers, such an amendment is the only logical alternative.
Domestically, we share the frustrations voiced by some long-standing conservative stalwarts. This administration (oh God, we sound like John Kerry) spends too much money and has abandoned the founding idea that the government which governs least governs best. The federal government can no more fix our local schools and administer healthcare programs than it can cure poverty or win the war on drugs, two things it has promised but failed to do for almost half a century now.
The increase in non-defense discretionary spending (like the bloated 2002 Farm Bill) is indefensible, especially for a conservative. Perhaps the darkest day was the implementation of a new giveaway under Medicare, for which we will paying large sums in perpetuity. Giving more money to the black hole-like rat's nest that is the Department of Education was utterly mind boggling and disappointing. The Campaign Finance Law he signed was the biggest abridgment of the First Amendment we've ever seen, and his steel tariffs were a blatant vote buying scheme.
But there is something offensive to liberal Democrats in each of these big spending programs that brings us hope. Planted deep into each Bush program is a seed, which - given proper sunlight and plenty of water - could one day blossom into a full-fledged market-based reform that would inexorably alter the way we finance government programs. This is good. But it will require men of such vision and fortitude as President Bush in subsequent presidencies to see these reforms through. Reelecting George W. Bush to a second term is a start.
As promised, we are going to mention John Kerry in this endorsement. So here it goes. He's an f-ing idiot, and if you vote for him so are you.
While that is true, we do like to go a little more in-depth here. Granted the best way for you to see for yourself what we think about why Kerry is so bad is to read all of our articles. If you've been reading this site for 10 minutes and can't see all the ways he's so putrid then you're either beyond help, clueless or both.
We'll try to put it as simply as we can and come back to where we stated. John Kerry has a Sept. 10, 2004, mindset. His statements about being "uncomfortable" in calling the war on terror a "war", his contention that the terror war is "primarily a law enforcement issue", his claim that we need to fight a more "sensitive" war on terror, his "global test" requirements, his reluctance to use US power when needed, and his desire to make terrorism a "nuisance", are about all we need to hear. Further, his insistence on reliance on corrupt, weak and utterly useless "allies" is very disquieting. But his record during the Cold War also showed that he's been on the wrong side of history his whole career. He was for a nuclear freeze, against weapons systems and intelligence spending (even after the WTC 1993 bombing), was against fighting Communism in Central America, and cozying up to dictators, were policies that would still have us begging a Communist Soviet Union not to scare us.
His multiple positions on Iraq are also beyond our comprehension. Rather than go through all the contortions one by one (you can do that by going to this article, , or this one, or even this one as well as countless others we've written over the last year), we think it's best summarized by the President who said "how can you lead a war you don't believe in".
On economic and social issues, we need not go into detail other than to say that John Kerry is a typical Massachusetts liberal. He has a long record of supporting tax increases, increasing the size and scope of government (at an even larger rate than President Bush), and his answer to the dilemma of health care is more government funding, and his refusal to let us keep more of our own social security money is typical of his ilk. On social issues, we can't imagine supporting anyone that does not oppose the barbarous practice of partial birth abortion or refuses to protect babies in the womb against harm, even when he himself believes it's a human being. In short, you can tell what's important to him, by looking at the issues that caused him to actually show up and vote this year, which was a very rare occurrence.
Look folks, we always hate it when liberals tell us we need to do things and spend money "for our children". But in a post 9/11 world that is our main concern. The safety of our children and loved ones and desire that they never again see a 9/11. Nobody can guarantee that, but some people can make it likely than others. For that, and all the above reasons, we proudly endorse George W. Bush for President of the United States.
biblewonk; Grampa Dave; JPJones; LincolnLover; jmstein7; backinthefold; .cnI redruM; Lazamataz; lilylangtree; OxeninFLA; Badeye; K1avg; silverleaf; CaptRon; Indie; Piranha; ken5050; Diva Betsy Ross; Aeronaut
Sorry, I meant "Ping".
LOL!..............I think I've done that before too..
Whew, I've been concerned about whether we'd get the Crushkerry.com endorsement for a while now.
ROFL, you beat me to it.
Kudos to crushkerry.com,
Mike
thank you. We tried to be as non-partisan as we possible could and be honest about what we like and don't like.
Bump!
If anything is sure to swing the undecideds, it's the fact that crushkerry ultimately came down on the President's side. Who woulda thunk it?
Once again portraying himself as a pro-gun-rights candidate, Kerry insisted, "I am a hunter. I'm a gun owner. I've been a hunter since I was a kid, 12, 13 years old. And I respect the Second Amendment and I will not tamper with the Second Amendment."
"Sorry, Senator, but that claim does not pass the smell test," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "One look at Mr. Kerry's record on gun control proves that actions speak louder than words. Over the years, there is not a single gun control proposal which Sen. Kerry did not support. He backed the Brady Law, part of which was found unconstitutional. He supported the Clinton semi-auto ban, an issue that cost his party control of Congress. He supported a proposal earlier this year that would have banned virtually every centerfire hunting rifle cartridge in the country. He backs legislation that would effectively ban all semi-auto shotguns, including the one he held in front of an audience in West Virginia on Labor Day.
"Senator, when you vote to restrict the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms," Gottlieb observed, "you are tampering with the Second Amendment. When you support bans on certain firearms because of cosmetics you don't like, you are tampering with the Second Amendment. When you proclaim that you are a hunter, believing that gives you legitimacy in the shooting community, you are demonstrating that you don't have a clue what the Second Amendment is all about.
"And when you say you respect the Second Amendment," Gottlieb added, "you conveniently don't explain whether you respect some silly notion that it allows states to establish national guard units, or that you unflinchingly believe that it guarantees – not grants – the right of an individual citizen to own any kind of firearm he or she wants.
"And when you said, Sen. Kerry, that you ‘would not roll back any constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment or a woman's right to choose,' you skipped over the Second Amendment," Gottlieb concluded, "because you've been trying to roll the Second Amendment right off a cliff since you were elected 20 years ago."
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.
Brilliant post.
Crushkerry endorses BUSH? Odd, with a name like Crushkerry, I'd have thought...
Is this in breaking news?
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.