Posted on 11/01/2004 2:00:09 AM PST by LowCountryJoe
Most of the nation's newspapers, in their endorsement editorials, seem to have spent more words on the shortcomings of the man they are blessing than on either praising him or condemning his opponent. This seems to be true regardless of their choice.
I, on the other hand, am positively for George W. Bush.
I just don't think he has all that many shortcomings. I think he has been an outstanding president, and would deserve enthusiastic support even if his opponent were vastly more qualified for the job than John Kerry is.
Part of my enthusiastic support is based on the fact that I believe in politics.
Some conservatives don't. They want a Simon-pure conservative candidate, who would rather be right than be President. That's baloney. If you want the Republican equivalent of Dennis Kucinich for your candidate, you'll wait forever to win.
I want a man who knows how the system works, keeps his eye on the main chance and knows when to make a strategic retreat. Given the times, I say Bush has played the system masterfully, and that's the only way to lead.
Ask yourself this: with the nation famously divided almost precisely 50-50 in every measure since Bush arrived on the national stage, how come the Republicans have won so many elections? How come his party, Bush's party, has majorities in both houses, as well as among Governors and state legislators? How come in 2002, the party in the White House beat longstanding tradition and actually gained seats in Congress?
Let's consider just two instances where Bush did things that conservatives like me might reasonably complain about: the 2002 farm bill and the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill.
The farm bill was a bad piece of legislation; in signing it, Bush caved to the ag lobby. But the nation will survive, and if Bush had vetoed it, he wouldn't stand a chance of winning the farm belt states that are so critical tomorrow. Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri would be colored blue on every prognosticator's map, and they'd still be that hue Wednesday morning. So you've got your choice: five years of a bad farm bill or four years of John Kerry. That's a no-brainer.
McCain-Feingold is an even clearer case. I have no inside information whatsoever, but I'm here to tell you that was the price of John McCain's support. And we now know that Kerry really, really wanted McCain as his Vice President. Kerry- McCain beats Bush-Cheney like a bass drum, not only because of the Arizona Senator's inherent appeal to precisely the kind of voters who might have gone either way, but also because he would not have taken the spot on the ticket without major concessions from Kerry, which, regardless of the details of the deal, would have surely resulted in a more moderate Kerry campaign than the Michael Moorish mess we have seen.
Locking up McCain's support was a brilliant political move, and Bush is to be applauded for making it, notwithstanding the awfulness of the legislation.
Bush has put himself in position to win tomorrow, and we should all be damned glad he did.
Skillful politics isn't always combined with matters of immense importance, but in this case it is. Bush understands that this election is bigger than just a quadrennial political contest. In the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks – perhaps even in those famous seven minutes in the schoolroom, the ones that trouble Moore so much – the imperative came to him, and came to him whole: the future of western civilization was in his hands.
Moreover, Bush had the intellect to see beyond the tactics, and the strategy, and perceive the imperative new grand strategy of American foreign policy – a bedrock commitment that would replace the successfully concluded Cold War. I have called it the secularization of Islamia.
This is a much broader objective than the defeat of terrorism, and Bush understood that from the beginning. He also understood it would be hard. It would involve setbacks and detours, one of which was the absolute necessity of a regime change in Iraq. It would result in people screaming at us, protestors protesting, pointy- headed intellectuals wagging their fingers. Just like the Cold War. And just like the Cold War, he saw that we would win, if we only had the fortitude to stay the course.
Electing John Kerry this year will have the same effect on this grand strategy that electing Henry Wallace in 1948 would have had on the Cold War. But given another Bush term, the new policy may well become settled bipartisan (and public) understanding.
President Bush has had the intellectual capacity to grasp the revolutionary concept of an entirely new foreign policy and has had the political courage and skill to keep it alive to this very Monday.
"Some conservatives don't. They want a Simon-pure conservative candidate, who would rather be right than be President. That's baloney. If you want the Republican equivalent of Dennis Kucinich for your candidate, you'll wait forever to win."
How true
This is the perfect argument for Arnold Schwarzeneger. A Republican (and opportunist) who could win in the country's most Rat infested state.
Bush, however, was already in office when he began his spree of unbelievable fiscal irresponsibility.
So from me he still gets a qualified endorsement. His hagiographers have wasted their time on this voter.
I predict a Kerry victory. I think Bush and Rove have played it too close and it's finally, at the point most critical to America and the world, it's finally going bite them.
I have a quiet confidence and faith that Bush will prevail.
NO COMPLACENCY! VOTE!
I agree..
He was also already running for reelection. And his reelection became very important on Sep 11, 2001.
I agree and that man is George Bush. He is a man for such a time as this. There is one thing that gives me peace about this election is knowing that The Battle is the Lord's and not mine. I will do all that I can to fight.
Yes, indeedy. It gives them an excuse not to work too hard for what they want. Working within the system is hard and demanding.
They're quitters, basically.
GWB truly is brilliant. He knows what to do and how to do it. He is not an orator, but neither is Kerry. Kerry is not brilliant.....he is just driven by self promotion, vanity, and survival instincts at any cost....even by selling out his country and the men and women who defend her.
With Kerry, it is all about HIM. With Bush, it is all about HIS COUNTRY.
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.