Kerry the Lesser

One of my dearest friends in the entire world who is a liberal in every good sense of that word, compassionate, tolerant, giving, and free of bigotry, sent me a link to an article on Salon.com that lays out the reasons Why Conservatives Must not Vote for Bush. The author's reasons boil down to the following:

1. Bush isn't a true conservative, which is defined as "a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility", but rather puts power over principle.
2. Bush is running us into debt and the red ink is flowing mightily.
3. Kerry has more war experience. (Yeah, I got a chuckle outta that too!)
4. Bush's foreign policy has failed (no WMD, Iraq in shambles, Taliban virtually back in control of Afghanistan, no Osama stuffed and mounted in the Lincoln Bedroom, etc. etc.)

After reading it, I still remain firmly in W's camp, and he is going to get my vote. There are three things I want in a President in the following order:

1. A Foreign Policy Hawk who will carpet bomb the bejeezus out of anyone who looks at the U.S. cross-eyed (including France). This attribute is non-negotiable.
2. A Social Libertarian (not l-i-b-e-r-a-l, there's a difference, look'em up).
3. A Fiscal Conservative. This can take a backseat if it conflicts with #1 or #2.

Does Bush fit any of these categories perfectly? Nope. Does Kerry? NOPE!

The money quote from the article is:

A Kerry victory would likely be bad for the cause of individual liberty and limited government. But based on the results of his presidency, a Bush victory would be catastrophic.

I'm puzzled by the author's logic. He seems to be exhorting conservatives to "deny their votes to Bush" because voting for W. would be very, very, very bad for the country, but voting for Kerry would only be very, very bad for the country. Apparently with a candidate like Kerry, you play the hand you're dealt.

I do think there are liberals out there who understand the defining issue of this generation, and Ed Koch is one of them. Here's his refreshing take on our situation:

What has propelled me to the side of President Bush is his resolute, uncompromising behavior and dedication to winning the war against terrorism. In last Friday's debate, the president summed up his philosophy in three sentences. He said: "And abroad we are at war. And it requires a president who is steadfast and strong and determined. I vowed to the American people after that fateful day of September the 11th that we would not rest nor tire until we're safe."

Senator John Kerry summed up his philosophy and lack of dedication to the fight in the first presidential debate when he called the war in Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," and "But if and when you do it, Jim [Lehrer], you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test, where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

If Senator John Kerry is elected, I have no doubt our determination to hunt down terrorists who threaten the security not only of the U.S. but also of our allies will diminish. Terrorists have had major successes in imposing their demands on nations like Spain, the Philippines and Turkey, all of which have given in to terrorist threats by removing military or civilian personnel from Iraq.

When I make these points to my fellow Democrats living in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio (the latter of which I will be visiting this week), they respond, "Yes, but we disagree with the president on so many domestic issues." I, too, disagree with the president on every major domestic issue, from taxes to Social Security. Yet I believe those issues are trumped by the overriding need to defeat international terrorism, the biggest threat to our freedom.

Fortunately, in the U.S., it is the Congress that decides all of these domestic issues, while the foreign policy of our country is largely the province of the president. So, my advice to my fellow Democrats is vote for your Democratic senators and representatives, knowing that even when it comes to the selection of U.S. Supreme Court justices, if the Democrats in the Senate retain 41 votes, no candidate they oppose can be confirmed.

It is my hope that history will record that in the year 2005, Western civilization soundly defeated the Islamist fanatics, as it did at the gates of Vienna in 1683.

Four more years...four more years...four more years...