OR: Isn't the Election in the Fall?
Many people seem to have made up their mind on who they will cast their vote for in November in the Presidential election. This may have to do with a primary season that was over by early April and an incumbent who went unchallenged. However, it seems to me that making up one's mind about voting 5 months early makes for an even more divisive situation in a country that needs, if anything, much more solid information about candidate's abilities and platform for the next four years than we have now.
President Bush has led the U.S. for the last 4 years in a constant test of his leadership. Like him or loath him, you have to admit he tried to do what he believed was the right thing given the situation he was in. That doesn't mean I agreed with either his approach or the results of his leadership, just that giving credit where credit is due is important in consideration of his record and this election seems to be more about the President than the democratic candidate.
The negatives for Mr. Bush are that he has surrounded himself with a group of people that I find untrustable and at times, self-absorbed. These would include both the Attorney General who seems to enjoy parading in front of cameras to tell us what we already know and the Secretary of Defense who has not, to many people's satisfaction, explained how the Abu Gharib attrocities occured so obviously in plain site of so many intelligence officers for so long with nothing being done. The recent spate of memos seem also to give credence to the idea that the Defense Department was well aware of the practices that were used and yet Mr. Rumsfeld continues to deadpan the reporters and act as if they have no right to ask him questions about the accusations.
The Secretary of State is an interesting case in this administration that should note some consideration. General Powell is a man of integrity and virtue who seems to have been put out with the empty milk bottles at the White House as if he was a disappointment to the President. Powell, who stated the case to the U.N. and then said later that much of the information was flawed is now the conservatives whipping boy for admitting something we all know was true. Much of the information was flawed and provided by men like Mr. Chalabi who purposely fed it to the administration to get us to attack. When men like Powell make their intention to not serve in the second administration, that should tell us something about whether there is any sense of balance in the offing for foreign policy.
What do we know about Mr. Kerry, the democrat? Well, he served in Viet Nam, honorably and was awarded medals for valor and bravery. He has served in the Senate, mostly in the shadow of Ted Kennedy and not made any real trouble for anyone in his many years. This isn't unusual, after all, name 10 senators out of 100 currently serving who have made "trouble." Perhaps the question should be "name 10 senators," period. He is pro-choice, Catholic, and more likely to seek international solutions to the Middle East situation than Mr. Bush, that is, the second Mr. Bush. The first President Bush would not move forward without an international coalition.
Mr. Kerry is probably more pragmatic than the current president, has shown signs he would try to bring back a "Clintonesque" economic team (now them were the good old days in the stock market) and try to move the U.S. back to a traditional stance of leadership (by consensus) in the world.
Still, all this said, I don't think there is enough on either man to vote yet. For one thing, many issues await resolution in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secondly, platforms are still not in place and we don't know the candidates' official stand on issues such as health care, immigration, education and even homeland security.
I urge you my fellow voters (tongue now in cheek) to rest your voting fingers, firmly placed in neutral and consider, consider, consider.
It's a long way to November...