OR: A Final Evaluation of the Candidates
Published on October 26, 2004 By CrispE In Politics
Early this Spring, while the snow was still on the ground in New Hampshire a group of my friends was sitting around drinking coffee after church on Sunday morning discussing the primaries and what we saw as the 3 frontrunners for the Democratic nomination for President. The group thought Howard Dean was the strongest candidate because he had been most vocal against the Iraq War (which we all had supported) and was an outsider in Washington (like Bill Clinton). Most of us scoffed at the time that President Bush was a much better candidate, even though many of us, as economic conservatives, felt the growing deficit presented some problems. President Bush was confident of bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice and ending threats against the United States which we all agreed were his strongest assets. However, none of us will vote for President Bush in this election.

It has always amazed me that American politics is more about personality than issues. We, the people, were formed into a nation on the basis of issues that we had with being ruled by a foreign country. We had no issue with George III, he wasn't a tyrannical dictator and in fact, was benevolent to a large degree. We understood England felt threatened by traditional enemies Spain and France and that some sharing of the costs (the Stamp Act was levied for this purpose) was in order. It was, however, the lack of a voice, any voice in the process that so infuriated Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams that moved the colonies to independence.

Voting on the other hand, for the "Anybody But" Candidate is to me a mistake also. Those who have written passionately why either candidate is not viable should not vote for either, not the one less repugnant. A candidate that you can't be proud that you voted for doesn't deserve your vote or your trust. Vote for someone else.

John Kerry is a man whom, over the course of the summer and fall has gained my respect for how he has handled the campaign and while not a perfect candidate has several positives that really appeal to me. First, he is an economic conservative. He has relied and I have no doubt, will put in place the same team of advisors that Bill Clinton used in the 90's to reestablish America's path towards getting out of deficit and back into surplus in the next 4 years. Will he increase taxes? Yes. Will it be only on the top 1% of income earners? No.

When Bill Clinton ran in 1992 he also said he would lower taxes on the middle class. But the deficit is too much of a problem to allow it to eat $400 billion of the taxes collected per year to pay (without touching the principal). We can not have a good defense to terrorism or international threats with the deficit growing. Kerry has the strength to reestablish a pay as you go system that should have never been abandoned by President Bush.

John Kerry will be a better President for protecting the United States than President Bush. The current policy of the Bush administration is that inspecting 1 in 20 containers coming into port is sufficient to protect us. While they have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to help Iraq, you and I are at the mercy of terrorists who know the port system perhaps even better than the inspectors. The current President has got to take some responsibility for saying he is keeping us safe while a patchwork system of inspection at the borders and ports exists. How can we approve the latest request by the Defense Department for $70 billion more for just Iraq when our country is so vulnerable?

John Kerry is a better leader because he listens to those around him. Kerry has already proven an ability to work with others in the Senate from both parties. John McCain is a close friend and John McCain would get my vote if he were running for President. But the fact that a Republican who is nationally known works as well as he does with Kerry says that all of Mr. Bush's ranting and raving about Kerry's liberalism is a lie. McCain doesn't work well with Senator Kennedy. He does with John Kerry and like Bill Clinton before him who choose a Republican as Secretary of Defense (William Cohen) I believe John McCain may soon be asked to fill that role in a Kerry White House.

John Kerry presents a new direction for American workers. While watching the Canadian News last night they interviewed workers in Fort Collins, Colorado who have lost their jobs from outsourcing (from Hewlett Packard). Now, they are scrambling for any work they can find and banding together to try and find a way to reestablish community in their city. Many are voting democratic (John Kerry) for the first time in their lives. They are so worried that the American dream has passed them by.

I have visited many places in our country over the last few years. I have seen Gary, Indiana and Flint, Michigan and a Sci-Fi director who wanted to make an apocolyptic epic would need no props to shoot their movie in either place. It is unforgiveable that the current administration can talk about "economic progress" in light of the despair of these "lost cities."

I believe John Kerry will reestablish the initiative to build new American business and put people to work. I believe, like the 1990's millions of new jobs can be created with a government that keeps one eye on the checkbook and one eye on the needs of Americans.

Ultimately then, it comes down to this: John Kerry is the candidate that presents the best path for America. A man whose heart is with America and Americans, not preemptive strikes based on dubious intelligence. A man who knows that our security needs to be strengthened, not a White House that says we are safer and then lets 95% of all containers go uninspected. A man who has faith in the people of the United States, not someone who gets a briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S. Homeland" and then tells us he is our protector.

I will vote for John Kerry.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 26, 2004
If you think that either Bill Clinton or John Kerry are economic conservaties, you are in for a very rude awakening! But that is one erro ryou will pay for (literally) yourself.

As for that 1-20 containers myth, just check factcheck.org.

At least you are voting for Kerry and not Bush. Guess that took a lot of bile to swallow!
on Oct 26, 2004
Hey Crisp, don't worry about Dr. Guy -- he wants you to think that John Kerry is no better than Jeffrey Dahmer. Which must make Bush Josef Mengele or something in this game of political hyperbole.

*grin*

Vote Cannibalism! Vote Kerry!
on Oct 26, 2004
Wonderfully written article!
on Oct 26, 2004
Dr. Guy:

I have a friend who works in the port of NY, says 1 in 20 is really a high number. He told me that "inspections" most often mean "open the case" but no search of contents. So I would take the word of the "man on the scene" before any statistic. He, by the way, is also voting for Kerry.

Kerry is an economic conservative when it comes to budgets and deficits. Remember when Clinton came in, I would say the raising of taxes in 1993 that many said would destroy the economy is evidence of conservatism. Also, look at his cutting of government beauracracy in the 1990's under Clinton. All good facts that Clinton was not a "tax and spend" Democrat.
on Oct 26, 2004
Myrrander:

Well, I think Dr. Guy has strong views but so do 98% of the people voting. Personally, I think that is GREAT! I hope everyone votes and that gives the winner a mandate for doing what the people want!
on Oct 26, 2004
CrispE: "The current policy of the Bush administration is that inspecting 1 in 20 containers coming into port is sufficient to protect us."

Since you have a friend in the business, so to speak, I am sure he also told you that one of the reasons so many containers are not being inspected is because even when they have the latest X-Ray/Scanning technology (which most ports do not) the government doesn't have enough people with the proper security clearances to run them! How's THAT for homeland security?!? Instead of spending money to get this equipment in every port, hiring addional employees to run it, making sure the current employees get their security clearances, we are spending $125 billion in Iraq. It baffles the mind. I think your article is fantastically well-written! BRAVO!
on Oct 26, 2004
T-Bone4Justice:

Actually, I was told that, but my friend felt that he couldn't speak for other ports, but he complained about that and other issues that were more "we aren't trained" in nature. He also said that companies importing packages threatened to sue if their packages were "disturbed" which he took as meaning that they thought the whole system was worthless.

Of course, holding up someone's DVD in St. Louis is more important than stopping a terrorist threat, isn't it?
on Oct 26, 2004
Wise Fawn:

Thanks! (CrispE blushes with pride)
on Oct 26, 2004
Great article, CrispE.

I don't see much of a mandate coming out of this election, other than not being what the other candidate is. For an incumbent, Bush has run a campaign exceptionally focused on Kerry's flaws -- that's very unusually, and very different than what Reagan and Clinton did when they ran for re-election. If Bush wins, it'll be because he succeeded in demonizing Kerry.

Meanwhile, as is true for most challengers, Kerry's main argument has been to shine the light on the mistakes that Bush has made.

Most re-elections are referenda on the incumbents, but this election is unusual in that I think most of the votes are coming from partisan dislike of the other side's candidate. This means that no matter who wins, it'll be dishonest to claim they have a mandate.
on Oct 26, 2004
Great Great Great. I endorse CrispE, Myrrander, Blogic, TBone and some others while I take a break from writing my own articles lol. KERRY FOR PRESIDENT.
on Oct 26, 2004
This is a great article with many important points, not the least of which is my favorite: A candidate that you can't be proud that you voted for doesn't deserve your vote or your trust.. This is not only true, but also invokes a reminder of the honor associated with both voting and being voted for; it's why I'm so proud (and releived) to have a candidate to vote for this election, that I believe is honorable - a candidate that I believe.
on Oct 27, 2004
blogic:

I felt Kerry didn't just shine a light on the Bush inadequacies, but rather offered an alternative in each case. That is why, in my mind, Kerry is viable. We have his ideas as well as his passion. It's a good mix.
on Oct 27, 2004
Well, even with Kerry offering alternatives, I think voters are focused on Bush's performance, win or lose.

That said, I'm somewhat optimistic that Kerry will be a good president. Some of his flaws as a candidate (let me note, by the way, that I don't think Bush is a particularly good candidate either -- which is why he's luck to have cheerleaders like Fox News, the Drudge Report, and Rush Limbaugh) -- such as being aware of the multiple sides of an issue -- would be a good break from Bush's with-me-or-against-me'ism.

on Oct 27, 2004
Good for you, CrispE.

Though, I have decided to endorse Michael Badnarik, a man that goes down neither a left path or right path but down the correct path.

PLINKO!
on Oct 27, 2004
Reply #13 By: blogic - 10/27/2004 12:46:44 PM
Well, even with Kerry offering alternatives, I think voters are focused on Bush's performance, win or lose.

That said, I'm somewhat optimistic that Kerry will be a good president. Some of his flaws as a candidate (let me note, by the way, that I don't think Bush is a particularly good candidate either -- which is why he's luck to have cheerleaders like Fox News, the Drudge Report, and Rush Limbaugh) -- such as being aware of the multiple sides of an issue -- would be a good break from Bush's with-me-or-against-me'ism


You missed a few. Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Neil Boortz and NewsMax
2 Pages1 2