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 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 27, 2004
Beautifully written and reasoned, CrispE.

One paragraph caught me completely:

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.


I admit, I used to be an ABBA person. I despaired when Kerry emerged as the front runner of the Dems. I worried that he was not the best choice. At the DNC, I first started getting an inkling that I could support Kerry qua Kerry and actually be proud, but his campaign strategies could still, well, puzzle me. Then in the debates I started to feel that he wasn't just the lesser of two evils but a real "Presidential" candidate -- and not Presidential for silly "atmospheric" reasons, but Presidential for his arguments, his grasp of current conditions, and his plans for addressing those conditions (many of which you name above). And then, the icing on the cake: I saw "Going Upriver." Yeah, its a decidely pro-Kerry film, but I appreciated its understatedness. It wasn't just a rehashing of his military service, but more about his emergence as an activist in the VVAW. And it never acknowledged the current election, but remained almost exclusively focused on the 60s and early 70s. It left it up to the viewer to make the connections between this outspoken activist/war veteran and his qualifications for being President. Again, not just "atmospheric" and "non-verbal" reasons, but solid reasoning and advocacy that I feel I can personally get behind.

So I guess it is no suprise that I am voting for Kerry. What is important, though, is that I no longer feel like I am just voting against Bush.
on Oct 28, 2004
Bungy32:

Well, I also was skeptical at first but the more we get into the final stretch, the more apparent how much better a candidate Kerry is!
on Oct 28, 2004
drmiler:

Neither candidate has a paucity of supporters. Does it impress you even in the slightest that the large majority of newspapers support Kerry or do you see it as pandering? I mean, you wouldn't call Newsmax fair, would you?
on Oct 28, 2004
Grim:

As you know I have nothing against voting for 3rd parties and indeed if you think Bednarik represents your views, go for it!
on Oct 28, 2004

Reply #18 By: CrispE - 10/28/2004 2:20:55 PM
drmiler:

Neither candidate has a paucity of supporters. Does it impress you even in the slightest that the large majority of newspapers support Kerry or do you see it as pandering? I mean, you wouldn't call Newsmax fair, would you?


No it doesn't impress me. You may not think NewsMax is fair but then I don't think the others are fair either.
on Oct 28, 2004
You may not think NewsMax is fair but then I don't think the others are fair either.


he he he . . . I used to get NewsMax. It's a completely biased source. Nothing wrong with you wanting to read news from the point of view of like-minded people, but you do realize that it's biased, right?
on Oct 28, 2004

Reply #21 By: Texas Wahine - 10/28/2004 2:56:28 PM
You may not think NewsMax is fair but then I don't think the others are fair either.


he he he . . . I used to get NewsMax. It's a completely biased source. Nothing wrong with you wanting to read news from the point of view of like-minded people, but you do realize that it's biased, right?


Check statement again. I never said they weren't but I feel like the rest are biased also.
on Oct 28, 2004
Check statement again. I never said they weren't but I feel like the rest are biased also.


I get the impression from your liberal use of NewsMax as a source for your arguments that you do find it to be fair and unbiased. Of course, there's no way everyone's going to agree on which sources are "OK" and which are not. Round and round it goes . . . where it stops, nobody knows!
on Oct 28, 2004

Reply #23 By: Texas Wahine - 10/28/2004 3:06:01 PM
Check statement again. I never said they weren't but I feel like the rest are biased also.


I get the impression from your liberal use of NewsMax as a source for your arguments that you do find it to be fair and unbiased. Of course, there's no way everyone's going to agree on which sources are "OK" and which are not. Round and round it goes . . . where it stops, nobody knows!


I also use Fox but have been told that it too is biased. Fine. Ok. But the big 3 are *just* as bad on the other side. (ABC,NBC, CBS)
2 Pages1 2