John Kerry For President
by Scott Holleran
“Each argument against Kerry—liberal, willing to yield to the United Nations, eager to expand government—applies to Bush first. Kerry’s agenda may meet resistance in Congress, which blocked Truman’s and Clinton’s socialized medicine; Bush’s faith-based domestic and foreign policy will spread.
Should Sen. Kerry enact his worst war views (including globalism and his anti-nuclear notions) he, too, will fail to win the war, but he will have failed without having his policies wrongly branded an offense. Without the facade of strength, Kerry’s appeasement will be judged as appeasement and Kerry’s presidency holds the faint promise of gridlock in government intervention and an end to America’s sacrifice in Iraq.
Bush the cowboy is a fraud—these war years have been one appeasement after another—and the enemy knows it. As the head of Iran’s war council, endorsing Bush over Kerry, said: “[D]espite his hard line and baseless rhetoric against Iran, he didn’t take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran.” That is exactly why George W. Bush, who refuses to properly define, declare, wage and win the war against Islamism, must not be re-elected.”
Read the whole article here: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4003
Wouldn’t providing comfort to the enemy during the Vietnam war stop you from voting for him?
If I thought you had read any of the reasons I’ve posted, I’d reply properly.
I haven’t. I was just giving my own reasons for not supporting Kerry.
Bush has shown, by “groveling” before the U.N., that the U.N. is pointless. He’s shown that peace doesn’t come from just talking, but from acting. The American people can see that he spent allot of time trying to convince the U.N. to do what was right, and that Bush will not rush to war, but take the time to try to convince others to see that he is right. He only went to war when it was apparent that the U.N. wasn’t going to go with him. That doesn’t show weakness, that shows strength. He was trying to make the coalition stronger. He let the U.N. kill itself through its inability to act. He was showed that America is stronger then the U.N. and that we don’t need it. Do you really think Kerry would do that? Do you think Kerry would put more pressure on Iran and North Korea? He has proposed less pressure. Bush is trying to threaten North Korea. He’s putting pressure on them until he has to go and fight them. If you threaten a country with military action, and show, as Bush has done with Iraq, that you will follow up on your threats, the enemy has a very good chance of giving in. We’ll know when Iran and North Korea are eminent threats, and if we don’t the Israelis will. Israel has a history of doing our dirty work for us. Which president will do the most damage to Israel’s ability to defend itself (and us)? When Kerry gets into office and puts world pressure onto Israel, how eager are they going to be about saving our asses from Iran? They know that Iran will come for us first, but what incentive will they have to protect us? What’s ironic is that if Kerry is in office, we’ll need them.
Bush opposes abortion because he thinks it is murder, not because of Jesus, but because of rational thinking. He has rationally determined that a fetus is close enough to a baby so that killing it would be murder. Kerry also sees a fetus as a baby, but he doesn’t mind seeing a few babies die if it will get him in good with the American people.
Bush has done something that hasn’t happened for a long time in our country. He has reduced the size of the Federal Government. Somehow, this has become a bad thing to you. You criticize him for increasing the budget, yet when he cuts off federal spending for stem cell research he gets slammed for it. That’s government out of what should be the private sector. I like that. You should too. He didn’t do that based on Jesus either. He did that one based on the reasoning that makes him oppose abortion; killing babies is bad. He also did it because he wanted the government out of it.
Iran supports him because he hasn’t taken any action against them yet. Right now he’s busy talking. But sooner or later, he’ll get busy acting. He’s done it once. He’ll do it again. Last thing – have you thought that maybe Iran supports Bush because they know it will make Americans vote for Kerry? Totalitarian governments are known for using deception.
Wow, one of the first half-way decent comments I’ve had in a while. Too bad I disagree with much of it. I would like to disable anonymous comments; even a pseudo name would be more preferable. Unlike the main stream reaction, I do not think that a political disagreement is the end all in conversations as long as that person has a rational base for their conclusions.
Initially, it’s the approval of Bush “will not rush to war”. The proper reaction to Sept. 11 would have been the complete annihilation of Iran within weeks, or at least as soon as the military can get there. As a prior US Marine, I know we can get there in a matter of days. Such a reaction is a last resort, but our fucked up foreign policy for the last 50 years has led us to this. I have mentioned that I think Bush has acted better than any other candidate would have. The UN should not even be in the picture or even acknowledged by the US.
I also disagree that Bush has any plans to do anything with Iran. He is too sympathetic to their religion and he respects it. Will Kerry do anything? I think there is a better chance at it. In the very least, he doesn’t have any affection for religion other than show. I think he will act in such a way for posterity and not, as Bush, on his religious beliefs.
Israel has long acted independently. They have more respect for Bush and his Traitor of State Collin Powell. Because of this, I think they will be better off dealing with Kerry.
As for the Middle East endorsements for Bush, I do not see any attempt at deception. They state their reasons clear enough. Bush has ended the most direct threat to Iran (Saddam and the Taliban), creating a power vacuum in the area and a more open border that the Shiites have no problem taking advantage of. Iran has spent years fighting Saddam. Plus, Bush has chosen not to allow the American army to win. Other than talk, he has taken no action against Iran. They view it as I do: that Bush will not act against them. They have suffered more under Democrats than the Republicans. Clinton imposed the most sanctions and economic pressures on them. They fear, rightly, that Kerry will do the same. The Democrats are consistent insisting on human rights and Kerry will more likely get sanctions passed and bring economic pressure against Iran.
I’ll let Bush himself defend his faith against abortions from when he signed the Partial Abortion Ban Act of 2003, “This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the Creator of life.” He has also done more than doubled gov’t spending on his faith-based initiatives. It was this Democratic administration that has reduced the size of federal government to its smallest since 1960. Kerry promises to expand Federal Government spending by $2 trillion over the next decade. But Bush promises to expand Federal Government spending by $3 trillion over the same period- a whopping 33% margin. As for the abortion issue, I think I’ve blogged about it before, but just check out Abortion Rights are Pro-Life which basically lays it out clearer than I ever could.
Oh boy! Keenan thinks my comment is half-way decent! Wait until I tell my parents!
heh, drop a compliment and get burned. I must be more careful.
I was serious
you lost, but does it really upset you that much?
I lost? Jesus boy, you think I had the least hope that Kerry would get Texas?
Looks like 4 more years of building religious theocracies for our enemies and upholding the socialist agenda in the name of capitalism! All hail Pope Bush the Second!
Dear God, save me from those who believe in you.
my name isn’t Jesus, and here’s to Jeb in 2008.
Aren’t you going to write a “crazy christians” post? Did you notice that when people left, and they had to cross through the chairs, they would opt to walk in front of two people, rather then that one guy in the red jacket. Those craaaaazy christians.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4026
Do you still want Kerry, or can you not get past your fear of what Christians will do to this country? Christians may hurt the country, with them you can never be sure. Kerry, on the other hand, would have been sure to weaken this country, without a doubt.
The one thing I never said was that Kerry would do wonders for the presidency. But don’t forget Bush’s has not been good for the economy either. He has passed “socialized medicine,” raised steel tariffs, increased farm subsidies, vastly increased education spending, and increased regulations on the business community after Enron. Yet, everyone focuses on the tax cuts. These items greatly hurt the economy leaving the question open if the tax cuts were any good at all (this is something only a good economist could answer), so are we really any better off? We can be certain that Bush has hurt the economy with the steel tariffs and farm subsidies and business regulations, and know that he will continue with his religious agenda. Kerry would not have been able to do anything as president with a Republican congress. A do-nothing president is far superior to one with an agenda, especially a religious one.
I have never wanted Kerry as president. What I wanted was Bush out. I’d have voted for Michael Moore if I thought he would have beaten Pope Bush the Second. Now that’s a sick notion! But I recognize the religious authority that Bush is bringing to this great country is, by far, worse than what any despicable piece of liberal trash could do.