What do you call a presidential candidate that lacks a valid agenda? Answer: John Kerry. It really blows my mind that anyone would vote for Mr. Kerry. Moreover, I still cannot grasp how someone with almost no
political credentials could get the Democratic nomination. After all, Kerry has been in the Senate for a little under 20 years and aside from voting
against every cutting edge weapon that our military now uses (stealth bomber, Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-15 Eagle to name a few), he hasn't done jack shit. The Kerry campaign does realize this, however, and that is why nothing is ever mentioned about his years in the Senate.
So given the situation, what kind of issue(s) would Kerry run on in an attempt to win the presidency? That's the funny thing about this race: besides his plan for taxing the hell out of the rich (see my July 27 post for why that doesn't work), he does not have any issues. Kerry and 99.9% of the people who are voting for him are just trying to get a man named George W. Bush out of office. Why, u may ask? Well, it's obviously because Bush is a
"moronic, fascist, and evil" man who "invades small countries on a whim and is looking to destroy the poor and middle class".
These are just some of the accusations I have seen launched at the president.
Moronic? Bush had higher SAT scores than JFK and people never had any problem with his intelligence level.
Fascist? I believe Saddam Hussein was a fascist; Bush took him out of power. This is what really makes me sick. There have been very few legitimate accusations against Bush. Instead, logical arguments and issues have been replaced by empty liberal rhetoric. I would have to say the best example of this was the movie
Fahrenheit 9/11. Even more saddening, is the candidate the Democrats have selected to run against Bush.
Who would have thought that a candidate could run solely on the "credentials" of having won 3 Purple Hearts. I find it especially childish that his campaign has made his war record an issue, but they attack anyone that calls it into question. There is no plan for foreign policy, no plan for keeping the economy afloat, and no plan for Iraq. In addition, he doesn't have any experience with these issues (I might add, though, that Bush has been dealing with them for the past 3 years). Even more interesting is the fact that Kerry now touts himself as a war hero in Vietnam, yet after he had gotten back from 'Nam he went on a tyrade of accusing the very men who he fought with of wartime atrocities. Moreover, the criticism that Kerry directs at Bush is even more ludicrous. First, he attacked Bush for going to Iraq. Now,
he admits that it was the right decision, regardless of a lack of WMD evidence.
I know that many people disagree with some of Bush's policies. Personally, I think that "No Child Left Behind" is the biggest piece of shit I've ever seen when it comes to education reform. I also disagree with Bush's idea of legalization of illegal immigrants. However, I think that there are bigger issues in play right now. Our country is just now emerging out of recession and doing so fairly well thanks to tax cuts and an increase in jobs. Also, a country has been liberated from years of oppression under a fascist dictator and it is important that democracy is established there as it could possibly lead to an even further spread of democracy in the Middle East. Freedom is a beautiful thing that we Americans cherish, and yet there are many in our country who are trying to undermine its birth in Iraq. Some may disagree with the way in which we went into Iraq. But to disagree with the liberation of an entire nation from a fascist regime is, in my opinion, absolutely absurd. Neither Kerry, nor Gore, nor Hillary would have had the courage to do such an act. Nor do any of them have what it takes to finish the job. However, it is my opinion that Bush does. Come November, I hope everyone who will best lead our nation to prosperity, and Iraq's as well.
