2004.10.29
Endorsement for President, 2004
I believe that George Bush winning the White House in 2004 will be worse for America than if we lost the Cold War.
I hate giving my endorsement to anyone unless I really respect the person and expect he will do the job I hope to elect him to. I am about to endorse John Kerry despite the fact that I don’t think he’s the best man for the job; he’s just the best candidate we are offered for the job.
Keeping that in mind, I do want to explain my thinking. I want the few rational people out there to understand my (hopefully) rational conclusion. You must also realize that I am not a member of any political party. This does not make me unbiased because I have definate opinions on how things should be done.
A couple days ago I wrote an entry on what the real job of the President is. I’ll be answering my own questions below.
Who is more qualified to lead the military?
The general rule of thumb is that the Republicans are better at leading the military. However, the mark of a real military leader is not only to know when to use force, but when not. The mark of a military leader is often to lead by example, but also to know when to listen to advisors.
- When America needed military leadership in Viet Nam, George Bush joined the Air National Guard; a known “safe” way of avoiding the fighting.
- George Bush never attained a leadership position, not even squadron leader, in the military.
By contrast, John Kerry did go to Viet Nam. He didn’t have to. He could have pulled a Bill Clinton and run to Oxford or some other school. He could have pulled a George Bush and joined the National Guard.
- John Kerry volunteered to go to Viet Nam because he considered it, “…an extremely important part of being in the armed forces…”
- He held leadership positions and received commendations.
The Bush Campaign will point out that upon his return he protested against military action in Viet Nam; a treachery, they say. However, John Kerry felt that our reason for being in Viet Nam was unjustified and wrong. He did what he considered right, and was a leader on both occassions. Being against a war and being for the military are not ideas in conflict and irreconcilable. It shows a person can do his military duty and stand up for his convictions at the same time.
I believe John Kerry is better qualified and able to lead the military, and will use it when necessary. For more information (though not unbiased) see this page.
Who is more qualified to interact with the world at large and create treaties in our favor?
This is a tough one to answer. Bush is likely to look after our economic interests abroad, but Kerry is likely to help repair our tarnished reputation. I think both are likely to pursue the war on terror with equal fervor, but I think Kerry is more likely to work with people rather than strong arm them. I also think that Kerry will refocus our efforts against real terrorists.
I’m going to answer my question based on who has a better chance of creating long term benefits for America, not short term temporary gains. In this I believe Kerry is the better candidate if only because I believe Bush has made such a fiasco of America’s involvement abroad. The Middle East is a hotbed of world unrest and instead of calming the situation the Bush Administration has stirred the hornets nest by invading Iraq and not searching for a balanced solution to the Israel/Palestine situation.
A telling sign is the friction between Secretary of State Colin Powell and the rest of the Bush Administration. I think it is time for some new and fresh perspectives in our foreign policy, though I would not be opposed to retaining Mr. Powell if he were allowed to do his job properly. It is my opinion that the Bush Administration does not represent our best interests in the world arena. Kerry, at the very least, cannot do a worse job.
Who is going to appoint better judges and ambassadors?
This, for me, is probably one of the biggest issues of this election cycle. We have approximately three or four Supreme Court judges who are ready to step down (more info). Whoever is the President will make the appointments to fill those vacancies, and those judges will sit for most of the rest of their lives, which could be decades. The Supreme Court is just as powerful as the two other branches of government. Though not as glamourous and filled with celebrity, we are a country of laws and their word is the last word.
Bush does not, in my opinion, have a good track record of federal appointments (link is left leaning, but the appointments are real). Bush will load the Supreme Court and any other federal judicial opening with his own “activist judges” (right wing judges, that is). He will likely appoint people based on the following criteria:
- They are opposed to abortion, and likely many other socially progressive ideals such as the established (though not Constitutional) right to privacy.
- They are willing to undermine the established division of church and state.
- They will toe the party line (do what they are told) or, at least, be more inclined to interpret the law in a fashion friendly to neo-conservatives.
- Many will probably have (must have?) close ties to Bush, his closest friends in the Administration, and the Republican Party in general.
I am not looking forward to possibly decades of pro-religious (Christian only), anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-privacy, anti-environmental, anti-frees peech, anti-equal rights, anti-etc decisions coming out of the Supreme Court and other federal courts around America. Bush’s appointments will seek to legislate from the bench, just as conservative think tanks have accused the so called activist (read: liberal) judges.
So in conclusion…
I believe the value system George W Bush represents is not even conservative, but reactionary. His “compassionate conservatism” is a marketing tool; I have seen nothing compassionate in this Administration. I believe the country is worse off in terms of the economy, the military, world relations, internal divisiveness, and traditionally American ideals.
- I do not want a President who is guided more by his religion than his common sense.
- I do not want a President who can’t see that all of us are equal (or should be equal).
- I do not want a President who apparently can’t speak properly and sounds like an idiot; sure it’s cute but if I want cute I’ll visit my niece.
- I don’t want my President to be someone I’d be willing to have a beer with, I want him to be someone I can respect (the reason for this remark).
- I do not want the universal American Dream diminished by a reactionary Supreme Court.
- I do not want my future, or my family’s, destroyed by an irreversable deficit.
- I want my President to believe in and fight for each American citizen’s freedom, not just the rich, the straight, the white, or the influential and connected.
- I want a future where Americans are welcome all over the world, not just in coalition-friendly countries.
I am voting for John Kerry. Not because I like him -because I do not- but because compared to George Bush he is the better choice. Why am I not voting for another party’s candidate, like Michael Badnarik of the Libertarians? The reality is there are only two choices for the President at this time. I wish it weren’t so but wishing won’t change reality. I am voting for John Kerry because I believe that four more years of George Bush will bankrupt America, morally and physically. Four more years will do almost irreversable damage to over two hundred years of American progress. I believe that George Bush winning the White House in 2004 will be worse for America than if we lost the Cold War.
I am voting for John Kerry, and I encourage you to vote for him as well.
Categorized: political
You can follow any responses to this entry with a RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
One Response to “Endorsement for President, 2004”
- douglas.nerad » Why I Don’t Care About Alito says (October 1st, 2006 at 21:57:52 )
[...] The only way for me, as a normal citizen who is not a Senator, to affect this process is to vote against Presidential nominations I think will potentially nominate bad candidates to the Supreme Court. I’ve written about this and even endorsed Kerry for President for this reason despite thinking he was not a good candidate. [...]
