I think what's behind all the eagerness for Bush Bashing goes back to the last election.
There's so much bitterness on the part of the left over the Al Gore loss in 2000. Yes, Al Gore lost. He actually won slightly more human votes, apparently, than Bush did, but according to the rules, Gore lost. It's not the first time in history a president legally won an election without actually getting more votes than the runner-up. The way our system is set up, it is a possibility. However, to hear the Left talk, you'd think that some small, misguided, minority of ignorant voters (combined with the even smaller evil and powerful, rich, and of course evil, super-minority) somehow "stole" the election through some obscure technicality that nobody even knew about. In fact, just about as many people who voted for Gore voted for Bush.
In their anguish, they combed the circumstances around two or three vote re-counts in Florida for any suggestion that some votes cast invalidly for Gore were in fact, valid, and some suggestion that some valid votes cast for Bush were in fact invalid. Or that somehow probable Gore supporters were kept from the polls by "evil" Bush's brother, the governor of Florida. In the end, independent investigations on the nit-picking supported the fact that Bush won the vote in Florida, and nobody was kept from the polls. But it's often repeated by the Left that Bush's presidency is somehow invalid -- and if they repeat the mantra of their littany of allegations often enough it will make them true.
Bush has done some controversial things in difficult times. The Patriot Act is one of them. It makes me nervous because of the possibility for abuse. On the other hand, what's a government to do? These people don't exactly drive around with "Proud Al-Quaida Member" bumper-stickers.
Bush went to war with a country that now appears not to have been as big a threat as the world intelligence community largely thought it was before we went to war. In my opinion, though, this is so much "Monday Morning Quarterbacking", and it still doesn't convince me that it wasn't a good idea. The Left wants to blame Bush for not doing anything on extremely sketchy evidence to prevent 9/11, and at the same time, condemn him for acting quickly (although not as quickly as he wanted to) on much much stronger evidence for danger from Iraq (or more accurately, Saddam Hussein). These are inconsistent positions, tied together only by the bitter dogma that anything Bush does must be wrong.
And now we're down to the crux of the matter. I have no respect for anyone who is just "against Bush". Tell me what you're for. That will make it clear what you're against, but in a constructive manner. Then after that you can clarify to me what it is you're against. It's far too easy to critcize someone who is actually doing something. You can tell me all you want about what you wouldn't do, but that gets nothing done. What would you do? Do you have a plan, and if so, what is it? Put it out there in detail for us to criticize the way you delight in criticizing others.
So, why am I for Bush? Well, as I've mentioned numerous times, I'm not for everything Bush is for. However,
- I'm for a strong, consistent stand against terrorism that does not reward it
- I do not want the USA to defer to the UN especially in matters of security. The UN is a good place for discussion and a medium to promote cooperation, but it should not be allowed to be any sort of world government.
- I'm for smaller government -- and Bush's vision for government size is smaller (though admittedly not enough for my tastes) than Kerry's is
- I believe that business creates jobs, so promoting business promotes prosperity for everyone. The government creates no dollars in the economy, it only uses dollars from the economy. Wealth must be generated by people, and those who create it must be encouraged to continue to do so.
- I support the second amendment and believe as Jefferson did that it is a core to a free society
- I think Bush is basically a decent human being, regardless of my differences with him. I also believe that he will act consistently with his general moral base, which is on the whole, good.
That's it in a nutshell. That's how I can be for Bush. If you agree with me on these issues and still can't be for Bush, try looking at http://www.lp.org . I typically vote Libertarian, but this time around I think Kerry in the Whitehouse is too big a danger to my stand on these issues for me not to throw my vote behind the strongest candidate (the one with the best chance of beating him) that at least leans in the direction of my positions on these issues.
And if you disagree with me, by all means, vote for Nader or Badnarik. ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment