Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Why Bush and Not Kerry? It's personal.

I've decided to post a response to Hugh Hewitt's blog symposium question. The question is an easy one: Why vote for Bush, and what's wrong with Kerry? The difficult part will be doing this in 250 words or less, so I hope that Mr. Hewitt will forgive me if I exceed that limit.

I'll start out with national security issues. John Kerry wants to turn a war into a law-enforcement exercise. This only works if both sides are willing to accept it as such. Our enemies see this as a war, and will keep attacking until they've won. President Bush understands this, and has moved the war outside our borders. In fact, he's moved it right to the terrorists' back yard. Despite what you hear on television, we're winning. The Afghan elections and increasing recruitment of Iraqi National Guard and police forces are testaments to this, and these are just two samples of success. John Kerry wants to wait until there's proof positive that an attack has occurred before responding. That's too late to keep us secure. Mr. Kerry brought up a "global test" as well. What if we can't get other nations to believe that we've been attacked, Senator Kerry? What if we bring proof of an attack and Canada, Germany and France say they don't see a problem? The global test has failed. Combine that with a record of defense voting that borders on a near-outright fear of ever using American troops to do anything to defend us, a record of opposing defending ourselves against regular military attacks (like national missile defense) and a desire to leave out local help in taming North Korea's nuclear plans, and you can see that George W. Bush is the best choice on national defense.

Next, I'll go to domestic issues. Senator Kerry wants to Americans to have the same level of health care that he does. The Senator does realize that his medical care costs around $7700 per year, yes? That comes out to about $641.67 per month. The Senator also realizes that such monthly costs would remove approximately 40 percent of my take-home pay? Will the Senator from Massachusetts kindly pay off my bills in full from his paycheck before asking me to divert 40% of my net salary to health care costs? (My student loan and credit card would thank him.) President Bush has laid out plans to allow me to invest part of my FICA tax to supplement my Social Security benefit. Senator Kerry wants me to hope that my pittance in Social Security will allow me to live for a few months in squalor before I die, I guess. He's done nothing to try to improve the benefit. President Bush has also laid out a plan to set up a health savings account that is independent of my workplace. This will allow me to set aside money for routine doctor's visits, prescriptions, and the like. This will save money for both me and insurance companies, since they can focus on catastrophic coverage instead of daily costs, thus lowering any monthly premiums I may have. I do not want a welfare state, Senator Kerry. I want an ownership society. I spent four years in the Air Force to defend American liberty, and I want as little governmental nosiness in my life as possible. Medical issues are only as public as I wish to make them, and government processing will only open the door to uninvited scrutiny. President Bush's plan may be government-started, but it's more opaque to expenses than Senator Kerry's. Again, as little nosiness as possible. I'm not even going into issues stemming from abortion, embryonic stem-cell research or same-sex marriage. President Bush gets my vote for his forward-thinking, low-cost plans for health and retirement.

Finally, we get to the main reason why I will vote for George W. Bush instead of Senator John Kerry: George W. Bush has never denigrated the roles played by any of my family members who served in the various branches of our armed forces. When John Kerry implied that anyone who did not serve in Vietnam did not truly perform their military service, that denigrated the service of members of my family who served in Europe during the Cold War. That denigrated the service of my family members and family friends who served in the United States during the Cold War. Perhaps I should apologize to Senator Kerry for not being born yet so I could serve in Vietnam. I should also perhaps ask for forgiveness for merely serving in the Air Force during Operation Southern Watch, and during the first major Balkan campaign in 1995, since it wasn't Vietnam. Would that be enough for Senator Kerry? George W. Bush also never said that stopping the spread of Castro-style Communism in the Western Hemisphere was unnecessary, despite its anti-US exhortations. George W. Bush never mollycoddled the Sandinistas, trying to give them an unearned legitimacy like Senator Kerry did.

Most importantly, George W. Bush never tried to go around the chain of command and make nice with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese government. My father and an uncle both served in Vietnam. My father spent 18 months there as part of the US Air Force. My uncle spent 12 months there as part of the US Marine Corps. They returned to the United States only to be spat upon by their fellow citizens, to be insulted because they served in Vietnam. Senator Kerry's involvement with Vietnam Veterans Against the War acted as a fifth column to destroy morale and support for our troops, including the man who would help bring me into this world. Senator Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony exudes a hatred for his fellow servicemen. It was actions like the testimony and "Winter Soldier investigation" that were used to psychologically torture American POWs, making them think they were cut off from the rest of the country. To undermine support for our troops is nothing less than treason. I will not vote for a traitor. I will vote for a man whose service was average long before I will vote for someone who squandered his heroism to aid and abet our enemies. Again, President Bush has my vote.

I owe many things to my mother and father who raised me and the family members who gave me the love and support an extended family can provide. One of the things I can do to pay that debt is to vote for a President who will defend my nation through strength, who will provide a true hand up to self-sufficiency, and who will never forfeit a war of public opinion to our enemies. George W. Bush has my vote. Why? It could be just because of public business issues, but Senator Kerry has alienated me by trying to weaken my nation and insult my family service. That makes it a very personal issue.

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Vodkapundit vs. The DNC Fraud Manual

Y'know, I find myself in agreement with Stephen Green of Vodkapundit. It looks like the Democrats are willing to do whatever is illegal and or unethical to beat George W. Bush. My country is too important to have a gaggle of lawyers shouting "Fraud!" at every precinct. Where are the Democrats like Zell Miller, or even Paul Simon of Illinois? Have they been totally supplanted with the schadenfreude-fuelled zealots like James Carville?

Clean up your house, DNC. It's a mess.

Friday, October 08, 2004

What's On Your Nightstand?

Jeff Soyer's question is interesting. For all of you gun-owners out there, do you keep guns in an easily-accessible place while you sleep? If not, is there something else you use forhome defense?

Thanks to Evanston being under a fru-fru handgun ban, I really can't keep a decent defensive weapon nearby. I pretty much make do with a beat-up tonfa and a couple of box-cutters. I guess if the blood loss doesn't kill 'em, the lockjaw will. What I'd LIKE to keep nearby is pretty simple: a revolver in .38 or .357, hollow-point rounds, possibly subsonic if those are legal for non-law enforcement use. I'd like that if only to keep any bullets I fire from passing through my target and possibly annoying a neighbor with the noise. It also might keep shots from passing through walls, floors or the ceiling and into a neighbor's apartment.

However, I guess the eggheads in Evanston wouldn't mind my using a shotgun, rifle or other long arm to defend my home since they have to pay some lip-service to state and federal laws. A shotgun is a bit bulky to use in an apartment, and let's not even talk about firing a rifle. Bulky AND the bullet probably won't lodge in the target. Do said eggheads factor that in? Probably not.

Well, maybe there's other places to live cheaply in the Chicago area where guns aren't considered evil/ tools of patriachal oppression/ able to steal your soul by looking at it, etc.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

More Mayhem Against GOP Offices

Once again, Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit delivers the goods on this spate of politically-motivated crimes.

I was hoping to follow up on a story I'd heard this morning on WLS about a very horrific, taunting phone call to a Madison, Wisconsin widower whose wife's last request was to "do anything to elect John Kerry." Apparently the caller stated that the deceased would burn in Hell before Kerry was elected. I haven't been able to find anything online about that, not even on the WLS website. Can anyone verify this? It's hearsay at this point, which makes me wonder why anyone would report it without verification. I can't find verification of the call online in any newspapers. If I'm going to be pissed off at one of my own, I'd like for it to be true.

However, after the Bush/Cheney office shooting in Knoxville, Tennessee yesterday, I was hoping that we'd seen a one-time incident.

Now there's news in Orlando, Florida of union members storming GOP offices to intimidate the staff there, where 2 people were injured. Apparently, this attack is part of coordinated "protests" by the AFL-CIO.

Oh, you should also know that Wisconsin Democratic Party Brownshirts activists also stormed a GOP office in West Allis, Wisconsin. (Via Sean Hackbarth's The American Mind)

So, here's what I'm going to ask Democrats. Why aren't you policing yourselves? These incidents cross well beyond any First Amendment rights to free speech or assembly. Eveyone on your side of the fence loves pointing at the anti-homosexual comments made by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the like, then you ignore us when we repudiate them. Even when we try to find the folks responsible for rumored taunts, it's not enough. These attacks on GOP offices and supporters are not equivalent to "hate speech." They are hate, pure and simple. These are not "attack ads." They are attacks on people who disagree with you politically. Have you been so blinded by your hatred of George W. Bush that you think your only choice is violence? What makes you think that these tactics are going to generate votes for you?

And you call us thugs and fascists?

Democrats, has your party leadership LOST THEIR TINY FUCKING MINDS? (I apologize to readers who may not be used to my swearing, but it's the most appropriate adjective at the moment.)

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Instapundit notes the crushing of dissent against Republicans

And here I thought conventional wisdom said we Republicans were the brutes who tried to stifle people's rights by intimidation and creating a climate of fear. Let's see. Someone shoots up a Bush/Cheney campaign office (perhaps to serve as a distraction for a bank robbery?) and some other allegedly clever "prankster" decides to use weedkiller to burn a swastika into a Republican's lawn.

Is this what passes among leftists, anarchists and extremist Democrats for reasoned debate with the opposition?

Friday, October 01, 2004

The first debate is over. John Kerry's good on style, but lousy on substance. George Bush is good on substance, but bad on style.

Here's what I took away from it: Kerry talks about a rush to war. 18 months is a rush? Then he talks about under-equipped soldiers. He does realize that was part of the $87 billion bill that he voted for, then voted against, right? He then talks about Iraq being a necessary war, but seems to want other people to do the fighting for him. Maybe he should remember that his friends in France and Germany refused to help in the beginning of this war? I wasn't impressed with his call to action in Darfur, either. He seemed to say we should help, but not really help. Kerry's biggest strength was calling for bilateral nuclear anti-proliferation talks with North Korea. It's good to see Kerry strong on something, but this isn't the right something on which he should be strong. He lost the whole Iraq argument by acting tepid on his record in the war. Kerry has to deal with being an anti-war candidate who turns around votes for war. Overall, he looked pretty weak.

Bush, on the other hand, repeated the Dems' "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" too often. He got flustered, but then he's neither a former debate society darling nor has he had the chance to mug for C-SPAN's cameras for 20 years. He did drive home the idea that Kerry would make a commander-in-chief whose main strategy is summed up as "vacillate." He also showcased his ability to build alliances and international consensus where needed, in talking about the current coalition of the War on Islamofascism and the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program. He brought up missile defense, too. I like the idea of strategic missile defense, but it's a backburner idea and not something to bring up as part of a debate. I think he mentioned it more to show an overall picture of national defense, but it doesn't have the gee-whiz factor it had on September 10, 2001. His biggest strength was showing resolve in the realization that we have lost lots of good soldiers and marines in the current war. He said he wouldn't back down, wouldn't leave until the job is done right. The problem is that he seemed to want to talk before his mind was done formulating the whole thought. I've got a similar problem with that, as my public speaking teacher could probably attest.

George Bush seems like the "regular guy" of the two, and that will resonate with the voters. I hope it resonates in his favor.

Overall, I'm going to give a slight victory to Bush. His speech wasn't polished, but the substance was there. Maybe he's got that gravitas again?