savethehumans.com
Shock therapy for planet Earth.
Back to: home last page

Official 2004 Presidential Endorsement, Second Revised Edition Printable Version

by Jason Roth

If you read my first Official 2004 Presidential Endorsement, you'll know that my candidate of choice was "Fuck You". Emotionally, not much has changed. Deep down, I'd really like to give these two guys the finger. But the more I think about it, the more I think I cannot in good conscience abstain from voicing an opinion one way or the other.

I have intentionally started writing this before the President delivers his convention acceptance speech tonight. One reason for this is the potential entertainment value that might arise should my opinion change immediately upon hearing his speech. The other reason is that the particulars of his speech are not relevant to the fundamental issues. Or rather: the fundamental issue. I was nearly certain of this before the Republican convention, and now after hearing and reading several of the speeches, I am nearly convinced of it. (Hey, going from "nearly certain" to "nearly convinced" is a long way.)

The fundamental issue of this election is the war against terrorism, and George Bush is the only candidate who will take it seriously. I was very impressed that the Republicans came out so strongly in favor of the war; specifically: Governor Schwarzenegger; Mayor Giuliani; Vice President Cheney; Senator McCain; and especially Senator Miller (and he's a Democrat). The convention that was rumored to be another pussified "Please like us, we also feel your pain" convention turned out to be a surprisingly principled pro-war convention. I actually heard speeches that were both well-reasoned and emotional calls to self-defense.

What's so good about this (regardless of what the President says in his own speech) is that if people vote for Bush, they are signing on to the continued execution of the war. The Republicans are not only presenting a specific position, but if they get elected, they know that people are behind them in that position. They won't have to worry (as much) about the polls. I.e., they won't feel the need to do the right thing by fighting the war while at the same time convincing the public that they're not really fighting it. They can be loud and proud.

(By the way, I say "war on terrorism" rather than "war on militant Islam" because the Bush administration has steered safely away from the "I" word. As many have already pointed out (especially Daniel Pipes), "war on militant Islam" would be better because it would reflect the reality of who the terrorists are.)

Another Democrat besides Senator Zell Miller who understands that the war on terrorism the most important issue is Ed Koch. He identifies two John Kerry quotes which show Kerry's weakness on the issue:

"...I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam, and when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (First Democratic debate, May 3, 2004)

And, responding to a Chris Matthews question on January 6, 2004, "Are you one of the anti-war candidates?"

"I am - yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely."

Kerry doesn't care whether his statements add up to a cohesive whole, or even whether his individual sentences make any sense. He's clearly one of these classic politicians who thinks a position is the same thing as pointing out inconsistencies in another candidate's position. Too bad his standards for George Bush aren't standards he can meet himself.

Kerry is not just weak on terrorism, he literally has no plan to deal with it. Just look what he says on his website. His "plan" to deal with terrorism consists of the following:

• Building a "team"

• Forging alliances

• Not "bullying"

• "Rallying others to join" us

• Ensuring that US troops are "trained" and "equipped"

• Not relying on "military might alone" but also on "our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas"

• Finding sources of fuel other than the Mideast

Not once does this bastard mention destroying terrorists. Fortunately, we don't need to check the Bush website about this, we know what he thinks. He thinks we ought to act. It might be slower than I would like, but there is a clear difference between action and inaction. And that, I believe, is the essential difference between Bush and Kerry. One will take action to destroy terrorists, and one will... well, who knows? Ask the U.N. what we should do, and sit on his ass until another couple of buildings get knocked down?

If the world were miraculously absent of danger, I might vote for John Kerry. I disagree with Bush on nearly every "domestic" issue. John Kerry, on the other hand, more or less agrees with Bush on these issues. Nevertheless, there are a few reasons to vote for Kerry (pro-abortion, moderate avoidance of religion, pro-stem cell research). As I watched Bush's speech (I'm now back from watching it live on TV), I counted up his proposed domestic programs. Except for the hints about tax-free medical and savings accounts and a few other things, I counted one wrong position after the other.

But then, something occurred to me. Do any of these wrong positions add up to something more important, or more dangerous, than one's position on terrorism? The answer is no.

Before we can have good or bad healthcare, good or bad education, or good or bad anything, we need to be here. The security of our lives (what Bush dilutes by calling "freedom" and "liberty") is primary. A vote for Bush does risk, maybe even guarantee, the continued slide into socialism. But we know for sure that a vote for Kerry will increase our chances of imminent physical destruction.

I'm not 100% certain of my vote yet, but I am leaning strongly towards George Bush. I would recommend that everyone do what I did a few minutes ago. Picture yourself watching the news on election day in November, waiting for the results. If you imagine yourself hoping that Bush is elected, then you have the responsibility to yourself to help to make that happen.

Back to: home last page