"Being too charming was never one of my faults." - Kill Me Later
Webcam
Mine ::
about me.
wishlist
Powered by Blogger. |
the bottom of the totem pole I think I mentioned the fact that the majority of our office has packed up and moved to Iowa until after the election...it's just me and my boss's assistant holding up the fort back here in LA. We got "W stands for women" hats for being the bottom of the totem pole though =) Anyway the two of us are on pins and needles here, with little more to do than watch the news and the poll numbers change all day long. I've had this crick in my neck that won't go away, which I'm convinced is the direct result of pre-election anxiety.
On the one hand I feel like in the end this election may not be as close as predicted...on the other hand I feel it could be even closer. Part of me truly believes that on election day, Americans will take a long hard look at President Bush and John Kerry and ultimately realize that they cannot vote for John Kerry because he has not defined himself in any way, shape or form. President Bush may not be the most articulate man, he may not have a way with words the way Clinton or a trial lawyer like John Edwards do, but President Bush has proven his ability to lead this country through tough times.
Just this week a new purported al Qaeada tape has been released, it says America must pay for decades of "injustice." This means that liberals cannot do what I'm sure they really want to do and claim that this tape is the result of a hatred caused by GWB and his actions. Maybe this is why they've been relatively quiet about the whole thing...it proves what we all already knew. The threat of terrorism is real. It is not "overblown" as John Kerry would have us believe and it should absolutely not under any circumstances be regarded as something along the lines of illegal gambling or prostitution (as John Kerry has said just recently). As much as we may want to live in a pre-911 world (although we were certainly not any safer then considering we had a major terrorist attack every two years against American interests) the fact is that we do not.
President Bush is following in the great tradition of Ronald Reagan who said, "We want to avoid a war and that is better achieved by being so strong that a potential enemy is not tempted to go adventuring." Well the Clinton administration gave Osama the idea that America is nothing more than a "paper tiger" (yes Osama did actually say this in an interview after Clinton pussied out of Somalia) and in the three years since 9/11 President Bush has been doing all he can to show our enemies that America will fight back and fight back hard if and when we are attacked. Our enemies know that as long as President Bush is the Commander in Chief any attack on American interests will be answered. Unlike under Clinton when our sailors were murdered, our embassies bombed and the heart of our financial district was attacked, without any real action on our part.
Common sense dictates that we re-elect the man who has kept us safe and knows how to keep us safe versus a career politician who has never governed, who despite 20 years in the Senate has had only 5 pieces of legislation with his name behind it, who has a more liberal voting record than Teddy Kennedy no matter how hard he tries to move to the middle during this election...Bleh I could go on and on about why John Kerry doesn't have what it takes, not by far. His entire political career is clearly documented but his supporters simply don't want to see him for what he is.
Explain to me this those of you across the aisle who claim Kerry is not a flip-flopper who will say whatever he has to during an election...Why is it that during the first Gulf War, when there was in fact a UN mandate in addition to a large coalition that even Kerry now identifies as a "real" coalition, Kerry still voted against liberating Kuwait because he said that he knew a vote to authorize the use of force was a vote for the use force...but now Kerry claims that when he voted for this war he did not believe a vote to authorize the use of force meant the President would use force. So in the early 90's he knew that a vote to authorize force (in a case where the use of force was clearly warranted, even by Kerry's own standards today) would translate into the use of force, but a little over 10 years later the same vote for authorization of force meant something entirely different? I don't know how good of a job I did in explaining that...but hopefully you get the gist of it.
Okay, I won't go on about it anymore for now...I've run out of steam. I could go on forever.
BUSH-CHENEY 04! wingless was still breathing at 10:40 AM -
Comments:
Post a Comment
(c) 2001-2006 transcended.net - all rights reserved |
|||