|
| |
Kerry
Cannot Win
EDITORIAL
Frank Salvato
July 8, 2004 |
I have always been upfront and honest in my
opinions. Lord knows I don’t shy away from controversy or confrontation.
That being said, I don’t believe that anyone who harbors a "Bush-hater’s”
attitude will either enjoy or agree with my words today. This is due to the
effects tunnel vision has when one has been mesmerized by the bias of the
media. In days passed the uni-vision of a "Bush-hater” would have classified
them as a "one trick pony,” someone who was so focused on one issue that the
bigger picture was lost to them. Today the terminology is
different…”Bush-hater” I believe is the politically correct term.
For the good of the country John Kerry’s quest for the White House should
remain just that, a quest, a candidacy. Those words may sound harsh but if
one simply looks at the facts of the matter; his voting record, his campaign
stances, his proposals for the future and his past actions, it is clear to
see that a Kerry presidency would be a complete disaster for this country.
For the record, I am not a hater of anyone, well maybe the miscreants at
MoveOn.org but I digress. I admit, I am a life-long Republican with
conviction toward the traditional. But, contrary to those on the
Radical-Right there are some Democrats I enjoy very much. Evan Bayh of
Indiana and Zell Miller of Georgia; we are truly going to miss his voice of
reason in the US Senate, are the first two that come to mind. I enjoy them
because they are moderates. They understand that in politics you enter the
arena with an idea and work to find the middle ground with those who have
ideas contrary to your own. In the end a piece of legislation that addresses
the initial issue most often is produced because flexibility, compromise and
the arts of negotiation and debate were used to achieve what is usually to
the benefit of the American people.
John Kerry’s ability to work with others in the political arena has led to
him being instrumental in a whopping eight pieces of legislation. Of those
eight, five were ceremonial in nature, two related to the fishing industry
and one had to do with federal grants for female owned small businesses. For
someone who has been in the Senate as long as Kerry this record proves one
of two things, he is either completely ineffective as a legislator or his
agenda is so far from the mainstream that even his Democratic colleagues
can’t in all honesty vote for the bills he proposes. Either way, his past
political productivity is such that it would be hard to imagine him getting
any "tight vote” legislation passed on Capitol Hill. In contrast we have
seen President Bush do this on several occasions…successfully.
Throughout the 2004 presidential campaign the country has seen John Kerry
take both sides on a plethora of issues. While this may have been an
effective campaign tactic when local media coverage was the only media
coverage, we now live in the world of 24-hour news and embedded media
correspondents. Two of the most glaring examples of John Kerry’s need to say
everything to all people are: a) his contention that he owned SUV’s while
talking to a crowd dominated by auto union people in the Detroit area and
his rejection of that contention when talking to a conservation group, and
b) his recent declaration that life begins at conception in the face of his
"no vote” on the partial-birth abortion ban.
The list of issues his two faces address is shockingly in-depth: trade with
China, the Iraq war, eliminating the marriage penalty for the middle class,
the Patriot Act, the gay marriage issue, the death penalty for terrorists,
the No Child Left Behind Act, affirmative action, ethanol, sanctions on
Cuba, NAFTA, double taxation on dividends and two of the biggest and most
important, raising taxes on small business and individuals during a time of
needed economic growth. Simply put, it would be extremely difficult to take
John Kerry at his word no matter what he says he supports because he is
playing the political pandering game. He is saying everything to all people
simply to get elected. He would be, to use a rough analogy, a potluck
president. By contrast President Bush has shown true conviction even in the
face of the attack-dog mentality displayed by the media and the
Liberal-Left, to his detriment many times.
Then we have Kerry’s proposals for the future. Almost every economist worth
the title has looked at Kerry’s economic proposals with a raised eyebrow.
Two of the more worrisome elements of Kerry’s economic prescription for
disaster include his unrealistic depiction of how an upper-class tax hike
would affect our deficit and what the total sum of his social programs would
cost.
First, Kerry has repeatedly said he favors the Bush tax cuts for "working
class” Americans but has insisted that if elected he would eliminate any
relief for the upper-most tax bracket or the "very wealthy." The reality of
the matter is the tax rate cuts for the "very wealthy" have only accounted
for a miniscule portion of the deficit and, if rescinded, will reduce future
deficits by a scant three-tenths of one percent of gross domestic product.
In other words, it sounds good on paper but doesn’t really do much.
Second, a report by the National Taxpayers Union exposes how Kerry’s newly
proposed federal government spending would add more than $265 billion to the
federal budget each year. Now, where do you think the funding for these
programs is going to come from? You have a choice, it is either higher
deficits or what Hillary Clinton proposed doing in a recent speech in
California, raising taxes.
But perhaps the single most important issue in the 2004 election, national
security and the War on Terror, has Kerry at his weakest.
In the shadow of the United Nations Oil-for-Food scandal and their dismal
reaction to the genocide currently taking place in Sudan, Kerry is still
calling for the United States to court the "international community – what
he really means is France, Germany and Russia – to help in rebuilding and
securing Iraq. This statement of intent to include these three governments
meets with two obvious flaws: 1) They don’t want to send any of their own
troops and they are standing in the way of NATO doing the same and 2)
including these governments after they have been exposed as colluding with
Saddam Hussein to embezzle from the Iraqi people would be tantamount to
inviting the fox into the hen house. It is a recipe for disaster.
With regard to the War on Terror, Kerry is guilty of playing politics with
an issue that sees an enemy who has literally declared war on the United
State. He would rather do the dance at the corrupt alter of the United
Nations, acquiescing to countries that voted against removing a man from
power who commits genocide while perpetrating narcissistic financial
misdeeds. He and his surrogates have misled the American people on the
issues that brought us to remove Hussein from power by focusing on one issue
out of many. His intentions are disingenuous and should there be another
attack on American soil the magnitude of September 11th, he and his
surrogates will have to shoulder their share of the guilt due to their
short-sighted, ideological agenda, an agenda that forces the sovereignty of
the United States, her very right to defend herself, to bend to the will of
the international community no matter how manipulated and slanted against
the United States.
The people that served with Kerry in Vietnam – you did know that he served
in Vietnam, right? – perhaps said it best. Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN
(retired), Commander of Coastal Surveillance Force Vietnam said, "… I do not
believe John Kerry is fit to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces
of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his
judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust…” This statement
comes from those Kerry calls his "band of brothers.”
A Kerry presidency would be a disaster for the United States of America.
Allowing this man to attain the highest office in the land, the ability to
command our troops, the stewardship of our economy and the ability to
appoint individuals to the Supreme Court would be the biggest mistake the
voters of this country has ever made. John Kerry cannot win. Our well-being
as a nation depends on it.
 |
|
