Archives
Kellard for Bush
Columnist Joseph Kellard considers the war the most important issue in the campaign, and will vote for Bush despite his flaws:
- While Bush has toppled two anti-American regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, he's significantly undercut the grounds needed to ultimately defeat the terrorists…Bush has left untouched the world's top sponsor of terrorism, Iran, as that theocracy defiantly continues building nuclear weapons. And rather than crush enemy insurgents cornered in terrorist nests in Fallujah and Najaf, Bush accepted their calls for empty truces. Such inactions and appeasements only embolden our enemies. So contrary to the left, Bush is no "warmonger," nor is he the tenacious, "rock solid" commander-in-chief that the right paints him to be.
What distinguishes Bush, however, is his great rhetoric. Most importantly, by correctly calling Iran, Iraq and North Korea an "axis of evil," he established the moral basis vital for victory: the terrorists are evil; America is good. Adding to this needed black-and-white foundation, Bush told other nations they are either with us or with the terrorists. He vowed to make no distinction between individual terrorists and the states that support them, to end states that sponsor terrorism, and to strike those states before they strike us. He also understands that dictatorships breed terrorists, and proposes a long-range "forward strategy of freedom" to replace Mid East tyrannies with representative governments… his mandate will be his promise to be "relentless"…This is why, despite his flaws, I will vote for Bush, and because, as one commentator aptly put it, "George W. Bush cannot be trusted to fight the war properly, but John Kerry can be trusted to surrender." [J. Kellard, Why Vote for Bush?, Capitalism Magazine, 10/28/2004]
jwoodswce at 11:56:00 PM EDT Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
-
I agree with the conclusion that Kerry would surrender. I have repeatedly asked myself what he would do if things were really bad and one of our large cities was taken out. Should the enemy give him the choice of surrender or facing more terrorist actions, what would he do? I always end up thinking that he would agree to surrender on one condition, that the enemy put the United Nations in charge of the surrender ceremonies and that it be announced as a move to advance the cause of world peace!
10/29/04 7:16 PM
While you claim to be independent, what this journal seems to focus on is mostly the arguments of the far right in defense of the President's policies. I would say if it was independent you would not just give a reference to a man who supports Kerry but also show some of the counter arguments that are easily found pretty much all over the web.
One common one is the basic Fordist wisdom,
"People ask me why I pay my workers more, and I tell them , so they can buy my products" -- paraphrasing Henry Ford.
Since the new deal , taxing the "most productive" has redistributed the wealth to those who need it , and consequently they spend it.
I have looked in the paper recently and seen very few jobs that get filled very quickly as compared to the late 90's when there were 100's of jobs in the papers.
If you don't want to post this side of the issue ( with graphics no less) than call your journal something else. About the only bipartisan statements I have seen in this journal is one blog, the rest have been mostly skewed to the right stating the standard right wing belief system.
I obviously don't agree with you.
Here's a wonderful link to my favorite leftist (with many comments and endorsements from republicans) page so far.
http://laterbush.com/
I have a journal that dabbles in politics but isn't quite focused on politics exclusively but the dealings in my county. I've been inspired to split the journal into several journals focused on specific topics one of them politics.
The full reply to this is in that journal posted Oct. 27. I hope some people will read it for a different view.
aol/ hometown/ azwick2/ boulder county diary.
If so I will keep the message board posted on the journal.
I don't mind anyone taking a right wing point of view but i feel it needs to be open to rebuttal. I know everyone's feelings are real