Monday, October 18, 2004

This is a slightly longer version of the last post...

Why elect George W. Bush? Why not elect John Kerry? To me, it’s a simple matter of history. Bush’s policies embrace the lessons of history and Kerry’s are the result of failed ideologies invalidated by the lessons of history.

I speak as a former “conservative Democrat” who echoes the words of Ronald Reagan: “I didn’t leave the party; the party left me.” And it was Reagan’s presidency that changed my mind.

I voted for Carter in ’76 and ’80. (Boy, it hurts to admit that.) I even voted for Mondale in 1984 (cringe!) but more because I didn’t yet want to admit that I was wrong. In 1988, I voted happily for Bush 41, and joyfully for Bush 43 in 2000.

What changed? Reagan’s presidency was real-world proof that the best way to secure the peace was by strength. Reagan’s economic renewal was proof that tax cuts stimulate the economy and help us all. Anyone who denies these truths is simply unwilling to face facts.

Today, George W. Bush carries out these history-tested truths in the new environment of the 21st century. 911 did indeed “change everything.” But it did not change these truths: the best path to peace and indeed victory is strength. The best path to prosperity is to get the crushing weight of government off all our backs.

And now, we face an enemy that is at least as dangerous as Soviet communism. Bush understands this. He understands that we are in the midst of a World War. Kerry gives lip service to it. Bush gets it in his gut. Kerry seems to see the War on Terrorism as a troublesome item on his to do list. I want the man who understands this to continue as President. Let Kerry go back to the leftist snobs on Beacon Hill. I’ll stick with the man from Midland.

No comments: