Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Final Week to the White House

Here we are, down to the final week of the campaign. Polls indicate that the race is still incredibly close. At least here in Massachusetts, much of people's focus has been turned to the World Series of Baseball rather than the "World Series of American Politics." I remember reading recently that people in Massachusetts were polled about if they had to choose a World Series win for the Sox or John Kerry for President, the majority went for the Sox. So much for devoted followers of John Kerry.

As I follow the candidates campaigns during these last few days, I see tremendous distinction between the President and the Senator. While the President is staying on message, talking about what his administration has done in the past four years and what they can do in the next four, the Kerry campaign is trying to scare voters around the country, trying to make them believe in things that do not exist. I read about how the Bush campaign is going to do everything possible to stop groups of people from going to the polls. Of course, like Kerry's plan for Iraq, there is no substance behind this statement. Who was the first to mobilize lawyers to the battleground states? Yes folks, it was the Kerry campaign. In response, the Bush campaign had to mobilize their own lawyers to prepare for a recount which may never be. It seems that one chapter of the NAACP, a devotee of Kerry, has decided not to leave the election to chance and paid a man to register to vote under several names. What did they pay him with? Crack cocaine. Marvelous!

Nope, no voter fraud going on there!

Kerry and Edwards continue to lie, blatantly, that, if reelected, George Bush will push for the draft. How conveniently do they forget to mention that it was a member of their own party who proposed the reinstatement of the draft and the Republican congress who opposed the bill. Of course, Kerry and Edwards would never let facts get in the way of a good scary story. Remember, Kerry keeps telling our seniors that Bush wants to rob them of their Social Security, even though there is no evidence to support this. Scary stuff.

Now, John Kerry has been a member of the Senate for 20 years. He has shown no leadership during this time. His most recent and most touted leadership experience is 4 1/2 months as a Swift Boat commander in Viet Nam. This 4 1/2 months has trained him to be Commander-in-Chief, has apparently made John Kerry an expert in modern warfare. He believes that he can unite the world to help the US fight in Iraq, to join him in this "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." What scares me the most is that people believe he can pull this off.

During the local morning news, candidates for Congress and our State Senate have recently started buying commercial time. One commercial in particular is very amusing. It begins by asking Massachusetts voters who is fighting George Bush for them. The add then goes on to list the "accomplishments" of this congressman, including his voting for a middle class tax cut. Excuse me, but I am confused. Is this the same tax cut that John Kerry and John Edwards continue to tell us only benefited the wealthiest Americans? Because we have no Republican representation from Massachusetts, this Congressman is one of Kerry and Edwards fellow Democrats. Oh, the irony! I guess you can have things both ways if it suits you.

George Bush will continue to lead this country back from recession and terrorism. He may not be the best spoken man, but he tells it like it is. Of course, if he says anything other than positive things about the reality of the War on Terror, Kerry jumps on him. If he should lie and tell you that this a conventional war and victory is in sight, Kerry would jump on that. Look to the man who truly follows his values, who does not pander to the poll of the week. If you seek strong leadership, vote George W. Bush on November 2.

Thank you.

Friday, October 15, 2004

Debate #3

Well, the debates are now behind us. I believe that the third debate showed to be the most heated, although I don't believe had the best questions or format. George Bush showed that he can defend his administration's policies and actions and has a good grasp of the facts. Of course, here in Boston, the Democrats cannot see this. I was reading some opinions on-line here and for some reason I kept seeing the same statements over and over, George Bush avoided questions and is unable to produce facts.

Unfortunately, the notes I took on the debate were lost when I upgraded a software package on my PDA which later turned out not to be compatible with my operating system.

I will say this, what I heard from John Kerry is the same rhetoric we have been hearing all along. "We can do better," "I have a plan," "I hope we can talk more about this later,""George Bush has lost jobs,""George Bush gave a tax break to the wealthiest Americans."

George Bush continued to hammer the absentee Senator on his 20 year record in Congress and again pointed out that many of the issues raised by Kerry have not concerned him during his Senatorial Career. Yes, it is true that Senator Kerry has only passed 5 pieces of legislation since 1984. The Senator has cowritten, cosponsered, written or contributed to 56 pieces of legislation, but only managed to get passed 1 bill and 4 resolutions. Well, if that record of failure doesn't show true leadership, I apparently don't know what does. Let us remember, that many of these pieces of legistlation were proposed during times when the Democrats were the MAJORITY in the house. He couldn't even get his own party on board.

Does anyone else remember in August of 2000, when the internet bubble started to burst and the economy began to suffer, that the Democrats blamed the faltering economy on George Bush's nomination for President. They told us that people were scared that he may win. They completely disregarded the fact the many internet companies were not producing anything and had not shown any profit, inspite of plentiful funds from investors. I don't know if people just believed that this would continue indefinately or what.

Now, John Kerry wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest of Americans. Sounds good, doesn't it? It does if you believe that John Kerry, John Edwards, the Hollywood elite and the wealthy members of the Democratic party will just sit back and accept the fact that their tax bills will go up. As Dick Cheney pointed out, John Edwards made sure to take every deduction he could on his taxes, even one which allowed him not to pay $600,000.00! What was Edwards' defense? That was completely legal. I don't think that was the point the Vice President was trying to make. Edwards did not just have his taxes prepared to show he made so much income and therefore should pay 42% of that away to government. He took deductions to keep the money he earned (regardless of how he made it). But, Edwards and Kerry say that raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans will solve all of America's economic woes.

Well, what do you think these two will do when they do not take in the tax revenue they say they will? You guessed it, raise taxes on the middle class (in spite of Kerry's promise during the second debate). Perhaps he will pull a Bill Clinton and simply say that things were worse than they thought. Of course, Bush 41 told people during the election that Bill Clinton couldn't spend as he said and not raise taxes on everyone.

George Bush and his administration provided a tax cut to everyone and in several different ways. When you cut taxes by a percentage and you have a progressive tax, of course the people who pay more money in taxes will receive the largest tax cut. Do Kerry and Edwards truly believe that they and other wealthy people should just plan to pay nearly half of their income away in taxes because "they can afford it?"

Putting money back into the wallets of the people puts money in the economy. I don't think I know anyone who took their tax cut money and stuffed it in their mattress or buried it in their back yard. They spent it. They bought goods and services, transferring the money to other people in this manner, kept the economy going, and in most cases, paid sales tax for the privledge. Others invested money in banks or stocks. This money is returned to the economy to be invested again, keeping the stock market going.

We need to keep the fight going for the President. John Kerry will go back on his pledge, he will tax everyone. You can't add nearly a trillion dollars to the budget for national health care and pay for it with $89,000,000,000.00 in tax increases to the "rich." By the way, if you own a business as a sole proprietor, whereby the business income is your income, $250,000.00 does not make you wealthy. Not anymore.

Help the President get out the vote. Talk to people and explain why John Kerry is not the right choice. The President has demonstrated strong leadership over the past 4 years and will continue to do so going forward, but we must make sure that George W. Bush has that opportunity.

Monday, October 11, 2004

Debate #2

Friday night was the second of the three debates and the President faired much better than in the first. He did not allow himself to be on the defensive for the night and the answers to the questions were clear and concise. I applaud the President for calling the Senator on his 20 years in the Congress. The fact that John Kerry says he wants to address several issues that he has taken no action to correct while in the Senate shows that he was not able to lead in his current job and this fact indicates that he could do no better if he were in the White House.

While the President was able to address the questions posed by the audience, John Kerry chose to begin most answers by reverting to previous questions, adding to answers he apparently was not able to address during the allotted time and so needed to qualify his statements later on.

I found the questions from the audience to be excellent, at times cutting right to the heart of several matters. The fact that the President could answer the questions without prepared statements shows his ablility to think on his feet while I found John Kerry continued to use the same statements he has used throughout the campaign.

The winner, George W. Bush.

Last night, I was listening to a rebroadcast of a Sean Hannity show on the radio. This particular show was Sean's interview with then primary candidate, John Kerry. One question I found particularly interesting was when Sean Hannity asked the Senator about North Korea and the possible nuclear threat they pose. John Kerry, of course, was talking about how inspections have been removed from the North Korean nuclear plants and that the nuclear rods from the reactor are no longer there. That the North Koreans now say that they have produced several nucear weapons, 5 -7. I wonder, if US intelligence showed that North Korea planned to sell or in any way use these weapons to help terrorists, would he invade? And if, after the fact we found that the weapons were only in production stage or even just a planning stage, would John Kerry apologize to the American people the way he says George Bush should?

The facts are these. US and British intelligence indicated the Saddam had WMD and biological weapons. Because Saddam refused to allow UN inspectors to do their job and because of Saddam's history of supporting terrorists, George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq. He requested that the UN aid the US in this effort. The resolution lost due to the votes of France, Germany and Russia. The US, because we had already threatened to attack, needed to take action or be viewed by our enemies as a paper tiger who can't act without the UN. We decided to invade with the aid of a few countries and showed the world that we do in fact mean what we say.

Now, after the fact, we have found that no WMD exist in Iraq. John Kerry takes this to mean we should have known and therefore should have left Iraq alone. Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and knowing what we know now, there would have been no real reason to invade. The problem with this is that we didn't know and Saddam refused to let the world know. He wanted the world to believe he had WMD. He believed this to be a deterrent to Iran. I understand this, but the plan backfired, the US took this to be a threat, not Iran, and we took the action we felt was necessary to protect our interests.

Can we as Americans place our trust in someone who believes that we must make our case to the world before we take action? John Kerry believes that we need to make our case pass the Global Test before we move to protect the US. He seems to believe that we need the UN's approval first. Our President believes that we need to act on the interest of the US first and worry about the world fallout later. Remember, Osama Bin Laden had no concern for how the UN and the world would view him and his actions. The same applies to Saddam. If intelligence had been correct and one WMD was given over to a terrorist network by Saddam, and then used in a US city, how concerned would we be with the Global Test that failed to protect us?

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Random Thoughts

The media enjoys the recent testimony of inspectors who are stating that they have been unable to locate any evidence of WMD in Iraq. They love to play the Monday morning quarterback on this. The question they should be looking at is wether or not there was credible evidence BEFORE the invasion. Did we act properly based on the information in our possession.

Inspectors are quick to point out, the media less so, that even Iraqui intellegence believed that Saddam had WMD, that Saddam wanted the world to believe that he had them. His apparent reasoning was that this would deter a threat from his old enemy, Iran. This plan backfired in this new post 9/11 era and the threat came from across the world, not next door.

The intellegence stating that Saddam had WMD was supported by the fact that he refused to allow UN weapons inspectors do their job, time and time again. The world had seen him have possession of such weapons and had seen that he was willing to use them on his own people. (These are the same people Michael Moore would have you believe were living in some suburban paradise where the children played outside freely and people were treated fairly and humanely.) Because Saddam would not produce records to show his destruction of such weapons and because he toyed with the UN inspection teams over the course of 12 years, the world had no reason to believe anything but his having such weapons.

Does anyone else remember watching Hans Bilx testify before the UN nearly two years ago that the UN inspections teams could neither confirm nor deny the existence or destruction of such weapons? I remember it vividly.

The fact of the matter is that after 9/11, the President stood before a joint session of Congress and the American people and swore that he would root out terrorists where they live. He stated that you were either with us or against us, that we would go after terrorists and those who supported them. Saddam certainly did support terrorists. He was offering money, $25,000.00 to the families of suicide bombers if they would attack Israel. He himself was a terrorist by the fact that he would not allow the world to know about his weapons programs.

The war in Iraq is right. We removed a brutal dictator who most certainly would support terrorists in any way he was able. Can anyone tell me that if he had in his possession, nuclear weapons, that we could be assured that he would not sell them to someone else for terrorism? Can anyone tell me how much longer we would have to wait before the sanctions completely crumbled and he began his weapons programs again? We already know about the corruption and black market dealings that France and Germany were involved in, trading with Iraq when UN resolutions forbid it. Perhaps John Kerry could magically enforce a new resolution in the same manner he can magically produce a UN coalition.


Wednesday, October 06, 2004

VP Debate

Last night we witnessed the one and only VP debate. I only wish we had more of these as VP Cheney showed clearly who needs to go back to the Whitehouse. While VP Cheney continued to backup his statements and to point out that the challengers cannot even live up to the commitments they have made in the past, Senator Edwards continues to say that things should have been handled differently and that he believes we can do better.

John Edwards asks, "Give us a chance to fight for you." Isn't that what Kerry and Edwards were elected to do in the Senate? With their attendence and voting records there, I can only imagine what they would believe would be an improvement.

While John Edwards and John Kerry (since even John Edwards can't seem to separate the two) continue to tell us how they would have done things differently in the past and that "we can do better," they provide no substance durning the debates of what they will do or how they propose to do it. Senator Edwards tells us that he will keep us safe by hunting down terrorists where they live, but aside from sounding like he, himself, will be hunting for them in the Middle East, makes no statements about how he will do things differently.

How can the American People consider electing two men who offer no substance for change to the White House. What I hear from John Kerry and John Edwards is that they would have done things differently in the past, but cannot tell us how they will change things in the future.

Their "plan" appears to be taking the same approach at President Bush. What would John Kerry do if his coalition doesn't materialize? Will he just give up? Move on to other things? That's the way to show American stregnth and resolve. Either your with us or we won't do it either.