|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bush Has Some Faults, But So Does Kerry | ||||||
| As of late, several things have taken place that have caused me to reevaluate my political affiliation. More and more it is looking to me that the government has made some ridiculous decisions (i.e., its current focus on policing the airwaves and denouncing gay marriage), decisions that I believe the government should not be meddling in. If President Bush is voted out of office come election time though, who would be the best man for the job? | ||||||
| Many of you probably have one name that comes to mind as a person to replace Bush: John Kerry. Now please don't get me wrong - if Bush loses the election, Kerry will be voted in, this much is sure. The real question is whether or not he is actually the best man for the job. | ||||||
| The March 15 issue of Time Magazine has a very informative article titled, "Does Kerry Have A Better Idea?" where the presidential hopeful explains his thoughts on the Iraq war and how he would "undo" the "mistakes" that were supposedly made going into the conflict. Now, as most of you who follow my column know, I fully supported Bush going into Iraq and I still agree with his reasons, but I must say, a lot of the things Kerry says about his plan for Iraq in the article do make a lot of sense and it does give one a better picture of who Kerry is and what he stands for. Even with this, though, Kerry does have numerous flaws. | ||||||
| One question that Time Magazine asked Kerry was what his true feelings are on the "pre-emptive nature of the Bush doctrine," or how Bush believes (as do I) that the United States can declare pre-emptive war to prevent possible future events from happening in the hopes of protecting the country now and ensuring that protection indefinitely. Kerry says that he "will pre-empt where necessary" and that "We are always entitled to do that under the Charter of the U.N., which gives the right of self-defense of a nation," a fact that many liberals either forget or are simply ignorant about. He continues by explaining why he did vote yes to authorize using force in Iraq, and according to the article, this was done "to give Bush diplomatic leverage against Saddam Hussein, not a blank check." Now, one year later, Kerry believes that Bush "broke every single promise that he made." This kind of ludicrous statement is what leads me to my next point. | ||||||
| Why hasn't Kerry been able to readily answer many questions, sometimes steering his answer farther and farther away from the original question, creating a new answer to an unasked one? In the article, Kerry criticizes Bush for "[fueling] the fire of Jihadists" with his foreign policy, but Kerry cannot quite answer why he thinks this. In fact, this is quite a blanket statement, seeing as how terrorists and other scum do not often say exactly why they bomb this bus or blow up that schoolyard, they simply just do. This is precisely what bothers me about Kerry: he makes statements like these and then tries to follow them up with bumbling rationalizations that make equally no sense. Maybe he will have the time to work out these kinks in his character in the coming months prior to the election? Only time will tell. | ||||||
| So, the question still remains: who will win the November election? Either Bush or Kerry for sure, but I often ask myself if these actually are the best men for the job. While I don't agree with the government's current focus on "indecency" on the airwaves and the increasing religious outlook on things, I cannot kid myself by saying the democrats, who support a larger government than the republicans, will be any better. These things will still play too big of a part in politics and divert the attention of our leaders from more pressing and important matters. Maybe I will just vote libertarian? | ||||||
| Copyright Gerry Wachovsky, 2004, and Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. | ||||||
| Back | ||||||