Why Am I Supporting Bush In 2004? I’ll Tell You Why…

15 Jan, 2004 by John Hawkins

Print this article Font size -16+

I received an email RWN reader David Bernstein which said, “I’m just curious, do you have a reason for liking Bush, or do you just like Bush because he’s a republican. If you do have a reason for liking (him), what (is it)?”

Well David, I will admit that George W. Bush sure isn’t another Ronald Reagan. In fact, I’ve been very disappointed with most of Bush’s politically motivated, nixonian, domestic agenda. I mean Bush has made no real effort to control spending, he signed campaign finance reform, he supported the bloated farm bill, he was for the outrageously Expensive prescription Drug Reform, & then there’s steel tariffs, his lukewarm stand against Affirmative Action, and the godawful immigration reform he’s pushing is an abomination.

But, I ask you, out of all those policies I just named, which ones would President Howard Dean or President Wesley Clark have shaped more to my liking? Would either of them cut domestic spending? Not bloody likely. Would they have vetoed campaign finance reform? Of course not. What about the Farm Bill & Prescription Drug Reform? They would have been even bigger & more expensive if we had a Democrat in the White House and he got his way. So why support a Democrat who is going to have a domestic agenda that I will like even less than the one Bush is pushing? The only plus I can think of to having a Democrat in the White House would be that the GOP controlled Congress would block him at every turn. That would be a good thing, because as a general rule, I think “gridlock” beats “government in action” 9 times out of 10 when it comes to the domestic agenda.

On the other hand, there have been a few pluses on the domestic side to having Bush in the White House instead of Democrat. W. did sneak a few standards into his education bill, he blocked partial birth abortions, and he’s certainly serious about getting conservative judges on the bench, which is no small thing given that we will probably have a couple of slots opening up on the Supreme Court over the next four years. Bush is also rabid about tax cuts and I feel confident that he’s going continue to fight hard to help the taxpayers keep more of their own money, which is something that matters a lot to me.

But, the most important reason to reelect Bush is the war on terrorism. We absolutely cannot afford to ease up on terrorists or terrorist supporting states. Yes, Bush has gotten rid of Taliban and Saddam, Afghanistan & Iraq are slowly but surely moving towards Democracy, we have decimated — but not destroyed — Al-Qaeda’s leadership, & Quadaffi has given up his WMD. But, there’s is so much left to do. We have to finish wiping out Al-Qaeda, regime change in Iran — by any means necessary — has to happen, North Korea must be convinced or forced to give up their WMD, and Syria has got to get out of the terrorism business. Now do you think the anti-war on terrorism candidate, Howard Dean, is going to make that happen? Give me a break. What about Wesley Clark? Given how he has changed his position 180% on Iraq, it’s obvious that the defense of America is nothing more than a political football to Clark. When the consequences of inaction can be more 9/11s or worse, we can’t afford to have a Democrat who treats national security like a joke occupying the White House. This is serious business, not some sort of political game.

So yes, I’m going to be supporting Bush in 2004, even if I disagree with him on a lot of issues. Bush has his faults, but there’s no question he’s going to be a far better candidate than anyone the Democrats are going to be running.