Kerry vs. Bush

I’m extremely concerned that Bush will be elected president tomorrow. He has embraced a vision of America that would see it descend to terrible lows. His rush to war in Iraq was absolutely unjustified and followed dangerous and illegal approaches, ultimately alienating most of the world, destroying the goodwill shared by all of us following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Bush has failed to support health care, education, job creation, civil rights, the environment, renewable energy and a host of other vital aspects that government influences. He is a failed statesman in most every regard.

What should be shown as his greatest weakness, however, is his great anger and blindness in regards to terrorism. He has given Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda exactly what they wanted. By reacting to a terrorist attack with what seems to be a blinding anger and lack of planning he has created the war the terrorists longed for. By invading middle eastern nations, the Bush administration has created conditions that make recruitment for al-Qaeda very easy. As more Arabs are suffering and seeing proof of Osama’s assertions that America is their enemy, the influence of the organization can only grow, and its danger to the world will only become more grave. A change is needed for America to not be thrown into a situation that could cripple generations.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that I give my support to Kerry. He is the better candidate on nearly every issue. No, he’s not a perfect leader, but he’s the option you have to make America better. Please take the time to vote for John Kerry tomorrow. Your children, your families, your communities, America and all of the world will thank you in time if you do.

I’d like to share with you a few points that may help to convince you of Kerry’s worthiness and links to sources I used should you wish for further reading.


Senator John Kerry has been an environmental champion. Since helping to organize the first Earth Day in 1970, John Kerry has been one of our nation’s premier environmental leaders, and his voting record has earned him the highest lifetime LCV ranking of all the presidential candidates who competed this year with a 92%.
President George W. Bush has compiled the worst environmental record in the history of our nation, earning him the first ever “F” on the League of Conservation Voters’ (LCV) 2003 Presidential Report Card. His administration’s approach to the environment demonstrates a clear bias toward the interests of corporate polluters and special interests.

Bush seems to have no concern for the our environment and the damage his policies will cause. Clearly Kerry has no competition for any environmentalist’s vote.

Health Care:

Bush favors a free-market approach that includes medical savings accounts and tort reform that would limit medical liability in lawsuits.
Kerry’s plan would create incentives for employers to extend coverage to more people, open federal health benefits to individuals and small businesses, and force drug manufacturers to lower their prices.
Bush plans to spend one tenth as much money, while Kerry plans to insure seven times as many people.”
Senior Living

Kerry would allow 27 million more people to have health insurance and allow Americans to buy cheaper drugs. Bush would rely on capitalism and limiting rights of patients to seek compensation for damage done to them to solve America’s health care problems. If you care for the less fortunate’s health you’ll obviously prefer Kerry’s plan, because it will help a far greater number of people.

Human Rights:

Bush has called for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, saying there must be one uniform national standard immune to judicial reversal. He has not taken a firm position on civil unions, saying he would leave the issue up to the states. Although he endorses the view that homosexuality is “incompatible” with military service, Bush maintained former President Bill Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy allowing gays and lesbians to serve in military if they are not open.
Kerry opposes same-sex marriages but also opposes a constitutional amendment to ban them. Supports recognition of civil unions to extend all federal benefits to same-sex couples. Kerry sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which bans job discrimination against homosexuals. Supports including gays and lesbians in the protections of the Federal Hate Crimes Law. Supports repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
“Bush vs. Kerry at a glance” – MSNBC

Kerry is clearly the candidate most concerned with human rights. His acknowledgement of the problem orientational discrimination poses is just one of many ways he stands as a humanitarian.

10 comments on “Kerry vs. Bush

  1. Don't you just love the way bush supporters are always so willing to engage in healthy, constructive discourse.


    good luck tomorrow (though I'm very sceptical)

  2. Well, I've not used any drugs other than coffee, a couple drinks of alcohol and asthsma medication when I was a child. Obviously “The Right” has some stereotype problems.

    I'll accept the compliment of being a leftist anyday.

  3. i have always admired ur writings, but for this entry, i beg to disagree. the threats and damages of terrorism and al-Qaeda are undeniable; “make love, not war” could just be a futile plead to these people who show no empathy & humanity to their fellow mates in the first place. bush might not have taken the best approach to the war in Iraq and i could even say bush administration has failed very badly in the aspects you have mentioned. but in times when terrorism is threatening and crippling the pulse and growth of humanitarism, what would u as a president do? and what could kerry do? there would never be room for health care, education, job creation, civil rights, the environment, and many other human concerns if the roots of terrorism is not removed. just as the resonating quote in “Lord of the RIngs:The Two Towers” movie, Th?oden asked in the despairingly war at Helm Deeps, “So much death. What can men do against such reckless hate?” Aragorn answered, “Ride out with me. Ride out and meet them.”

    we need a president candidate who could best do this job.

  4. I would not have missed your response to my comments since I have been faithfully following your entries on a daily basis since the first day I stumbled upon your online journal. I'm just somewhat curious and amused, that you would want to make it a point that I should read your response.

    And it is with interest that I do so. And I'm also surprised to find, that for someone who has always come across as philosophical and comtemplative, your vehement reaction to Bush and the Iraq war seems a bit unparallel to your usual calmless.

    I do not rejoice or share Bush's victory and triumph in his successful re-election. I'm just skeptical about Kerry's abilities and what good can he do, if any more, had he won. I do not condone forceful violence but to think we could curb terrorism in a peaceful manner is naive. Terrorism, in itself, is irrational. Who could possibly put sense, much lest a mediation to it? A strategic wipeout and elimination of those who threaten the good of mankind is necessary, even if it has to deploy the use of military power. But it has to go along with clever and intelligent planning, a thing that Bush had failed to do. The results is what we see in chaotic Iraq today. But that does not justify the horrendous deeds such as the kidnapping and beheading of foreign hostages that the Muslim extremists in Iraq are doing either. As you say, violence begets violence. But who had started the viscous cyle in the first place?

    It is not my intention to draw an analogy to Tolkein's masterwork of “The Lord of the Rings” for this US presidency election. But since we are on it, and you liken Bush to those of the Dark side, I wonder in which league would you put Osama and his ilk in? Middle Earth?? And I would never, ever acknowledge Bush or Kerry as the heroic figure of Aragorn.

    My final sentiments, I'm still awaiting for “The Return of the King”. And I hope Bush can make right his wrongs in his next four years to come.

  5. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out that Bush's candidacy has been supported by certain foreign governments (and large corporations that are more powerful than most governments) for the express purpose of weakening the U.S. and eventually taking it over. Direct military action will hardly be needed when the debts go so high that all the land must be sold cheaply to make payments.

    In any case, it can't be very long before the U.S. collapses. The economic star of the U.S. is falling, while China's and other's stars are rising.

    Also, the ranks of the terrorists have exploded under Bush's leadership and I fully expect that trend to continue. The “thanks for your vote” gifts that Bush will give are pink slips and more terror alerts. In addition, I don't expect the great divides in America to heal any time in the next 50 years, since Bush's people have already said that they believe they now have a “mandate.” So, when they talk about reconcilliation, it really means that they want to continue to rape us and they expect not to hear any whisper of resistance. They're not planning to start listening at any point.

    The trouble is that liberals really are nice people and no one is afraid of them. If liberals were the sort of people who would firebomb conservatives' homes, then they might get some respect. Well, even a rabbit will fight back if it gets really cornered, so I suppose we'll have to wait and see what happens after the shock wears off.

  6. I'm very flattered that you take the time to read my entries daily. Thank you.

    I'm the sort of person that wishes to have communication be ongoing, especially with people who can do so with civility. Far too often I find people in all spectrums of politics to be idological rather than thoughtful. That's why I wished for you to read my response, rather than have my words wasted.

    I don't believe my conviction is in opposition to the calm I always try to live with. I believe the policies and leadership that Bush has shown were vile and among the worst your nation has ever known. I didn't come to this judgement lightly, but through years of research and personal experience. I feel that opposition to wrong can be done calmly but with the greatest of conviction.

    I don't think that terrorism can be dealt with only with peaceful actions. To repell violence sometimes we need to resort to violence, but that always must be a last resort.

    Terrorism is not irrational. Terrorism is a tactic like any other. That would be like saying, a cop firing at a hostage-taker to save the life of the hostage is irrational, or that the use of guerrilla warfare is irrational. It can sometimes be effective. America's founders used both terrorism and guerrilla warfare effectively to build your country. Perhaps they were wrong to do so, but they were successful.

    There is no way to eliminate evil with more evil. Perhaps it can limit evil, but never cure it. Only good can defeat evil, only love disarm hate. We need to say to our world community that we'll help each other with kindness and work to end violence. That's the only way to stop the problem of terrorism, to win the minds of people across the globe. Terrorists are winning right now because America is proving them right with their violence.

    America (and Europe before it) started this cycle of violence. Do you really think Muslems had no reason to hate America? Your government has long supported horrendous acts by terrible leaders in the middle east. Ask yourself why one of the greatest human rights violaters there, Saudi Arabia, is one of America's friendliest allies. Why did America put Saddam, and other dictators in power, overthrowing democratically elected leaders? Why did America train Osama and his ilk, giving him weapons and money? America gave the world reasons to distrust it and perhaps to hate it.

    Both sides are wrong to use violence. Both sides are wrong to hate. We need to work to find alternatives, not just continue the cycle.

    I put Osama and Bush in the same league. Using the Lord of the Rings analogy, one would be Sauron and the other Saruman, allies in violence but treacherous. You must remember that Regan and Bush Sr. created Osama. They trained him and provided for him immensely.

    No, Kerry is not perfect, but of all American leaders I'd liken him to Aragorn more than any other. He has the resolve, leadership and compassion that Aragorn demonstrated.

    I don't have faith that Bush can redeem himself. He's too corrupted with religious zealoucy and hatred for me to hold hope. I would love for him to completely change, but that seems unlikely.

  7. Rodney Dangerfield Liberal, I must disagree with you on your last paragraph.

    “The trouble is that liberals really are nice people and no one is afraid of them. If liberals were the sort of people who would firebomb conservatives' homes, then they might get some respect. Well, even a rabbit will fight back if it gets really cornered, so I suppose we'll have to wait and see what happens after the shock wears off.”

    It is a huge strength not to resort to violence. Liberals have a huge moral advantage when they embrace the calm of peacefulness. In the end, we have to hope that activism and kindness of all sorts will prevail in the face of religious zealoucy and violence.

  8. You said it: “To repell violence sometimes we need to resort to violence, but that always must be a last resort.” They declared war on us 30 years ago. Are we never going to fight back, or is it time for last resorts?

    I agree with you that Bush and Osama are like Sauron and Saruman. That's a good analogy.

  9. RDL, I think the question needs to be asked, would violence help our cause? I firmly believe it would not. It would only cast us in the same light as those who follow the ideals we oppose.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: