I told you that I like it down here. Here is one reason why. The people, including the media strangely enough, see things clearly and correctly. This is The Mobile Register’s second printing of its endorsment of President George W. Bush.
No doubt about it. President Bush has Alabama in the bag!
~M*
Emphatic endorsement for George W. Bush
Sunday, October 31, 2004
THE REGISTER today repeats its endorsement of George W. Bush for re-election as president of the United States.
We believe that Mr. Bush’s three most important decisions were the right ones. First, he decided to treat Islamic terrorists as a military adversary, rather than as primarily a matter for intelligence and law enforcement.
Second, he finally decided to enforce 13 years of United Nations resolutions by leading a coalition to remove the dangerous Saddam Hussein from power — in so doing, helping eliminate the threat from Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi as well.
Third, he pushed through several well-designed, broad-based tax cuts that gave especially large percentage breaks to lower-income workers — and staved off the worst of what could have been a far more difficult recession.
Those strengths of President Bush look even more substantial when compared to the weaknesses of Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
Mr. Kerry’s record is that of one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate (as judged by a multitude of organizations right, center and left) — and before that as a war protester not content with mere principled dissent, but instead guilty of histrionics, smears of his fellow soldiers and questionable consultations with officials of North Vietnam.
His Senate record is most relevant, and most troubling. At the very height of the Cold War, Mr. Kerry advocated large cuts in a multitude of weapons systems most needed both for national defense and for strength in peace negotiations.
And shortly after the first bombing of the World Trade Center (in 1993), Sen. Kerry pushed cuts in the national intelligence budget so steep that even the vast majority of his fellow Democrats rejected them while one leader publicly criticized them as irresponsible.
A man who voted against the first Gulf War even despite U.N. approval, and a man who said he voted for the current war in Iraq before he voted against it, Sen. Kerry cannot be trusted to exercise the correct or consistent judgment necessary in these dangerous times.
But back to George W. Bush. Famed British historian Paul Johnson recently chimed in with his assessment of the man and his moment. He wrote that this election “will redefine what kind of country the United States is, and how far the rest of the world can rely upon her to preserve the general safety and protect our civilization.”
And Mr. Johnson praised the president for “total consistency, adamantine determination, and remarkable courage, despite sneers and jeers, ridicule and venomous opposition.”
In short, wrote Mr. Johnson, President Bush has “the moral right to ask American voters to give him the mandate to finish the job he has started.”
It is a mandate that voters should grant him.
