Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (78673)	10/18/2004 5:10:41 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 793850

Captain's Quarters Endorses George Bush For President Captain Ed This may be as much of a surprise as John Kerry winning endorsements from mainstream newspapers, but Captain's Quarters is endorsing George Bush for President. (Do you think this will make headlines around the blogosphere? Neither do I.) With two weeks left to go before the election, however, I think it's important to get past the normally reactive posture that blogs have and to communicate clearly why I think Bush should be re-elected, as well as why I think Kerry should be turned away. I covered some of this material earlier, and in greater detail, but it bears repeating now. George Bush is the first president in a generation to truly understand the nature of terrorism and the effort it will take to defeat it. In this election, he's the only candidate who strategizes to win, rather than reduce it to so-called "nuisance" levels. He had the vision to understand that terrorists on their own do not present the gravest threat to our national security, but that the threat springs from the nexus between terrorists and states that harbor, sponsor, and arm them as proxies to wage asymmetrical war against the West. He has approached this threat strategically instead of tactically, as well as militarily instead of legalistically. Bush has gathered allies where possible, but unlike previous administrations, did not allow the US to be hamstrung by recalcitrant -- and corrupted -- international organizations benefitting from the status quo. That's it. I'm a national-security voter this time around. Even if I agreed with Kerry on the majority of domestic issues, which I do not, I would vote for the man who has the right plan to keep my family and country as safe as possible. The forward strategy for attacking Islamist aggression and the nexus of state sponsorship of terrorism must prevail. Why not John Kerry? Mainly, John Kerry has been all over the map on terror. He swears that he will hunt down and kill terrorists, but then complains when we invade the places where they hide. Kerry's only consistency on fighting terror is inconsistency. He spent twenty years in the Senate building a record which indicates that he shrinks at using force to ensure our national security. He complains about the difference between the 30-nation coalition we have now and the 34-nation coalition we had for the first Gulf War, but fails to mention that he opposed that war as well. If Kerry had been in charge, Saddam would not only still be running Iraq, he would be running Kuwait as well. But beyond that, Kerry has built a political record that shows no indication of firm, steady, and reliable leadership. Despite twenty years in the Senate, he has managed to pass only six bills that he initiated. Six bills in 20 years! Kerry argued on the wrong side of the nuclear-freeze movement, the contras, the military expansion that broke the back of the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War, and taxes, taxes, taxes. Kerry, in short, managed to be wrong on almost every issue he faced. And as this election campaign has shown, Kerry will say and do anything to pander to the electorate. He indulges in cheap shots, like the "most lying, corrupt" remarks to his supporters when he thought he wasn't being recorded. He wallowed in the Bush-AWOL story for months, along with his DNC Chairman, Terry McAuliffe, and then squealed when his own military record came under scrutiny. Kerry has personally spread the urban legend of a million disenferanchised African-American voters, while his wife spread rumors that Bush had Osama bin Laden hidden away until just before the election. Kerry cannot be trusted with executive power, especially in a time of war. America needs leaders who lead, not politicians who wet their finger and then bend with the wind. And with as many threats arrayed against us as we have, we need a president who will think our our security before his own polling numbers or the approbation of foreign leaders who actively work against us. Bush has demonstrated his willingness and ability to rise to these occasions, while Kerry has based his entire campaign on appeasement. My endorsement: re-elect the man who will not wait for our enemies to attack or our friends to approve our plans to protect ourselves. NOTE: Hugh Hewitt will have more posts along these lines at his on-line symposium. Be sure to check in there. Posted by Captain Ed captainsquartersblog.com