The case for the GOPIn my post on the British election, I wrote:
If you want to send a message that you are tired of filth and corruption in your Government, you must remove that Government from power and replace it with another one.
A poster responded with the comment:
A good suggestion. But why should the British succeed this year, while last year Americans utterly failed to remove their enron-style corruption-dominated democracy-attacking constitution-undermining government from power?
Now, the poster in question was quite anonymous, so I do not know if they were British, Irish, Spanish, French, any other myriad of nationalities, or whether they were American. They also didn't seem to have a blog of their own, so I couldn't visit their blog to learn what exactly their political persuasion was. So far, they've made a couple of posts on my blog just today, and liberal or conservative, they seem like a nice enough individual. Perhaps it is time to treat them (and all of my regular readers) to an explanation of why this administration is more worthy of power than its left-wing opposition.
If the above poster is not from the U.S., I can excuse them for not understanding the nightmare of the Clinton presidency, and how the Democratic Party successfully used the mainstream news media to convince people on two separate occasions (the travel office scandal and the Monica perjury affair) that it was perfectly bloody fine for members of their administration to commit criminal acts and get away with them. Perjury was to be excused simply with "it was only sex, what's the big deal." Accountability applied to others, but not to the Democrats. The American people were ignorant enough at the time to buy into this load of bull, until they realized in 2000/2001 that they had been taken advantage of, and Mr. Clinton left office with some of the lowest approval ratings since the Truman administration.
If the poster is an American, he or she ought to know these things. If he or she is from the U.S., they should know that in 2004, Americans were offered two choices: Political stupidity and military inexpediency (Bush), or moral and social decay and corruption (Kerry). I'll take political stupidity and military inexpediency over moral and social decay and corruption of the fabric of our society any day.
Most of my friends and those close to me recall that before the war in Iraq began, I was opposed to starting a military conflict there. I still believe that going to war in Iraq was a very poor decision, that the post-war occupation and reconstruction was poorly planned, and that our military forces are stretched entirely too thin (thanks to military cuts initiated by the previous administration) to deal with legitimate threats to national and global security (read: Iran and North Korea). However, the war happened despite my opposition. Our forces in the field deserve support, and even Mr. Kerry as much as admitted that he was in no position to simply withdraw from Iraq.
As much of a blunder as Iraq has been for President Bush, he has stuck to his guns on the important issue of judicial nominees. The fate of the Constitution is not decided by the White House, but by the federal judges that White House appoints. Recent Democratic administrations have appointed judges who have little regard for the Constitution, and these judges take great pains to invent concepts that are simply nowhere to be found in the Constitution. They believe in making the Constitution into what they might prefer that it be, rather than interpret the document as it is written. Mr. Bush has seen fit to try and appoint judges who believe in the Constitution, and who will interpret it strictly as it is written, not invent law that is not there out of thin air.
Now, we can argue all day the merits (or lack thereof) of this administration's post 9/11 over-reaction. However, there is no reason to believe a Gore administration would have reacted any differently (Homeland Security), and that administration would do far more damage to our federal judiciary.
Bush is far from a perfect President. His greatest political advantage is that his opposition is far worse than he ever thought about being. I do believe, however, that his victory over Kerry is a signal that Middle America is starting to fight back against the cultural domination of the Left a la New York and Hollywierd. The only way people can vote against the Great Coastal Cultural Disease is to outvote those people at the ballot box...and we did so.