October 17, 2004 in Opinion

Reluctantly, we choose Bush again

• Print
• Email
• Share

George W. Bush promised to be “a uniter, not a divider,” but today our country is more divided than at any time since the Civil War. George W. Bush entered office with a reputation as a consensus builder; yet, the United States is at odds with some of its longtime allies. George W. Bush was billed as a “compassionate conservative,” but health care and housing for the poorest in our nation remain significant challenges.

George W. Bush wasn’t what we expected when we endorsed him four years ago.

We also didn’t expect Bush would have to prove his mettle as a war-time president or to save the economy from a downturn thrust upon him by market factors and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

President Bush is a flawed man, especially with his stands on such issues as reproductive choice and gay rights and his administration’s restrictive policies regarding access to public records.

Still, in the crucial areas of our national security and economy, he inspires far more confidence than John Kerry, a liberal U.S. senator who has sent mixed messages on his solutions for Iraq. During a time of war, the Democrats have fielded a vacillating candidate with a long record of opposing military involvement and defense appropriations. The Democrats could have done better.

Reluctantly, this newspaper recommends President Bush as a better choice to protect the country from attack, to win the peace in Iraq, and to use tax cuts to stimulate the economy to recovery.

We doubted that Iraq posed an imminent threat when war was launched, and we’ll always wonder if a less costly solution should have been pursued. But there is no going back, and the conflict in Iraq has attracted terrorists from around the world, distracting them from possible attacks on targets on our shores.

To his credit, President Bush has taken the fight to the terrorists, by toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and by unifying homeland security. Most Americans agree that the Bush administration’s initial response to the 9/11 attacks was superb. In months, the U.S. military overthrew the Taliban, closed Osama bin Laden’s terrorist camps and decimated al Qaeda’s leadership with minimal loss of American life. A week ago, the world saw the first fruits of Bush’s firm leadership when millions of Afghans, including women for the first time, voted in the first national presidential election in 35 years.

The situation in Iraq, of course, isn’t as clear cut. The country fell in three weeks, but the loss of American life, bombings, kidnappings, beheadings and sabotage continue. On the other hand, Iraqis are being trained to take over security. Followers of Moqtada al-Sadr are turning in their weapons. And a nationwide presidential vote looms in January. Bush deserves more time to finish the job.

Kerry simply is a risky alternative. He can’t be serious when he says he can provide uninsured children with the same quality health insurance available under congressional plans and can do it without rolling back Bush tax cuts for the middle class. Kerry’s plan for Iraq mimics what’s going on there now. His stance on environmental issues as a senator indicates he would hamstring American business and commerce with more regulations.

Bush may leave a lot to be desired. But Kerry leaves a lot more.

No comments on this story so far. Add yours!