Love/hate relationship

Joe Kelly sums up succinctly my own feelings about President Bush:

I love George Bush for his tax cuts and his foreign policy.

But, my adoration stops there.

The events of 9/11 have shown that this nation can sustain and quickly recover from a massive terrorist attack. But, we will never recover from the expansion of power, spending and entitlement programs that have been instituted under the Bush Administration.

He quotes extensively from this article in the Philadelphia Enquirer (you may be prompted to register), and the first two paragraphs he quotes tell the tale:

A lot of conservatives, weaned on Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, had long dreamed of the day when a Republican president, backed by Republican majorities in both congressional chambers, would finally fulfill the GOP's small- government credo by slashing federal expenditures and doing away with the liberal welfare state. Just nine years ago, Gingrich's Contract with America promised "the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money."

So they didn't expect that George W. Bush would morph into FDR, expanding the size of government with New Deal gusto, pressuring Congress to spend lavishly on new programs with no way to pay the tab - and prompting them to complain recently, at a Washington conservative confab, that the hated Bill Clinton was a skinflint by comparison. The grousing got so bad that one attendee, New Jersey political consultant Rick Shaftan, even declared, "A lot of people here don't care if Bush wins or not."

So, once again it comes down to voting for the candidate I dislike the least. I cannot in good conscience vote for Kerry. He will grow government as rapidly as Bush is doing, if not more so, as well as raising taxes. Some theorize that a Republican-controlled Congress would fight a Democrat president's attempts at spending increases while going along with a Republican President like they have been with Bush. This is given as a reason why electing Kerry might actually be beneficial. This assumes that Republican members of Congress would put this sort of party politics above doing what would be most likely to get them reelected, which I doubt.

So, assuming that Kerry and Bush would grow the government by similar amounts if elected, the main differences as I seem them are:

• Kerry would raise taxes while Bush would not. It is hoped that no increase in revenue would put downward pressure on spending but it is certain that increases in revenue would not apply such pressure.


• Kerry would return to the days of treating terror attacks as law enforcement issues, appeasing terrorists and their state sponsors, and basically going back to failed policies which would result in more attacks on the US and its people. In short, electing Kerry would send much the same signal as Spain's election of a Socialist government.


• Kerry has a record of saying whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear at any given time. Bush, at least, says what he means and sticks with it.

I don't pretend to be a political expert, I just call it as I see it, try to keep an open mind, and refine or change my opinions as new information becomes available. For now, though, I have to say that my intention is to hold my nose and vote for Bush this November. The only way that Kerry could be the lesser of two evils is if he was running against Cthulhu.