In what is likely the most important presidential election since the 1960s, the American people are faced with a seemingly difficult choice between the neo-conservative incumbent George W. Bush and the fairly liberal Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. So difficult, in fact, that the country is almost evenly divided down party lines, with just less than 50 percent of the population supposedly set on one man or the other. But after considering the potential of Kerry and the reality of four years of Bush, the decision is pretty obvious -vote John Kerry for president.
Kerry, while not a candidate of Clintonesque appeal, is a good Democrat and a good man. He has served 20 steady, if unspectacular, years in the U.S. Senate representing the interests of the lower to middle-class democratic base. He has displayed a real care for environmental issues, and has indicated that he would re-enter the U.S. into the Kyoto agreement. His military record, continuously challenged, still makes him an American hero.
Kerry also has said he will try to keep taxes low for the middle and lower class while removing the Bush tax cuts for those making $200,000 or more, and will work to close corporate tax loopholes. These sentiments implicitly attack the wealthy, but they should be interpreted as appealing to the social conscience of the nation's elite to do their part.
During the primary season, Democrats -traditionally the more fractious of the two parties -voiced Anybody but Bush sentiments in unison. And, while Kerry is a stronger candidate than he often is given credit for, the overwhelming flaws of the Bush administration, in the end, do make the greatest case for Kerry's candidacy.
The failure of Iraq does not necessarily lie in the Bush administration's rush to war, though a recent revelation in The New York Times about the administration's bogus claim that aluminum tubes could be used for nuclear weapons is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to probable untruths spread in the days before the war. The real disaster lies in the shoddy invasion plan, which was a military coup but a post-war disaster. With no plan to win the peace
as Kerry would say, and no exit plan, the Bush administration has left American troops fluttering like a tattered lone-star flag on a blustery afternoon.
Bush's laundry list of mistakes includes the under-funded and ironically named No Child Left Behind Act, which raised standards but denied schools the funding to reach them. His administration has championed the Patriot Act, which infringes on personal freedoms. He also continually pushes for tax cuts even while the government is running a record deficit of more than $420 billion.
The senator has constantly been attacked for being a flip-flopper because of his various votes during the past few years, but Kerry's ability to re-assess issues and to vote with his conscience -as opposed to his bravado -is a definite plus.
Kerry has defended his candidacy in recent weeks by saying that America needs a change. He couldn't be more right.
No on Issue One
State Issue One represents an abhorrent attempt at abusing governmental power to appease a handful of fringe reactionaries. What's worse, it likely will pass. Polls of registered voters conducted by The Columbus Dispatch show a clear majority of Ohioans intend to vote yes on Issue One, which would amend the state Constitution to bar gay marriage or any type of domestic civil union. It likely would eliminate any legal privileges of marriage for any unwed couple, including maternity leave, hospital visitation, etc. And it would make the state of Ohio look ridiculous. Even Republican Gov. Bob Taft announced yesterday he opposes Issue One because it's too vague.
Issue One proponents want it to be the final one-up against judges who might rule that laws singling out a particular group for discrimination are unconstitutional. But this is a gross misuse of citizens' power. More importantly, it's wrong. Why should gay people be prevented from getting married or from filing their taxes jointly? Making it illegal does not protect marriage. It cheapens it. But if gays can marry what's to stop people from having multiple married partners? ask Issue One proponents. Simple. The same thing that forbids it now. Establish state laws that define marriage as a partnership between two people, regardless of sex. Before that, however, Ohio voters should defeat Issue One.
17
Archives
The Post Editorial Board
