Monday, June 07, 2004


Time to wrap this up

I've spent a couple of posts over the last few weeks talking about G.W. Bush. I have one final statement to make in summary. There has always been a strong argument among my friends and family that Bush is a great President because he walks strongly in faith with God and makes solid moral decisions. I wholeheartedly agree.

Let me stipulate my own positions here.....I oppose abortion, same-sex marriage and human cloning outright. I admit to being a bit wishy-washy on capital punishment, as I believe that any offense involving the death of a child should result in the death penalty, but I'm not so sure about some other cases. Personally, I think we should find a remote island somewhere and turn it into a prison facility for capital offenders. Once sentenced to the island, the only way off the island is in a box.

However, these are MY positions and there are numerous others who feel differently. My position on all moral issues are based on my upbringing and my personal faith in God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Our nations (Canada and the U.S.) have open borders, which welcome people of all races, creeds and beliefs. Given that, I believe that the Government has to listen to all sides when making moral decisions.

Hence, the separation of Church and State. The Church should be the one to make the decisions on moral issues, I believe. The State should step in to protect the rights of the people. So, if the rights of gays are being limited by laws, the State has to step in. If the rights of the unborn are at risk, the State should step in. The State blew it on marriage by tying benefits to married couples based on the Bible's interpretation of marriage (one man and one woman united under God). They started down the slippery slope by allowing common-law couples to apply for benefits once they met certain standards (number of years together, etc.). Common-law marriage does NOT meet God's standards for marriage, hence the State should not have allowed it.

Now, how can they NOT allow same-sex couples to apply for benefits? They've already created the precedent and, I guarantee it, if it goes to the Supreme Court, it'll pass. The Court knows it's role, and that is to interpret the law, morality be damned. Bush can scream and argue all he wants, but if the Court says yea, it'll stand up just like Roe v. Wade.

I applaud Bush for his stands against partial-birth abortion (a particularly heinous bit of medical science that is always a sure way to get me upset) and human cloning. I also commend him for his willingness to be fearless in expressing his faith and beliefs. One thing, though. If Bush is so determined to run things in a faith-based fashion, why isn't he trying to strike down Roe v. Wade? That is clearly an item not on God's agenda. The answer: It's a political powder keg that would clearly turn off a key demographic that delivered Bush to the White House: middle-aged women. As is always the case, Bush, like others before him, has carefully chosen his battlegrounds so he can protect his rock-solid right wing support without damaging his larger block of centrist swing voters that he'll really need in November.

I believe that, first and foremost, Bush is responsible for three things: Keeping the country running (economically and in other ways), defending the country, and managing foreign relations. I give him high marks for defending the country, middling-to-low marks for foreign relations (I think he set a new standard for dashing global goodwill) and low marks for managing (mangling?) the economy. I also only award him middling marks for morality (nailed the gimmes, didn't effect change on past misdeeds).

So, you would think I'm a Kerry supporter, right?


If I had a vote in the coming election, it would still go to Bush. I think that there is a real light at the end of the tunnel economically (although it could be the front of an oncoming train) and Bush has already made a smart move in bringing back Greenspan for four more years, although it may only be two. I am slowly becoming impressed with the way the Iraq denouement is playing out and it looks like we just might have a clean handoff June 30. I am also impressed with Bush's willingness to try to mend fences with nations (i.e. France) who opposed the Iraq invasion.

I have yet to see anything from Kerry that sounds like a solid policy statement. I fear he is good hair and little else. You see, I think Kerry is a four-year guy only, because Hurricane Hillary is coming and you had better believe she'll be on the ticket in 2008. Kerry is nothing more than a placeholder and I think that having him in the White House could lead to a degree of stasis that could be hugely damaging to the U.S.

I say give G.W. four more years and hopefully he will step out of the comfort zone and challenge some real hidebound things (the U.N., abortion, etc.) since he will no longer need to worry about re-election.

God bless you, George W. Bush. May you go forward into four more successful years.