I am writing in response to the March 17 editorial, “Sen. Kerry: Better Than Bush.”
There are a number of points I wish to dispute. There is a rehash of the complaint about Nader supposedly costing Al Gore the 2000 election. If anyone is responsible for Gore not getting elected it’s Gore. He was an eight year vice president coming from an administration that presided over a period of relative peace and great economic numbers, yet he couldn’t even win his home state! It shouldn’t have been close enough for Nader to have an effect.
As far as “The Bush campaign is already beginning to fight back”—there have been months of attacks by Kerry and other Democratic primary candidates on the president, including television ads in New York prior to the primary. Exactly how long should he let them continue without a response?
Regarding “mistruths, lies, and deceit”—let’s see some proof.
And on the subject of mistruths let’s look at Kerry. He said on television ads “three million people lost their jobs” which is quite misleading. As of February, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 2.3 million more people working than at the start of Bush’s term. It’s true that job growth has not kept up with the increase in the labor pool (resulting in about 2.2 million more unemployed), but to say 3 million—where did he get that number anyway?—lost their jobs is tremendously misleading. Here’s an analogy—Let’s say this year 100 students apply for scholarships and 100 receive them, then next year 110 apply and 105 are awarded. Does that mean five people “lost” their scholarship? Of course not! To lose a job you have to have one to start with. Of course Kerry is from the party that wanted to give tax cuts to people who don’t pay taxes, so maybe that makes sense to him.
Further, Kerry had the audacity to put a doctored photo of the president—made to appear as if he were waiving an Oscar—on his campaign webpage for about a week. If he would do that, it makes me wonder about the pictures that purport to show him in service in Vietnam. Maybe those were doctored photos also. Doctoring photos of your opponent should be reserved for campaigns like sixth grade student council, not president of the United States.
Kerry criticized one of Bush’s potential nominees for being in charge of a company that outsourced jobs, yet he enjoys the riches provided by marrying into the Heinz fortune, a company that has most of their manufacturing plants outside the U.S. I guess outsourcing is OK if it results in ski chalets for Kerry.
Another whopper from Kerry was the idea that several “foreign leaders” support his candidacy. Apparently their support for Kerry is so overwhelmingly strong that he can’t divulge their names. And when asked by a voter at an appearance, part of his response was “It’s none of your business.” He opened that can of worms with his statement—it’s only natural to ask which leaders he is referring to, and what he promised them for their support.
President Bush has lowered my taxes, enacted a clear and consistent policy towards those who would attack the U.S., turned the economy around—other than employment figures, which are not as bad as Kerry would paint them, most economic numbers are positive—and more.
On the other hand, Kerry is proposing billions of dollars in expenditures with no clear explanation of how they would be paid for, apparently doesn’t know which side of national defense he stands on.
I’ll be voting to re-elect the president.
Jim Burns
DSES GRAD
