Here's a brief roundup of recent comments and endorsements you should be aware of regarding the 2004 Presidential race.
First, the always notable Mark Steyn shows how the justifications for voting Kerry fall flat. Here's an excerpt:
if America had followed the positions advocated by John Kerry, there would have been no Reagan arms build-up, and the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact would have lingered on, and their clients in Grenada would have destabilized the rest of the Caribbean, and Latin America would not have been democratized, and Saddam Hussein would still be in power and still controlling Kuwait. Kerry's lovebirds at the Washington Post et al. are dreaming of a transformation in their unlovely swain that would be at odds not just with his last three decades but with his last three weeks.
Next, check out Jeff Jacoby's comment on Kerry's lack of character.
Charles Krauthammer on Friday called Kerry on the carpet for implying that one of the most successful military campaigns in the history of war, the US overthrow of the Taliban that freed > 20,000,000 Afghanis and directly led to both an ELECTION and RIGHTS for women, was somehow a failure.
Today, George Will did what he famously refused to do in 1992: he endorsed President Bush's re-election. [In '92 Will chose neither and declared he'd write in for Jack Kemp -- a conservative favorite at the time.]
And the NY Daily News surprised today by endorsing the re-election of the President. This is noteworthy because the News and the NY Post tend to take opposite views on most political issues (other than support for Israel). The News' perspective is eminently reasonable for a newspaper whose demographic tends to be NYC ethnics and working class -- our families and our country must be protected. Kerry won't do that; Bush will. Here are excerpts from the editorial:
The News endorsed Clinton and Gore in the three races beginning with 1992, each time judging their domestic agendas in the best interests of the American people. But it is no longer Sept. 10th. The world has changed. And nowhere has it been more tragically altered than in New York. And nowhere are the stakes higher.
As the preeminent symbol of America, this city remains Ground Zero, primary target of Islamic radicals. How best to win the war against terror so the country and its leading city emerge from jeopardy is the overriding concern in the election. The News believes Bush offers the stronger hope in this urgent regard.
* * *
Bush's move into Iraq exemplifies a commitment to stay on the offensive against terror, and to do so militarily where necessary and feasible, as was the case in Iraq. The message has been clearly heard in capitals around the world. That's why strongman Moammar Khadafy relinquished Libya's WMD program, and it's why a nuclear black market operating out of Pakistan has been shut down.
* * *
Returning Bush to office is the wise course, The News believes, despite our sharp disagreement with his domestic policies. Those pale in comparison with the overarching challenge of securing the nation and preserving New York's vital way of life.