First off, let me say that I am very grateful for President George W. Bush. However, I wonder at times whether or not I overlook the flaws in my preferred candidate for president. Take last week's debates, for instance. At first glance, I take some umbrage with some of the things my President said he was in favor of, and things that he seems to think he has done well. It pained me, and yet I'm going to vote for the guy. Is there a problem here? Why am I going to do that?
The headshrinkers call this sort of thing cognitive dissonance, and it is something we try to avoid in our lives.
I think that I have to look at what the President has done so far for my answers. What has the man done, as opposed to what has the man said? The democrats want America to look at what Kerry has said, as opposed to what he has done. I'll take the former over the latter any day. I think it is the only reliable predictor for what the candidate will do in the future.
W pointed out that he did not renew the assault weapons ban only because it never came up. Congress never submitted anything for him to sign. This on the same day the NRA announced they were endorsing him. Ouch. Not a great way to win my vote.
I am VERY pro-Second Amendment. I happen to think the Brady Bill was probably one of the most useless pieces of legislature to ever be passed. The only function it served was as a stepping stone to further erode gun rights.
So to hear MY presidential candidate say he would have supported the ban if had come up did not sit well with me. In fact, it caused a bit of ranting at the television, until I was told to shut up by She Who Must be Obeyed.
Border security is another sore subject with me. A couple of years ago, an old golf buddy was killed by an illegal alien in Central Texas. The murderer fled across the border, and I doubt they will ever catch him. The President said that his administration had in fact increased security at the border. They are spending more money, which means more agents, more unmanned vehicles, etc.
Fine. It's a darn big border, though. This country has never been willing to defend it the way it needs to be defended. Pancho Villa ran amok on the border almost 100 years ago. That should have let us know we had problems. There are apparently Chechnyan terrorists sneaking over into Arizona, and that frightens me. Common sense dictates borders should be protected by big walls and big guns. Set the dogs on anybody trying to cross that is not supposed to be there. That seems to be a relatively simple, elegant solution. Nobody seems really willing to do that, however. W never said what I wanted him to say.
How do I reconcile voting for George Bush, given these beliefs? Easy. The answer is to examine the deeds, not the words. Simply analyze the opposition. It does not take very long to see how Lurch Kerry stacks up on these issues.
Internationalism is the order of the day with Kerry. No borders anywhere would suit him fine. Two words: global test. I think he would welcome an influx of illegal immigrants into the US. First, they would probably vote Democrat, not knowing any better. Democrats have been buying the immigrant vote since the days of Tammany Hall, and they have picked up a few new tricks since then. At least they are consistent.
Second, the left-wing Democrats are socialists. I will use the term pinko-commies, just because I want to. As his voting record attests, you cannot find a more liberal senator than John Kerry. We do not seem to like to actually acknowledge the elephant in the room (to steal a phrase from Michelle Malkin), but there it is. The dems simply believe that government can run our lives better than we can. They welcome those who need, want, and crave the government handout. It allows the Democrats to build a case for more government tax dollars to help all these allegedly needy people. Thus the government entrenches itself more into our lives, thus stealing more of our money, etc. You get the idea. Not that all illegals are going on the government dole. Some of them are actually working hard over here, earning money so that they can eventually kill us by crashing planes into our buildings.
If Kerry is NOT a pinko-commie (which I have no doubt that he is), then he is simply a bleeding-heart liberal. He's either actively trying to turn the US into the USSR, or he is criminally stupid. I'm not sure which is worse.
Either way, he would probably welcome the poor illegals simply because he feels they deserve free medical care, television, a new Camaro, and the ability to vote for him. Either way, he has no interest at all in my well-being, or that which I think would best serve the country.
We know Kerry is the most liberal senator out there, so we know darn well he will do nothing to curb illegal immigration. We are already painfully aware of his views on defending this country. Therefore, no matter how bad Bush has let me down on border security, he's done more than Kerry ever will.
I believe W will have to get even tougher on the issue next term. To be fair, he HAS increased border security. I hope that means he will work even harder on the issue next term. What's Kerry done to make us safer since 9/11?
By the same token, I know darn good and well what Lurch Kerry will do to gun rights. He is in favor of the Clinton gun ban, and beyond. Handgun Control Inc. has him in its back pocket. If Kerry gets elected, we won't even be able to carry a water gun in this country. (As an aside, I think that is further evidence that Kerry is a pinko commie. Remember Lenin said that one man with a gun can control 100 without one.)
George Bush signed the Texas Concealed Carry Law into effect during his tenure as governor. I know where he stands. Despite his seeming to back away from the NRA's position during the debate, I know what his track record has been. I think that W probably said what he did because it was a safe statement. A non-issue. There's no way in the world to prove what he would have done with that legislation, because it never came up. I can say definitively that I would have put the carriers to sea before December 7th, 1941. There's no way to prove I wouldn't have done it, is there??
Deeds, not words. W has shown me that he supports the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. So I can forgive him for not coming out and saying what I wanted to hear. Though it galls me somewhat; I think I know what he would do, based on what he HAS done.
So there. No more cognitive dissonance.
The bottom line is, I know my candidate will be better on my key issues than the pinko-commie Lurch. I think the Republican Convention this year highlighted that we can still have our differences as a party, but still function as a unit. That is what democracy is all about, and what has made the US so great.
George W. Bush still represents my beliefs, my hopes, and my desires far better than Lurch Kerry ever could. I can tell that from W's track record. Kerry's track record? Nonexistent in some areas, pathetic where it does exist. I know what he will do on my particular key issues.
And yes, I am very familiar with the concept of rationalization. It is not applicable here. Why? It's my blog, that's why.