Posted: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 10:00 pm
President Bush should be re-elected because:
• Despite its heat and passion, the campaign has produced no convincing reason that he should be replaced, at least not among people who support conservative causes generally.
• The war against terrorism - and by extension the continuing conflict in Iraq - requires a steady hand and resolve. Too many of the supporters of John Kerry suggest that we have been doing the wrong thing and they would get their man to change course, though he doesn't say exactly how, or how that would produce better results.
• Both internationally and domestically, Bush has tried to get things accomplished rather than just talk about our problems. In the Middle East, he wanted to move past the status quo, which amounted to a state of war that lasted for more than half a century and threatened the security of the United States. He has not yet succeeded, but half a century of milder policies did not succeed either and only made things worse. The forceful dethroning of one dictator has been one positive result of the Bush approach, though at a heavy cost.
• On the domestic front, Bush was tired of the decades-long complaining about public education. His No Child Left Behind Act has drawbacks, but it is forcing schools everywhere to be more focused on the main point: Educating everybody. Educators complain it has not been sufficiently funded. Funding education is mainly a state job. Bush is trying to get states to do their job.
• After years of deadlock and court battles over the nonfunctioning Northwest Forest Plan, the Bush team got Congress to enact the so-called Healthy Forests Act, which called for accelerated thinning and removed some legal hurdles. Now it's up to the bureaucracy to get into gear and do the work.
• On the environment, the Bush administration has tried to balance environmental goals against economic necessities. That is why his administration has been slow to add species to the endangered list or tighten various emission rules, for example. That is the responsible approach, and for this he has been the target of a relentless attack from the environmental movement.
• Bush has taken a responsible approach on the subject of embryonic stem cell research as well, blocking federal funding for new lines of cells. While the potential benefits in curing diseases are distant and uncertain, the possible drawbacks of a massive federally funded research effort are clear: the temptation to conceive fetuses, naturally or in the lab, and abort them early to gain access to their stem cells.
On all these and many other issues, John Kerry would likely do the opposite of what Bush has done. That is why re-electing Bush is the better choice. (hh)