Bush for president

The president deserves re-election for his anti-terrorism leadership.

Sunday, October 17, 2004

Four years ago, George W. Bush campaigned for the presidency as a "compassionate conservative." There was a good deal of debate back then about what exactly that meant. But most folks interpreted it as "moderate."
Conservative, yes -- and certainly not liberal -- but pragmatic and centrist. If the spectrum of liberal to conservative were the top half of a clock dial, candidate Bush in 2000 would have been at about 1:00 -- maybe 1:30.

Factor in a contested election with a popular vote that Al Gore "won" by about a half-million votes, and there was certainly no mandate for a sharp right turn in America. We had every reason to expect President Bush to govern from somewhere near the center.

And that would have been pretty much in tune with the York County electorate. "Compassionate conservative" is a pretty good description of the majority of local folks. They have good, solid morals. They believe citizens should take personal responsibility for their actions. They believe government should stay out of their personal lives. They believe taxes should be kept under control. They don't think America should be the "world's policeman."

In many ways, President Bush has lived up to those ideals. Taxes are lower. The president has tried to create an "ownership society." In other ways, though, it's hard to believe the man running for re-election is the same man he was four years ago.

A huge surplus has turned into an even bigger deficit. The government is monitoring our personal lives more than ever. And we've become the world's policeman -- walking a beat in downtown Baghdad.

What happened?

Sept. 11, 2001, is what happened.

The terrorist attacks have, of necessity, dramatically transformed the president and his ideology.

Some of his decisions in the war on terrorism are certainly debatable (and we'll never hesitate to offer critiques), but President Bush has risen to the challenge of protecting Americans. He's delivered strong leadership in a time of great uncertainty, and for that he deserves re-election.

Sen. John Kerry has offered valid criticisms of some details and nuances of Mr. Bush's leadership. On many points, the Democratic candidate is right. Iraq appears to be in a state of chaos and we have a great deal of "nation building" left to do.

But on terrorism and other national security issues, Mr. Kerry has struggled to define how his leadership would have been much different or better than the president's. He voted with the administration on key issues -- for the Patriot Act (which should be revised to better protect civil liberties), for use of force to remove Saddam Hussein. The list could go on. And his plan to "win the peace" seems almost like Nixon's secret plan to win the Vietnam War (which should not even be an issue in this campaign, by the way).

Mr. Kerry does edge out President Bush on many domestic issues. The president's environmental policies are a disaster in the making, and we believe the senator would better protect the air and water. Mr. Kerry seems to have a better national health insurance plan.

But sadly, the national security issue trumps all others at this point -- and it just doesn't make sense to switch horses in mid-stream, as the plain-spoken man from Texas might put it.

That said, we hope President Bush will renew his commitment to compassionate conservatism on domestic issues. The war on terrorism should be no excuse to impose a hard-line conservative agenda on such a closely divided citizenry. <<

Go get 'em!  FLOOD them with letters!