Courtesy of a Canadian jounalist friend of mine, written just before the US election, for the paranoids
:
Americans make their choice for president on Thursday. Here's hoping that choice will be George W. Bush.
Bush is in a tight race with John Kerry, and most polls indicate it's going to be a nail-biter.
For Bush, this is deja vu all over again. He lost the popular vote in 2000 to Al Gore by more than 543,000 votes, but won the electoral college by 271-266.
In the U.S., combined state support trumps individual popularity. So, while Bush lost in highly-populated states, he won more states overall and therefore won the election.
Could Bush face the same scenario against Kerry? Fortunately, it doesn't appear so.
Bush has retained most of his successful 2000 coalition of southern states and some northeastern states. He leads in Florida and Ohio, both battleground states, by 2-3%. He is doing better than expected in traditional Democratic areas, including Iowa and New Jersey.
In contrast, Kerry has lost elements of Gore's near-successful 2000 coalition, and is struggling to hold on to electoral-rich states. He's leading in New York and California - but the, the Democrats could put up a ratty old shoe as its candidate and probably still win them.
On the policy side, Bush is miles ahead of Kerry.
Many Americans favour Bush's strategy of combating terrorism, a continual fight until the enemies of democracy and freedom are vanquished. While there has been criticism of the U.S. administration's lack of peacetime strategy in Iraq, few disagree that the world is better off without former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in charge.
Kerry has flip-flopped on these issues, and more. He accepted, and then opposed, more military spending for American troops in Iraq. He wants to make amends with the countries that opposed the Iraqi war. Worst of all, Kerry has not expressed a firm commitment to fight the war on terrorism.
Next, Bush has survived attacks by Democrats who feel domestic spending hasn't been strong enough, and fiscal hawks who believe spending levels have gone wild.
The bulk of Bush's spending has only occurred in homeland security, health care and social security. U.S. budget numbers for this fiscal year show that spending has slowed down, tax receipts are up, and the $413 billion US deficit was much lower than predicted.
Coupled with significant job growth, successful tax cuts and a vibrant marketplace, Bushs strategy is moving the U.S. in the right direction.
What has Kerry, a classic tax-and-spend liberal, proposed? You guessed it, increased spending on everything from health care to the environment. According to a think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute, Kerry's plan could increase the deficit up to $2 trillion US over 10 years. This would hurt American families in their wallets, and slow down the economy to a snail's pace.
Bush is the best choice for president. He exudes strong leadership characteristics and has a solid financial plan. He has earned the endorsement of average Americans, economists, business leaders, true conservatives, pro-war Democrats and even some longtime critics like Pat Buchanan.
So, why on Earth do Canadians favour Kerry by a 2-to-1 margin?
Bush supports stronger border security measures and a missile shield program. This would improve Canadian safety and protect us from future terrorist attacks.
Bush also believes in revitalizing U.S.-Canada relations, especially now that the polarizing figure of Jean Chritien has left.
A stronger commitment to free trade, and reduced tariff rates, could be in the cards for us.
Sorry folks, but Canada will be much safer and more financially sound with George W. Bush as president. We need a Bush victory, too.
Toronto Sun
October 29, 2004
p. 19
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace