The next five moths will decide who will be President.
The short-sightedness of Americans watching the tug-of-war between George W. Bush and John Kerry, over the Presidency, is amazing. How easy it is to forget that the election takes place on the first Tuesday of November...not tomorrow...not last month. Pundits on both sides have called this race for their respective candidates, both sides using the same figures, spun-out beyond all recognition (S.O.B.A.R.). What most fail to remember is that there are still more than five months before voters go to the polls. Neither candidate has made a truly compelling argument to get my vote.
Candor compells me to disclose that I am a hard-core social conservative with a tinge of centrist economic leanings. That being said, the massive spending plan proposed by the Bush administration frightens me. I am concerned that billions of additional monies spent on public education (a failing system at best) combined with the billions needed to keep Social Security and Medicare afloat, will bankrupt the country. Whether one argues that the perameters for recieving benefits must change, or that the whole system must be reformed, ala privatization, one thing is clear: without substantial change the trust fund will run dry and the I-O-U's in there now will bounce.
But John Kerry is equally, if not even more so, a spend-a-holic. His campaign promises of increased funding for almost every social program across the board can only be paid for through tax hikes. Now, whether you argue that those increases will only be felt by the rich, or you argue that all the Bush tax cuts need to be repealed, you can't deny that taxes must be raised to pay for the nearly trilliuon dollars in spending Kerry proposes.
If you allow that both candidates advocate dangerous spending levels, where are their differences? Kerry says he'd stay the course in Iraq...basically parroting Bush policies in Iraq. Though Kerry does advocate greater UN involvement, do we really want a president who won't make a move unless the Germans and the French give him the green light?
The biggest difference easily discernable between the two candidates is Bush's ability to take responsibility for his decisions and to stand by those decisions. Bush has clearly laid out his plans for the country. He's clearly made the case for why we invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam Hussein. Whether you agree or disagree with the war in general, no one is questioning the overwhelming positive of a non-Saddam Iraq. The biggest criticism of Bush in Iraq is that he has no exit strategy. Yet the seeds of an exit strategy are clearly sown in the June 30th handover of power to the interim Iraqi government. We'll see just how much power that government wields, but it IS a start.
Kerry, on the other hand, vacillates between the extremes of total support for the war on terror, and scathing criticism of the way the Bush administration is waging that war. Now, I realize that Kerry must proceed with some bravado and must convince America that he would be a better President than Bush. But is he doing so? Kerry is parroting Bush on Iraq (UN involvement being the sole, lukewarm, exception). Kerry is parroting Bush on social issues (merely upping the ante through increased spending). Who can forget his braying response of, "I voted for the 87-billion dollars...before I voted against it."
Where does John Kerry really stand? It's hard to tell...even down to the event that made John Kerry nationally...the tossing of his medals. He's said he threw his medals, he's said he only threw his ribbons, he's said it was someone else's medals he threw back onto the White House lawn. Whatever he threw...how does he square his claims of shame of the atrocities he and his fellow soldiers and sailors comitted in Vietnam with the obvious pride in his service (and his medals) as depicted in his campaign commercials? Is he proud, or is he ashamed...we just don't know.
And that is what could tip the balance in ths surprisingly close election. Because neither President Bush nor candidate Kerry has inspired the nation, we are still about as evenly split today as we were in November, 2000. Though some may argue that Al Gore should have won that election...he didn't, George W. Bush did. And Bush has squandered the opportunity to rally this country behind the war on terror. He could have done so much more to get Americans behind the war in Iraq. He can still do it.
But will the incessant attacks from the Left derail him and his grand strategy for victory in Iraq, and by example, the World? It's hard to say, but the clock is ticking. Bush has until about October to show substantial progress in the Democratization and stabilization of Iraq. Bush and Company promised us throngs of smiling Iraqis, stringing floral wreaths around soldiers' necks...not terrorists hacking through american civillians' necks.
It remains to be seen if John Kerry can capitalize on the setbacks in Iraq in time for his candidacy to win. Poll numbers show Kerry is stronger than ever, but his support seems to be a mile wide and an inch deep. The overwhelming number of voters who say they will vote for Kerry say they will do so because he is not Bush. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Most of America already knows Kerry is not Bush, so that base is not likely to expand.
Kerry must have more to his candidacy that simply that he is the "un-Bush." I doubt that he does.