• Email
• iPod-friendly
• Print

At this time, it is anyone's guess who will be the next president of the United States. And it is anyone's guess exactly how soon that question will be answered -- Nov. 2 or sometime in early 2005.

The vast majority of Americans will be glad to see the end of the campaign with its negative, often bitter, charges and countercharges by the candidates, their helpers and many special interest groups. The one thing most Americans hope for is that the margin of victory for either Bush or Kerry will be sufficiently large to be considered a decisive victory, not a contested election to be decided by lawyers. Such an outcome could damage the system that has served this country so well for so many years.

But what about the candidates? Who would be the best man to lead the nation?

What would John Kerry bring to the office? He has had an undistinguished, lackluster, 20-year record in the U.S. Senate, where he is viewed as its most liberal member. He is not even the most distinguished senator from the state he represents because Ted Kennedy clearly is the most respected and powerful senator from Massachusetts.

Kerry's attendance record in the Senate is very poor; he is known among his fellow senators as a "Tuesday-to-Thursday guy," meaning he seldom is in the Senate and isn't well-known by other senators. He is highly partisan, very geographical in his interests and aloof.

During the election campaign, Kerry has been quick to point out every flaw he could find in Bush's actions as president and is quick to say how he would have handled every major issue in a different, more successful, manner. He never has had to measure up; he has no record and there is no way of knowing whether he would, indeed, have made better decisions in times of critical stress and importance. Second-guessing is easy.

Bush was dealt a weak hand when he moved into the White House. The country was still suffering the economic fallout of a recession in the later stages of the Clinton presidency. He was confronted with the tragic 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This was a greater challenge than that faced by any previous president.

He was faced with a war for which neither he nor other Americans were responsible, but which eventually required Uncle Sam to take action in Iraq.

The "cost" of the military war, in terms of lives as well as dollars and cents, combined with the "cost" of homeland security and the loss of jobs triggered by a move to automation by American business all presented major challenges to Bush and the country.

The pressures are extreme. In many cases, it might be easy for a president to favor some other action that would be more pleasing to the electorate. However, Bush has resolve and is not a follower of polls. He has a basic honesty, and he listens to his advisers. There is no question that, if he had an opportunity to alter some of his decisions and actions, he probably would have done some things differently. This is true with any president.

In some cases, he acted on bad intelligence, but both Republicans and Democrats saw this same intelligence and supported Bush's action against Iraq. The second-guessers have had a field day in this arena, coming up with answers and actions to various matters years after Bush had to act on a moment's notice.

He is committed to protecting the United States and its citizens and will not bend and sway in this effort based on what is the most popular course of action. Bush stands for less government in the lives of Americans, and there is nothing phony, shallow or aloof in his manner.

Bush relates far more to the traditional values and dreams of Kansans than does Kerry.

For the best interests of America and its people and because of the importance of Uncle Sam standing firm and resolved to fight the very real and deadly war on terrorism, Bush is by far the best choice for president.