And the Winner Will Be...

"The history of free men is never really written by chance but by choice--their choice."

    - Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969), 34th American president

The Chicago Tribune has done a pretty good job of capturing the essence of several key positions of our two presidential candidates in its recent editorial "Two Men, Two Visions, Revealed."

They start with an assessment of their different approaches on national security:

"Kerry puts more faith in diplomacy, summit meetings and international alliances to help protect America. Bush won't cede as much trust; he believes in a more self-reliant America that isn't deterred when the world chooses not to engage.

Kerry is on record as saying he would respond--a revealing choice of words--aggressively to terror attacks. Bush essentially says he would continue to take the battle to the terrorists overseas--pre-emptively and with casualties--rather than have those fights on U.S. streets."

I'm for diplomacy too but believe that the economic and strategic interests of countries like France, Germany and Russia trump their willingness to aid us in our fight against terror. When standing with us means aggression against a country such as Iraq where they had so many economic ties, they become very reluctant warriors.

As for waiting until we're attacked before we respond, that's a totally unacceptable policy to me. I am hopeful that the examples of Afghanistan and Iraq will send a message to countries like Syria, Iran and Pakistan that harbor terrorists, and we'll be able to deal with the threats they pose without using our military. Libya's decision to voluntarily disarm leads me to believe it's a possibility.  But if pre-emptive force is necessary to prevent an attack on our homeland, then so be it. I'm not willing to have one of our cities nuked if we can prevent that by striking first. I pray that will never be necessary, but if it is I would support it.

After a discussion about the candidates' differences on the handling of the war in Iraq, the Tribune's editorial staff outlines each of their positions on government spending, my personal hot button:

"Don't look for Bush or Kerry to make the hard choices necessary to begin balancing the government's checkbook. The nonpartisan Concord Coalition says Bush's taxing and spending proposals will grow the deficit by $1.33 trillion over the next decade; Kerry's proposals, including a massive health program, would grow it by $1.27 trillion. In their second debate, Kerry blasted Bush for engineering the country's first wartime tax cut. Kerry then added: 'I want to put money in your pocket...I have a proposal for a tax cut for all people earning less than $200,000.' No profiles in courage here."

I've constantly written my congressmen and the president about excessive spending for the past two years. The level of government spending is appalling and I will continue to voice my protests to anyone who will listen. Kerry is not a satisfactory alternative to me because his liberal record in the Senate leads me to believe he would spend just as extravagantly as Bush has. He doesn't walk his talk. In addition, he has said he would implement tax increases that I believe would have a detrimental effect on the growth of our economy. So I'm sticking with Bush here, but I plan to protest loudly and often no matter who gets elected.

The Tribune's editorial also had some comments about what both men have said about job creation:

"Presidents don't create jobs; small businesses and big companies do. And yet, as Newsweek economics columnist Robert Samuelson succinctly put it last month: 'Where [Kerry and Bush] agree is the presumption that presidents can deliver prosperity. Politicians, the press and the public all buy into this notion. Unfortunately, it isn't even a half-truth. More like a sixteenth. A president's policies do affect the economy. But they're just one of many influences. The others (including the business cycle, technology and the Federal Reserve) usually dominate.' Amen.

Wednesday night, Bush and Kerry again each clung to the fiction that he'll be a better Jobs Fairy than the other guy. Bush has correctly claimed that his tax cuts stimulated job creation, and Kerry has correctly claimed that those tax cuts raised the federal deficit. Bush wants to make the tax cuts permanent; Kerry wants to raise taxes on high earners. Voters can pick their poison. But again, presidents don't create jobs."

I would add another amen. They're both full of it when they try to make us believe they have enough control over the American economy to be able to create jobs. The only jobs any president has ever created are government jobs, and I want fewer of those, not more.

As we make progress on the war on terror and the world settles into a more peaceful mode, consumer demand will pick up and economies will begin to grow. Then, and only then, will we see a significant resurgence in job creation. My belief is that going on the offensive in the war on terror as Bush has done will allow us to achieve peace more quickly than if we take Kerry's more defensive approach in dealing with these threats. And with peace will come prosperity, not only for us, but for other countries in the world.

The last line in the editorial sums up everything rather nicely:

"Listening to Kerry parse tax policy is to know who has the bigger brain. To listen to Bush talk about faith and family is to know who has the bigger heart."

My brain has almost turned to mush what with the constant hammering of the pundits, pollsters, analysts, broadcasters, newspapermen, bloggers and others trying to influence my decision about who to choose to lead our country over the next four years. With 17 days left before we saddle up and head for the polls to cast our votes, I'll make this prediction: the man I plan to vote for, George W. Bush, will win the election--and it won't be close.