|
I've gotten to the point that I refuse to vote for anyone who does not have a very strong sense of conviction concerning there positions...nor would I vote for someone that does not have the courage of their convictions.
I noted a spectrum in the degree of conviction and clarity with regard to the 2004 presidential candidates. Without going through each one...let's just say that on one end was Kerry, who did not fully demonstrate the kind of conviction and clarity on specific issues that made me feel that I knew "all" aspects of his positions. Of course, I say this with due deference to the fact that issues by their very nature are seldom "black and white" but are complex and require understanding nuance. However, on the other end, we had Howard Dean. There was no question where Howard stood on the issues. I believe that this is why he struck a chord with so many of us. The same is generally true of Clark. I get the feeling that when Clark says something, I can not only believe it but I'm convinced the HE believes it.
What is one of the main reasons why the Repugs support Bush? They support him because they have the sense that he has strong convictions and sticks to them.
In summary... We made Kerry our candidate because we perceived him as "electable" instead of believing that he fully had the courage of his convictions. Does this make Kerry a bad man? Of course not.
However, after all that has happened, and after seeing where our country has ended up under the current Administration, we cannot afford to elect someone that does not (in the strongest terms) express his beliefs with conviction and clarity.
The worse off our country becomes the more we need answers that are equal to the task...from leaders that are unambiguous and express determination in their policies.
-Paige
|