They consider me an undecided voter, because I have not yet made a decision who to vote for in this election. The reality is that I’m pretty much decided not to vote for either President Bush or Senator Kerry. As a gay Republican, there isn’t a candidate that really represents me or the ideals that I think are important for a president. This is a unique position since the country is so much more decided on this presidential race than any other time in history. I also feel it is a position shared by so many other gay Republicans. So writing an article on the presidential debate from the position of a gay Republican is really an analysis of the debate from the eyes of a Republican ideological viewpoint.

Even though I am fairly well decided not to vote for either Bush or Kerry, I do know that President Bush stands leaps and bounds above Senator Kerry as a candidate for commander-in-chief. Such was the essential subject of the first presidential debate. Who would best serve us as commander-in-chief?

The commander-in-chief role of the president is the one with the least balanced of the powers in our system of checks and balances at the federal level. The president has a great deal of freedom to act according to the threats that he feels are imminent to the safety and security to the U.S. and its citizens. After the September 11th attacks on that safety and security, we have witnessed fairly decisive and determined leadership by this president in assessing the real threat that terrorism poses to the safety and security of our country. On this matter, the two candidates offer a decisive choice.

Many people think that the difference is in Iraq. Armchair generals point to ways we could have done things better. Senator Kerry points out that 30 countries was not a sufficient coalition in Iraq. The truth is that both candidates and President Clinton wanted to invade Iraq and were verbal about doing it at the time. President Bush was the one with enough fortitude to take on that threat. We can debate forever about whether things could or should have been done differently. The choice for president should focus on the future, since the past cannot be changed. Both candidates give a similar plan for finishing the job in Iraq and it is likely that little will change in finishing that war regardless of who wins the presidential race.

The very first question during the debate gives incredible insight into the two candidate’s views on preventing a future terrorist attack. Senator Kerry essentially summed up his view by saying that we keep the world free of terrorism by leading strong alliances with countries around the world. Invoking the idea that fighting would be necessary, but that other countries should help in fighting for our safety and security. Kerry further shows his stripes by explaining that he would again pursue a law enforcement strategy of pursuing terrorists, to “hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.” This is the same strategy that allowed Al Qaeda to grow into the network that it is. We did not pursue them until they attacked us, and even then, only pursued the individuals who attacked us after they attacked us.

President Bush stated that he believes we can reduce the threat of terrorism and the need to fight terrorists by pursuing a strategy of freedom. He says, “I understand free nations will reject terror. Free nations will answer the hopes and aspirations of their people. Free nations will help us achieve the peace we all want.” To that end he listed the accomplishments of pursuing this strategy since September 11th. seventy-five percent of known Al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice, the Taliban is no longer in power, 10 million Afghanis have registered to vote, Saddam Hussein is now in a prison cell and Libya has disarmed. President Bush has demonstrated that he will not just shoot missiles at a few terrorist training camps. He will fight for freedom in the world and eliminate the breeding grounds for these terrorists.

There is a great diversity of issues to look at when deciding whom to vote for in a presidential race. It would seem that national security and homeland defense should be primary among those. President Bush has a record of accomplishment that has brought thousands of terrorists to justice and a strategy for bringing peace and freedom to the breeding grounds for these terrorists. Senator Kerry advocates going back to a system that allowed terrorists free reign to the rest of the world as long as they don’t strike us and allowed them to kill nearly 6,000 Americans in our own country. It’s impossible to know if a September 11th could ever happen again. I would suggest that President Bush’s strategy is more affective in addressing that possibility.