Ideas made the difference in '04

I am writing in response to Ben Cady's column "The good work ahead" (Opinion, April 27) which was about the struggle of the Democratic Party to create a worthy image that is not superficial marketing, but substantial and appealing to voters. As a Republican, I feel Cady's article speaks the truth about the path the Democratic Party needs to take to be successful.

Last November, I voted for President Bush. Although this was not the "cool" thing to do, I do not feel like a traitor to all college students because I believe that college is a time to take a stand and be counted.

George Bush stood for something-he did not change his views to better "market" himself or to influence the opinion polls. People may accuse Bush of being stubborn, inflexible, faking religious convictions, etc., but no matter what people claim, he was willing to stand up for what he believed regardless of what people thought. That is the mark of a true leader, one who is not willing to compromise and change who they are to fit others' expectations and views.

Kerry and the rest of the Democratic Party talked about necessary change- however, they did not present concrete plans to create change to the extent that voters wanted. The Democratic Party was too willing to "act Republican" because it was the cool thing to do, or so it seemed. The Republican Party helped reinforce the image of Kerry as a "flip-flopper." However, when given the opportunity to prove otherwise during the debates, Kerry failed to take the strong positions he needed to and left even Democrats apologizing for his wishy-washy performance. Although Bush did not present a polished, smooth talking, baby-kissing politician image, the Republicans did not visibly focus on their image. People wanted substance. They had a strong leader and their only job was to be sure that every eligible voter voted.

As a young adult, I wanted a leader who would follow through with the change they promised, regardless of whether people approved. George Bush represented such a leader. Voters felt he would get results, because he didn't work to "market" his goals for change, rather, he took a position and then stuck with it no matter what. Voters could trust him to follow through on his promises. I wanted a leader who stood for something and would get results, and this is why I voted for George Bush.

I have not since regretted my choice. I think that Bush has made some wrong choices since the election and is not following through on his promised to the extent we, as a nation, would like. However, I do not believe that Kerry would have done a better job. President Bush stands up for what he believes, even if it's unpopular at times, and that is admirable in a leader. Everyone needs to take a stand.

Thank you for a thought-provoking, tell-it-like-it-is editorial.