Richard Baehr has written an article for The Chicago Jewish News, which is too good not to share with our readers. It is reprinted below, but the original can be found here.

In years past, a Jewish Republican might have behaved a bit sheepishly before letting a friend know his or her political preference. There is certainly no reason for such concern anymore. There are now many Jewish Republicans (myself included), and quite a few Jewish Democrats (such as former New York City Mayor Ed Koch), who will support President Bush for reelection this year, and we have many good reasons for doing so.

One can certainly disagree with the president on some issues and still find powerful reasons to support him. I find it hard to imagine that a supporter of either candidate would agree with every position of their candidate or a political party.

The Democratic Party, to which many American Jews continue to swear their often unthinking allegiance, has now become a party full of zealots who are unfriendly to Israel and weak in addressing the tough challenges abroad posed by terrorists and the states that harbor them. Michael Moore, a vicious hater of Israel and an opponent of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, is the Democratic Party's latest poster boy. Moore has argued that there is no terrorist threat to America, and that America itself brought on the attacks of 9/11. At the Democratic National Convention, Moore was invited by former President Jimmy Carter to share his presidential box.

On every resolution that comes before Congress that is supportive of the U.S.— Israel relationship, the no votes are overwhelmingly from Democrats. In the past year, a Democratic senator from South Carolina and a Democratic congressman from Virginia have made public remarks attacking Jewish power in America. Cynthia McKinney, a radical leftist and Israel hater, will soon be the Democratic congresswoman from the Atlanta suburbs. McKinney is "famous" for accusing President Bush of allowing 9/11 to occur for political gain.

The anti—war marches that attack President Bush also attack Israel as the new South Africa, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as Adolf Hitler. For the left, the two lines of attack go together. Perhaps most threatening is the chorus of anti—war advocates who loudly blame the Iraq war on the Jews. In years past, the loony—tunes and haters were on the right. Now they are largely on the left and among Democrats and those who support John Kerry.

The Democratic National Committee, John Kerry, and John Edwards have all been silent on these attacks on Israel and the Jews. The Democrats like the fervor of the anti—Bush movement, so they accept the hatred of Israel that goes along with it. The DNC even hosted a showing of "Fahrenheit 9/11," and Democratic members of Congress were seen applauding the filmmaker, who has called for America to supply the same weapons to the Palestinians as Israel now possesses, so the Palestinian terrorists can have a fair fight against Israel.

President Bush, on the other hand, has had a remarkable record of support for Israel. This support has come when Israel was isolated internationally as never before. It is easy to be pro— Israel when Yitzhak Rabin is prime minister. It is another thing to withstand the pressure President Bush has faced from our European "allies" and the Arab world to abandon or strong— arm Israel and Ariel Sharon. President Bush had the U.S. delegation walk out of the U.N.'s Durban hate—fest against Israel. He had our U.N. representative veto more anti—Israel resolutions in one term than any other president before him. The eighth such veto was cast this week.

Bush has refused to meet or negotiate with Yassar Arafat, a lifelong terrorist, who successfully conned President Clinton and his diplomatic team for almost eight years during the Oslo process that he was a partner for peace. In his 1997 book, John Kerry wrote about Arafat's transformation from "outlaw" to "statesman." Bush figured out what Arafat was all about from the beginning of his term and marginalized him. Bush also condemned the International Court of Justice decision on Israel's security barrier and prevented the Security Council from acting to enforce the court's unjust decision.

Bush's steadfast support for Israel is paying dividends, as has his steadfastness in the war against Islamic terrorism. The U.N. just passed a resolution demanding Syria leave Lebanon. This is unheard of for the U.N. Even the European nations are now beginning to pressure Iran on its nuclear program. Libya voluntarily gave up its WMD programs. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the Americans, at great sacrifice and cost, have fought to introduce an open political process and the chance for political and social freedom for the people living in these repressive Arab and Muslim regimes, which have bred the killers of 9/11.

Before the President sent our forces to overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, over 10,000 terrorists a year from Al Qaida and their affiliated terrorist groups received weapons and explosives training in that county. Now there is no safe sanctuary for this activity in any country in the world. Pakistan, a nuclear—armed Muslim majority state, is now our ally, rather than an ally of Osama bin Laden, assuming he is even still alive.

Many critics of the president focus on the failure so far to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, supposedly the only justification for our effort there. These critics seem to have forgotten, or ignored the fact that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, provided a home for Abu Nidal and Al Zarqawi, the world's current beheading champion, and donated $25,000 to each of the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Iraq had invaded two of its neighbors, used WMD on its own citizens and massacred hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. If Kosovo was worth saving, wasn't Iraq?

The weapons inspection team in Iraq has concluded that if sanctions against Iraq were allowed to expire, Saddam could have reconstituted his weapons program in short order. There is still a very strong suspicion that the weapons Saddam may have held onto after the first Gulf War (which John Kerry opposed) were moved to Syria in the days before the American attacks commenced. Can anyone seriously question that America is now fighting terrorists and Al Qaida in Iraq, who are desperately attempting to prevent a representative government from being established there? Al Qaida has grown through the resentment of many Muslims with the autocratic, repressive regimes in which they live. Democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq offers a brighter alternative to a few hundred million Muslims.

On the big issues, President Bush has a vision and the toughness and spine to carry it through, despite withering attacks and hostility from the Democrats, the press, and some nations that pretend to be our allies. The Democrats have nominated a candidate who can't stick to a position for a week, and sometimes a day. John Kerry has a 20—year Senate record without distinction. Can anyone name a Kerry initiative in any area—foreign or domestic? What confidence can we have that Senator Kerry can lead the country?

A long career in the Senate requires managing a staff of about 15 people. Running the national government and a country at war is a lot different, and a lot tougher. There is a reason why for almost half a century Americans have consistently elected former governors, but not senators, as their presidents.
The choice for Jews and for all Americans is leadership versus weakness. It is vision versus vacillation. It is experience versus inexperience. This is an easy choice to make.