How Bush Won Round 2

When pro-Kerry commentators solemnly pronounce Debate Round 2 to have been "a draw" - you know George Bush won that round.

The president won because he went in with a theme spoken by the heavyweight champion Joe Louis, just before his 1946 rematch victory over the lighter, faster Billy Conn: "He can run, but he can't hide." (The Brown Bomber caught up with Conn in the eighth round of that first TV spectacular.)

Bush's debate plan was to keep boring in on the Kerry record: flip-flopping this year on the war, but all too consistently liberal for 20 years on tax increases.

On the war, Kerry almost eagerly made Bush's point, at first saying, "I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat," and moments later denouncing Bush for being "preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat."

The president exploited the contradiction in Kerry's latest policy, which claims the ability to attract troop support from France, Germany and Russia - while agreeing with them that the war was a diversion. To Kerry's "plan" to hold a summit, Bush asked: "And what is he going to say to those people that show up to the summit? 'Join me in the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place'?"

Although Kerry accused the Bush campaign of "mass deception," he let the president focus on that illogical policy. The Democrat weakly cited recent worrying by Republican Senators Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel, recited a list of retired generals who endorsed him and embraced Ronald Reagan. Such a stretch for conservative company, followed by a plaintive "We will get tough!," hardly shows strength.

When Kerry complained again of "going it alone," Bush was ready with a powerful counterpunch: "Tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Silvio Berlusconi we're going alone. Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski we're going alone."

This not only showed that Bush knew these allies personally, but could also pronounce Kwasniewski's name, which reminded Polish-Americans that Poland's president had responded angrily to Kerry's brushoff of his country's sacrifices in the first debate. (Next day, Australians re-elected John Howard, a staunch coalition member, who trounced a cut-and-run opponent - good news for coalition leaders.)

When the questioning turned to taxes, Kerry pandered with a liberal's absurd promise not to sign legislation raising taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 a year, neglecting only to say,"Read my lips."

Kerry also blundered with a weird attack on an $84 item in the Bushes' federal income tax return, supposedly from a timber business. "I own a timber company? That's news to me," said Bush, adding engagingly in what was the most natural moment in the debate, "Need some wood?" It turns out that Kerry relied on an Annenberg Web site that later admitted it had been confused, which left the Democratic candidate out on a hardwood limb. Bush was too much the gentleman to point out, now that their income taxes were in dispute, that Mrs. Heinz Kerry paid only 11 percent in 2003 on her $5 million income, while the Bushes paid 28 percent.

(Although every Bush slip gets delighted examination - he called Kerry "Kennedy" and he said, "Internets"; can you imagine? - Kerry's minor gaffes attract little notice. When citing his overseas travel in the first debate, Kerry talked of visiting the old K.G.B. headquarters "in Treblinka square." He meant Lubyanka Square; Treblinka was the Nazi death camp. We all make mistakes.)

As Bush picked up steam, Kerry seemed to lose heart, again evoking Lugar and Hagel, skillfully backing away like Billy Conn. Asked about high damage awards gained by trial lawyers that drive up everybody's insurance premiums, he replied that John Edwards and he "support tort reform," even to limitations on punitive awards. Bush delivered a body blow: "You're now for capping punitive damages. That's odd. You should have shown up on the floor in the Senate and voted for it then."

In an anguishing moment, Kerry said he was against partial-birth abortion (as are most voters, including many pro-choice) and then explained why he voted against the ban that is now law. Countered Bush: "He was given a chance to vote and he voted no. . . . It's clear for everybody to see. And as I said, you can run, but you can't hide."

John Kerry's Discharge - He won't sign Form 180 - What is he hiding?

http://acuf.org/issues/issue21/040929pol.asp

What a young man did more than 30 years ago should not be a primary criteria in determining his qualifications to be President of the United States. George Bush has had almost 4 years now as Commander and Chief of the World"s largest military force and he should be judged on how well he has done. Yet John Kerry and the Democratic left won"t give it up. On almost a daily basis he says I served this country honorably as a young man in Vietnam (4 months/12 days) and I will serve this country honorably as Commander and Chief. Then the Left yells that George Bush got preferential treatment in getting into the National Guard and even failed to complete his guard obligations; even forging documents to prove their point.

The facts are that George Bush served honorably in the National Guard obtaining service points far in excess of the 50 annual service points required to meet his obligation. Records show that in 1968/69 he accumulated 253 points, 340 in 1969/70, 137 in 1970/71, 112 in 1971/72, 56 in 1972/73 and 56 in 1973/74. Points far in excess of the service agreed to and that required to meets his obligation and be Honorably Discharged. George Bush has never made his National Guard service a qualification to lead this country, nor has he ever questioned the service of John Kerry.

While the Left and the mainstream media have never questioned the Vietnam era service of John Kerry, they seem to feel that the record of George Bush 30 years ago should be of concern to voters in November. But what about John Kerry's record? We are told that he was a decorated veteran. We are also told that he was deeply involved in anti-war activities on his return from Vietnam in violation of his oath as an officer in the US Navy. By his own account of his actions and protests, he violated the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Further he met, on two occasions, with North Vietnamese negotiators in 1970 and 1971, while a Reserve Officer, willingly placing himself in violation of Article three, Section three of the U.S. Constitution, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

From here the record of John Kerry becomes unclear and the mainstream press won't demand that John Kerry sign a Department of Defense (DOD) form 180 that would release all of his military records. Records released by his campaign are confusing. There are indications that he was Honorably Discharged on Jan. 3, 1970, Feb 16, 1978, July 13, 1978 and even lately Mar. 12, 2001. Why the confusion on a relatively simple service event. Could it be that John Kerry received a less than honorable discharge in the early 70"s because of his anti-war activities? And then was pardoned for those activities when then President Jimmy Carter on January 21, 1978 ( Proclamation 4483) granted a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all persons who may have committed any offense between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973 in violation of the Military Selective Service Act or any rule or regulation promulgated there under.

Did John Kerry request that his service be granted an Honorable Discharge and it was finally granted in 1978? Only a complete release of his military records will show what actually happened during this period. And, to date John Kerry has refused to sign the necessary DOD form 180 which would allow for this release. If the Democratic Party, the media, and the Bush critics are going to demand, as they do on almost a daily basis, that George Bush release all of his records, should they not do the same for John Kerry?

Michael Ashbury is a noted researcher and author, and the author of ''Who is the REAL John Kerry?'' (Booksurge.com 2004). His website is at http://www.whoistherealjohnkerry.com

So today I'm watching those weanies on Fox News Sunday and Bill Kristol doesn't seem to understand the desire for the Bush camp to try to paint Kerry as a strongly committed liberal after months of painting him as a flip-flopper. Mr. Kristol, if you read this site, let me help you out.

You see, up until now, the goal was to show the American people that this piece of crap Senator from Massachusetts talks out of both sides of his mouth. It's as if he's asking which ever audience he is appealing to: "What do you want me to say, I'll say it, I'll say it! Just please, please, please make me President. Please make me President!"

Bush's goal now is to show that you can't believe a thing that Kerry tells you he will do. You must look at how he's voted when he doesn't have a Presidential race bearing down on him to see what has been consistent about him. The truth is, John Kerry has always been a consistent liberal. He has always been against wars that actually help the US. Against tax cuts and for tax increases. Against anything resembling a cut in government spending. Against traditional values and any restrictions on abortion. Against the 2nd Amendment.

I think this move is ingenious. I just wish that the President had begun to hammer this home in the first debate and worry that we may have moved into a too little too late situation.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.