DEBATE SCORE: BUSH 3, KERRY 0

CHRONWATCH.COM ^ | OCTOBER 15, 2004 | GREGORY BORSE

[CHARLITE]

Debate Score: Bush 3, Kerry 0 Written by Gregory Borse Saturday, October 16, 2004

Senator Kerry’s nuanced (read hypocritical) foreign policy record includes politically opportunistic votes on the idea of war (he’s for it when it’s politically expedient, or supported by Clinton, and against it when Howard Dean proves that it’s politically expedient in the Democratic Party to be against it). But Kerry has also voted against military funding every time the issue has been brought to the floor of the senate.

Kerry’s foreign policy position in a time of war includes attempting to co-opt Ronald Reagan in Wednesday night’s final presidential debate in Tempe, Arizona, even though Kerry opposed Reagan’s vision of transforming Europe and the world by defeating Cold War Soviet expansionism. In terms of Saddam Hussein’s own style of expansionism, Kerry is on record as accusing Bush 41 of a ''rush to war'' prior to the defensive military action undertaken by the United States against Iraq in 1991. Likewise, he is on record as accusing Bush 43 of a ''rush to war'' now.

As soon as he met his quota of purple hearts and re-enactment footage in Vietnam, Kerry came back to the states and told the American public that Vietnam was the ''wrong war at the wrong time,'' that the communist menace was a myth, and that American soldiers were the worse offenders of the Geneva Conventions in history.

In the 1991 U.S. effort to repel Saddam Hussein’s incursion into Kuwait, Kerry called Operation Desert Storm the ''wrong war at the wrong time.'' He calls Operation Iraqi Freedom ''the wrong war at the wrong time'' now. Kerry voted to give the president the authority to wage the war against terror and then voted against the supplemental 87 billion dollars to properly equip the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kerry then had the gall to accuse the president of under-funding a war that he also says we’ve spent too much money on. Huh?

Come on, kids. It doesn’t matter what war we are talking about, for Kerry--with the exception of the Clinton campaign in Kosovo--every war is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. And besides, for Kerry, ''war'' is a metaphor anyway and should be treated like any other law enforcement issue--as a nuance, er, nuisance.

In short, for John Kerry, when it comes to war on anything--or actually standing up for what you believe in, if it puts in jeopardy your standing as an elected official--nothing is worth it.

As President Bush pointed out on Wednesday, Kerry was one of the few people in the Senate--and in the world, for that matter--who voted against the 1991 Gulf War to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. This was a war supported by the United Nations and the greater part of Western Civilization. President Bush correctly pointed out that Kerry’s vote proves the Democratic candidate believes that there are no circumstances under which the United States could pass his ''global test'' for the use of military force.

But the final presidential debate was not about the War on Terror or about foreign policy. It was about domestic issues, the economy, homeland security, healthcare, education, and, thanks to Bob Schieffer’s selection of questions, about each candidate’s character and religious beliefs.

As a result, an eerie consistency between John Kerry’s many foreign policy positions and his position vis-à-vis the Catholic faith was revealed during the debate.

In the second presidential debate, in answer to a question regarding embryonic stem-cell research, Kerry said that he would never impose upon others those religious beliefs that he himself takes as ''personal articles of faith.'' Similarly, in the final debate, Kerry answered a question about Roe vs. Wade in the same way: saying that he would neither impose his beliefs in an ''official'' way upon others and that he will not nominate anyone to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe vs. Wade. In some of the strongest language of the night, John Kerry said, ''I will defend Roe vs. Wade.'' He accused President Bush of using a ''litmus'' test for Supreme Court nominations even as he admitted to his own.

But think about his answer for a moment. The Catholic Church urges all baptized Catholics to oppose abortion in any way they can--either personally, by not committing or being subjected to them; or publicly, by not participating in the evil of abortion by electing those who would support legislation that protects the continued killing of innocents under the auspices of a woman’s ''right to choose.'' But Kerry attempts to carve out a ''separation of Church and State'' position by saying that although he is personally against the practice of abortion, he would never interfere in a decision that is, he argues, between a woman, her doctor, and God.

Kerry also quoted the Bible during the debate to the effect that ''faith without works'' is dead. So, how does this position translate in terms of Kerry’s own conduct as a senator?

Kerry’s application of this maxim in his public life seems to mean that he votes for whatever he is against, and against whatever he is for.

If a bill banning partial birth abortion is introduced in the Senate, Kerry votes against it, even though according to his personal ''articles of faith'' he is for it. If the president requests authorization for the use of force against terrorists, when Kerry is for it (Gulf War) he votes against it; when he’s against it (Operation Iraqi Freedom) he votes for it.

And because Kerry feels so strongly that his personal views are not to interfere with his public policy positions, he votes, apparently, always to make sure that everyone knows that he takes his personal faith so seriously that he would never apply it in his public life. Apparently, Mr. Kerry thinks this amounts to credibility. But it amounts to rank hypocrisy.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that an elected official has to check his own personal beliefs at the door upon becoming an elected official. One of the beauties of representative democracy is that our elected officials do not have to abandon their own personal beliefs once they take on the responsibility of elected office. That’s what two houses of Congress are for. That’s what the checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, in one sense, were set up to protect. In fact, most people appreciate individuals who vote their consciences, even when they do not agree with their votes. Most are, and ought to be, suspicious of individuals like Kerry who publicly announce, as he has during this campaign in word and deed, refusal to vote according to his conscience.

President Bush forthrightly speaks of his faith as something that informs his every decision. Kerry speaks of his own faith only as it stands against his representing (a minority of) the people who apparently disagree with him. It makes one wonder what, to John Kerry, it means to have a religious faith or to hold a position of public trust. Kerry has created a contradiction where none exists. The business of being an elected official in the United States is a matter of the delicate balance (not compromise) between representing and leading. Bush clearly understands this. Kerry clearly does not.

I scored the first two debates wins for Bush. The first, Bush won on substance. The second, he won on substance and style. Many disagreed with my assessments. In the third debate, President Bush illustrated what it is so many people actually like about him: he answers the questions and he’s honest. Kerry neither answers questions nor is honest. Every question is seen by him as an opportunity to weave an inarticulate listing of talking points and complaints. The third debate is an unarguable win for Bush. And it illustrates some fundamental things about this race.

This is a race about fundamental differences in ideology about the role of government in the lives of United States citizens. In answer to every question regarding domestic policy, Bush invoked ''we'' while Kerry invoked ''I'' (as in, ''I have a plan''). Invariably, that invocation meant a government intrusion into personal responsibility.

And lest we think that Kerry’s penchant for a hypocritical stance extends only to foreign policy and his religious faith, he more than expressed, on the subject of public policy, views that illustrate that his weirdly consistent view is, well, consistent.

Echoing Democrat Charlie Rangel’s recently voting against the very bill Rangel himself sponsored to reinstate the military draft (and that is not an internet rumor--that’s a matter of congressional record), Kerry complained during the debate on Wednesday night that a congressionally mandated increase in Medicare--a measure that he voted for in the 1990’s—actually came to pass. Apparently, Kerry blames Bush for not stopping an increase that Kerry himself supported. Again, huh?

All of the snap polls showed a tie or a Kerry win in the last debate. Every poll after every debate has shown that a Kerry win either translates into no advantage for Kerry or a Bush bump in the general election polls.

As Fred Barnes pointed out in The Weekly Standard, ''Now here's a strange twist on the debate. Bush was the winner in a focus group of uncommitted voters conducted by pollster Frank Luntz last night. The 23 voters thought Kerry, not Bush, won the debate. But they split 17 to 5 in favor of Bush on whom they now plan to vote for (one will vote Libertarian). 'They still don't trust what John Kerry is saying,' Luntz said, though they thought he said it well.''

Perhaps it’s because they know a hypocrite when they meet one.

About the Writer: Gregory Borse is assistant professor of English at Ivy Tech State College in Wabash, Indiana. Dr. Borse, a family man with "a beautiful wife and four beautiful children," enjoys writing, current events, media, politics, and golf. Gregory receives e-mail at gregorbo@peoplepc.com

[stylin19a]

Actually, Kerry cemented an 0-3 loss with his todays comments that he is mistaken about all the programs that can be paid for, by rolling back some of the tax cuts.

[King Prout]

not bad.

ping

[MNJohnnie]

In the most unnuanced terms possible.

"I DON'T LIKE JOHN KERRY 'CAUSE JOHN KERRY IS GOING TO GET ME KILLED!"

[Jorge]

I say it's Bush by 2-1. Bush definitely lost that first debate.

[onyx eyes]

You mean "Lame-Duck Liberal" kerry?

[BP2]

say it's Bush by 2-1. Bush definitely lost that first debate

Yep, I'm a huge Bush fan and I'd have to agree with that. However, his spending the day with hurricane victims may, in the end, put him over the top in Florida.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Important Note from 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub

The following "post" has been put on 2 different servers.
As new data is added between now, and Nov 2, it will be updated on the servers.
That way you can just copy and paste the url(s) to your contacts.

http://tonkin.spymac.net/hanoikerry1.html

There is a backup site
if the 1st url is unavailable.

http://stophanoikerry.150m.com/



CLICK HERE for Video
NY Times and the Old Media
Wrong about WW II, Wrong about Iraq
In fact Wrong about every USA War!

CLICK HERE
NRA Endorses President Bush

National Rifle Association Oct 2004:

John Kerry Wants to Ban Guns in America!

"John Kerry`s two-decade long U.S. Senate record of opposing Second Amendment rights
makes him the most anti-gun presidential nominee in history! Click Here for the proof!"

That Dog Don`t Hunt



Fraternal Order of Police : Kerry, Stop Misrepresenting Our Support!

"...F.O.P. members as a whole decided that the Fraternal Order of Police would endorse the reelection of President George W. Bush. They based their decision, he said, on the record of the Bush Administration in supporting America's first responders-including helping to secure passage earlier this year of H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, the organization's top legislative priority. Bush also successfully fought to greatly enhance the benefits for the families of
officers killed in the line of duty..."

Service Men and Women Upbeat on Bush,
War In Iraq, Economy
and Intend To Vote,
Annenberg Data Show
Sixty-nine percent had a favorable opinion of Bush

Multi-National Force - Iraq and Multi-National Corps - Iraq
Click Here for THE REAL TRUTH
Not Kerry and Edwards Fonda and Democrats SPIN

THE story of the 2004 election that no TV or Cable newsroom wants America to know.
Note : IF it was on 60 Minutes 1st, they would tell you.

Click Here for NY Sun 10/13/04
Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge

http://www.nysun.com/article/3107

A Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, was asked whether Mr. Kerry
had ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an honorable discharge.
There has been no response to that inquiry.

Click Here for Wall Street Journal 10/13/04
Op Ed on Kerry's Mystery Navy Discharge

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005752

Click Here for
the Stolen Honor documentary that Kerry
and the Democrats do not want YOU to see.

http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/samples.asp

Send this url to your e-mail lists and media contacts.

Media contacts in all 50 States

http://congress.org/congressorg/dbq/media/

Click Here for
The Final 2 Swift Boat Vets Ads!
And All of the rest!

HANOI KERRY
CLICK HERE TO SIGN FORM 180

BUSH DID

WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?
WHAT IS YOUR SECRET?
WHAT DON'T YOU WANT
AMERICA AND THE PRESS TO KNOW?

Hanoi Kerry : Help is on the way!
Hanoi Jane Partners with MoveOn.Org
Click Here


Hanoi Kerry's "Bad Rap"
Click Here for
Hanoi Kerry and Hanoi Jane "movie". LOL

"First I picked Edwards BUT now I pick Hanoi Jane!"

Edwards played football in 1971 when he turned 18
instead of serving in Vietnam.
Hanoi Jane at least was a Viet Cong!
Just like me!

Hanoi Jane and I know how to demoralize US Troops serving today!

We hate US Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We hate all US Troops!

We lie about them in 2004 the same as we did in the 60's and 70's!

We vow to insult and undermine Iraq Prime Minister Ayad Allawi

We vow to protect the UN and the Oil for Food Scandal

We vow to keep secret the ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida

We vow to free Saddam Hussein with help from our old friend Ramsey Clark.

John F. Kerry
Timeline of a traitor.
Click Here

Free online version of
Kerry's "The New Soldier"
You can read it online right now.

[Family Guy]

I don't want to admit that GW lost the first debate, but it's true IMHO. The main reason he lost, I believe, is that he was extremely tired.

By nailing the second 2 debates and by repeating Kerry's "global test" gaff from the first, he's been able to almost render the loss if the first debate null and void.

[raccoonradio]

A CNN newspiece on the campaigns said "...with Kerry
clearly having won all three debates..."
Bias, what bias?

[Jorge]

By nailing the second 2 debates and by repeating Kerry's "global test" gaff from the first, he's been able to almost render the loss if the first debate null and void.

Unfortunately he's never regained the solid lead he had before the first debate.

[HassanBenSobar]

Right, so, what does that tell you? I can't help avoid the conclusion that, no matter what the score, the overall effect of the debates was to buoy Kerry, just when he was going under. Well, I'm sure hoping it was his last mayday.

The next couple of weeks are gonna be SOOOOO slow....and probably, decisive. Forget the debates, we have not yet begun to fight.

[montag813]

DEBATE SCORE: BUSH 3, KERRY 0

Uh, yeah sure. Just like it's Boston 2-0. Bush lost the first one by a mile. but he came back strong, like the fighter he is. That is why he is the right man for America. But let's not go drinking the Kool Aid here.

[LegalEagle61]

I wholeheartedly agree

[JOE43270]

I believe we will have to fight to keep that from happening he gets elected and we can't let tht happen. It's up to us to save America from these cultural marists that Hanoi john leads.

[MNJohnnie]

By nailing the second 2 debates and by repeating Kerry's "global test" gaff from the first, he's been able to almost render the loss if the first debate null and void.
Unfortunately he's never regained the solid lead he had before the first debate


BECACUSE he never had that lead!!! IT WAS ALL MEDIA Manipulation. They OVERsampled Republicans in Sept to get the "Bush LEADING" story, then right after the 1st debate they OVERSAMPLED Democrats to show a "Kerry Surge" NOW to keep their creidiblity, you will see the polls creep back o where they have ALWAYS been. Bush 3-5 poins ahead. Ignore the stupid News Media polls. Watch Rassmussen, zogby and the PROFESSIONAL polls. THEY live and die on their reputations where the News Media polls are manipulated to drive the story line.

[MNJohnnie]

I say it's Bush by 2-1. Bush definitely lost that first debate.

What is it with you guys? Do you think if you scream this over, and over and over and over and over and over and over again it will make it true?


1st Debate gave us


Nuke Fuel for the Mullahs?

A Global Test?

Bilateral talks with North Korea?

A Unilateral ban for US Weapons development

For the shallow, superficial minds in the "news media" Bush may have lost the 1st debate ON STYLE, he SLAUGHTERED Kerry on substance. I am continually amazed how the Right SCREAMS about Media bias then RUSHES around screaming over and over the EXACT same DNC Media spin lies. John Kerry lost the election at the 1st debate. He lost it because he showed the American people just how completely unready he was to protect them from people who cut captives heads off and fly airplanes into buildings. The press buffaloed people for a while due to the DNC spin machine but as people sat around and talked about it, "Global TEST" killed John Kerry's candidacy,

[26lemoncharlie]

This is a very good examination of Kerry and the reason's he comes to the conclusions and the reasoning process the author so pointedly explains.

I believe that in my many travels and collections of local colloquialisms, the most suitable one would pertain to the Best part of Mr Kerry's genetic makeup as somehow being lost during the process of conception. Sort of like a partial birth abortion, that Mr. Kerry is in favor of, so this is legal I guess and would not be considered murder or abortion, because this would be before actual conception. Like a Chromosone that is necessary for normal and expected reasoning, using the majority of the populace as a Bench Mark of course, to measure the Reasoning Process and the expected Conculsions most of would come to.

This could also uncover or point to the probability that Mr Kerry did not attend all of those expensive private schools, but that they were actually Clandestin advanced European Public Schools. He certainly displays a tremendous knowledge of what was commonly referred to in the latter 60's and early 70's as "New Math".

This was a very good article Charlite, an outstanding effort, very revealing.

[Patriot814]

personally, I think if it weren't for the liberal media all over Bush slouching and facial expressions,it would have been a draw.

[26lemoncharlie]

This is a very good examination of Kerry and the reason's he comes to the conclusions and the reasoning process the author so pointedly explains.

I believe that in my many travels and collections of local colloquialisms, the most suitable one would pertain to the Best part of Mr Kerry's genetic makeup as somehow being lost during the process of conception. Sort of like a partial birth abortion, that Mr. Kerry is in favor of, so this is legal I guess and would not be considered murder or abortion, because this would be before actual conception. Like a Chromosone that is necessary for normal and expected reasoning, using the majority of the populace as a Bench Mark of course, to measure the Reasoning Process and the expected Conculsions most of would come to.

This could also uncover or point to the probability that Mr Kerry did not attend all of those expensive private schools, but that they were actually Clandestin advanced European Public Schools. He certainly displays a tremendous knowledge of what was commonly referred to in the latter 60's and early 70's as "New Math".

This was a very good article Charlite, an outstanding effort, very revealing.