In listing "reasons" for the high cost of medicine, neither candidate mentioned that the United States has the best health care in the world. One can be treated and cured here of all sorts of maladies and diseases in ways unavailable to the rest of the world. Why do so many want to come here for vital surgery, including citizens of Canada, where socialized medicine is not serving its people well? The best costs more, but the results are better.
Kerry talked about being "optimistic," but there is only pessimism as far as his eyes can see. Nothing is good, nothing is working, the future is full of fear and struggle, and we are losing the war on terror, so elect him and he will make it all better.
President Bush believes the United States can help "spread freedom and liberty around the world." This has been American doctrine since we abandoned isolationism as we entered World War II.
The nonpartisan Congressional Quarterly publication looked at Kerry's Senate voting record, which is a better standard than election-year rhetoric for determining his consistency. In the April 24, 2003, issue, David Nather wrote, "(O)n education and health care, two of the most important domestic battlegrounds between Democrats and Republicans, Kerry has a thin record." Nather added, "(Kerry) has not played a major role in the most significant health care debates of recent years. . . ." And, wrote Nather, "(D)uring the six weeks of Senate debate in 2001 on the 'No Child Left Behind' education law . . . the Senate never debated a Kerry amendment."
Considering Kerry didn't show up for "battle," voters have a right to question his level of commitment to issues. Nearly 10 years ago, Scot Lehigh, a columnist for the liberal Boston Globe, wrote, "Kerry has long had a reputation as more of a show horse than a workhouse."
In just over two weeks, voters will make their own judgment about changing a workhorse in midstream for a show horse in mid-stride.