John Kerry is one smooth operator. In the first debate between President Bush and the Senator, Kerry was winsome, calm, well-spoken and semi-believable. It?s hard to admit, but from a style standpoint, Kerry beat Bush.
Kerry?s Queer Eye for the Democratic Guy handlers must have been giddy. His botoxed and over-tanned hide coupled with his freshly manicured fingers and his adept ability to verbally cross his t?s and dot his ?I?s? made for slick political theater. I?m sure it duly impressed the private schoolies in TV la-la-land and possibly swayed some swing voters who are moved by such oratorical and ocular obfuscation.
Bush was ? Bush. If you were looking for television eye candy and Demosthenes-like diatribe from President Bush during the first debate, you were disappointed. He was his typical to-the-point self: fish or cut bait. After spending a full day in my great state of Florida, visiting hurricane victims [while Kerry was getting all gussied up with his manicurist], Bush looked semi-bored and perturbed with this ?debate? with JFK, too.
He just couldn?t shed the ?Why are you bothering me while I?m trying to run this nation and fight a war, you pathetically over-primped Yankee?? look on his face. It was reminiscent of how my champion pit bulls looked with yawning contempt at our neighbor?s over-quaffed, perfumed and manicured yapping Yorkies.
Let me help any P.C. folks not from Texas understand my fellow Texan, George W. Bush. When a Texan feels he?s around a weasel, it?s hard to keep those feelings from contorting his face and wearing his patience very thin.
Even though Bush could?ve been a tad more TV-friendly, Kerry?s craft wasn?t enough to cause me to have temporary amnesia. Kerry?s applaudable Clintonesque ability to make love to the camera wasn?t sufficient to make me mentally white out his two decade long senatorial voting history and believe now that he is the decisive tough guy that he?s trying to pawn off on the public.
It is just too difficult for me to accept as gospel that he will do anything different militarily as president, from what he has talked about during his long hiatus as a Senator.
One has to do mental gymnastics to square Kerry?s past, anti-defense Senate voting record with his present John Kerry, Terrorist Slayer sales job. With such an abysmal defense record, coupled with his insistence we?re in the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time and the war in Iraq is a grand diversion, I don?t hear strong leader.
Kerry?s disses our allies, is dismissive towards the necessity of China helping de-nuke North Korea, and drips syrup whining that we mimic the French and Germans in walking abreast with the feckless U.N., in order to defend our land ? and theirs, for God?s sake! -- against terrorism. JFK, too, is a very articulate yet very confused wannabe skipper, who seems less like John F. Kennedy and more like Neville Chamberlain.
Bush on the other hand, as a war time president, has?
1. Stamped out Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
2. The Afghanis are having free elections for the first time, ever, with 10 million voters of whom 41% are women.
3. Osama bin Laden, who if not already dead, is squatting in a cave somewhere changing cell phones and laptops every 17 minutes because we are after him like nail polish on Kerry?s finger nails.
4. 75% of the world?s top terrorist thugs are in jail ... or hell.
5. Saddam Hussein is in prison awaiting his trial and execution.
6. Udai and Qusai, his demented sons, are slow-roasting on Lucifer?s smoker.
7. Elections will be held in Iraq in January.
8. Libya has sent all the elements of its WMD programs, lock, stock and poison to America for safe destruction.
9. Saudi Arabia has organized the first [municipal] elections in its 80 year history.
10. The sons of Libya?s and Egypt?s dictators have both foresworn any interest in succeeding their fathers.
11. And, most recently, Syria at last decreasing its armed forces in Lebanon and pledging, once again, to close down terrorist operations in their country.
My ClashPoint is this: in the woulda-shoulda-coulda realm ? sure, Bush could have pounced more forcefully on Kerry?s misinformation regarding:
1. the supposed [but non-existent] loss of support among military officials;
2. Saddam?s clear and dangerous support of Al Qaeda and several other terror groups;
3. his vote against the 87 Billion for body armor and other critical funding programs;
4. his endless flip-flops on liberating Iraq and the policy of preemption;
5. his flat out lie that he never called Bush a liar;
6. his nonsense that Saddam?s capture has made us less secure;
7. his insisting that just because the French and Germans aren?t with us, we don?t have a coalition, despite more than 30 nations in our multinational force and providing training and security aid to assure a free Iraq.
But for whatever reason the President let the metrosexual candidate slide a bit. Sure, Kerry looked presidential and sounded presidential. But looks and sounds don?t mean squat to terrorists. Decisive action does. Dealing out hell and death to the deserving does.
It?s here that Bush blows Kerry away. Bush backs up his words: he?ll kill those who attempt to harm us and will not look to a feckless U.N. for a thumbs-up before he rains fire down on those who would kill us. With Kerry, all we have are promises coming from a premise that contradicts his current claims at their very core.
Sure, Kerry might have passed the TV dumb chick test. In the real, wartime world, where nations are at stake, that means jack squat. With dictators jailed, terrorist networks disbanded and those who remain scattered like lice around Fallujah, we know what Bush will do. It is highly suspect what Kerry will do.
JFK, too?s promises, promises? No, thanks. Dubya?s results, results? More of the same, please.