The final debate . . .
. . . was the best I have seen the president look in any of the three debates. He was sharp, focused, in command, witty, and engaging. Unquestionably, John Kerry is a skilled debater, and has all the style you would expect from someone who has been in the United States Senate for twenty years. Substantively, however, I thought the senator came up lacking last night.
Speaking of Kerry's Senate tenure -- well, there's not much to say, as the president effectively pointed out last night. The Bush campaign distributed this fact sheet in response to Kerry's claim that he had "personally written" 56 bills that had passed. Only five bills and four resolutions authored by Kerry in twenty years ever became law.
The president did the best job I have heard so far in explaining the reasons behind his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment last night, acknowledging that the problem did not lie with the judgment of the legislatures of the states but with activist judges who are content to change the meaning of words in order to impose their view of what society should look like.
One of the more bizarre moments of the night came when Kerry was asked his opinion about some Catholic bishops who have suggested it is a sin to vote for a politician who supports abortion. Commenting on why he would not appoint a judge who might overturn Roe v. Wade, Kerry said, "I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith." Fine, so far as it goes. But Kerry was pandering last night, and he immediately followed that comment with this:
"My faith affects everything I do, in truth. . . . And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people. That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of these things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith."
So you see, Kerry's faith is important to him, and it permits him to fight against poverty, equality, and justice and to protect the earth, and legislating in that vein is perfectly acceptable. But when it comes to fighting to protect the most innocent among us -- the unborn -- well, he is compelled to set his faith aside, because in that limited circumstance he can't impose it on anyone else, notwithstanding all of the other instances in which he does feel free to impose his faith.
Kerry's cafeteria-style faith is not a luxury that people of faith can indulge in. If, as he said, his faith affects everything he does, how could he not, at the very least, have said straight up in the previous debate that he would not permit federal tax dollars to be spent to subsidize a practice that he claims runs counter to his beliefs?
Kerry's response to whether he would appont judges who might overturn Roe v. Wade was abysmal. "I'm not going to appoint a judge who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today -- under the Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right."
The slip of the tongue about rights given by the courts is telling. But which of the amendments to the Constitution provides the right of choice that Kerry believes is a constitutional right? None, individually. Roe may be one of the worst constitutional opinions in the history of the Court. To find this right of choice, it followed Griswold v. Connecticut, which declared that certain rights are not explicit in the Constitution, but that they "emanate from the penumbras" of the amendments to the Constitution. Roe had penumbras too. Simply put, they made it up. And now it has been given the full force and effect of constitutional law, just as the right to free speech or freedom of the press of against self-incrimination, which are explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights. But choice? Don't strain your eyes reading the Constitution to find it; it emanates from the penumbras!
Both candidates were disappointing in their answers on immigration, because both said, in effect, that those who had come here illegally would be rewarded in some fashion. The president tried to skirt this by claiming that he opposes amnesty, but his guest worker program is an invitation to disaster. Kerry was no better, though, offering an "earned-legalization" program to people who had been here a long time (illegally), paid their taxes, and stayed out of trouble. Kerry said, "We got to start moving then toward full citizenship, out of the shadows." Sheesh. I didn't think he could do worse than Bush on this answer, but he proved me wrong.
Finally, Bob Schieffer of CBS did his best to exact revenge for the scorn that was rightfully heaped on his colleague Dan Rather for running a story critical of the president based on fake documents. The questions were incredibly skewed in Kerry's favor, with softball after softball lobbed to Kerry, while Bush was facing tough, critical questions. Ah, the mainstream media -- independent and objective? Hardly.
Speaking of Kerry's Senate tenure -- well, there's not much to say, as the president effectively pointed out last night. The Bush campaign distributed this fact sheet in response to Kerry's claim that he had "personally written" 56 bills that had passed. Only five bills and four resolutions authored by Kerry in twenty years ever became law.
The president did the best job I have heard so far in explaining the reasons behind his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment last night, acknowledging that the problem did not lie with the judgment of the legislatures of the states but with activist judges who are content to change the meaning of words in order to impose their view of what society should look like.
One of the more bizarre moments of the night came when Kerry was asked his opinion about some Catholic bishops who have suggested it is a sin to vote for a politician who supports abortion. Commenting on why he would not appoint a judge who might overturn Roe v. Wade, Kerry said, "I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith." Fine, so far as it goes. But Kerry was pandering last night, and he immediately followed that comment with this:
"My faith affects everything I do, in truth. . . . And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people. That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of these things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith."
So you see, Kerry's faith is important to him, and it permits him to fight against poverty, equality, and justice and to protect the earth, and legislating in that vein is perfectly acceptable. But when it comes to fighting to protect the most innocent among us -- the unborn -- well, he is compelled to set his faith aside, because in that limited circumstance he can't impose it on anyone else, notwithstanding all of the other instances in which he does feel free to impose his faith.
Kerry's cafeteria-style faith is not a luxury that people of faith can indulge in. If, as he said, his faith affects everything he does, how could he not, at the very least, have said straight up in the previous debate that he would not permit federal tax dollars to be spent to subsidize a practice that he claims runs counter to his beliefs?
Kerry's response to whether he would appont judges who might overturn Roe v. Wade was abysmal. "I'm not going to appoint a judge who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today -- under the Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right."
The slip of the tongue about rights given by the courts is telling. But which of the amendments to the Constitution provides the right of choice that Kerry believes is a constitutional right? None, individually. Roe may be one of the worst constitutional opinions in the history of the Court. To find this right of choice, it followed Griswold v. Connecticut, which declared that certain rights are not explicit in the Constitution, but that they "emanate from the penumbras" of the amendments to the Constitution. Roe had penumbras too. Simply put, they made it up. And now it has been given the full force and effect of constitutional law, just as the right to free speech or freedom of the press of against self-incrimination, which are explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights. But choice? Don't strain your eyes reading the Constitution to find it; it emanates from the penumbras!
Both candidates were disappointing in their answers on immigration, because both said, in effect, that those who had come here illegally would be rewarded in some fashion. The president tried to skirt this by claiming that he opposes amnesty, but his guest worker program is an invitation to disaster. Kerry was no better, though, offering an "earned-legalization" program to people who had been here a long time (illegally), paid their taxes, and stayed out of trouble. Kerry said, "We got to start moving then toward full citizenship, out of the shadows." Sheesh. I didn't think he could do worse than Bush on this answer, but he proved me wrong.
Finally, Bob Schieffer of CBS did his best to exact revenge for the scorn that was rightfully heaped on his colleague Dan Rather for running a story critical of the president based on fake documents. The questions were incredibly skewed in Kerry's favor, with softball after softball lobbed to Kerry, while Bush was facing tough, critical questions. Ah, the mainstream media -- independent and objective? Hardly.
posted by Hal | 11:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home