If given a choice between the devil we know, or the devil we're not too sure of, which one would you vote for? To hear it told from our equally divided and highly partisan electorate, these labels pretty well sum-up the sentiment on the choices we're presented with come November 2nd.

The gravity of the presidency though, requires that we strip away the partisan rhetoric and align ourselves with either the party platform or candidate positions that most closely approximate our worldview. This way we can avoid being too myopic in focusing on just the daily news cycle, or overly concerned about superficial items. That said, when it comes to guiding principle or ideology though -- having the wrong guy at the helm for the next four-years may result in the "end of the world" as we know it.

During the next term for example, analysts virtually guarantee that America will confront a nuclear capable Iran and North Korea (the remaining "axis of evil") to thwart proliferation among some very unsavory actors. And whether we can summon the national will necessary to keep the ideology of global terrorism on the defensive, will also be determined on November 2nd. Last but not least, two or more Supreme Court justices will be retiring next term, and the appointment of their replacements will have a far-reaching affect for sanctity of life policy and traditional marriage in this country -- for a generation.

With all these weighty issues at stake, maybe we should take a closer look at that "devil we don't know." But how is it, that after 24 months of campaigning, John Kerry is still defining himself to the electorate? And why is it that the liberal media has given Senator Kerry a virtual pass when it comes to his 20-year career in public office? While there are precious few bills (i.e. a total of 5) that bear his name over this period, it's his liberal ranking in the Senate that gives conservatives the most cause for concern -- because the present "centrist" campaign rhetoric, doesn't align with the ideological pattern that emerges from his previous voting record.

So to cut through the nuance and ever-changing policy positions of this pillar of ambivalence, this month we'll take a closer look at the ramifications of a Kerry presidency, as it relates to U.S. foreign and domestic policy. To accomplish this, we've selected insightful work, from three leading conservative writers, that exposes John Kerry for being the artful dodger that he is, as well as some sobering analysis of the liberal mind-set that gave rise to Kerry's credible shot at being leader of the free-world.

Be careful what you wish for America -- you may just get it.

Roy Tanner



The Kerry Nightmare
By William Tucker

Last night I had the strangest dream. I guess it was a nightmare, really. I remember most of it, except how it ended.

First I dreamed Kerry won the election. That wasn't so bad in itself. He seemed Presidential enough for the job. He had a dignified bearing, spoke well, didn't mangle his phrases. People were weary after four years of uncertainty under George Bush and ready to try something new.

Kerry started off well. On January 22, in a burst of world optimism, he went to the U.N. and laid down his mea culpa. America had gone it alone too long, he said. We were ready to cooperate with the rest of the world. The General Assembly gave him a 15-minute standing ovation. His speech was cheered wildly in cities from Paris to Berlin to Peshawar. A new day had dawned. Peace was at hand.

The only concrete result that came out of his U.N. visit, however, was that Poland decided to accelerate its troop withdrawal, already scheduled for 2005. Other allies said that since Kerry was throwing in the towel, they were going to leave sooner than later as well. Everyone but Great Britain packed up and headed home. Meanwhile, Kerry visited France and Germany to hold long talks with President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder. The main outcome, however, was that they told him Iraq was his problem and wished him well. Meanwhile, terrorists in Iraq stepped up their operations.

By the time President Kerry got back from Europe, things had taken a turn for the worse. Both Sunni and Shi'ite leaders announced that, despite the January election of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, both now regarded his victory as illegitimate. Democracy was a foreign system that America was trying to impose on the Muslim world. Both recommended a return to the Ummah, with religious leaders at the helm. Since each sect claimed to the rightful heirs of Mohammed, each claimed the right to the position.

The opposition became bolder. Several suicide bombers penetrated the Green Zone and American casualties started to rise. With our allies pulling out, our soldiers were also required to take over key positions in the South. Suddenly we found ourselves stretched way too thin. Rioting broke out in several cities of the Sunni Triangle.

All the pretty plans of the campaign were evaporating and President Kerry now found himself facing the basic contradiction of his position. Was Iraq the wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time? Or were we actually undermanned? For two long weeks, Kerry mulled the problem while fierce debate was waged in Congress. Half of Kerry's constituency called for a pullout and peace demonstrations took place in New York and Washington. Many Democrats in Congress said our troops were endangered, however, and call for a draft.

Kerry solved the problem by going to the United Nations. A high level conference was arranged in Baghdad with all sides attending. A truce was called and for three weeks an international panel debated the issue. Finally, it was decided that 140,000 American troops would be given safe passage out of the country. They would leave in an orderly fashion and then Iraqis would continue to meet under U.N. supervision to decide how they would govern themselves.

Like the Indians watching the British march out of Fort William Henry, however, once the terrorists saw their enemies defeated they could not restrain themselves. Before the American soldiers had even begun to pack their bags, they were under daily attack. General fighting broke out in several cities, even as the U.N. panel continued to meet. Then a suicide bomber rammed the home of Prime Minister Allawi and killed him. The elected government collapsed. Civil war broke out between Sunni and Shi'ite militias, both claiming religious authority, while the Kurds withdrew completely, declaring their own state.

Like so many a President before him, John Kerry found himself at the mercy of events. All the pretty plans of his election campaign -- the diplomacy, the conferences with our allies -- were forgotten. Suddenly he was a commander-in-chief trying to rescue a stranded army.

Events didn't wait. Now convinced that America was abandoning the Middle East and no longer content to watch Iran develop a nuclear weapon that in two years would be able to hit Jerusalem, the Israelis sent a fleet of F-16s to drop bunker-busting weapons on three nuclear complexes at Bushehr, Natanz, and Arak. Rioting broke out in every Middle Eastern capital. Terrorists streamed into Baghdad from every direction. Syrian and Egyptian armies prepared for a retaliatory attack against Israel.

That's when I woke up.

I've been walking around in a cold sweat all day thinking about these things. But that's silly, I suppose. After all, it was only a dream. The American people couldn't possibly elect John Kerry President, could they?

William Tucker is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator and a contributing writer to the American Enterprise.



The Therapeutic Choice
A war for our lives, or a nuisance to our lifestyle?
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online


Americans are presented with a choice in this election rare in our history. This is not 1952, when Democrats and Republicans did not differ too much on the need to stay in Korea, or even 1968 when Humphrey and Nixon alike did not wish to withdraw unilaterally from Vietnam. It is more like 1972 or 1980, when a naïve McGovern/Dukakis worldview was sharply at odds with the Nixon/Reagan tragic acknowledgement of the need to confront Soviet-inspired Communism. Is it to be more aid, talk, indictments, and summits — or a tough war to kill the terrorists and change the conditions that created them?

Mr. Kerry believes that we must return to the pre-9/11 days when terrorism was but a “nuisance.” In his mind, that was a nostalgic sort of time when the terrorist mosquito lazily buzzed about a snoring America. And we in somnolent response merely swatted it away with a cruise missile or a few GPS bombs when embassies and barracks were blown up. Keep the tribute of dead Americans low, and the chronic problem was properly analogous to law-enforcement’s perpetual policing of gambling and prostitution. Many of us had previously written off just such naïveté, but we never dreamed that our suspicions would be confirmed so explicitly by Kerry himself.

In the now-lost age of unperturbed windsailing and skiing, things were not all that bad before al Qaeda overdid it by knocking down skyscrapers and a corner of the Pentagon — followed by George Bush’s commensurate overreaction in Afghanistan and Iraq that brought on all the present messy and really bothersome cargo of IEDs, beheadings, and promises of dirty bombs to come. The Taliban and Saddam were, of course, bad sports. But really, going all the way over there to topple them, implant democracy, and change the status quo of the Middle East? Tsk, tsk, tsk — well, that was a bit much, was it not?

Terrorist killing, like the first World Trade Center bombing or the USS Cole, certainly was not seen as the logical precursor to 9/11 — the expected wages of a quarter century of appeasement that started with the weak Carter response to the Iranian hostages and was followed by dead soldiers, diplomats, and tourists about every other year. No, these were “incidents” like 9/11 itself — “law-enforcement” issues that called for the DA, writs, and stern prison sentences, the sort of stuff that barristers like Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, and McAuliffe handle so well.

This attitude is part of the therapeutic view of the present struggle that continually suggests that something we did — not the mass murdering out of the Dark Age — brought on our present bother that is now “the focus of our lives.” We see this irritation with the inconvenience and sacrifice once more reemerging in the Atlantic Monthly, Harpers, and the New York Times: We, not fascists and Islamist psychopaths, are blamed for the mess in Iraq, the mess in Afghanistan, the mess on the West Bank, and the mess here at home, but never credited with the first election in 5,000 years in Afghanistan or consensual government replacing autocracy in the heart of the ancient caliphate.

Sometimes our problems arise over our past failure to chastise the Russians over Chechnya. Or was it not enough attention to Mr. Arafat’s dilemmas? Or maybe we extended prior support for corrupt sheiks? All that and more — according to rogue CIA “experts,” best-selling authors, and the omnipresent Richard Clarke — earned us the wrath of the Islamists. Thus surely our past transgressions can be alleviated by present contrition, dialogue, aid, and policy changes of the European kind.

To all you of the therapeutic mindset, listen up. We can no more reason with the Islamic fascists than we could sympathize with the Nazis’ demands over supposedly exploited Germans in Czechoslovakia or the problem of Tojo’s Japan’s not getting its timely scrap-metal shipments from Roosevelt’s America. Their pouts and gripes are not intended to be adjudicated as much as to weaken the resolve of many in the United States who find the entire “war against terror” too big, or the wrong kind, of a nuisance.

Instead, read the fatwas. You hear not just of America’s injustice in Palestine or Chechnya — not to mention nothing about saving Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo or Afghanistan of the 1980s — but also of what we did in Spain in the 15th century and in Tyre, Gaza, and Jerusalem in the 12th. The mystery of September 11, 2001, is not that it happened, but that it did not quite happen when first tried in 1993 during Bill Clinton’s madcap efforts to move a smiling Arafat into the Lincoln Bedroom and keep our hands off bin Laden. Only an American with a JD or PhD would cling to the idea that there was not a connection between Group A Middle Eastern terrorists who attacked the WTC in 1993 and Group B who finished the job in 2001.

A Kerry presidency, we know now, will go back to the tried and true institutions so dear to the therapeutic mind that please the elite and sensitive of our society. How silly that most Americans are about through with the U.N. Indeed, we Neanderthals want it relegated to something like the Red Cross tucked away at the Hague, if not on the frontlines in Nigeria or Bolivia. Yes, we dummies have seen enough of its General Assembly resolutions aimed at the only democracy in the Middle East, its promotion of rogue states such as Syria, Cuba, Iran, and Libya to human-rights watchdogs, its corrupt Oil-for-Food program, and its present general secretary and his role in nepotism and sweet-heart contracts at the expense of the Iraqi people. No surprise that a shaken perpetual-president Hosni Mubarak is calling for a U.N. conference on terror with wonderful Arab League logic: ‘You kill Jews on your own soil, good; you kill them on mine and lose me money, bad.’

The artists, musicians, and entertainers have also railed against the war. In the therapeutic mindset, the refinement and talent of a Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Bruce Springsteen, or John Fogerty earn respect when they weigh in on matters of state policy. But in the tragic view, they can be little more than puppets of inspiration. Their natural gifts are not necessarily enriched by real education or learning. Indeed, they are just as likely to be high-school or college dropouts and near illiterates, albeit with good memories, voices, and looks. The present antics of these influential millionaire entertainers should remind us why Plato banished them — worried that we might confuse the inspired creative frenzies of the artisans with some sort of empirical knowledge. But you can no more sing, or write, or act al Qaeda away than the equally sensitive novelists and intellectuals of the 1930s or 1940s could rehabilitate Stalin.

And then there are the new green billionaires who no longer worry about the struggle to make any more money, much less about state, federal, and payroll taxes that can eat up half of a person’s income. A George Soros may have made his pile by trying to destroy the British financial system, but now he wishes to leave the world safe for currency traders to come by defeating George Bush. The up-from-the-bootstraps struggle to create the dough for the Heinz fortune is a century past and forgotten — thus the post-capitalist Teresa in her private jet and John Kerry on his $500,000 power boat can lecture us about Americans’ shameless oil profligacy and George Bush’s blood for oil gambit in Iraq.

Our mainstream media also cannot quite believe we are at war with evil people who wish us dead — something like the crises that have faced all civilizations at one time or another. Instead, to ponder Rathergate or the recent ABC memo advocating bias in its reporting is to fathom the arrogance of the Enlightenment, and the learned’s frustration with those of us less-gifted folk who don’t quite wish to follow where they lead us. Such anointed ones have taken on the burden of saving us from George Bush and his retrograde ideas. After all, who believes that anyone would really wish to reinstate a mythical caliphate, a Muslim paradise of sharia, gender apartheid, and theocracy spreading the globe through Islamic nukes and biological and chemical bombs? How one dimensional and unsophisticated.

Meanwhile most Americans have already quietly made up their minds. They think the Democratic party is run not by unionists, farmers, miners, truckers, and average folk, but by those rich enough not to have to make a living, and who wish out of either guilt or noblesse oblige to force the dumber upper middle class to be more sensitive, generous, or utopian. Americans also believe Europe has lost its way and is bogged down in a hopeless and soon-to-be scary task of legislating by fiat heaven on earth. We of the tragic persuasion wish them well with Turkey and their unassimilated Islamic populations, but we don’t want our hurtful combat troops there after 60 years of subsidized peacekeeping. Americans also don’t care much about the Nobel prizes anymore — not when a Jimmy Carter is praised after trying to undermine his own president on the eve of war, and not when the most recent peace-prize winner rants on that AIDS is a Western-created germ agent unleashed to hurt Africa but silent about $15 billion in American aid to stop what her own continent is spreading.

John Kerry is probably going to lose this election, despite the “Vote for Change” rock tour, despite Air America, despite Kitty Kelley’s fraud hyped on national media, despite Soros’s MoveOn.org hit pieces, despite Fahrenheit 9/11, despite the Nobel Prizes and Cannes Film Awards, despite Rathergate and ABC Memogate, despite the European press, despite Kofi Annan’s remonstrations, despite a barking Senator Harkin or Kennedy, despite the leaks of rogue CIA Beltway insiders, despite Jimmy Carter’s sanctimonious lectures, despite Joe Wilson, Anonymous, and Richard Clarke — and more. You all have given your best shot, but I think you are going to lose.

Why? Because the majority of Americans does not believe you. The majority is more likely to accept George Bush’s tragic view that we really are in a war for our very survival to stop those who would kill us and to alter the landscape that produced them — a terrible war that we are winning.

When all is said and done, it still is as simple as that.

©2004 Victor Davis Hanson



What John Kerry's America will look like
© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

This week, I began to think for the first time about what I would write if Sen. John Kerry were elected president in November. But then, I realized I should write that column now. What good would it do to awaken people to the dangers of a Kerry administration after that administration had been elected? Here, then, are a few predictions of what will transpire in the unlikely event John Kerry becomes the most powerful man on Earth.

Major terrorist attacks will occur in the United States. John Kerry clearly does not recognize that the fight against terror must be pre-emptive: No amount of wheedling, cajoling or appeasement will convince Islamo-fascist terrorists not to murder Americans. Terrorists must simply face death or capture, but Kerry operates under an amorality designed by the United Nations and therefore feels that American pre-emption is not an option.

Little on Kerry's resume suggests that his views have changed radically since the 1970s, when he demanded that U.S. troops be sent around the world at the behest of the United Nations. Not only that: If Kerry has his way, the much-maligned but incredibly productive Patriot Act will fizzle, allowing terrorists to roam virtually unhindered throughout the United States.

Gay marriage will become a reality across the country. Passage of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage has been rejected by the Senate. And with the radical gay-activist agenda moving full steam forward, it seems very likely that the Defense Of Marriage Act will soon be struck down by the courts, forcing states to accept gay marriages from other states.

Even if DOMA is left standing, though, liberal activists are willing to circumvent the law, as they have in San Francisco and New York. What would President John Kerry do to protect the sacred institution of marriage? Nothing. He opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage – and he was one of only 16 senators to oppose the Defense Of Marriage Act, comparing advocates of DOMA to 1960s racists who opposed interracial marriage. Get ready for Mr. and Mr. Smith if Kerry is elected.

Your taxes will rise. If you're a government leech, vote for John Kerry. Otherwise, a vote for John Kerry means more out of your paycheck. Don't buy the Clintonesque political demagoguery that Kerry will sock it to the millionaires while leaving the rest of us untouched. Look at Kerry's Senate record instead.

If you're a member of the middle class, Kerry wants to raise your taxes. If you own stocks or a car, Kerry wants to raise your taxes. If you die or get married, Kerry wants to raise your taxes. Even if you use the Internet, Kerry might want to raise your taxes – he said in 2001 that online taxation would be needed in the near future. Kerry voted against the Bush tax cuts. Kerry has promised a tax increase of $700 billion – and that's a low-end estimate. If he actually fulfills his campaign spending promises, make that estimate closer to $1.7 trillion. Don't be surprised if a Kerry administration transforms economic boom into stagnancy or even recession.

The military will be crippled – again. Like Bill Clinton, Kerry purports to be a military supporter. And, yes, Kerry served his country with honor. But Kerry's actions upon his return to the United States and his efforts on behalf of the anti-military faction of American liberalism are inexcusable. During his tenure in the Senate, Kerry repeatedly voted to cut back the military – in 2003, Kerry voted against $87 billion to support troops in harm's way. He also campaigns for allowing open homosexuals into the military, a move that will surely undermine morale and morality in our armed services. Kerry insists he will strengthen the military, but which John Kerry will show up? If Bill Clinton was any indicator of Democratic "strong" military policy, we're in real trouble.

These are only a taste of what a Kerry presidency would bring. A vastly liberal Supreme Court is not a probability but a virtual certainty. Abortion would be reinstated in the pantheon of leftist government-sponsored programs. Public education will revert to its previously unaccountable status. America's energy resources will not grow, and dependency on foreign oil will remain.

Trial lawyers will have a vocal advocate in the White House – and when health-care costs go up because of unjustified lawsuits, government-run health care will be proposed as a solution. The legal immigration system will not only remain broken; it will be completely destroyed as Kerry encourages more benefits for "undocumented immigrants."

The America portrayed here will be John Kerry's "stronger America." I just pray we do not have to live in it.

Benjamin Shapiro, 20, is a recent graduate of UCLA and the author of the new book, "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth." To find out more about Ben Shapiro, visit the Creators Syndicate website.



Kerry Family Values


Marriage Penalty

Kerry Voted Against Marriage Penalty Relief At Least 22 Times. 1

Sanctity Of Marriage

Kerry Was One Of Only 14 Senators To Vote Against 1996 Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), Which Banned Federal Recognition Of Gay Marriage And Same-Sex Partner Benefits. (H.R. 3396, CQ Vote #280: Passed 85-14: R 53-0; D 32-14, 9/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Praised Massachusetts Civil Unions Ruling, Saying It Called On MA Legislature To "Ensure Equal Protection For Gay Couples." "I have long believed that gay men and lesbians should be assured equal protection and the same benefits - from health to survivor benefits to hospital visitation - that all families deserve. While I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe that today’s decision calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples. These protections are long over due." (John Kerry For President, "Statement From John Kerry On Massachusetts Gay Marriage Ruling," Press Release, 11/18/03)

Kerry Supports "Access To Pensions, Health Insurance, Family Medical Leave, Bereavement Leave, Hospital Visitation, Survivor Benefits, And Other Basic Legal Protections" For Same-Sex Couples. "John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need. He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees." (John Kerry For President Website, "A Record Of Working On Behalf Of Gay And Lesbian Americans," www.johnkerry.com, Accessed 1/27/04)

Kerry Expressed "Moral Outrage" With Vatican’s Statement On Gay Marriage. "[Kerry] said political concerns are secondary to his moral outrage over Thursday’s Vatican statement on gay marriage. ‘Our founding fathers separated church and state in America. It is an important separation,’ he said. ‘It is part of what makes America different and special, and we need to honor that as we go forward and I’m going to fight to do that.’ Catholics were stunned at the broadside from Kerry, saying he’s sure to draw the ire of some 65 million voting Catholics." (David R. Guarino, "Kerry Raps Pope," The Boston Herald, 8/2/03)

Child Tax Credit

Kerry Voted Against Expanding Child Tax Credit At Least 18 Times. 2

Adoption Tax Credit

Kerry Voted Against Expanding Adoption Tax Credit At Least Seven Times. 3

Abortion

In 1984, Kerry Said He Would Vote Against "Any Restrictions On Age, Consent, Funding Restrictions, Or Any Law To Limit Access To Abortion." (John Kerry As Quoted In "Mass. Senate Candidates Quizzed On Women’s Issues," Sojourner: The Women’s Forum, 6/30/84)

Kerry Received 0% Ranking From National Right To Life Committee For 108th, 107th And 106th Congresses, And 7% Ranking For 105th Congress. (National Right To Life Committee Website, www.nrlc.org, Accessed 1/22/04)

Kerry Is First Presidential Candidate To Ever Be Endorsed By Planned Parenthood Action Fund. "The Planned Parenthood Action Fund endorsed Mr. Kerry yesterday, the first time it has endorsed a presidential candidate. Its leaders said the election was crucial to preserving access to abortion." (Laurie Goodstein, "Vatican Cardinal Signals Backing For Sanctions On Kerry," The New York Times, 4/24/04)

Kerry Says He Personally Believes Life Begins At Conception, But "Article Of Faith" Should Not Translate Into Public Policy. "I am Catholic and have personally always believed life begins at conception, but I have never believed that that is something that should be translated as a matter of faith, an article of faith, into everybody else’s behavior for those who don’t share that faith ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Campaign Event, Des Moines, IA, 1/9/04)

Kerry Claimed Most Catholics Support Roe, And Blames Bishops For Catholics’ Lack Of Adherence To Faith. "John Kerry said he had to ‘represent all the people in my state,’ including Jews and Buddhists. Then the senator repeated what former House Speaker Tip O’Neill apparently once said in front of several thousand priests and several thousand nuns, that 68 percent of them ‘support Roe v. Wade.’ ‘If the bishops can’t do and won’t say anything about that, don’t come to me. You know what I’m saying?’ said Kerry." (Tom Bethell, "It’s The Bishops’ Problem," The American Spectator, June-July 2003)

Partial-Birth Abortion

Kerry Has Voted At Least Six Times Against Banning Partial-Birth Abortion. (H.R. 1833, CQ Vote #596: Passed 54-44: R 45-8; D 9-36; I 0-0, 12/7/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1833, CQ Vote #301: Motion Rejected 57-41: R 45-6; D 12-35; I 0-0, 9/26/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1122, CQ Vote #71: Passed 64-36: R 51-4; D 13-32, 5/20/97, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1122, CQ Vote #277: Rejected 64-36: R 51-4; D 13-32, 9/18/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1692, CQ Vote #340: Passed 63-34: R 48-3; D 14-31, I 1-0, 10/21/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3, CQ Vote #402: Agreed To 64-34: R 47-3; D 17-30; I 0-1, 10/21/03, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Says, "There Is No Such Thing As A Partial Birth." "Just hours after President Bush signed a law banning what critics of the procedure call ‘partial-birth abortion,’ Senator John F. Kerry declared last night ‘there is no such thing as a partial birth,’ as he and the other Democratic presidential contenders sought the political support of women voters. ... ‘It is a late-term abortion. They have done a very effective job of giving people a sense of fear about it. It’s part of their assault on the rights of women in America. ... There’s nothing partial about their effort to undo Roe v. Wade.’" (Glen Johnson, "Kerry Hits Ban On Abortion Procedure," The Boston Globe, 11/6/03)

Taxpayer-Funded Abortions

Kerry Voted To Allow Federal Money To Be Used To Distribute Morning-After Abortion Pill In America’s Schools. (H.R. 4577, CQ Vote #169: Motion Rejected 41-54: R 6-48; D 35-6, 6/30/00, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Has Voted At Least 25 Times In Favor Of Using Taxpayer Dollars To Pay For Abortions In United States. 4

Parental Consent

Kerry Has Voted At Least Three Times Against Requiring Parental Notification For Minor’s Abortion. 5

Homeland Security

Kerry Led The Fight Against President Bush’s Department Of Homeland Security. 6

Senate Democrats Stalled Homeland Security For 112 Days. (H.R. 5005, Received In The Senate 7/30/02; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #249: Passed 90-9: R 48-0; D 41-8; I 1-1, 11/19/02, Kerry Voted Yea)

International "Family Planning"

In 1985, Kerry Expressed "Grave Concern" About White House Decision To Withhold Millions From International Planned Parenthood Federation. "I joined 16 of my colleagues in the senate in sending a letter to the White House expressing our grave concern about the recent decision not to provide the International Planned Parenthood Federation [IPPF] with 17 million dollars’ worth of population assistance appropriated in the fiscal year 1985 budget. This action is especially distressing because it comes at a time when several underdeveloped nations in Africa are experiencing famine. First, we are told that IPPF funds are withheld, and now we learn that the U.S. Agency for International Development is holding up money for family planning that might limit the number of babies born into desperate poverty, by not yet providing to the United Nations Fund For Population Activities [UNFPA] the funds appropriated for it." (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 2/6/85, p. S1213)

Kerry "Called On The Catholic Church To ‘Not Be A Barrier’ To Birth Control Worldwide ..." (Anthony Flint, "US Plans Key Role On Population," The Boston Globe, 3/5/94)

In Opposition To President Bush’s Reinstatement Of Mexico City Policy In 2001, Kerry Said "International Family Planning Programs Are In America’s Best Interests." "President George W. Bush, despite his inaugural pleas for unity, yesterday plunged into one of the nation’s most bitterly divisive fights, banning federal funds for groups providing abortion counseling overseas. ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a strong abortion rights supporter, said Bush’s ban will have severe health consequences across the globe. ‘I will not back away from my conviction that international family planning programs are in America’s best interests,’ Kerry said. ‘We should resist pressures in this country for heavy-handed Washington mandates that ignore basic choices that should belong to free people around the globe.’" (Andrew Miga and Laurel J. Sweet, "Bush Move Sparks Abortion Firestorm," Boston Herald, 1/23/01)

Kerry Says Reversing Mexico City Policy Would Be His First Executive Order. LARRY KING: "What would be the first executive order?" KERRY: "Reverse the Mexico City policy on the gag rule so that we take a responsible position globally on family planning." (CNN/Los Angeles Times, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Los Angeles, CA, 2/26/04)

In 2003, Kerry Voiced His Support For "Population Control Efforts Around The World." "[I] think that tonight we have to make it clear that we are not going to turn back the clock. There is no overturning of Roe v. Wade. There is no packing of the courts with judges who will be hostile to choice. There is no denial of choice to poor women in the United States. There is no outlawing of a procedure necessary to save a woman’s life or health and there are no more cutbacks on population control efforts around the world. We need to take on this President and all of the forces of intolerance on this issue. We need to honestly and confidently and candidly take this issue out to the country and we need to speak up and be proud of what we stand for." (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Remarks At NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner, 1/21/03)

Litmus Test For Judicial Nominees

Kerry Stated He Would Only Support Nominees Who Pledge To Uphold Roe V. Wade. "The potential retirement of Supreme Court justices makes the 2004 presidential election especially important for women, Senator John F. Kerry told a group of female Democrats yesterday, and he pledged that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion rights under its Roe v. Wade decision. ... ‘Any president ought to appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. In my judgment, it is and has been settled law that women, Americans, have a defined right of privacy and that the government does not make the decision with respect to choice. Individuals do.’" (Glen Johnson, "Kerry Vows Court Picks To Be Abortion-Rights Supporters," The Boston Globe, 4/9/03)
Kerry Said He Would Filibuster Any Pro-Life Supreme Court Nominee. "The Supreme Court hangs in the balance and the next justices will determine whether we move forward or backward. Therefore, I will filibuster any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on the right to choose, on civil rights and individual liberties, on the laws protecting workers and the environment." (Sen. John Kerry, A Call To Service, 2003, p. 182)

Human Cloning

In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Invoking Cloture To Human Cloning Prohibition Act. (S. 1601, Roll Call Vote #10: Motion Rejected 42-54: R 42-12; D 0-42, 2/11/98, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Supports So-Called "Therapeutic" Cloning. "While I oppose cloning for the purposes of creating a human being, I do support therapeutic cloning that has the potential to help cure many diseases." (Sen. John Kerry As Quoted In "Q&A: The Democratic Candidates On Higher Education," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1/23/04)

Euthanasia

In 1996, Kerry Said He Could Support Assisted Suicide Under "Extreme Circumstances." "On assisted suicide, Kerry said he could support it under extreme circumstances, as long as the patient, doctor and family agreed ‘death might be appropriate.’" (Matt Devine, "Candidates Tone Down Attacks In Fourth Debate," The Patriot Ledger, 8/20/96)

In 1999, Kerry Said He ‘Personally Opposes’ Euthanasia, But "Medical Professionals" Should "Work With Patients To Make Decisions" About Drugs. "Both Massachusetts senators said they oppose physician-assisted suicide, but have reservations about sanctioning a government role in the decision. ‘I personally oppose euthanasia, but I think it's doctors and medical professionals who need to work with patients to make decisions about the use of drugs,’ Senator John F. Kerry said." (Anne E. Kornblut, "Ban On Prescribing Drugs For Suicide Gets House OK," The Boston Globe, 10/28/99)

School Choice

In 1996, Kerry Voted Four Times Against Giving Low-Income D.C. Children School Choice Option. (H.R. 2546, CQ Vote #20: Rejected 54-44: R 50-2; D 4-42, 2/27/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2546, CQ Vote #21: Rejected 52-42: R 48-1; D 4-41, 2/29/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2546, CQ Vote #23: Rejected 53-43: R 49-2; D 4-41, 3/5/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2546, CQ Vote #25: Rejected 56-44: R 51-2; D 5-42, 3/12/96, Kerry Voted Nay)

In 2003, Kerry Said Voucher Program Should Not Be A Moral Argument, And That School Choice Would Abandon Students Left In Public Schools. "[W]e have to guarantee that vouchers are not made into an argument that somehow there’s a morality in taking care of kids, 50 of them, and abandoning 4,000 in the school behind them. I refuse to accept that." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Black Caucus Institute Debate, 9/9/03)

Last November, Kerry Said Vouchers Would "Destroy Inner City Schools" And Leave "Even More Children Behind." "We need a President who will tell the truth about vouchers - that they weaken public education, make it harder to build good citizens, and hurt those most in need. Don’t cry crocodile tears for inner city kids while trying in effect to destroy inner city schools. Vouchers aren’t choice; they’re a bad choice that would leave even more children behind." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks In Council Bluffs, IA, 11/25/03)

As President, Kerry Would Veto "Vouchers Or Voucher-Like Programs." "[Vouchers] don’t reform our public schools - they run away from them. ... I have never supported vouchers. I will never support them. And if it ever comes to my desk, I’ll veto vouchers or voucher-like programs the day that bill arrives." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks In Council Bluffs, IA, 11/25/03)

Religion On Campaign Trail

Kerry: "I Am Saying That I Don’t Believe We Should Raise Religion As A Matter Of Political Strategy. That’s What I’m Saying." (Sen. Kerry, CNBC’s "Capital Report," 1/8/04)

Kerry Used Scripture To Criticize "Our Present National Leadership." "John Kerry cited a Bible verse Sunday to criticize leaders who have ‘faith but has no deeds,’ prompting President Bush’s spokesman to accuse Kerry of exploiting Scripture for a political attack. Kerry never mentioned Bush by name during his speech at New North Side Baptist Church, but aimed his criticism at ‘our present national leadership.’ Kerry cited Scripture in his appeal for the worshippers, including James 2:14, ‘What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?’ ‘The Scriptures say, what does it profit, my brother, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?’ Kerry said. ‘When we look at what is happening in America today, where are the works of compassion?’" (Nedra Pickler, "Bush Campaign Blasts Kerry’s Bible Quote," The Associated Press, 3/28/04)

Time: "Kerry Has At Times Put A Pious Cast On His Own Rhetoric." "Polls consistently show that Americans prefer their leaders to be religious, and in running to unseat the most openly devout President in recent years, Kerry has at times put a pious cast on his own rhetoric. In a speech at a Mississippi church on March 7, he said Bush does not practice the ‘compassionate conservatism’ he preaches, and quoted James 2:14, ‘What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?’" (Karen Tumulty and Perry Bacon Jr., "A Test Of Kerry’s Faith," Time, 4/5/04)

In 1996, Kerry Complained About Senators Voting Against Their Professed Religious Ideals. "Sen. John F. Kerry, speaking at a Roxbury church, complained yesterday that some of his fellow senators profess Christian beliefs while voting in ways that contradict those ideals. Addressing the congregation of the Twelfth Baptist Church, Kerry said he often feels torn at Senate prayer breakfasts as he meets colleagues who seem to lack compassion in public life. ‘To be candid, I struggle when I sit next to someone who says they’re born again, but votes against child care, votes to cut 12- to 18-year-old kids off Medicaid,’ Kerry said." (Michael Grunwald, "Kerry Tells Congregation Votes Should Match Faith," The Boston Globe, 10/21/96)

And Called On Politicians To Run Their Life "In A Christian Way." "After a few remarks about the apostle Paul, Kerry decried the ‘difference between the rhetoric and the reality’ in politics, urging politicians, ‘Run your life in a Christian way.’" (Michael Grunwald, "Kerry Tells Congregation Votes Should Match Faith," The Boston Globe, 10/21/96)

Now Kerry Defends Positions At Odds With His Church. "Kerry is Roman Catholic, but his support for abortion rights is at odds with Vatican teachings. ‘I don’t tell church officials what to do, and church officials shouldn’t tell American politicians what to do in the context of our public life,’ Kerry said ..." (Nedra Pickler, "Bush Campaign Blasts Kerry’s Bible Quote," The Associated Press, 3/28/04)

Says He Shares Catholic Church’s Anti-Abortion Views, But Says Public Officials Shouldn’t Impose Views On Others. "On abortion, Kerry said that he - as a Catholic - does share his church’s anti-abortion views ‘as an article of faith.’ But as a public official, he said he didn’t believe he had the right to impose such views on others." (Jo Mannies, "Candidates: Bush Must Go," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1/29/04)

Footnotes
1. (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote # 178: Rejected 31-69: R 31-23; D 0-46, 5/23/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1357, CQ Vote #552: Motion Agreed To 53-46: R 50-3; D 3-43, 10/27/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #556: Passed 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 10/28/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #584: Motion Agreed To 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 11/18/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2312, CQ Vote #242: Motion Rejected 48-51: R 4-50; D 44-1, 7/29/98, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1429, CQ Vote #230: Rejected 46-54: R 45-9; D 0-45; I 1-0, 7/29/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1429 CQ Vote #247: Passed 57-43: R 52-2; D 4-41; I 1-0, 7/30/99, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #261: Adopted 50-49: R 49-4; D 0-45; I 1-0, 8/5/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 101, CQ Vote #68: Rejected 44-56: R 5-50; D 39-6, 4/7/00, Kerry Voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 290, CQ Vote #79: Adopted 51-45: R 51-2; D 0-43, 4/7/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #82: Rejected 53-45: R 53-1; D 0-44, 4/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 53-45: R 53-1; D 0-44, 4/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 290, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 50-48: R 50-4; D 0-44, 4/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R.4810, CQ Vote #213: Rejected 20-79: R 1-53; D 19-26, 7/18/00, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #214: Adopted 54-45: R 54-0; D 0-45, 7/18/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #215: Passed 61-38: R 53-1; D 8-37, 7/18/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #79: Adopted 50-50: R 49-1; D 1-49, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 4/5/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #86: Adopted 65-35: R 50-0; D 15-35, 4/6/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #98: Adopted 53-47: R 48-2; D 5-45, 5/10/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #165: Passed 62-38: R 50-0; D 12-38, 5/23/01, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #36: Rejected 47-52: R 1-50; D 45-2; I 1-0, 3/10/04, Kerry Voted Yea)

2. (S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #36: Rejected 47-52: R 1-50; D 45-2; I 1-0, 3/10/04, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #108: Adopted 56-44: R 50-1; D 6-42; I 0-1, 3/26/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #134: Adopted 51-50: R 49-2; D 1-47; D 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 4/11/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 51-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 5/23/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #106: Rejected 48-52: R 47-4; D 1-47; I 0-1, 3/26/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #165: Passed 62-38: R 50-0; D 12-38, 5/23/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #86: Adopted 65-35: R 50-0; D 15-35, 4/6/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #98: Adopted 53-47: R 48-2; D 5-45, 5/10/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2014, CQ Vote #160: Passed 80-18: R 51-4; D 29-14, 6/27/97, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 57, CQ Vote #151: Motion Agreed To 57-43: R 50-3; D 7-40, 5/23/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con Res. 178, CQ Vote #159: Adopted 53-46: R 53-0; D 0-46, 6/13/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #178, Rejected 31-69: R 31-23; D 0-46, 5/23/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 67, CQ Vote #296: Adopted 54-46: R 54-0; D 0-46, 6/29/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1357, CQ Vote #552: Motion Agreed To 53-46: R 50-3; D 3-43, 10/27/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #556: Passed 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 10/28/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #584: Motion Agreed To 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 11/18/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #66: Rejected 42-58: R 42-2; D 0-56, 3/23/94, Kerry Voted Nay)

3. (H.R. 11, CQ Vote #243: Motion Agreed To 46-30: R 1-30; D 45-0, 9/26/92, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #584: Motion Agreed To 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 11/18/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #556: Passed 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 10/28/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1357, CQ Vote #552: Motion Agreed To 53-46: R 50-3; D 3-43, 10/27/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #86: Adopted 65-35: R 50-0; D 15-35, 4/6/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #98: Adopted 53-47: R 48-2; D 5-45, 5/10/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #165: Passed 62-38: R 50-0; D 12-38, 5/23/01, Kerry Voted Nay)

4. (H.R. 2965, CQ Vote #255: Motion Rejected 46-46: R 17-31; D 29-15, 10/24/85, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2965, CQ Vote #274: Motion Rejected 47-48: R 35-17; D 12-31, 11/1/85, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 5175, CQ Vote #263: Adopted 48-42: R 16-33; D 32-9, 9/16/86, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2713, CQ Vote #289: Motion Agreed To 60-39: R 16-30; D 44-9, 9/30/87, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4776, CQ Vote #232: Motion Agreed To 49-37: R 16-25; D 33-12, 7/7/88, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4776, CQ Vote #233: Motion Agreed To 51-34: R 16-24; D 35-10, 7/7/88, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4783, CQ Vote #268: Adopted 73-19: R 39-5; D 34-14, 7/27/88, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4776, CQ Vote #348: Motion Agreed To 45-44: R 31-10; D 14-34, 9/30/88, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4404, CQ Vote #68: Ruling Of The Chair Rejected 45-51: R 34-10; D 11-41, 4/27/90, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4404, CQ Vote #69: Ruled Germane 54-42: R 12-32; D 42-10, 4/27/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 110, CQ Vote #252: Adopted 62-36: R 16-27; D 46-9, 9/25/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 322, CQ Vote #254: Passed 73-26: R 20-23; D 53-3, 10/1/92, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2403, CQ #235: Ruled Not Germane 48-51: R 36-7; D 12-44, 8/3/93, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2518, CQ Vote #290: Rejected 40-59: R 6-38; D 34-21, 9/28/93, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2020, CQ Vote #369: Adopted 52-41: R 15-35; D 37-6, 8/5/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2020, CQ Vote #370: Adopted 50-44: R 40-10; D 10-34, 8/7/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2020, CQ Vote #371: Rejected 45-49: R 9-41; D 36-8, 8/7/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #478: Motion Agreed To 52-44: R 43-9; D 9-35, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1357, CQ Vote #539: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 46-7; D 9-37, 10/27/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1357, CQ Vote #542: Motion Agreed To 56-43: R 46-7; D 10-36, 10/27/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3019, CQ Vote #38: Rejected 45-55: R 6-47; D 39-8, 3/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 3756, CQ Vote #284: Motion Agreed To 53-45: R 43-9; D 10-36, 9/11/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 947, CQ Vote #129: Rejected 39-61: R 5-50; D 34-11, 6/25/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1023, CQ Vote #190: Adopted 54-45: R 48-7; D 6-38, 7/22/97, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1282, CQ Vote #197: Motion Rejected 47-51: R 7-46; D 40-5, 7/1/99, Kerry Voted Yea)

5. (H.R. 5257, CQ Vote #266: Motion Rejected 48-48: R 8-34; D 40-14, 10/12/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 323, CQ Vote #131, Adopted 52-47: R 38-5; D 14-42, 7/16/91, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #185: Rejected 45-55: R 31-12; D 14-43, 9/11/91, Kerry Voted Nay)

6. (H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #218: Motion Rejected 50-49: R 0-48; D 49-1; I 1-0, 9/19/02, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #225: Motion Rejected 49-49: R 1-47; D 47-2; I 1-0, 9/25/02, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #226: Motion Rejected 50-49: R 1-48; D 48-1; I 1-0, 9/26/02, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #227: Motion Rejected 44-53: R 1-46; D 42-7; I 1-0, 9/26/02, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #228: Motion Rejected 45-52: R 2-46; D 42-6; I 1-0, 10/1/02, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #241: Motion Agreed To 50-47: R 48-0; D 1-46; I 1-1, 11/13/02, Kerry Voted Nay)