Joan Swirsky
Thursday, Feb. 19, 2004

While left-wing Democrats would rather write in a vote for Fidel Castro than choose George W. Bush, there is a great mass of undecided voters – Democratic moderates, independents and libertarians – who are keeping their minds open in the hope that one prominent issue will influence the lever they pull.

Today, nearly three years after the deadliest attack on America in its history and two years of fighting international terrorism, that issue is: Who can I trust?

This overarching question must be answered by facts, not emotion. In the most literal way, our lives depend on it.

That is why the answer, to me, is clear. While most people change their minds on numerous issues, their decisions – except for their votes – have relatively little effect on the safety or security of our country. But when elected officials change their minds – especially on issues of national security – the consequences could well prove the undoing of our nation.

Sen. Kerry has changed his mind about the most important issues of the modern age. For instance:

He supported the Vietnam War, volunteering for service, but changed his mind, denouncing the war and joining its harshest critics in condemning the entire U.S. as “criminal” and savaging the young and brave soldiers who slogged through the mire of Vietnam, sustained grave injuries and came home with missing limbs.

He has said, as an elected official, that he believed in a strong defense of our country but changed his mind, voting to cut a billion dollars for counterterrorism in 1994, after the first World Trade Center bombing, and suggesting the following year that $1.5 billion be cut in intelligence funding.

He voted three times to exempt terrorists from the death penalty but changed his mind, saying that he favored the policy.

He voted for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, saying he hated soft money but changed his mind, setting up a soft-money PAC from which he has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporations, unions, etc.

He says he’s against same-sex “marriages” but, strangely, voted against the Defense of Marriage Act.

He voted for the No Child Left Behind Act but changed his mind.

He voted for (and partially wrote) the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act but changed his mind.

He voted against Desert Storm in 1991 but changed his mind, writing to a constituent that he "strongly and unequivocally supported” it.

He voted for the current war in Iraq but changed his mind and then voted against the money to support our troops in the field. In his vote, he said, “I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his [Saddam Hussein’s] hands is a real and grave threat to our security," but changed his mind, condemning the president for acting on faulty intelligence – the same intelligence Kerry himself received as a member of the Foreign Affairs and Select Intelligence committees.

How can we trust what Kerry now says he believes in? Simply, we can’t! His lengthy public-service record screams with the kind of contradictions that bode ill for a country badly in need of consistent and decisive leadership.

President Bush fits this bill. A man of his word, he promised during his run for office to lower taxes and enact education reform, both of which he delivered on. And after Sept. 11, he promised the nation that he would fight terrorism wherever it existed and “root out the terrorists and bring them to justice.”

Again, he has been good to his word, dismantling the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, liberating Iraq and capturing Saddam Hussein, pursuing diplomatic communication with North Korea, Iran and Syria, enlisting the Saudis to join our anti-terror mission, and inspiring Libya to come clean about its weapons programs.

In addition, he established the Department of Homeland Security, improved communication among intelligence agencies, and put the rest of the world on notice that America – alone or with allies – will never bow or capitulate to those who wish us ill.

By any measure, these accomplishments – in less than three years – are breathtaking in scope. More important, they are actions based on a core philosophy and not on the vagaries of public opinion or unreliable polls. Or, for that matter, on a political “vision,” like Kerry’s, that wants it both ways, all ways, some ways, or no ways, depending on the audience he’s facing.

It’s actually hilarious and immensely self-deluding that Kerry has started calling himself “The Real Deal.” Real about what issue? It’s impossible for anyone who has followed his “on the record” comments and actions over the last several decades to figure that out!

In this crucial time in our history, when every person in America faces the very real threat of being exterminated by a suitcase full of biological toxins or a nuclear device, voting for a man who is famous for changing his mind is folly at best, life-threatening at worst.

It’s not enough to base a candidacy, as Kerry has, solely on hatred of his opponent. While Kerry may speak in stentorian tones, President Bush, without the fancy speech, is all about the only issue that counts: Trust.

Joan Swirsky is a New York-based journalist and author who can be reached at joansharon@aol.com.

Editor's note:
Get the 2004 Bush vs. Kerry Poll Numbers before the White House! Click Here

Find out about the book that predicted 9/11 - "Bitter Legacy" – Click Here Now

"CATASTROPHE" Reveals the Secret Story Behind 9/11

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
2004 Elections
Sen. John Kerry