Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Kerry and Bush – Similarities and Differences

By Theresa Fritz Camoriano

John Kerry mounts a presidential campaign on the basis of his four months of military service in Vietnam 35 years ago, and then, when the Swift boat veterans question him, catching him in lies, extreme self-promotion, and a 1971 statement to the press in which he confessed to committing atrocities, he sends John Glenn out to try to divert our attention elsewhere, saying that we should not dwell on the past but should look to the future.  (Don’t pay attention to what I have been saying or to what I did – just listen to my beautiful promises for the future!) Meanwhile, George Bush pretends to support freedom of speech, but he signs the McCain-Feingold law that sharply curtails free speech, and now he wants to “crack down” on the 527 “loopholes” that still allow people like the Swift Boat Veterans and George Soros to speak out.  Imagine our remaining tiny window of free speech now being considered to be a loophole that should be closed!  Our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves!

Unfortunately, the candidates are much too similar for my taste. 

On military matters:  During the Vietnam war, both candidates signed up for duty trying to avoid combat – Bush joining the National Guard and Kerry joining the Naval Reserves.  Either one could have been called into combat, but, as chance would have it, Kerry was the one who was called up.  Of course, by converting three scratches into purple hearts (never spending even one day in the hospital) and taking advantage of a technicality, Kerry managed to leave Vietnam after only four months of service, so neither candidate has a particularly distinguished military record.  As for the war in Iraq, both Kerry and Bush supported U.S. intervention to remove Saddam Hussein from power, with the only difference being that Bush thinks the U.S. should call its own shots, while Kerry thinks the U.S. should take its orders from the U.N. 

On the economy:  Both Bush and Kerry claim they want to balance the budget, but both pursue budget busting courses of action, promoting excessive government spending that further enslaves the people.  The main difference is that Kerry’s policy of class warfare would increase taxes on the most productive people in the country, which would be more harmful to the economy and would reduce the opportunities for working folks to find gainful employment. 

Both candidates want excessive government intrusion into the most personal aspects of our lives, including centralized, national control of education, health care, and old age pensions.  Bush talks about some degree of privatization with education vouchers or tax credits and private pension accounts, but so far he has not pushed for them, and his new Medicare drug program has created another huge entitlement that will further restrict our freedom to choose various health care options in the future. 

Kerry has never worked in private industry, where he would have to satisfy the needs of a customer in order to stay in business.  He has spent the past thirty years on the government dole and being taken care of by wealthy women.  Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but at least he has some private industry experience in the oil industry and in baseball, so he has some concept of what the producers in this country have to go through in order to stay in business and be productive.

Differences:  The biggest difference between the candidates is who they would appoint as judges.  There can be no doubt that Kerry would appoint “progressive” judges, who will twist the language of the Constitution and laws in order to legislate from the bench, while Bush at least has tried to appoint judges who respect the law.  This is an important difference, because the rule of law can only protect us from tyrants if the law has a fixed meaning that is respected by the courts.  If judges are free to interpret the law to mean whatever they want it to mean, then we have tyranny, not the rule of law, and there will be no protection of the people against whoever is in power at the moment.

It is a shame that more qualified people are not running for the highest office in the land.  However, we should not be surprised at the lack of competition.  Our campaign finance laws have made it nearly impossible for anyone who is not independently wealthy or extremely well-connected to be a serious contender, and how many qualified people would want to set themselves up for the kind of abuse that is dished out by the press? 

In the end, we get the government that the majority demands.  It is very unfortunate that we have allowed our government education system and left-wing press to turn us into a country of sheep, with the majority of Americans demanding candidates who promise to be benevolent masters rather than candidates who will protect our freedom and treat us with respect, but that’s where we are today.  I am hopeful that the Internet, cable television, and other opportunities to get a different viewpoint will enable the people to wise up and demand freedom before it is too late.   

I would be very interested to hear how you are planning to vote in the upcoming election and on what basis you are making your decision.  If you would like to share your thoughts, please send them to Editor@JeffersonReview.com  and we will publish them.

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN