Kerry "won" the debate, probably not the election

In 1984, Ronald Reagan certainly was not in his best form. There was no question that Walter Mondale won the debate. Reagan not only did not seem alert or prepared, his performance left wide-open the question of whether the 73-year-old incumbent was too old to be President.

Thankfully, there was a second debate and Reagan did much better. He put the age issue to rest with one of the most famous lines from any Presidential debate: "I will not exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience". Mondale was 57 and had been the Vice President; part of the joke was that Reagan was speaking in relative terms. As y'all know (in Texas, "y'all" is a word), Reagan won by the biggest landslide in U.S. history, with only Minnesota and the District of Columbia voting for Mondale.

The mainstream media will say the Democratic candidate won the debate, no matter what. That is why it is significant that the pro-Kerry media also said Kerry's win was not decisive. "Kerry scores, but no knockout" read one headline. The front-runner does not need to win the debate, he only needs to not make any serious gaffes that could undermine public confidence in him.

On http://electoral-vote.com the debate did not appear to change much. Most significantly, the most recent poll of Florida (Sept. 30) showed the pivotal state back in the Bush column by 3 percentage points, almost the poll's margin of error (the debate took place in Coral Gables).

What Kerry could do, if he really wants to win the election, is stop harping on the economy, which the President cannot control anyway; and stop hammering on our involvement in Iraq, because Saddam Hussein had to go; and instead, focus on the one thing for which George W. Bush should be not only impeached, but imprisoned for life: the Patriot Act, which is an aggravated assault on the Bill of Rights.

Problem is, John Kerry voted FOR the Patriot Act:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

The only "no" vote on dismantling the Bill of Rights and using terrorism as an excuse, came from Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), with whom I agree on little else. But the one time he did the right thing, he REALLY did the right thing. Also, Sen. Mary Ellen Landrieu (D-La.), who is not of the body (Star Trek joke), did not vote on the Patriot Act. She might not have wanted to risk retaliation by voting no, but at least she did not join the other 98 tyrants in voting yes. That is at least something.

Another thing Kerry could do is change his stance on abortion to something more mainstream, at the very least being willing to ban late-term abortion. But since he is on the submissive end of a BDSM relationship with the bigots of the N.O.W. Klux Klan, that is not going to happen. Bush is far closer than Kerry to mainstream Americans on the issue of abortion. Single women between 18 and roughly 30 are the only demographic group besides billionaires who support abortion as aggressively as Kerry and Clinton; and they make up less than 5 percent of the voters. They should not get to impose their views on the rest of the American people through a White House puppet as they did in the '90s.

Bush has serious problems. Most honest Americans know that. I, myself, am voting for Michael Peroutka, and my second choice is Michael Badnarik. Not because they share my first name, but because they share my basic belief that the authors of the Constitution had it right.

But not all change is good. Replacing Bush with Kerry, in my opinion, would solve none of Bush's problems, and it would create new problems. For that reason I have to consider Bush the lesser evil.

But, and this is a BIG but, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

MM