Part II-A38:The difference between the Two Presidential Candidates in 2004 and why is John Kerry unfit for Commander in Chief

John Kerry is a liberal. He is very skillful in debate because for most of his political career (as a prosecutor and senator) that was his job. Although Kerry talks tough in debate, he is weak in action. His policies are frequently inconsistent. He frequently flip-flop his policy/positions depending on political pressure and his own interests. Therefore, his promise to the voters are empty.

Since John Kerry and Edward both do not have executive experiences (for being Mayor or Governor), they do not have records of creating jobs for Americans before. Although both of John might be dreamers, it does not promise that they can create jobs for Americans. This is just like the former California Governor Gray Davis. The fact proves that electing a democrat doesn't guarantee the economy will improve. So, voters must check the candidate's records.

Now, I would like to further explain it. Since January, 1998, Joseph Graham Davis JR. (Gray Davis) had been elected to be California Governor. During his term in 1999, California's unemployment rate was already head of the United States.

When 1999 Nationwide jobless rate was 4.3 percent, California's unemployment rate has gone to 5.6 percent. So, electing a Democratic Governor didn't promise that he can do better on economy than Republican Governor. Under Democrat's administration, when Nationwide jobless rate was 6.2, California's jobless rate is still head of other State as 6.6 percent. So, in 2003, California does not have enough revenue for its year's budgets. However, as same as usual democrat, Davis only increased taxes as the easy way to deal with this problem. So, although California's unemployment increased, their taxes still increased. It is two strikes against California voters. Thus, the angry voters re-called Gray Davis and caused Davis to lose his Governor seat. The fact proves that electing a democrat doesn't guarantee the economy will improve. Democrats didn't do better in California. Smart voters always check the candidate's records of creating jobs. Since John Kerry and Edward both do not have executive experiences (for being Mayor or Governor), they do not have records of creating jobs for Americans before. A smart voter will not be easily misled by Kerry's slogan "we can do better." Voters want the fact to prove their slogan to be true.

Furthermore, Kerry has lied when he said, he will bring health care to all Americans

When Howard Dean and REP. GEPHARDT claimed that they want to bring health care to all Americans, they both want to increase taxes to all level as President Clinton did before. This is the only way to have enough money to bring health care to all Americans.

Since John Kerry claim that he will bring health care to all Americans and only increase (repeal) taxes on those Americans whose annual income are over two hundred thousand, he has no enough money to bring health care to all Americans. This is also why health care is always a democrats' slogan in every election and has never been achieved. Senator John Kerry, please don't use such a lie to gain votes.

George W Bush is a compassionate and conservative person. Throughout his political career, he has been the leader, the chief executive (previously as the two term Texas governor and now as US president). He is a man of action and can give a very good speech if it was prepared in advance. Although he is not so good at debates, Bush always do what he promise to his voters such as tax cut to stimulate economy growth, "No Child Left Behind" (education reform), Senior citizens' medical care reform, going after terrorists after the 911 attack, etc. So, he is a man who gets results although some might dislike his policy.

During the first debate, President Bush was asked that why he believes that Kerry is unfit to be the commander-in-chief.

Although George W Bush frequently mentioned many reasons during his campaign rally, he didn't speak out at the debate. I don't know why? But I suspect that those tiny invisible personnel hid on his head and use ELF (extreme low frequency waves - brain waves frequency) to interfere with his thinking during debate.  There are two facts support my suspicion.  The first fact is that President Bush's emotion was uncomfortable since the debate started from very beginning.  Second fact is that sometime, Bush seems to lose his thinking path and could not fully respond Kerry's attacks. For example, when Kerry said that Bin Laden and AL-Qaeda attacked us but Saddam diidn't attack us. President Bush only respond that I know Bin Laden attacked us, I know that then losing his thinking path. Bush didn't explain that war on Iraq not only because Saddam had WMD, bot also because Saddam supported terrorists (Al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists). This shows Bush was losing his thinking path during the debate. Also, to manipulate a person's emotion is a very easy thing to these tiny invisible personnel with mind control technology (see details on http://members.aol.com/alanyu5/part1a4.htm ).  These involved police/agents (who use the invisibility technology) from local to federal units already have obtained these mind control devices and so-called nonlethal weapon during Clinton Administration in 1994 (see details informationl on http://members.aol.com/alanyu5/part1b1.htm ).

Their goal is to stop Bush from being re-elected. How could I make such claim? This is because there's been a vast left-wing conspiracy against George W Bush since he ran for Presidency (see details on http://members.aol.com/alanyu5/part2a34.htm ). Since this question was not frankly answered, I would use following three information to answer the question why Kerry is unfit to be commander in chief?

(1). Kerry's twenty years' voting record in Senate speak for itself. His voting record shows that Kerry is anti-war, anti-military funding, and anti-military weapon development because he frequently voted against the budget increase for the military. So, he is unfit to be Commander in chief.

(2). When Iraq invaded Kuwait in the 1990s, Saddam was not only the aggressor/invader but he could also manipulate the world oil price. This is because Iraq and Kuwait are both important oil exporting nations. So, Saddam was threatening the entire free world. President Bush (senior) asked Congress to authorize him power to use military forces against Saddam. This was the first major US military action against the enemy of the free world since Vietnam. US successfully defeated Saddam and prevented him from using oil prices to hold the world hostage. However, Senator John Kerry voted against it then. why? Kerry is a liberal and like to use diplomatic method to solve problems. However, Saddam Hussein only believed in force and was unaffected by UN's condemnation. If John Kerry were the President at that time, Kuwait would still be occupied until 2003 (when President George W Bush removed Saddam Hussein's regime).

The facts prove that although Kerry can talk tough in 90 minutes' debate, his real action is still weak like a liberal. So, he will be a weak leader and unfit to be commander in chief. (3). Kerry vote to give President George W Bush the power to use military forces in Iraq war. Yet, Kerry voted against the $80 billion supplemental for the US military forces when the US forces were fighting against insurgent in Iraq, Why would Kerry suddenly turn his back against US soldiers when they are still fighting in the field?

The real reason is that at that time Howard Dean's anti-war campaign was winning over Democrats in the Democratic Presidential Primary. Under political pressure from Howard Dean, Kerry crumbled and voted against the supplemental military budget for his own political interests. If Kerry could not even stand-up to Howard Dean's anti-war pressure, how can Americans believe that he could be tough enough to stand-up against Al-Qaeda.

During the first debate, Kerry explained this vote and said that he made a mistake for talking about the war. No!, Kerry is again misleading Americans. He made a mistake to vote against the supplemental military budgets. He refuse to support US military while they were fighting insurgent in order to advance his political interests. This is a huge mistake because the supplemental military budget determined whether the US soldiers would have bullet-proof vests and equipment needed to stay alive while fighting. At this critical moment, Kerry certainly cannot turn his back against US soldiers to advance his personal political interests. The above three points prove that Senator John Kerry is unfit to be commander-in-chief.