John Kerry made the right decision in choosing John Edwards as his running mate. As a Republican, Edwards was the one guy on the list I didn't want them to choose.
Still, my main impression of John Kerry from the news this weekend is just what an absolute wuss he is. His comments on abortion over the weekend were positively Clintonian, and won't do much to ameliorate his much-deserved reputation as a gutless flip-flopper.
On the one hand, says Kerry, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."
But on the other hand, says Kerry in the same interview, "I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."
Let me make sure I understand this correctly. Kerry believes a fetus is truly a human life. And he also believes that there can be no laws against killing such a human life, since such laws would violate the "separation of church and state."
There is vast stupidity here far beyond only the narrow issue of abortion.
Do you have any idea what a pathological madman one must be to believe that religious viewpoints can play no proper part in formulating law? Why is it that the atheistic view (which is a religious view, incidently, requiring unprovable faith presuppositions at least as much as any other religious view) can be legislated on me, but my Christian view cannot be legislated on anyone else?
I believe that all murder is wrong because of my religious views. I believe that stealing is wrong because of my religious views. Does that mean we can have no laws against murder or stealing because of the so-called "separation of church and state"? Or does it perhaps mean that such laws, if passed, can only be passed by people who are atheists and thus not in danger of being influenced by some internal "religious" view? And since the Founders of our nation were deeply influenced by their religious views in formulating the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, does that paradoxically mean that these and all subsequent laws are "unconstitutional?"
Nobody can possibly be this stupid. I believe that Kerry, in his heart of hearts, knows that his stated position is pure idiocy. He is cynically trying to take both sides of the issue in a purely political maneuver. But I've never respected him less (and that's saying something). He doesn't have the guts to stand for what he says he believes--in fact claims it would be unconstitional to stand for what he believes.
As wrongheaded as the kooks at NARAL are, at least they don't run around claiming that they support abortion even though, in their "personal opinion" it's murder. Only a politician could be that amoral and disingenuous.