Okay, another question

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, I want to go back to something Senator Kerry said earlier tonight and ask a follow-up of my own. He said -- and this will be a new question to you -- he said that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I'd ask you directly, would you like to?

BUSH: What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I'll have no litmus test.

SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry, you'd like to respond?

KERRY: Is that a new question or a 30-second question?

SCHIEFFER: That's a new question for Senator -- for President Bush.

KERRY: Which time limit...

SCHIEFFER: You have 90 seconds.

KERRY: Thank you very much.

Well, again, the president didn't answer the question.

I'll answer it straight to America. I'm not going to appoint a judge to the Court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today -- under the Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right.

So I don't intend to see it undone.

Clearly, the president wants to leave in ambivalence or intends to undo it.

But let me go a step further. We have a long distance yet to travel in terms of fairness in America. I don't know how you can govern in this country when you look at New York City and you see that 50 percent of the black males there are unemployed, when you see 40 percent of Hispanic children -- of black children in some cities -- dropping out of high school.

And yet the president who talks about No Child Left Behind refused to fully fund -- by $28 billion -- that particular program so you can make a difference in the lives of those young people.

Now right here in Arizona, that difference would have been $131 million to the state of Arizona to help its kids be able to have better education and to lift the property tax burden from its citizens. The president reneged on his promise to fund No Child Left Behind.

He'll tell you he's raised the money, and he has. But he didn't put in what he promised, and that makes a difference in the lives of our children.

SCHIEFFER: Yes, sir?

BUSH: Two things. One, he clearly has a litmus test for his judges, which I disagree with.

And secondly, only a liberal senator from Massachusetts would say that a 49 percent increase in funding for education was not enough.

We've increased funds. But more importantly, we've reformed the system to make sure that we solve problems early, before they're too late.

He talked about the unemployed. Absolutely we've got to make sure they get educated.

He talked about children whose parents don't speak English as a first language? Absolutely we've got to make sure they get educated.

And that's what the No Child Left Behind Act does.

Beats me how Kerry gets from judicial appointments and litmus tests to No Child Left Behind. But then, I'm not a Professional Orator.

Comments

[Esquire]

And how does Bush get from a question about his position on Roe to "litmus tests"?

The Republican Party platform calls for an unborn life amendment. Yet despite controlling the Senate, House and White House they've done nothing on that front.

They were able to find the time to draft and introduce the FMA in a matter of weeks, though. Obviously that's more important to them.

If you insist upon supporting Bush, you really should be demanding a straight answer to his position on Roe.

[Jay Anderson]

"And how does Bush get from a question about his position on Roe to "litmus tests"?"

Because that's exactly the point your precious Kerry was trying to make. Kerry will only appoint pro-Roe judges (just as he has, as a Senator, filibustered Bush's strict constructionist nominees). He has a litmus test - if a judge doesn't eat, drink, sleep, worship abortion, he/she doesn't stand a chance in a Kerry administration.

Again, Esquire, I don't see why you're so concerned about Bush's pro-life proclivities, or lack thereof, when your boy never met an embryo he didn't want to slaughter.

[T. Marzen]

Esquire:

Kerry says that he won't "appoint a judge who would undo a constitional right" and that he believes "the right of choice is a constitutional right." If that's not a "litmus test," then I don't know what is.

Look, Bush is not perfect on the life issues, and maybe some can be faulted for exaggerating in this regard. But Kerry is downright aggressively bad. He has promised nothing and will do absolutely nothing to reduce the number of abortions. If it happens as the result of anything he does, it will be an unintended by-product. In fact, he will personally increase the numbers killed by funding foreign abortion activities and embryonic stem cell research -- matters within his direct authority.

Find some "proportionate" reason to support Kerry over Bush if you can, but don't insist that the difference between the two in this regard is not substantial. Your credibility is at stake in the other arguments that you make.

[Anthony Roberts]

"I'm not going to appoint a judge to the Court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today -- under the Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right."

Okay, explain to me how abortion is a constitutional right. IIRC, an interpretation by the SCOTUS in 1965 guaranteed married couples the right to obtain contraception through a vague "privacy right". Somehow in 1973, this was one of the decisions used to support the majority decision in Roe vs. Wade. I still don't recall abortion being a constitutional right. A poor Constitutional interpretation perhaps but, not a right.

[Jim]

"And how does Bush get from a question about his position on Roe to "litmus tests"?"

"Because that's exactly the point your precious Kerry was trying to make."

WHY IS BUSH AFRAID TO ANSWER THE ACTUAL QUESTION ASKED? Because he is afraid that if he says unambiguously that he is in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade that he will lose votes.

No profile in courage there.

[Liam]

This is not a reason to vote for Kerry but yet one more reason not to vote for Bush, either. He is either a liar (and is not alone in this regard, mind you) or telling the truth. The consequences of each are not exactly appealing. If this President thought it were politically expedient to do much on the abortion issue, believe me, Karl Rove would have moved heaven and earth to do so. The contrast with the FMA is telling.

Again, not a reason to vote for Kerry. But Bush's own peculiar amalgam of mendacity and certainty is only slightly less sickening than Kerry.

[al]

Anthony Roberts is right on! Where's the Abortion amendment? Which article is it in? Talk about you obfuscations or baiting and switching--to try to defend against the charge that you have a litmus test by citing the document itself, sort of requires that you can actually cite the document.

Not to mention his point about "respecting" the hierarchy. You are called to obey them, Senator Kerry.

[Walker]

Regarding Roes v. Wade, would Bush or Kerry be appointing judicial activists to overturn established law? Which candidate would be the strict constructionist?

[Cheryl]

Since when does anyone other than a Supreme Court justice get to decide whether a decision like Roe will be overturned? The only relevant answer relates to the appointment of judges, so the "litmus test" issue matters, IMO.

Amy, I can only speculate that when Kerry was doing his debate prep, they decided that when the abortion issue came up Kerry would steer the debate toward education and No Child Left Behind (you know, the more "important" kids...the ones who had the good fortune to be born and are out here walking around on the planet. Unlike the ones waiting--like sitting ducks--in the womb, who may or may not get the same chance.)

I could be wrong.

[DesertChatter]

"Since when does anyone other than a Supreme Court justice get to decide whether a decision like Roe will be overturned?"

Of course, there IS the possibility of amending the Constitution....about which Reagan, Bush I and Bush II have done exactly nothing. Perhaps because amending the Constitution should be reserved for substantial matters like gay marriage.

Smoke screens and double talk. Neither Bush nor Kerry have any intention of doing anything about Roe.

[WRY]

We *know* Bush will do nothing on Roe but that's not the point. He will at least do no further harm and may in fact appoint judges who could turn out to be pro-life, or at least more open to abortion restrictions, than the ones Kerry would appoint. We *know* that Kerry judges will be viciously pro-abortion. So the choice is between a holding pattern and locking Roe even more firmly into a chain of legal precendence and thus making it even harder for some future court to overturn.

[Charles M. de Nunzio]

No, it will rather go like this:

Bush wins: He'll nominate slightly right-of-center moderates who will be castigated and filibustered by the extreme leftist Demogogues in the Senate as "right-wing extremists" anyway, whose appointments Bush won't fight for, so they'll wither on the vine. (He wouldn't even dare try to send up a Bork, Scalia, or Thomas.) In other words, more of the same we've seen already for four years. Bush will then ultimately cave and send up the kind of milquetoast (pro-abortion) Republican judge who would make Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter proud.

Kerry wins: He will nominate the absolutely worst anti-Christian P.C. ideologues, who will sail through the Senate without opposition because the gutless Republicans will try to show that they are "above" the kind of mean-spirited partisanship that their Demogogue counterparts have been exhibiting these last few years and, not caring about the welfare of the body politic, will in the name of "civility" let these P.C. tyrants occupy even more of the Federal benches on the basis of their "professional credentials" and favorable ABA ratings.

How accursed is our social fabric, when the best our electoral process can do is to give us such a Hobson's choice!

[Lynn]

From Kerry:

"And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right..."

Really? Since when? By whose logic (or lack thereof)?

[ken]

Blaming three presidents for not amending the constitution when they lacked a 3/5 or 3/4 majority in both houses is a bogus argument.

What Bush does that Kerry won't do is prevent US tax dollars to be used to fund overseas population control programs which promote/coerce abortion. If this is the only action he will take it is enough for me to vote for him.

[WRY]

How 'bout this, from the AP account:

``I think I'm leaning toward Kerry now because he says he's a Catholic and doesn't believe in all of the church's beliefs, like me,'' said Marcia Vinick, an uncommitted voter from Scotia, N.Y., and a Catholic.

She favored Bush before the series of three debates began.

a

[Colleen]

"What Bush does that Kerry won't do is prevent US tax dollars to be used to fund overseas population control programs which promote/coerce abortion. If this is the only action he will take it is enough for me to vote for him."

Same here.

And there is a reason for "NARAL Endorses Kerry, Creates 'Anti-Bush Action Center'".

"We've started by endorsing Senator John Kerry because of his commitment to protecting a woman's right to choose and because he can defeat anti-choice President George W. Bush," Michelman continues. "Senator Kerry believes that the Constitution protects a woman's right to choose and has said that as President, he will only nominate Supreme Court justices who support the tenets of Roe v. Wade."

[Anthony]

``I think I'm leaning toward Kerry now because he says he's a Catholic and doesn't believe in all of the church's beliefs, like me,'' said Marcia Vinick, an uncommitted voter from Scotia, N.Y., and a Catholic

Somebody get this woman a piece of paper and a pen and let her write down all of the things that she doesn't believe about the Church. Then give her a hammer and a nail and let her jam them into the door of the closest Catholic Church.
Oh, and someone let her know that we don't have a buffet style cafeteria here and that if she doesn't like it, I'm sure there are denominations out there that would love to have her.

[SiliconValleySteve]

I can't believe this discussion.

Bush has the most pro-life position of any recent president. He defends the "pro-life" position in the debates. Anyone should see that this creates public space for the pro-life position on the whole range of issue. It gives it legitimacy that the main-stream media and liberal politicians like John Kerry want to deny it.

Let's face it, we haven't won over a majority of our fellow citizens. We haven't. Bush probably needs some lukewarm pro-choice votes to win, so he doesn't make it a "litmus test" issue. He does however send every possible signal that his judges will be better on roe than those currently on the bench.

The democrats led by CINOs Kerry and Kennedy would destroy any "easy-to-ID" pro-life judge. They will filibuster because as JFK made clear, the pro-life position is beyond the pale in his opinion. He has no tolerance for it in public life.

Kerry would demand that any judge he appoints pass a pro-abortion litmus test, would increase funding for abortion, undermine restrictions on partial-birth abortion, and promote abortion around the world as a necessary "human right."

He has promised this. He is the most pro-abortion candidate we have ever seen for president.

[Jay Anderson]

"Bush has the most pro-life position of any recent president. He defends the "pro-life" position in the debates. Anyone should see that this creates public space for the pro-life position on the whole range of issue. It gives it legitimacy that the main-stream media and liberal politicians like John Kerry want to deny it."

Thank you, SiliconValleySteve. This is the point I've been trying to make. George Bush is not perfect on the life issues, but he is definitely the most pro-life President we've had since Roe v. Wade (even moreso than Reagan). I doubt very seriously that in the present culture of death, we'll get anyone who is better than Bush on this issue.

Which is why I don't really understand the need of folks around here to mock his pro-life credentials.

[SiliconValleySteve]

Being a liberal is never having to be called stupid. Even if you are.

There is no article in the constitution that refers to the "Right to Abortion." If there was, we would be stuck with a constitutional amendment as our only option in overturning roe.

If the MSM weren't so uniformly hostile to pro-lifers, they would point out the inconsistency of JFK's position on gay marriage and abortion. He supposedly favors "states rights" where gay marriage is involved but is opposed where abortion is concerned.

He won't tell the truth that he is pro gay marriage and pro legal abortion. By any means necessary.

[Steve M.]

It was interesting to see how awkward Sen. Kerry was, when he said "or some other right that's given under our courts today -- under the Constitution." Of course, he had it right the first time--he is talking about court-invented rights. But he was not supposed to speak the truth, and he quickly caught himself. It must be stressful, even under the steady hands of my old debate coach Bob Schrum, to think and talk on your feet for an hour and a half when, given your positions, the truth is a minefield.

[Esquire]

Charles, you wrote: "Kerry wins: He will nominate the absolutely worst anti-Christian P.C. ideologues, who will sail through the Senate without opposition because the gutless Republicans will try to show that they are "above" the kind of mean-spirited partisanship that their Demogogue counterparts have been exhibiting these last few years and, not caring about the welfare of the body politic, will in the name of "civility" let these P.C. tyrants occupy even more of the Federal benches on the basis of their "professional credentials" and favorable ABA ratings."

"anti-Christian P.C. ideologues": Do you really believe any "anti-Christian" can/will ever be nominated/elected to anything in this country? I mean, the DOJ has spent the last 3 years rounding up muslims and "disappearing" them. And do you really think John Ashcroft could get nominated and approved in such a country?

"gutless Republicans . .. "above" the kind of mean-spirited partisanship": Were you around in the 90's? Whitewater, travelgate, filegate, Vince-foster-gate, impeachment? I'd suggest you read the recent Boston Globe 3part series on how the Republicans have handled their majority in the Congress to see who're the mean-spirited partisans.

[Bob Kunz]

Jim from Georgetown U:

I take it from your "WHY IS BUSH AFRAID TO ANSWER THE ACTUAL QUESTION ASKED?" cum "no profile in courage there" (nice quasi-Kennedy, btw) riff that you are fervent in your wish for a candidate who will reassure you of his/her intention to reverse Roe.

Patience, my man, patience. Hysteria may be counter-productive.

[Jim]

To Bob Kunz:

No, Bob, I'm just looking for one candidate who's not afraid to tell me what he really thinks. On one end of the issues, Bush is scared to admit he made any mistakes because he just can't take the criticism. At the other end of the issues, he's afraid to admit he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade because he might offend the small number of undecideds on which this election depends.

Kerry's problems with speaking the truth are manifest, but Bush's are more troubling. At least Kerry knows where he stands on the abortion issue. I disagree with him, but at least he is being honest about his position. Bush is trying to be clever about his position and the man is many things but clever is not one of them.