By now it should be painfully apparent, even to the dullest of observers, that presidential “debates” aren’t about debating at all. Rather, they have become forums from which certain candidates, assisted by not-so-unbiased “moderators,” might possibly remake their public image or cement a certain notion regarding their opponents at the last minute, and on a grand scale.

Consider some pivotal comments made during presidential debates of recent decades. Perhaps the most memorable blunder by then President Jimmy Carter was his awkward and blatantly concocted reference to his daughter Amy’s opinion on nuclear proliferation. Clearly, her inclusion in the discussion had nothing to do with the subject at hand, but instead was the result of a previously orchestrated plan by Carter to contrast himself in the role of compassionate “family man,” as opposed to Reagan, the maniacal warmonger.

Not only did Carter overplay this tactic, eventually resulting in Reagan’s completely disarming “There he goes again.” observation, but once the debate had ended, Carter was faced with the inevitable fallout over his virtual pronouncement of his teenage daughter as chief of America’s nuclear policy.

In a similarly transparent statement, Michael Dukakis sought to dispel public concerns over his excessively lenient law enforcement practices during the 1988 debate with the Senior President Bush. Dukakis flatly stated, “Everybody knows I’m tough on crime.” The absurdity of his words, along with the nearly universal laughter from those in attendance, did much to obliterate any credibility he was hoping to establish on this issue.

Having not learned his lesson, Dukakis soon thereafter engaged in an equally futile attempt to prove his prowess as a strong military leader by riding around in an M-1 tank for a campaign commercial. Looking ridiculous at best, his credibility deficit was thereafter irreparable, and Bush ended up handily winning that year’s election.

Though far more aggressive in their efforts to mischaracterize George W. Bush with bogus accusations of sinister plans to reduce Social Security and reintroduce the draft (among other conspiracies), John Kerry and John Edwards find themselves in a similar quandary, having no standing whatsoever with churchgoing Americans and committed Christians. Thus they have been compelled to resort to the kinds of political antics in which their predecessors engaged. So far, the results have been every bit as dismal.

In last week’s debate, Kerry was just as clumsy and premeditated when he suddenly digressed into a commentary on Vice-President Dick Cheney’s daughter who, Kerry reminded all of us, is a lesbian. Kerry’s not-so-subtle motive was glaringly obvious. But ultimately, it indicated far more about Kerry’s warped perception of the nation’s Conservative Christians than about any irregularity in Cheney’s family arrangements.

Considering that John Edwards also somehow happened to make mention of Mary Cheney’s lifestyle, an obvious pattern emerges.

While many political analysts correctly point out that Kerry and Edwards are engaged in a ploy to alienate the “religious right” from Cheney, and thus from Bush, some background on this situation shows why their plan will ultimately backfire. Kerry and Edwards are fully aware of the approximately four million Evangelical voters who didn’t vote for Bush/Cheney in 2000, though they had been fully expected to do so.

What Democrat strategists obviously do not comprehend is why those Evangelicals opted to stay home on Election Day. It was not a matter of mere fear or superstition that alienated them from the Republican ticket. Rather they were responding to a consistent pattern, by the Bush/Cheney campaign, of soft peddling the moral and social issues of concern to them.

From stem-cell research to RU-486 to same-sex “marriage” to “compassionate conservatism,” the subdued and often ambiguous tones of Bush and Cheney caused considerable uneasiness among Christian Conservatives. However, since the President’s inauguration, his comparative steadfastness in this area has dispelled much of their anxiety. And as the stark choices for President face them in 2004, no mere “buzzwords” of alarmism from the Kerry campaign will stampede them from the Republican camp.

Furthermore, Kerry’s ham-fisted reference to Mary Cheney, combined with his gratuitous invoking of Scripture throughout the debate, accurately conveys his true view of the Christian faith. Ultimately, it is an irrelevancy to life, to be embraced or discarded just like any other political posture, as each given situation might warrant.

If Kerry and Edwards possess so little understanding of the Judeo-Christian foundations upon which this great nation was forged, they cannot possibly comprehend the nature of militant Islam that now seeks to annihilate it.

Christopher G. Adamo

After a hitch in the Air Force, where he specialized in airborne electro- optical systems, he pursued a career in the field of aerospace, working for major defense contractors in California, Florida, and Colorado. But his career plans abruptly changed during the industry-wide downsizing that followed the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Presently he is working in the field of industrial instrumentation in the state of Wyoming. Concurrently, he has become involved in that state's political process, attending state GOP conventions as a delegate, and serving as a member of the Wyoming Republican Central Committee. He has also aided in the candidacies of local legislators and state senators, as well as a U.S. Senator and Congresswoman.

From 1993 to 1996, he edited and wrote for “The Wyoming Christian”, the state newsletter for Christian Coalition of Wyoming. During that period, he developed an acute awareness of the harm being done to Conservatism by liberal activists within the Republican Party as well as the Democrats. This remains a favorite theme of his articles, which now appear as a regular feature on GOPUSA.

Visit his website at chrisadamo.com