I have to agree with Rich Lowry of the National Review Online who points out that Senator John Kerry is the “first candidate in U.S. history to run a presidential campaign against himself.”

Kerry has flip-flopped on almost all the major campaign issues important to voters in the 2004 election: jobs, the war on terror, free trade, homeland security, and education. If Americans are looking for someone decisive with firm convictions, they shouldn’t be looking at Kerry, they should just vote for George W. Bush.

Kerry claims to be the champion of victims of "the Bush economy." He doesn’t mention that the economy started tanking under President Clinton. Kerry conned AFL-CIO President John Sweeney into stating,

This [Kerry] is a man who will not sign his name to a single trade agreement that does not include worker protections and environmental protections.

Did Sweeney ever look at Kerry’s voting record on free trade? Kerry voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993. Back then Senator Kerry claimed,

NAFTA is not the problem. Job loss is taking place without NAFTA.

Now John Kerry claims he will “fix” NAFTA. I’d like to know what exactly he wants to fix. According to the Associated Press (AP),

Far more U.S. jobs have been lost to China and other Asian nations than to Mexico or Canada, the countries covered by NAFTA, economists suggest.

Isn’t it then interesting to note that Kerry voted for trade liberalization agreements with China, Singapore, Chile, and Africa? Kerry talks like a protectionist but votes like a libertarian.

Now that we’ve established that we can’t trust the Senator on jobs and trade, let’s find out if we can trust him on national security. Kerry voted to support the war in Iraq. Not only did he vote for war, he voted for regime change in Iraq twice: in 1998 and 2002. But now Kerry is a war critic.

The Senator voted against an $87 billion package to fund the war and help finance Iraq’s reconstruction. How could he support the war and not support the war? That doesn’t even make sense. What he’s saying is topple Saddam and then leave Iraq in chaos. What kind of foreign policy is this? Even Hillary Clinton supports staying and rebuilding Iraq. It’s the right thing to do.

So we’ve established that Kerry would allow the Middle East – the biggest snake pit on Earth (except for Israel) – to slide right back to where it was: tyranny and chaos. Is Kerry just as confused about homeland security? You bet he is.

First John Kerry enthusiastically supported the Patriot Act; then he decided it was draconian. Which one is it, dear Senator? When he voted for passage of the Patriot Act, Kerry espoused on the Senate floor,

It reflects an enormous amount of hard work by the members of the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. I congratulate them and thank them for that work. … [Kerry said he was…] pleased at the compromise we have reached on the anti-terrorism legislation.

Now that Kerry is running for president, he paints what he used to call “anti-terrorism legislation” thusly:

We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.

Ready for some more of Kerry’s inconsistencies? Kerry used to enthusiastically support President Bush’s education policy (“No Child Left Behind”):

This is groundbreaking legislation that enhances the federal government's commitment to our nation's public education system ... and embraces many of the principles and programs that I believe are critical to improving the public education system.

But now he hates the same piece of legislation he so happily promoted previously:

By signing the No Child Left Behind Act and then breaking his promise by not giving schools the resources to help meet new standards, George Bush has undermined public education and left millions of children behind.

Where was Kerry when funding was being allocated for the education budget? The president doesn't dictate funding. His budget must be approved by Congress.

What about Kerry’s stand in the war on terror? With Islamists flying jetliners full of innocent people into buildings full of innocents, what will Kerry do with the current mob of terrorists crawling the Earth? What will he do if the U.S. is attacked again? The answer is: he’ll do basically nothing.

Kerry claims the war on terrorism should be primarily a “law enforcement operation.” Is this guy crazy? Does he want us to send Interpol officers to knock on the doors of Hamas or Osama Bin Laden and serve them with warrants? These policemen (not specially trained soldiers) would be killed instantly by the terrorists. Mr. Kerry, this is a real war in which our enemies have advanced weaponry and training. We’re not looking for petty criminals who’ve stolen car batteries.

Just what does Mr. Kerry believe? After all the research I’ve done, I just can’t figure this guy out. At best, I can say he’ll take a “definitely maybe” stand on the most important issues of our time. Add to his indecisiveness the fact that he’s flat out lied about the war on corporate corruption, and the fact that he takes more special interest money than almost every other member of the Senate, and you have a very dangerous man.

If elected, Kerry will destroy our economy and leave the U.S. wide open to attack by terrorists. Is this a man you want to vote for?