In the second presidential debate, John Kerry got one thing right.  He said it was time for Americans to “look into their hearts” because it is “gut-check time.”  Since this is an election between two candidates with starkly opposite philosophies, poles-apart records of accomplishment, diametrically opposed positions on just about every issue, and vastly different visions for America, this presidential choice does come down to “gut” issues.

Who’s telling the truth?

Who do you trust?

Who makes sense?

Who can get the job done?

Who can keep us safe?

Who will take us in the right direction?

Whose values and beliefs are “American”?

Who should be the leader of the free world?

Who will make the world a better place for our children?

Every poll of likely voters indicates that the nation is pretty evenly divided––often with mere margin-of-error points separating the candidates.  The latest word is that there are very few undecided voters. 

The election, then, will boil down to whose “gut” instincts are the strongest about which candidate.  What will it take to bring the contrasts between these two candidates into stark gut-wrenching reality for those who are blasé, uninformed and uninvolved?

That’s the question facing the two parties as they prepare for the third presidential debate––traditionally the least-watched and least-influential of the series of debates.  In this election, though, the final debate could be pivotal. 

The president must establish “trust.” The central, “gut,” question people will be asking is “whom do we trust?”  Whom do we trust to protect us from the terrorists who are determined to destroy our nation?  Whom do we trust to protect “life,” marriage and the family from those who would undermine our nation from within?  Whom do we trust to protect our democracy from those who would usurp the balance of power by legislating from the judicial bench?

John Kerry has coasted through the campaign thus far by greasing his skids with distortions, propelled along by the hot air of the left-leaning media.  Neither a substantive record nor accountability to the truth has weighed him down. He simply keeps repeating the mantra, “I’ve got a plan.”  The workability of his mythological plans is never examined. 

Kerry has managed to float along on utopian rhetoric and empty promises.  He hasn’t had to explain how he would go about “building coalitions” and increasing “credibility” for the U.S. despite trashing the allies we have.  He has gotten away with outrageous statements––such as suggesting that Bush shouldn’t have gone after Saddam until bin Laden was captured; that this is the “wrong war” but he would “get” all the terrorists; that scientists tell us we can cure Parkinson’s, diabetes and paraplegia through embryonic stem cells; that there are “unwanted” children; that he is for “choice” but against abortion; and that a “summit” constitutes a national security strategy.

On all three of the “gut” questions about trust, the two candidates have distinct differences, and the president embodies those values that are essentially “American” on each of the issues at the top of Americans’ concerns.

Whom do we trust to protect us from terrorists?  Sen. Kerry has been all over the map trying to seem knowledgeable about terrorism––the world is more dangerous today, he claims, yet he agrees that Saddam was a threat; he just would have used “force wisely” and he wouldn’t have “rushed to war.”  He would have a “global test” before using force, but he would preserve national sovereignty.  It would be impossible to cite all the inconsistencies and different positions that the senator has taken on national security issues.  President Bush, on the other hand, has been firm and unwavering.  He has set the nation’s course and, one by one, he has caught terrorists.

Whom do we trust to protect us from internal destruction? While commentators generally ceded the domestic issues to Sen. Kerry before the debate, there is general consensus that the president came out ahead on the domestic issues in the second debate –– simply by pointing out repeatedly that there is no Kerry Senate record on any of the domestic issues that he supposedly supports.  There is something very American about protecting a culture of life and not holding out false promises to people who are struggling with debilitating diseases and crippling injuries.

Whom do we trust to protect democracy from judicial tyranny?  Numerous polls indicate that Americans are concerned about the out-of-control judiciary.  Bush is taking the high road in endorsing judges who will uphold the Constitution.  Kerry loses points for constantly coming back to the old saw about protecting “a woman’s right to choose.” There is something bizarre about a candidate who criticizes the other candidate for having a “litmus test” when he constantly repeats his own litmus test!

On second thought, perhaps, it was a major mistake for Sen. Kerry to ask Americans to look into their hearts for a gut check––those who do won’t end up voting for him. President Bush took giant steps forward in the second debate by exerting authority and re-establishing trust; he can complete the job in the Wednesday night debate by settling the “trust” comparison in this election once and for all.

Janice Crouse is the spokesperson for Concerned Women for American Legislative Action Committee.