Although the highly publicized upcoming debates are important, a leader’s past record is more important.

Most of us can agree that Sen. John Kerry is a better debater than President George W. Bush – performance-wise.

He also looks better (Botox, fake tans and manicures tend to do that).

However, good performance on stage doesn’t equate with effective and strong leadership.

Indeed, Kerry is seen by many who know his record as a flip-flopping, left-wing elitist.

Bush, on the other hand, has been a president for the people.

He has improved health care and strengthened Medicaid.

Bush’s re-election Web site also documents the creation of 1.5 million new jobs since August; a drop in the unemployment rate; an 11-percent increase in net-incomes; and a record-high family home-ownership rate – a whopping 70 percent!

These facts are a testament to the effectiveness of the administration’s middle-class tax cuts and economic policies.

Most importantly, after the murder of 3,000 Americans by extremists, the president pursued our enemies and led the country steadily and fearlessly through two major battles in the war on terror – even if the rest of the world didn’t “approve” – whatever that means.

Kerry, on the other hand, believes as he stated in last week’s debate that the United States needs to pass a “global test” (I guess a permission slip from his French darlings) before it can decide to take military action.

But Kerry himself voted to authorize the president to take military action in Iraq on Oct. 11, 2002.

Friends, I smell flip-flopping …

Kerry is brilliant at twisting his positions for political benefit and then claiming he’s not a flip-flopper, but that he pays attention to “detail” more than Bush does. Liberals love to “explain” and “elaborate” on things rather than just get things done.

Kerry has flip-flopped on his positions regarding the Patriot Act, the death penalty for terrorists, NAFTA, affirmative action, a 50-cent increase in the gas tax and even our missile defense systems.

Most betraying was that he voted against an $87 billion funding for our troops in Iraq after telling Tim Russert on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Aug. 31, 2003, that he would support spending “whatever number of dollars” it took to win in Iraq.

Moreover, the National Journal voted Kerry the most liberal member of the senate in 2003.

Now, as a student, I honor the intelligence and optimism of both candidates and don’t believe in personal attacks against either one of them.

But Bush is a better president than the liberal would be.

We can either vote for the steady, strong Bush, or we can vote for the seemingly double-faced, internationalist liberal, Kerry.

It’s prudent to see the substance of Kerry’s past, which include flip-flopping and liberalism, and forget the Botox and the manicures – that is, unless French manicures scare al-Qaida.

Columns reflect the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the Northern Star staff.