"I will vote a split ticket this year because the way I see it, each party gets some things right. The inverse of that statement is obvious. Each party gets some things wrong." "Heck, I would have voted a straight-Democratic ticket next year if that’s how it went down." Incongruent?

I'm not quite there with you - yet. But I listened to his speech in the car, and damn what a sad, uninspiring pastiche of a once-vital set of values.

Sigh.

A.L.

I just can't bring myself to vote for a man who sincerely believes that loving couples who share a gender in common pose such a great threat to this nation that our Constitution, the appropriately closest thing we'll ever have to a sacred secular document, must be amended to prevent the possibility of their ever being allowed to marry. If I don't have the option of voting for someone who isn't a bigot or an idiot, I suppose I'll just leave that part of the ballot blank.

SteveM: Incongruent?

Only if I said I would turn into a partisan left-wing hack if Edwards were nominated. I would still be more or less in the middle.

Christopher: I just can't bring myself to vote for a man who sincerely believes that loving couples who share a gender in common pose such a great threat to this nation...

I completely understand.

This is just silly.

Kerry gave a foreign policy on speech that it all the yousta-bee talking points on Friday, he's got a stack of hawkish advisors, and Edwards can't even find Haiti on the map.

I think you ought to reconsider.

Michael,

I appreciate the sentiment. Basically, you're saying that the war on islamofascism trumps all other concerns-- a point on which we agree.

But if you're not going to be a cheerleader for the President's campaign, might I suggest something else?

I first started reading this blog after your "builders vs defenders" post was posted to The Corner by Jonah Goldberg. Like him, I don't think that that is all there is to our differing foreign policy temperments, but your insight did ring true.

If I were on the Left (and I'm not), I would most want to see a ground-up reconstruction of liberal foreign policy. Something that talks about differing cultures, what we can tolerate and what demands our intervention. A view that incorporates trade, the developing world, the undeveloped world, and our fellow industrial nations. A view of our short term spats and long-term rivalries. And most of all, what we need to be doing.

Democrats, as you rightly point out, don't have a foreign policy. At best they have been decent crisis-managers, dealing with issues in an ad-hoc fashion as they appear on CNN. No Democratic President since Kennedy has really had a coherent vision about how it all works, and what our national interest is, and how we pursue it.

Oddly, they had Republicans totally licked for decades in this regard. But I guess that these things are cyclical.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that America is in trouble if the debate becomes "foreign policy vs chaos", even if chaos loses. Your blog would be a good starting point for this kind of discussion, and would at least get things moving in the right direction.

Just a thought....

praktike: Kerry gave a foreign policy speech...I think you ought to reconsider.

Kerry shares my foreign policy views all of a sudden? Why? Since when? What changed? Why should I believe him?

Kerry can't make up for a year of petulant carping by paying lip service to me. I am not stupid, and I have a long memory.

There are two threats to the economy right now - the threat of the deficits and the threat of a trade war. Greenspan has testified to this.

The Republicans have been in control of the Congress and the Whitehouse for long enough to prevent them from wiggling out of the deficit issue (and I'm nominally Republican and an avowed fiscal conservative).

I watched some of the last Democratic debate and was appalled at the pandering on the trade issue. Where was the Democratic party of Al Gore when he demolished Ross Perot's protectionist stance on Larry King in '92? Where is the Democrat who stands up for free trade as Clinton did with NAFTA?

If the Democrats fielded a candidate who combined Clinton's fiscal and trade policies with Tony Blair's foreign policy, I think they'd walk away with this election. Like, 45+ states, 60% of the vote, that kind of thing. I'd vote for that kind of Democratic candidate. But today that candidate cannot be nominated (except as a Republican, and that slot, for better or worse, is taken).

praktike,

From John Kerry's victory speech:

The Bush Administration has run the most arrogant, inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in modern history.

Thus ends my reconsideration. I really can't imagine why you'd think I would like him.

lewy14...If the Democrats...Clinton's fiscal and trade policies with Tony Blair's foreign policy...with this election. Like, 45+ states, 60% of the vote

That sounds definately closer to Bushes numbers for sure. Kerry is more fiesty then Dukakis or Mondale. Bush II is better than Bush I. Reagan better than both. Bush I got 53%, Reagan got 59%. I've got to believe that Bush wiil get somewhere in between those two probably 53-57%. and forty states. The question is when is a Dempcrat going to crack 50%? (Last Carter 50.1%) And please people don't tell me this is the year, I know what Bush is going to do to Kerry. Kerry doesn't have a political record worth running on.

Michael, like I said the other day your are the true definition of a "War Liberal". I am just gratful unlike many you are smart enough to realize that survival of civilization and freeing nations of Dictators (let alone the world) is more serious than arguing on the margins of abortion etc., credit goes to you for sure.

The interesting thing is that being able to measure your politics after reading all I have read, I would say that as a Democrat I was way more fiscally liberal than you but a little more sympathetic in my social senses towards the traditional. (Though no where near Bush, but I have sympathies) I guess that is why Bush and Medicare, Education, and the deficit doesn't bother me as much, but then again I'm fairly well off, so who knows.

But Christopher, Kerry is on record for opposing gay marriage, so where's the big difference?
Oh, that's right, Dems can oppose something, like Saddam, and just have words, and more words, and more wordy opposition. The Mass. judges have acted and the SF mayor has issued licenses. If you oppose it, what do you do? Words, or actions?

I don't think any FMA is going to pass, but at least Bush is following through on his promise to "do something". And it's the right something, let the American voters & their reps decide. In the debate, it’s unlikely to pass; politicians will have to either back it, or not, and this certainly increases polarization. But the gay marriage debate is primarily a surrogate for the abortion debate, which itself is at the core of the almost unmentionable God debate.

Is America a Christian nation? Should it be? What does that mean? And, if it’s not or shouldn’t be, then what is "good"?

Michael's great on most honesty issues; why I like here the best! But here's two value questions, most relevant to those with children.
1) Would you rather send your children to a school system that encourages atheism or faith?

2) Does the answer change when you learn that the atheist system produces 40% literate/ 60% illiterate, but the faith system results in 80% literate/ 20% illiterate?

One of the biggest challenges to the atheists is the scientific facts that faith-based assistance so often works better. 30 years ago, this was believed, but there was little data. There’s no right answer to question (1), just personal preference, but most I think agree on the faith answer if the facts are as stipulated in question (2) (and the atheists will try to weasel about these not being facts; I’m not claiming they’re true of the current system, I’m trying to ask an honest value question. And if you reverse the numbers, you change MY answer – but show me evidence that’s more likely to be true.)

God & faith, and their place in politics, can't be avoided because GW is an honest believer, as was Carter, but Clinton not. A good part of the Bush-hate is also God-hate, and likely even self-hate at atheism not working. (Similar to Muslim America-hate being a projection against self-hate at Islam not working. And related to the sin of Envy, destroying another’s good.)

And so many Christians, who actually live lives of less materialism and really try to help individual poor people with little local programs, who since FDR (& JFK) have been often Democratic, are being excluded by the God-hating Leftists from the Dems.

I was a dem all my life but am voting Bush for a much-deserved 2nd term. I don't agree with everything he's done (or not done) but I don't feel like I have to hold my nose either.

As mentioned, the FMA will start a dialog/discussion and that's why it's good. It won't pass...no way. But let us feel we're part of the process. When gays do marry it will be because we as a society embrace them, not because gay marriage was forced by fiat.

The WoT is the most important issue of our time and Kerry basically mocks it. He still believes HE could have gotten France to go along with us which shows he's either naive, or ill-informed about the dynamics of Europe post cold-war.

There may be a few hawkish foreign policy wonks around among the Dems, but, quite frankly, most of them left the party during the 80's. Why do you think they're called neo-cons?

Kerry seems to have some 'expertise' or at least interest in drug cartels, which is why I suspect he emphasizes policing and intelligence. But that's only part of the WoT. We're not just playing whack-a-terrorist here but up against a huge worldwide fascist movement.

And with more than 100 radicalized mosques here in America, we can't afford to gut the Patriot Act either.

John Kerry on gay marriage:

Voted for the Defense of Marriage Act,
Is publicly opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment,
Is publicly opposed to government recognition of gay marriage,
Is publicly in favor of amending the Massachusetts Constitution to disallow gay marriage,
Is publicly "ok" with civil unions,

His public record on most issues is similarly contradictory.

I arrived at the opposite conclusion. I can't support a presidential candidate who has a good chance of getting the opportunity to appoint an anti-choice Supreme Court justice and continue his systematic attack on women's rights. With a daughter coming into the world within two months, the thought of her having to live her entire adult life under attack is too terrible.

I think Kerry, while whining now, will do what's right on fighting the Islamofacists.

Well said. The first and foremost role of the President is Commander-in-Chief. In wartime the most important criteria in choosing who to vote for is a candidates ability to effectively wage war. The voters in the center who will decide the election will easily recognize that Bush is the far better candidate for Commander-in-Chief.

Bush will win the election by a large electoral majority barring any real scandal in the next 8 months.

Michael: Thank you for summing up my thoughts completely. There are many issues on which I don't agree with Bush and the thought of campaigning for him gives me a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach. I will be a single issue voter in this election- security. And I'll vote for a Republican for president for the first time as a life- long Democrat. Kerry's comments last night about Bush's "reckless, inept..." foreign policy make it clear where Kerry stands - he'll roll back the progress that has been made over the last two years. If we don't get this issue right on this country, the other issues won't matter.

I continue to be profoundly disappointed in my party as they continue to ignore what I believe to be the most profound issues facing our country. Yet they still churn out bumper stickers urging us to "Beat Bush". This isn't a sporting event.

Thanks again.

Well Scott, I also have a daugther coming in May, late May, and I do not wish my Daughter to live in a world were she is considered Property. Or has to wear a Veil, or can only be out in Public with her Brother, Husband or Dad.

Those that we are at war with, wish to bring Sharia law to the whole of the world. There is no chance, none that abortion goes away, that genie is out of the bottle. Unless of course the Islamist Extremeists wins. I am against them and the Christian Extremists, and the Catholic Extremists, all of which would outlaw Abortion.

If tomorrow the Supreme Court Struck it down, a good majority of the States in the this Country would legalize it. Therefore doing what should have been done before, let it be a State's rights issue. And if enough State's passed it into law, there could be a chance for an Amendment thereby making it a true law. One the people voted on, not one forced down the people's throat.

But yes, you may live in the make believe world of John "I believe the US should never use power without UN authority" F'n Kerry would not sell us out to the UN. Who here lately has done everything in it's power to be on the side of the Haters.

Interesting comments. I really can't believe that the Democrats are going to run Kerry. What blow out this election is going to be.

"I think Kerry, while whining now, will do what's right on fighting the Islamofacists."

Perhaps - we don't know what he'll do in office, and election year rhetoric is a poor guide. How is it that every 4 or 8 years we are taken in by election year pandering only to find that the man in office acts quite differently?

It doesn't sound to me like MT has his mind completely decided. He'll be watching Kerry in the general election, as will I. If Kerry doesn't have the sense to move to the political center, the point will be moot - he'll lose badly. It's tough to unseat an incumbant - moreso if the economy is rising. It will be impossible if Kerry persists in running like George McGovern.

BTW, the Republicans have not had a consistent or particularly cogent foreign policy. Can we recall Reagan's limp withdrawal from Lebanon? Opposition to the confrontaton of Milosevic? Increases in steel tariffs and farm subsidies under Bush II? Let us also recall that the stunning military machine witnessed in Afghanistan and Iraq was funded and forged during the administration of Bill Clinton.

i will wait til the very last presidential debate before i make up my mind, i think. i want to leave out as much rope as possible for kerry so that if he ever finally FINALLY got serious on foreign policy and national security, i may choose to vote for him. i want to hear concrete proposals and ones that make sense. i am not hopeful for kerry though as he has said absolutely nothing so far to pull me towards him. the problem is that i dislike just about everything else about bush (besides foreign policy and national security issues) on such a wide range of matters that i have to give kerry a chance.

(BF wants us to hold judgment on kerry because presidents occasionally end up doing opposite of what they preach on the campaign trail. what a funny proposition. GO NADER!!)

Michael:

Had Bush simply said : "I am opposed to the imposition of gay marriage by unelected courts, and reluctantly find myself in favor of an amendment requiring that gay marriage only be implemented with the consent of the electorate."

Would this change your opinion of Bush on this issue?

Don't blame me. I voted for Kucinich.

doh,,,
May I point out the obvious?
The first mark of a serious politician is the ability to address the concerns of their constituency. Not necessarily to stick his finger in the wind (allow the voters to tell him what to think), but to articulate his own views on the issues that they feel important.
That is why we had George Bush campaigning in '99 and '00 by basically going around and telling us that he would cut taxes, and not have sex in the Oval Office. That is what was important to republicans. Did Bush lay out a foreign policy agenda? Did he tell us he would be the new Woodrow Wilson? Did he harp and criticize the democratic administration for its failure to pursue bin Laden?

I dont have the slightest doubt that John Kerry would do whatever is necessary to defend this country. He is smart, tough as nails, and completely tapped into the defense-foreign policy establshment in Washington. He knows the ropes, he knows how to pull them, and he has the experience to understand the types of consequences, seen or unseen, that could result.

He has spent the past year seeking the support of the democratic party. He needed, obviously, to convince the party that were he to be president, he would conduct foreign policy in a manner that reflected the criticisms and concerns that most democrats feel toward Bush's apporach. Michael calls it whining, but it is obviously the job of a leader of the opposition to, well, oppose - to critique. And there is plenty to critique.

I find Michael's attitude strange. Its almost like he would want the opposition to completely buy into Bush's agenda, as if that were the only reasonable approach to take.
I suspect that now that the primaries are effectivly over, Kerry will have the chance to start speaking to a larger audience and presenting a fuller picture of his policies. In that, he will end up giving us an enormously fuller and, most likely, more honest vision of his foreign policy than Bush ever gave us in '00.

Perhaps those who really are "independent" should wait till the campaign plays out a bit before making their committments?

I am voting for Kerry. We can still have gay marriage in a nuked-out, radioactive crater that was San Francisco. Bush and the extreem right-wing are more dangerous than atomic fire.

tano said "Did Bush lay out a foreign policy agenda? Did he tell us he would be the new Woodrow Wilson? Did he harp and criticize the democratic administration for its failure to pursue bin Laden?"

If I remember correctly the extent of George Bush's foreign policy when he ran for president was that he wasn't going to get involved in world affairs. There is some evidence that the Clinton administration had a plan to go after Al Queda in Afghanistan that they presented to the Bush administration, and the Bush administration blew it off because foreign policy was not something they were interested in. At least part of the Bush administration's unease with the current investigation into 9/11 is due to the fact that former Clinton officials tried on several occasions to warn them that Al Queda was going to be a huge problem, and they didn't pay attention. It's not like Clinton got it right from the beginning either, but the WTC bombing of 1993 woke him up to the threat. It's interesting to note that Al Queda didn't mount another attack in the US during Clinton's administration. I think Clinton gets a bad rap for not doing enough about terrorism, but most of that is ignorance of what the real record is.

What I can't figure out is why you would have voted for Edwards who would have been worse on the war than Kerry.

Tom:

But Christopher, Kerry is on record for opposing gay marriage, so where's the big difference?

There is none. Point out where I said there was.

Oh, that's right, Dems can oppose something, like Saddam, and just have words, and more words, and more wordy opposition.

Maybe somebody else you know holds this position, because it wasn't me.

Let the American voters & their reps decide.

They already do. At the state level. And no state is required to accept another's marriage license. There's clearly no need for an amendment, because the problem simply doesn't exist. If voters in a single state want to allow gay marriages, why should the rest of the country tell them they can't?

To try to frame this as a Christian argument is to ignore the large number of American Christians who are strongly in support of gay rights, including marriage. I'd be suprised if you weren't aware of this, as it's a perennial issue within mainline Protestent congregations that seems to get at least some press at everybody's general assembly every year.

But fine, I'll play:

1) Would you rather send your children to a school system that encourages atheism or faith?

Neither. School is for secular education, church is for spiritual education, home and the rest of the world are for both. More directly, school should be non-theistic (unless it's a private religeous school, of course).

2) Does the answer change when you learn that the atheist system produces 40% literate/ 60% illiterate, but the faith system results in 80% literate/ 20% illiterate?

Assuming that your statistics are correct, I'm completely unsupristed that religious schools, which are by Constitutional requirement private, have higher acheivement rates that public schools, which are by the same requirement secular (which is not at all, I'm sure you realize, the same thing as athiestic).

A good part of the Bush-hate is also God-hate, and likely even self-hate at atheism not working.

Fascinating, Captain. I didn't realize your tricorder could read so many minds from a distance.

And so many Christians, who actually live lives of less materialism and really try to help individual poor people with little local programs, who since FDR (& JFK) have been often Democratic, are being excluded by the God-hating Leftists from the Dems.

Well, Tom, as a Christian who lives a life of at least a bit less materialism and who really does try to help individual poor people, and who has been often Democratic, I can make the following two statements:

1. God-hating leftists are the least of my problems with the Democrats.

2. To hate the love two people share is to hate God.

scott:

Your daughter will "spend her entire adult life under attack"? Isn't that a bit of an exagerration? Despite repeated warnings to the contrary that Roe v. Wade was at risk and imminently about to be overturned, it hasn't happened. I'm not holding my breath.

In contrast, the women of Afghanistan, who were liberated from the Taliban by the U.S. war, truly spent their entire adult lives under attack, as did little girls throughout Afghanistan under that deeply reactionary regime. This doesn't mean Afghanistan is going to magically transform itself into a liberal democracy anytime soon, but at least girls can go to school. Look at the language of the new proposed constitution that Iraq is about to adopt--unprecedented in the Arab world, with strong protections for human and women's rights.

I don't have any problem with you saying you're opposed to Bush and have problems with his record on women's issues, but I do have a problem when people conflate depradations by the "regime" of George Bush with true depradations in such outposts of inhumanity as Iraq, North Korea, and elsewhere, where deep oppression of women and other minorities (Shia), blatant discrimination based on religion, and hateful intolerance is utterly routine. To me, this sounds like Tim Robbins crying about U.S. censorship and police state Amerikka while attending the Oscars and living large in Hollywood--this kind of whining is throughly narcissistic, and shows little regard for or interest in the world outside the United States.

Indeed, it represents American culture at its worst: self-involved, navel-gazing, narrow-minded, and kvetching from a realm of almost unimaginable privilege and iron-clad legal rights that much of the world would be enormously grateful have. I'm not saying you're guilty of this, but pointing out that this kind of exaggeration weakens any critique that you might have.

Michael T.:

Excellent post. Those are my sentiments exactly, except the part where you wrote, "It’s also entirely possible that John Kerry will win in November and I will come around to his side. He may win and govern well, and if he does, I will notice."

I suppose I just differ in my estimation of the likelihood of that occurrence. I'll allow that there's a theoretical chance I might come around to his side too, but I think Kerry is too old to change his stripes. I think Kaus has infected me.

Tano:

You wrote that Kerry "will end up giving us an enormously fuller and, most likely, more honest vision of his foreign policy than Bush ever gave us in '00," and that "[p]erhaps those who really are 'independent' should wait till the campaign plays out a bit before making their committments?"

I think you missed Michael T.'s comment that "Kerry can't make up for a year of petulant carping by paying lip service to me. I am not stupid, and I have a long memory."

Michael:

Great post. It asbolutely sums up the feelings of many many people from center-left to center-right.

I just have one question, and it's a nitpick and a moot point now so I won't take any offense if you ignore it. Was there ever actually any substantive difference between Edwards and Kerry on foreign policy, or indeed on anything? I saw Edwards tell George Stephenapoulus in so many words that there was no major difference between him and Kerry on Iraq. They both voted for the war and against funding it. They both talked endlessly about getting the UN involved as if they hadn't already run away etc. etc. And if Iraq is the most important front currently in the world war on Islamofascism, then didn't Edwards fail on this single most important issue as well? Really, it seemed to me that the only real differences between Edwards and Kerry were that Edwards was even more anti-free-trade and was more likable personally than Kerry.

What I can't figure out is why you would have voted for Edwards who would have been worse on the war than Kerry.

That's like saying Ralph Nader would've been worse on the environment than, say, Trent Lott. Um.....huh?

That doesn't track with any of the things I've read and heard about Edwards - it's the main reason I was supporting him, and I suspect why Michael was too, was his position on national security was the best of the remaining Dem. candidates.

Speaking of Edwards, if Kerry does indeed pick him as a running mate, what are the chances Kerry's foreign policy views might begin to track more toward Edwards, due to his influence in the campaign? I think it's something to watch for as we get closer to November, and it may be enough to alter your view, Michael. I'll be watching closely as well.

his position on national security was the best of the remaining Dem. candidates.

Please explain, in light of the information in my post above.

I have to agree with those who are completely befuddled by Michael's (and Barry's) views on Edwards.
How on earth could anyone be relatively supportive of the democrats, but balk at Kerry's foreign policy, AND THEN CHOOSE EDWARDS? That is a complete riot.

The only difference between the two on foreign policy is that Kerry has 20 years experience on the inside. He knows the issues infinitly better than Edwards, and so there must be at least the hope that when he is in a position to actually assume responsibility and make decisions (rather than just give a speech to partisans) he will know what to do.
Dont ge me wrong. I love John Edwards. He is a passionate defender of working people - and that is the real heart of the democratic attitude. He is Dick Gephardt, with Clinton's charisma and speaking style. But he lacks the intellectual and experiential depth of either of those two, and of Kerry.
Could anyone name me one thing he has ever said on national security issues that differs from Kerry, or that somehow puts him on the other side of the great threshold that MJT erects?

Michael, well said, and quite congruent with my own feelings on the subject.

The most difficult thing this year will be the Us vs. Them demonization by partisans of both sides. That one can be a reluctant supporter of one side or the other will not go down well with the Bush Can Do No Wrong crowd, nor with the Anyone But Bush gang. Stick to your guns.

I think it boiled down to, for me, that Kerry seemed much more vocal about it and pandering to the anti-war Left during the primaries - which may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, but as they say perception is everything.

Plus there were a few voter guides and online profiles that suggested (to me, at least) Edwards' foreign policy views were more favorable than Kerry's.

Sorry I can't be more quantifiable, but that's my perception.

Bush v. Kerry v. Nader = no brainer

Viva Bush!

As a Libertarian for Bush, I can say you join good ranks in the "You have my vote by default" crowd. Survival first, and then we can start arguing about the best way to handle pressing issues like toothpaste regulation.

Except, Michael, that it wasn't a year of Kerry carping on foreign policy, but pretty much a career.

Article today in the LA Times ('laexaminer'/'laexaminer' doesn't appear to work any more)...

The Resounding Choice of All but Independents. I'm going out on a limb and saying it's not goting to be close, electorally and possibly in terms of absolute votes. Bush is better at pitching independents than Kerry both because he's demonstrated a certain - flexibility - and because he's personable and telegenic, and Kerry will never be.

A.L.

Michael, I'm in complete agreement with you.

Michael-
I couldn't agree more. I am a democrat who will also be voting for Bush b/c I see the WoT as being the most important issue right now, and I see Bush as the only one who finish this war. The anti-bush hatred that exists now astounds me. Most of my friends and family think i'm nuts when I say I am going to vote for GWB in November. I think there are a LOT of people who will vote for Kerry primarily b/c of their hatred of Bush. They won't even take the time to hear out the issues. I live in NYC and so it seems like this is how the majority of the people here feel. I just hope the rest of the country has some sense.

A quick quiz for Michael and those who agree with him:

1. The U.S. is committed to handing over power to a sovereign Iraqi government on June 30 (less than four months from today). What will be the form of this government, and how will its members be selected?

2. How does this plan demonstrate the Bold, Steadfast Leadership™ that you find so irreplaceable in Bush?

Welcome to the creamy middle.

Michael,

Once again you have captured my sentiments exactly. I have been greatly disappointed to see the implosion of the Dems over the last 4 years in particular. However, regardless of what Kerry does or says over the next several months I will be voting for GWB. I just don't trust Kerry. Never mind the waffling, he does not offer any reasonable alternatives for the Bush policies and positions he rails against.

Michael, you're not alone. I've voted straight Democrat for thirty years (except for one year in the 70s when I voted only for women) and my husband's voted straight Democrat except for Mayor Lindsay in NYC. We're voting for Bush too, for much the same reasons, add Israel. And so is our 18-year-old son, who will be voting for the first time. I've got a "Democrat for Bush" sticker on my car; I hardly recognize myself.

It's simple (but not simplistic): We're voting the strongest possible opposition to global jihad. period.

Unlike overthrowing the Taliban and Saadam, the challenges of the coming years are unlikely primarily involve the willingness to apply brute force. I see no evidence that Bush is any more compentent than Kerry in dealing with sort of nightmares likely to be coming down the pike, such as the break-up of Iraq (or at least all-out Sunni/Shiite and Sunni/Kurd civil wars), dealing with Iran as a nuclear power, dealing with Islamists in the Pakistani military.

As to the election as a whole, Andrew Sullivan in this week's Time says it better than I could:

"Here's what a really smart Democratic contender could say to the President this fall: 'Thank you, Mr. President, for your leadership in difficult times. You made some tough decisions, and we are safer as a result. But the very qualities that made you a perfect pick for the war so far are the very ones that make you less effective from now on. You are too polarizing a figure to bring real peace to Iraq. You are too unpopular overseas to allow European governments to cooperate fully in the attempt to hunt down terrorists. And your deep unpopularity in half the country makes it impossible for you to make the necessary compromises that the country needs domestically. Thanks for all you've done, but bye-bye.'"

He then goes on to say he doesn't agree with this perspective. I do.

Oh, and a bonus question for Michael:

3. How is John Edwards' policy regarding Iraq and the war on terrorism distinguishable from John Kerry's?

Given that you consider this to be the most important issue in the race, and you would definitely vote for Edwards but can't imagine voting for Kerry, I gather the differences must be quite large.

Yeah.
I am not being an advocate here. I sincerely want to take MJT's perspective to heart - at least give it consideration.
But I am flummoxed.

If someone were to say to me:
"I really love John Edwards, he is so right on the domestic and social issues, but I am worried about turning over the WOT to an inexperienced trial lawyer - convince me please that he is as smart and well grounded as, at the minimum, John Kerry, and I will vote for him"

NOw that would be a rational sentitment.
But the opposite?
"I generally like Kerry but he doesnt cross the national security threshold that Edwards does"???

Hello....help me out here!

I have no hope that a Democratic administration would protect America the way President Bush has done. The Democrats have no credibility on the issue at all. John Kerry and most of his party still think that the war on terror is a "law enforcement issue." The fervor in which committed Democrats oppose the War on Terror in general speaks volumes about the degree to which they hold protecting America as an important value.

Quite simply, neither Democratic leaders or their voting constituents can be counted on to fight a war against Islamic terrorists.

Several comments on this thread are quite perverse and illustrate this lack of credibility: "Bush and the extreem right-wing are more dangerous than atomic fire."

Um. No. They are not. I live in Manhattan and every day before brushing my teeth I turn on the radio to see if my office building is still standing. I won't be surprised when the suicide bombers start attacking our subways.

A presidential candidate who draws support from people who believe that law-abiding, believing Christians are as dangerous as fantatical Islamic murderers cannot be trusted to protect America.

I find it interesting that everyone brings up the 'religious right' when talking about the bad side of Bush, but no one ever mentions the 'anti-semitic left' when speaking of the democrats. I'm an independant and feel that both lunatic fringes need to be dealt with, not just the republicans.

Dear Mr. Totten:

I, too, am a Democrat who is being reluctantly forced to vote Republican for President by the lack of seriousness of my own party. Mr. Kerry is just not a serious candidate. The main defense his supporters seem to be making is "he doesn't really mean it". Now there's a ringing endorsement.

Swopa: How is John Edwards' policy regarding Iraq and the war on terrorism distinguishable from John Kerry's?

They voted the same way, but Edwards unflinchingly defends his support of regime-change and Kerry screams that Bush's foreign policy is arrogant, inenept, reckless, blah blah blah.

The U.S. is committed to handing over power to a sovereign Iraqi government on June 30 (less than four months from today)...How does this plan demonstrate the Bold, Steadfast Leadership™ that you find so irreplaceable in Bush?

I honestly don't know if this is wise or not. And I never said Bush was perfect. It would be nice to have an intelligent response to this by John Kerry, but instead Kerry is breathtakingly reactionary and I can not vote for that.

What?

The Bush Admin is the worst foreign policy administration in a very long time! They walk away from the table without discussing anything, they do things their way and tell (or threaten)the world to either be for Bush or they will be considered against Bush. They (The Bush Admin) are egotistical and narrow minded, they kiss the foreign country's ass when it mean the big wigs of the big corporation will get more money in heir own private pockets but then go back on their word to appease the worker if it's a big enough vote in a swing state, but then go back on that word too because now the Bush Admin is painted in a corner.

What have they done at all in foreign policy to warrent getting your vote? They are making people hate us and proving that all the decades of propaganda that has been spread by the terrorists might be true - "America is the great Satan, bent on taking over the world by force and forcing IT'S beliefs upon you and your children!" causing people who were on the fence or didn't believe them before TO start believing them now!

What foreign policy???

You think it's good foreign policy to have Rumfeld totally deny that he ever said things he is being directly quoted as saying? Does THAT make other countries have more faith and trust in us and want to help us? "I never said that, no one has ever said that, I don't know wher eyo ugot that from but I never said it." I would love to have the reporter say "I got it from the video tape. Here let me play my tape of you saying it, you lying piece of crap!" Just once!

You're also voting for cheney, another liar and evil doer whose energy bill was so currupt he couldn't let anyone see it at all (in his own words and ashcrofts when the patriot bill was coming out "only the guilty have something to hide")and this is a man who has two of his top officials currently being heavily investigated as being the people who leaked the C.I.A. NOC agent's name for revenge against her husband for proving that the administration was lying or ottally wrong (as always). Ruining not only her cover but the cover of the company she worked for whose job it was to monitor WMD around the world.

You're voting for two liars, Both were strongly in favour of state rights to decide on things, even gay marriage... but now are against it. They were against nation building but now for it (not for any other countries that need it like in Afghanistan, Africa, China, North Korea, or Haiti of course but in countries with oil or stratigic positionings - THEN nation building is good.)

You'll be voting for poluters who have given more power to those who polute the most, they now allow more polution in the air, more sludge dumping, and they believe that swamps and wetlands actually polute water, not filter it. Even though twenty year studies come out finding things the Bush admin doesn't want ot hear, they just have some non-scientific person come in and change it all.

Not to meantion they either lied about Iraq or were totally inept. Probably both actually, since Bush has said twice since July 2003 that one of the justification of invading Iraq was that Saddam wouldn't let inspectors into Iraq. Either he's a HUGE liar, or he's so out of touch with reality that he will believe whatever the people around him (his only source of information on everything) tell him, or he is literally losing his mind.
Operation:Desert Fox was a success and Saddam was no longer a threat to his neighbors or the world. But that's onyl what Colin Powel said in 2001.

Bush has done absolutely nothing to protect us, he's been turning the world against us through lies, falsehoods, and egotism, he's underfunding all the security agencies in America, he's spreading our military thin, all his security beliefs would let in terrorists easier since most terrorists who blow themselves up live rather clean lifes so would go through any security check, and he helps men in other ocuntries who are far worse than Saddam ever was. (Haiti being a current example since they refused money to them that would have helped keep things more stable there, and has been promoting the thugs that have wanted to take over.)

They say one thing during their campaign and do the complete opposite when in office. They have lied about everything, they have mislead everyone about everything, and they are now and always have been taking away more and more civil rights from different groups and people.

If you disagree with them in anyway you could be classified as an enemy combatant and they want to be able to get all your records from every area of your life, such they tried to do fro mthe university to get the records of all the peaceful protestors from there. And All the records from that hospital of all the women who have had abortions.

So vote for him, the terrorists won't need to come and bomb us since America will be gutted from the inside by our own leaders.

Bush's logic is always toally flawed.
Example - gay marriage. He opposes gay marriage because it wil lruin the "sanctity of marriage".
But if gays are only allowed some kind of civil union with most of or all the same rights, then why would any true American in good conscious get married? Maybe it would be easier to jsut get a civil union. Less hassle and no embarressing moment of asking for a pre-nup. By NOT allowing certain American citizens the same rights as other American citizens (and only using his religious beliefs as a reason makes it unconstitutional - "The government shall not promote one religion above another") marriage will die out in America and will only be left to the religious nuts who only believe certain parts of the bible but turn a blind eye to the parts that would effect them.

So voting for George W. Bush is totally anti-American, it owuld be like standing up for King George during the revolutionary war. Bush has done nothing but take away rights, and in true soviet fashion... taking away the rights of the lower classes while giving more privledges to the wealthy and powerful. But hey, the russions always got free toilet paper and bread, so I'm sure we'll be ok.

Think about everything before you vote.
It's only the future of your country and country men at stake, not to mention your own future.

Just a few thoughts to mull over.

Logic, Fairness, and Compassion.
Truth, Justice, and the American way.

Wow. Totten really IS inconsistent. Talk about all the criticism about Kerry being a flip-flopper. Totten wriggles around more than a trout freshly plucked from a pond. Voted for Nader in 2000 and now will endorse GWB in 2004. That's quite a transformation. I guess the war on terror trumps every other concern. Jobs, economy, deficit, education, environment. Just look at Bush's record on all of these and I can only come to the conclusion that his policies in these areas are simply failures. When all GWB has to run on is War on Terror, that is pretty sad. It is even sadder when ostensibly educated people actually believe that.

I will be voting a Kerry/Edwards (wishful thinking) ticket in November and will actively help that ticket defeat GWB and will donate as much money as I possibly can to make sure that GWB doesn't get another four years to piss on our constitution, depopulate the forests, idly watch as another 2.1 million jobs get shipped overseas and give further tax cuts to people who don't need them.

Sydney:
I think that comment about the extreme right wing being "more dangerous than atomic fire" was meant to be sarcasm about Kerry's views on the WOT.

Your point seems to be that the "war" trumps human rights issues for gays, etc., but how exactly is Bush treating this like a war? Considering the slaughter that's going on now in Iraq, and will continue into the indeterminate future, how has Bush made us safer? The rules of those countries that backed the terrorists who caused 9/11, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, are still able to sleep comfortably, Al Qaeda and similar groups have metasticized, and Israel is now a humanitarian catastrophe. We're even losing the support of our more sycophantic allies in Australia and the UK.

It has been quite clear for some time that Bush isn't fighting a real "war" against terrorism, as much as he is using the events of 9/11 as a way to boost his domestic political standing. So how is Kerry less serious than Bush about fighting terrorists?

Correcting a comment by Steve above: Kerry was one of 14 senators to vote against the 1998 Defense of Marriage act.

Of course, he's completely flopped around on this issue, as with most others: Against DOMA in 98, signed a letter opposing a Massachusetts state DOMA in 2002, but now opposed to gay marriage yet for civil unions. I would have considered voting for Kerry if I had any idea at all what he actually believes in.

Graham: Totten wriggles around more than a trout freshly plucked from a pond. Voted for Nader in 2000 and now will endorse GWB in 2004.

Oh, give me a break. 9/11 happened between those events. Did that make any impression on you at all?

Do you think I should vote for Nader again? Just to be consistent?

People change, and so does the world. Dig your heels in and refuse to budge if you want, but that's not my way. I might be on your side in four years and get a bunch of crap from the right. If that happens, oh well. So it goes.

So Kerry is against all things Bush.

That isn't enough to be President.

Will someone please explain to me what Kerry is FOR?

p.f. Romero...please keep posting. Thanks.

Michael,

I have been a daily reader of your blog for a while now and have always found it both thoughtful and principled. This was the first post that seemed knee-jerk and narrow.

While I recognize that you happen to agree with certain aspects of Bush's foreign policy, I must remind you that there is much that you don't. How excited are you about Bush's bold strategy for dealing with Saudi Arabia, the country who funded 9/11 and who's citizen's carried out the attack?

Bush certainly tortured the truth to make it appear that Iraq was an imminent threat which, even if forgivable, was neccessary not to con liberals into supporting the war but to get his core political base of isolationists to come aboard. Critics making this point are well within their rights and quite correct even if you agree with a different rationale for the war.

I too want there to be an active foreign policy to address islamofascism but I see plenty of reason to criticize the more tactical choice of unilaterally invading Iraq and don't buy into the argument that "at least he did something". I think that the something should have been a lot smarter (and even perhaps a lot more aggressive) and I think that is worth criticizing. Some of the critics of the Bush foriegn policy are just wrong but many are very very right. You have lumped all of those criticisms together and react to them as such.

I have not yet made up my mind about who to support in November. Kerry is admittedly a weak candidate but I am not sure that Bush is worth saving even if you are put off by some critics of his foreign policy. On the domestic front Bush has been a complete pandering train wreck that we will be working our way out from under for many years.

If you were going to decide who to vote for based only on Middle East foreign policy (too narrow), I am not sure which candidate would be more likely to follow a course that you would be happy with and I think it too early to make such a call. Perhaps it is Bush and perhaps you will vote for him but not voting for Kerry because he criticized Bush for the one thing that Bush did that you happened to agree lacks the thoughtfulness that I have come to admire in your writing.

Your arm's length take on politics is very refreshing. You might be interested to know that evangelical Christians like myself read you and appreciate much of what you write. There are things far more earth-shaking than politics left or right: decisive epiphanies in the realm of history, like September 11th. How we respond to them is more important than our starting point before we do.

- Cassandra

For Scott Partee: If you are 2 short months from becoming the father of a daughter, its time - NOW - to get your priorities in order. Roe v. Wade is not the most important thing in the world for your daughter's future. You have some major bridges to cross before it has any impact on your daughter's well being.

Grow up, and please do it quickly. Your daughter will need a father who can think beyond "womens rights = abortion". There's a complex world out there and you've apparently had your head stuck in the abortion-is-the-only-issue-sandbox for far too long.

9/11 happened between those events. Did that make any impression on you at all?

Yeah, it made an impression on me. For one, I thought maybe it would be better to have a president who would immediately leap into action as soon as he heard about WTC collapse rather than continue reading "The Pet Goat" 15 minutes after hearing about it. Maybe scramble some fighter jets in case there were more hijacked airplanes. Maybe we would have a president who would volunteer more than one hour to the commission that is investigating the 9/11 tragedy. Maybe it would be better to have a president who didn't attack countries who posed NO IMMEDIATE THREAT.

Totten, you have taken your eye off the ball. Perhaps you believe in the "perpetual war for perpetual peace" crap that Wolfowitz and Perle espouse. I don't.

PS: Trent, why don't you go to Kerry's website to find out what he is for yourself? A 5-second Google search should get you there. I believe in going to the source rather than getting someone else's biased view; which is what I am sure will happen in this forum.

Scott,
If Roe v Wade was over turned the only thing that would really change is: We would gain the right to vote wither abortion was legal or not. The status of abortion would be legal. States would have to make it illegal and some would. The majority would not. I have never understood why abortion supporters are unwilling to go the democratic route and allow people decide the laws for themselves. Is't this suposed to be the goverment of the people, for the people, and by the people?

I am assuming from Mr. Luebcke's statement above that he did not vote for any demorcratic candidate for president in the past presidental elections.

I assume he would not have voted for FDR, LBJ OR JFK. I further assume that he things that the previous generations were all bigots.

this "issue" has only been an "issue for a very few years and to oppose a candidate for believing what america and americans believed without an issue for 220 is a hoot. (does anybody say hoot anymore?)

The reason why nothing of this nature is in the constitution is that there was no debate on what marriage was or is. You might as well question why the Constitution doesn't say the sun is bright.

Steve, the slaughter going on in Iraq right now is a tragedy. It's a tragedy that we can see. It's a tragedy we are in a position to stop, or at least mitigate. How is that worse than the ongoing tragedy under Saddaam?

Yeah, innocent people are being blown up, and reporters are outraged. Guess that makes it worse than those fields full of people with holes in the backs of their skulls, or those poor saps going into the plastic shredder....

Bush has what might be called a naive belief that the world can be changed in such a way that the Saddaam's aren't just accepted as a part of the human condition. He also got the wake-up call that it has become actively dangerous to suffer these monsters to live.

Sign me up for some more of that simplisme, please. Nothing in the world scares me more than a return to September 10 thinking.

As to sycophantic allies, I will be willing to postulate that you've thought these issues out and come to your own conclusions if you will do the same for, say, Tony Blair. Otherwise, keep the insults down, okay?

Eric Deaner,

Was there ever actually any substantive difference between Edwards and Kerry on foreign policy, or indeed on anything?

Unlike Edwards, Kerry has a 30 year track record of spewing soviet propoganda, gutting our intelligence services, attempting to gut our military, and undermining our cold-war policy of containment. It is possible to dismiss Edwards' rhetoric as pandering to the fetid swamp that forms the intellectual base of the Democratic party. Kerry's record shows where his heart is.

With all due respect, I guess there are some, who in the face of al-Q terrorism, are so consumed with fear that they need to run grab onto someone who gives the impression of being a "strong leader" - even if that strength is merely a manifestation of energy being applied to a simple mindedness. As if the Bush approach to the WOT is the only effective way to do it - the only way to be considered. For to even question the strong leader would be to show weakness.
Pathetic.

Anyway, if all that the "9/11 democrats" need in order to come back to the fold is to sense that Kerry could be as strong and effective a war leader as John Edwards would be, then I guess we dont really have all that much to worry about.

Hey Tano, all due respect, but I don't have any problem with the questions; I have a problem with the alternatives presented. With the exception of Lieberman I haven't heard any believable vision addressing global terror/fascism other than to go back to what didn't work before. That is especially true of Kerry; no matter what he says is his vision today, he's on record someplace saying something else.

And just in case you haven't figured this out, a strong leader has to be able to give the impression of leadership, no? Or am I being too simplistic here?

We invaded a country that was not one of a signficant source of terrorism against us, was not a grave threat to us, and that did not have significant WMDs.

We took major resources away from the fight against bin Laden and Al Qaeda -- you know, the terrorists -- for the Iraq invasion. We're just now "intensifying" the hunt for bin Laden by taking special forces from Iraq and sending them to Afghanistan.

Morally, Bush did a great thing in toppling Saddam. But I just don't understand why people think he's done such a great job protecting America.

I am, always have been, and probably always will be an independent. I cannot recall a time when I have not voted a split ticket. I am from Mass, and have voted for John Kerry over the years.

That being said, I cannot vote for the man again based on what he has said over the past several months.

In a nutshell, John Kerry has shown me that he will sacrifice the security of the nation in order to pander to an irrational elitist hatred and buy their vote. I cannot trust him to do make the decisions required of a wartime president if he cannot demonstrate enough backbone to chance losing the anybody but bush vote in the nomination process no matter what his spin may be in the general election.

"I thought maybe it would be better to have a president who would immediately leap into action as soon as he heard about WTC collapse rather than continue reading "The Pet Goat" 15 minutes after hearing about it. Maybe scramble some fighter jets in case there were more hijacked airplanes. "

Scramble some jets where, you twit?

America's fighter jets: Able to patrol all 3.6 million square miles of American territory instantly.

As per Bush II, he seems to see things in black and white (often criticized) but, personally, I like that...some things ARE black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, etc. (think flying airplanes into public buildings). Bush then acts forcefully on his beliefs, no waffle. I like that in a leader.

Bush is a polarizing figure, I guess, from a France and german point of view, if you are a 3rd world dictator certainly. But the thought that JFKerry will some how magically gain international support is ludicrous. First he has spent the better part of 9 months insulting the members of the coalition of the willing as not real allies, frauds etc. So the dying that the Italians, Aussies, Brits et al have done is not real. Kerry does not subscribe to the belief that there are enemies of the US out there, that people hate us, not for some foriegn policy decision, 5,10, 15+ years ago (that is the leftists), they hate us for what we are and what we represent and how we challenge thier beliefs. For us, infidels, adulterers, are free, independent, sexual women.

I know its taken as common faith among Bush Haters that the Clinton team left a great plan to tackle UBL, which Bush just ignored. If it was such a great plan, why didn't the Clinton team implement it, to wrapped in legalistic, police procedures, worried about world opinion. In hindsight this was foolish, but the Clinton team and most of America did not really see the threat, a few bombings on the peripherey. Bush and co had a failure of vision for 8 mos, Clintons 8 years and Reagan/Bush/Carter another 16 years of failed vision. That's how far the failure to take strong action goes. Bush and his team, to thier immense credit, realized on 9/11/01 11:00 am (give or take) that their previous ME policy was a failure and this failure killed 3,000 people. So they took out the proverbial clean sheet and started anew. Bush the humble, reluctant, wary nation builder changed his foriegn policy on its head and has made the establishment of liberal regimes where individual rights are recognized in an area of the world where they have never really existed. So I look at the 9/11 commission as a giant waste of time. Were their systemic failures in the CIA and FBI that missed the clues? Absolutely. But if the CIA/FBI catch the 19 hijackers, so what. As Israel as proved time and time again, there is no such thing as perfection in terrorism, you are going to have leakers. So playing defense, not getting to the root of terrorism, - ie the lack of freedom, was the systemic failure. And handwringing that if only the FBI and CIA had done this, questioned that is monday morning quarterbacking. The question that needs to be asked, and the Dems are not asking it is what do we need to make this not happen. Kerry thinks law enforcement issue. He has made that clear. So to me there is one choice, Bush and I make that gladly. Gay marriage is not a constitutional issue and will not even get that far, its an issue for the state legislatures. Budget deficit is an issue, and I will worry about that in 4 years, once we have cemented the gains in WOT. Social Security, well if the Dems have a plan, its a quiet plan of ignoring the elephant in the room. At least Bush recognizes the elephant is there and would like make some changes to its diet. So Bush in 04, kerry can go back and be the lousy senator he is, edwards can go back to suing people for a living. Where are the serious Democratic canidates.

Toten:People change, and so does the world. Dig your heels in and refuse to budge if you want, but that's not my way.

Furthermore, you can defend yourself in changing viewpoints but slam Kerry for the same thing? Curious.

Time for me to drop this thread and back off while the blood pressure is still in the yellow zone....

But Oberon, I would point you to Steven Den Beste's take on the US strategy. The question is whether you think our Iraq project is an end in-and-of itself, or if it's a move in larger plan. Den Beste sketches out a believable analysis, and I believe his gameplan probably overlaps the Administration's to a fair degree.

As to why I feel safer: Libya is backing off nuclear development, Pakistan is coming out of the nuclear shadows (slowly, but it's progress), Iran is feeling the pressure and allowing inspections, Iraqi terror funding is cut off, and without US dependence on their support in the region, we are in a position to plausibly put pressure on the House of Saud.

This is the diplomatic catastrophe that is the Bush Administration. And you know, I've not noticed that I can't get cheese and wine at my local stores, so I'm not feeling the pinch of our soured relationship with the French.

In a lot of ways this election reminds me a great deal of 1996, 1998 and 2002. In 1996 and 1998 Republicans ran on a platform of "We hate Clinton", and got smacked around by the voters. In 2002 Democrats ran on a platform of "We hate Bush", and got smacked around by the voters.

Christopher, gay marriage is NOT about love -- lots of loving gay couples live together and love each other and this doesn't change with or without an amendment or the Mass. rulings.

It IS about whether child creation, the future of Western Civ., is central to the (magical? miraculous?) word "marriage", or not. But that's been (over?) discussed on other threads. (And the health & probate industries need to accept contracts between lovers above parent & siblings; certainly.)

It IS, also, about whether Christians will be "allowed" to believe that homosexual behavior is sinful. For Utah to become a state, they had to make polygamy illegal, despite it being a part of their religion (and in the Bible, etc.). The state imposed intolerance of polygamy. I kind of like that result, but am uncomfortable with the process.

Note the recent CA court forcing Catholic Charities to include birth control as part of their health insurance, knowing it's against that organizations' founding religion.

That's NOT live and let live, that's using court decisions to club Christian believers. Similarly, the purpose of gay marriage is to give God-haters another, more easily used club, to bash Christianity. If you're an atheist, that might not sound so bad. But if you're uncomfortable about intolerance to Christianity, as I am, it doesn't look so good.

And that's why Kerry will say he's against gay marriage, to avoid not looking good--but most will know he means it about as much as the French meant they were against Saddam. (see, back on topic after all!)

Talk is cheap. Anyone can say anything, but how to judge what a person will really do in a certain situation? With a politician, I submit that the only real way to tell what his behavior will be in the future is to look at what his behavior was in the past. With John Kerry, and how he will approach the war we are currently fighting, all we have to do is examine his record for the past 30 years in the Senate. That record has been well documented and sorry John, you do not get my vote.

Michael: Well said and I respect your position. Living outside the US I see how much foreign leaders envy the US and translate that into hate for the President. They know that they can't control Bush and hope desperately for a President that they can control, one who begs for "International Consensus" before taking any action. The weak always want to control the strong. I also don't understand why anyone in the US worries whether our President is liked or disliked internationally. No one in the UK or France give a damn if the American people like Chirac or Blair, it's none of thier business. Why the rush to pander to the failed and socialist governments of Europe?

BTW: Oberon
I just don't understand why people think he's done such a great job protecting America.

How about the end of Libian WMD and exposure of Iran and Pakistan WMD production. Wouldn't have happend without Iraq.

Tom,

Similarly, the purpose of gay marriage is to give God-haters another, more easily used club, to bash Christianity.

That's a stunningly self-centered view. But you're welcome to it; it's clear we're not going to sway each other, and this isn't even the right thread for it.

Graham: Furthermore, you can defend yourself in changing viewpoints but slam Kerry for the same thing?

He changes his "viewpoint" every five minutes. He says one thing to one person, and turns around and says the exact opposite to a different person.

I have slowly and deliberately shifted over a period of years.

Surely you can see the difference.

No, I don't see the difference, MT. When has Kerry taken one position to one person, then turned around and said the exact opposite to a different person? The meme that Kerry is a flip-flopper (or more to the point, that he flip-flops more than other politicians in an electoral democracy) is a Karl Rove spinpoint that has no basis in reality.

Steve Smith: Karl Rove spinpoint that has no basis in reality

Ah yes, I'm just a dupe of Karl Rove. I haven't been paying any attention to politics over the past year. I've been too busy watching Fear Factor and reading People magazine. That's why I'm so easily bamboozled.

Don't insult my intelligence, please.

Daggone people, the Christian right is not your enemy here. Yeah we (the Christian right) oppose abortion, not because we hate women (unlike our Islamist enemies), but because we believe that unborn children have the same inalienable rights (you know the ones endowed by our Creator) as everyone else. Plus, I think the a strong case can be made that while unrestricted abortion has been great for men (Hey, look at me lots of sex, no responsibility), it has not been great for women (high rates of single motherhood, complications from abortions). I mean "Sex and the City" may make great TV, but most of us evil Christian types look at it as a pretty empty and meaningless existance, certainly not how I would want my 1 yr old daughter to grow up. On gay marriage, almost nobody (yeah there are exceptions)on the Christian right is advocating discrimination against gays; heck I don't even like ant-sodomy laws (again unlike our Islamist enemies), but we are concerned about how ready libs are to monkey around with an institution as old as history to score some cheap politcal points. Especially since the only vote (not counting the 38 state DOM laws) on gay marriage has been by 4 judges from a state that is not representative of most of the country. I mean look at countries where they have established SSM (Sweden and Norway), nobody (even gays and lesbians) get married, 3/4's of children are born out of wedlock. Does anybody want to say this is a good thing? Something we should aspire to? You want to see real hate, you won't see at my church, but try your typical left coast university. People comparing Bush and Sharon to Hitler, I mean come on. Signs reading that 6 million dead Jews was only a good start. You won't see that at any church I've been to, but I have seen it protests to the Iraq war and against Israel. Some of you people need to open your eyes and realize who your real enemies are, it ain't Christians.

Steve Smith: When has Kerry taken one position to one person, then turned around and said the exact opposite to a different person?

Here's one example. Actually, it's not technically an answer to your question since this is an example of Kerry giving opposing answers to the same person.

Michael T.: Thanks again for the html pointers; they make writing much cleaner than what I was doing before.

Rob: Daggone people, the Christian right is not your enemy here.

You can tell me that you personally are not my enemy and that's great. I'll take your word for it.

But Dennis Prager declared war on me yesterday. He is my self-declared enemy.

And that's too bad. Only a few days ago I read one of his articles for the first time and thought it was very good. And then he wrote this piece of garbage.

It's a tragedy we are in a position to stop, or at least mitigate.

------------------------------------

I'd like to hear how this could be accomplished. It seems like the Israelis have been trying to do this for some time so you should inform them too.

----------------------------------------

With all due respect, I guess there are some, who in the face of al-Q terrorism, are so consumed with fear that they need to run grab onto someone who gives the impression of being a "strong leader" - even if that strength is merely a manifestation of energy being applied to a simple mindedness.

--------------------------------------

I've read this pregnant sentence three times and I don't detect even a light dusting of respect.

"When has Kerry taken one position to one person, then turned around and said the exact opposite to a different person?"

Hell, here's an example where he did it to the SAME person.

Oberon:
Oh, yes it was, yes it was, yes it did.

Focusing narrowly on UBL and al-Quaeda is the "police action" espoused by Kerry that has failed in the past. Everything has failed in the past.

It's much bigger than that, and has only just begun. It will take decades if not generations. Everyone agreed that Saddam had to go. No progress could be made against the sponsors of terrorism in Saudi Arabia or supporting states like Syria or Iran with Saddam in the way and US presence in Saudi Arabia.

The sanctions weren't working and would have to be lifted or altered one way or another. The sanctions were doing more harm than good.

The capture or killing of UBL will not be the cure-all.

Michael--

Speaking from a liberal Republican standpoint, that was very eloquently put. I'll post a link to my blog and hope I might sway a handful of my more left-leaning readers.

I've had a few good things to say about Edwards too, and I think the race is so much the worse for his not being the Democratic nominee. Sometimes I think the Democrats are bound and determined to cut off their nose to spite their face. Kerry is nothing but a tiresome JFK wannabe, and I can't believe that more Dems don't see that...

Having known Micheal for a few years, I'd have to say he has slowly changed over the years. I've debated him many, many times via email and his stances have changed very slowly over time. My stances have changed too, it is what intelligent people do when they get new facts and information, they make informed decisions and change their ideas/beliefs.

I think Micheal's decision is a good one. If we aren't safe, jobs, health care etc.. means nothing. Others have pointed this out on this thread, abortion means nothing when Islamic law doesn't let you out of the house.

Kerry said:
The Bush Administration has run the most arrogant, inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in modern history."

Totten writes:
Thus ends my reconsideration. I really can't imagine why you'd think I would like him.

There is more to foreign policy than just declaring war. There's the run-up to the declaration, there's the conduct of the war, the conduct of the reconstruction and, oh, everything else in the entire world other than the war.

BTW: Oberon ...How about the end of Libian WMD and exposure of Iran and Pakistan WMD production. Wouldn't have happend without Iraq.

Now that point I like. Personally, I think the spread of nukes is the absolute #1 security issue we face.

Which leads to my latest pet theory on Iraq -- maybe the Bush admin had very good intelligence (which they didn't/couldn't reveal) that Saddam was developing nukes. Otherwise, I just can't figure why they wanted to invade the friggin' place.

Well Totten has gone wingnut. He is just frightened of terrorism so he goes and supports a dictator like chimpy.

Us enlightened TRUE compassionate and educated liberals will be voting for anyone but bush. anyone with an advanced degree can tell you why. we don't need hicks like you anyway.

Besides, why even debate why bushy invaded Iraq. We know it is for an evil reason. end of story. Anything else is just corporate propagda.

Edwards and Kerry had basically the SAME positions on the issues. It was only a difference of style and experience. I simply don't understand why someone who would have voted for Edwards won't vote for Kerry.

I won't be voting for either.

Gosh, "liberalguy," that's pretty clever. None of MT's readers will ever suspect you're a right-winger in disguise.

Liberalguy said:

"Anything else is just corporate propagda..." [emphasis mine]

And this is a guy with an advanced degree? I guess "hicks" like Michael don't have much to worry about.

Liberalguy,

LOL, unless of course that wasn't satire (If not, your post is truly sad.)

I started to type a long post on my usual schtick... but then thought, Screw it, I've said this all before. Afghanistan's a disaster, homeland security mostly hype, and Iraq held prisoner by the desperation of the November 15 agreement.

So I'll just say this: I've heard the Democracy in the Middle East speech. I know Wolfowitz's dominos theory. It's a nice vision. But outside of a quick invasion of Iraq, I haven't seen the Bush administration take a single substantive step toward any of the goals he's spoken so highly of. The absolute rejection of any sort of Israel/Palestine negotiation is a silence so loud its deafening. As is the failure to institute any sort of smart campaign to burnish the U.S. image in the Middle East or to modernize economies. I feel like Bush is standing at the plate and watching pitches fly by. He's not doing anything.

So. What, exactly, is Bush's foreign policy?

Rob:
We're never going to convince each other and this is the wrong place to try. You say a fetus is an "unborn child" with "rights" granted by "the Creator" and I say a fetus is merely a fetus with no rights that could be construed as being in the compelling interest of the State.

The same applies to the arguments against stem cell research. Those are really "off the wall".

Not to further the argument, but it seems that abortion rights would minimize single motherhood rather than promote it.

I come down on the side of freedom both "of religion" and "from religion".

In that regard I would view the actions of the administration in the Justice department to be anathema.

Regardless, the WoT has to be the overriding consideration.

It's a tragedy we are in a position to stop, or at least mitigate.

------------------------

I'd like to hear how this could be accomplished. It seems like the Israelis have been trying to do this for some time so you should inform them too.

That's of course the question. Why don't those things happen here in the US on a regular basis? Or Europe? Or Japan? I'm serious.

With Iraq being where it is, and with neighbors who manifestly do NOT want a western-style democracy next door, we may be setting Iraq up for a long fight against externally-sponsord terror. Exactly like what Israel faces.

So we do what we can to end those external threats to our friends (including the Iraqis) and to ourselves. And this is the point where creative suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Yeah other than fighting two wars and shit, what HAS Bush been doing?

Kerry's foreign policy is clear as day: NOT-BUSH.

Michel,

Very thoughtful post. I've been reading your blog since you first started and am almost always persuaded by your arguments.

As I am in this case, for you have put eloquently exactly my reasons -- as a life-long liberal and Democrat (who voted for Gore and who, before 9/11, "hated" Bush) -- for reluctantly, but passionately, supporting Bush's re-election.

In my view, Kerry cannot be trusted. Like you, I would support Kerry if he were elected and if it turned out that I had been wrong about the senator's ability to effectively prosecute the war against Islamic fascism. (Big ifs.)

Jamie Irons

The Napa Valley

Sorry, Michael! Please forgive me!

Somehow I wrote your name in the French form, "Michel," and failed to catch it in proofreading!

Yikes!

Jamie Irons

Just thought I'd toss in my couple cents.

Graham- "Toten:People change, and so does the world. Dig your heels in and refuse to budge if you want, but that's not my way.

Furthermore, you can defend yourself in changing viewpoints but slam Kerry for the same thing? Curious."

I don't see how this is curious to you Graham. MT is changing his opinion based upon what reality has dictated. John Kerry has changed his public opinion based on what he thought was the most politicly popular thing to do, and then continued to behave in his usual pattern.

Just because I'm curious, has Kerry EVER concluded he was wrong in his position that the US should send the military only when, and wherever the UN says? Is he on record, anywhere, saying he was wrong in his 71 interview with the Harvard Crimson? If not, and if he doesn't, he's on record as stating he will subvert the soverignity of the US to an unelected, unaccountable foreign body. He's unelectable on that alone. Heck, even if he states tomorrow that he was wrong and doesn't feel that way now, he still has to contend with this past year of deferring to the "greatness" of the UN.

Here is my, admittedly over-simple and kind of stupid, litmus test for a presidential canidate:
Does this man (until a woman runs I'm going to keep the nouns sexist because it's my litmus test dangit) believe that the US is the greatest country in the world, and that there is no treasure too great to spend or blood too great to sacrifice, to defend what has been built?

Despite Bush's flaws and mistakes (occasionly grevious mistakes), he has shown that he'd be willing to stand against the world to defend the United States. John Kerry's words and deeds make me think he wouldn't be able to defend the US from Kofi Annan.

Time, harry, time. It takes time. You want everything now. But you're absolutely right. Something needs to be done about Iran, and to a lesser extent, Syria very soon.

Regarding explanation of the foreign policy, that's a reasonable charge also. But you have to remember that this is an election year and the WoT can be lost by losing the election. Detailed foreign policy pronouncements must be very carefully couched in terms especially with the withering attacks from the Left.

The only "pitch" that you mentioned flying by was Israel/Palestine "negotiations". In the absence of any movement on the "Roadmap" particularly on reducing or eliminating terrorist attacks, many have given up on talking. And not least of all Sharon who has obviously decided that the wall is the answer. And, it's working. Now we hear that the Palestinian civil war has already begun. There are now demonstrations in the streets against Afafat's PLO. They want an end to it.

Agreed, Harry, but those pitches are not flying by.

Oberon

Why did they want to invade Iraq. For a number of reasons, one to make a lesson to all that wish us ill, that we were not going to take it anymore. 2. We need to drain the swamp of oppression that breeds terrorists who willingly die for thier "cause". 3. We needed to get a handle on the nuclear black market. We had known for years that Pakistan was trading in nuclear weapon designs and such but a. didn't care and b. were in no real place to do anything about it. And then there were the defiance of UN, wmds, terrorists connections etc. The suprising thing is the case was hard to make as the only case you can't publicly state is the use of Iraq as a leverage point for our military. And now I will go slow for you. Saudi Arabia is a big supplier of terrorism, with all of thier petro dollars, but to invade/regime change them first makes no sense unless world depression after disruption of SA oil is a goal, especially with Venuzuela having internal problems. So Iraq - with all that oil, underproducing in that oil for palace and bribes program, a little regime change won't cause that big of disruption in global marketplace. And now they are ramping up production. Suddenly SA is no longer such a valuable friend, We have stable military bases poised where once we finish handing off of Security to Iraquis, we can now pressure Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Libya has folded its tent. Have the Bushies been perfect, hell no, mistakes were made and guess what, mistakes will continue to be made, but we will muddle through. So Afganistan is slowly improving and so is Iraq and Libya is making nice and NK is still talking and SA and Pakistan are cracking down on thier terrorists, syria is trying to play nicer with Israel, the PLO is going broke, Iran is teetering. And this is a flawed policy. To me it seems like incredible, creative destruction at its best. Is the war over, no, are we assured victory, no. Will we suffer another terrorist attack, quite possibly. But we are at the turning of the tide, America woke up on 9/11 and decided they were still strong. Kerry woke up on 9/11 and vowed to fight our enemies, on 9/12 well at least round them up, 9/13 make them uncomfortable 9/14 vote for war 9/15 but not to actually do it. Frankly Kerry is an unserious man w/o a backbone.

Suppose I invent a machine wich makes shoes for 1/2 the current cost and drives shoe makers out of business. Is this good?

Now suppose the Chinese are willing to work like dogs to feed their families and will reduce the cost of shoes by 1/2 is this bad?

Economically there is no way to tell the better machine from the cheaper Chinese.

Marx said capitalism was a brutal system and the best hope for improving the lot of mankind. I think he was right on both counts.

Kevin,

I concur.

Excellent points.

Even in hind sight there is no perfect poicy because it assumes your opponent will not react differently. Actually humans is perverse. When pressed they often do tthe opposite. When left alone they do as they damn well please.

For Scott: Congrats on the soon-to-be daughter, and welcome to the Parent Club. The dues are high, but the benefits are amazing... :-)

That said, as a 40-something woman living in the US, I can honestly say I've never felt "under attack" even momentarily, let alone constantly, at least in the cultural, societal sense. Under attack from individuals, male AND female, sure. But threatened simply because of my gender in daily life? Are you kidding me? Reproductive rights are only a small part of the issues that concern me, and that's the only aspect of women's rights that the Bush administration has made any changes to. Removing a very specific, seldom-used method of abortion from the slate of available procedures is hardly on a par with, oh, revoking our rights to vote, or drive, or own property, or manage our own legal affairs, or marry/divorce without a man's permission, or hold jobs and elected offices, or...

There are far bigger issues facing women than terminating undesired pregnancies, I assure you. We still struggle with body image, thanks to a media culture saturated by the perfect. We still struggle with wage inequities, despite enormous progress made on that front. We still struggle with domestic violence, again despite great advances. The prospect of losing my right to an easy, cheap abortion really doesn't weigh on me, to be honest.

Even a complete revocation of Roe v. Wade, follwed by sweeping anti-abortion legislation in every state of the Union would not place me "under attack." I would still have contraceptive options to prevent pregnancy, should I not desire it, and there are various options following a rape to prevent implantation from ever occurring, thereby mitigating the need for abortion. Abortion is very much a last option, except for a few misguided souls who use it in lieu of decent contraception, and so outlawing it only removes the last stop on a complex route. I'd fight any such change to the end, but should it happen, I wouldn't consider myself under attack.

All parents want to make the world better and safer for their children. I know I sure do. And that's one reason why, despite the deep misgivings I have about Bush on a whole host of domestic issues, you can mark me down in the "war bloc." Because I know that Western civilization, as exemplified by the US and like-mided countries such as the UK, Canada, etc., provides my daughter with the most options, the most freedom, the highest standards of health and wealth, and the best chance for a long, happy, fulfilled life available anywhere in the world. Our opponents in the war on terror want to change that, and I'll be damned if I'll ignore that fact. If the Democrats had a platform that included something besides "the opposite of anything Shrub does," I might consider it. But they don't, so I won't.

And yes, I'm a registered Dem. Actually worked for the Clinton campaign, on a local level. I never left my party, but it sure feels as though it's left me, lately. I hope it changes in time for '08.

donna

Mark, Staat, whatever your name is:
Others have pointed this out on this thread, abortion means nothing when Islamic law doesn't let you out of the house.

This nonsensical sentence must have been written by someone in the middle of a moronic panic attack. I think you need a Bogart-like slap across the face to snap out of it. WTF are you trying to say here? If we don't have Bush as our "defender of evil", then were in danger of becoming an Islamo-fascist state? My stomach still hurts from laughter. I don't think I connected the dots wrong on that statement. Totten's wriggles with the best of them AND he isn't even running for office. I guess to fit into that pundit niche of "reformed lefty" I guess this is what one has to say. What ever shall he do when he finds out that niche has no more room? Even the beloved Dennis Miller is finding that niche crowded. His dull MSNBC show is curently being "retuned".

"defender of evil" should read "defender against evil"

Shorter Kevin: It's all about oillllllll!

And something about bombing Venezuela.

Bush is going to tie Kerry into a little pretzel.

Bush is going to tie Kerry into a little pretzel.

... and then choke on the pretzel. Couldn't resist.

Oberon

Pretty funny, but Its not all about oil, its about islamic nut jobs who like to kill americans and jews, so the question is what are we going to do about that. We can take the war to our enemies, uproot the causes of thier mindset and plant freedom and liberty. In the short term, things get destroyed, people die. Or we can take the defensive approach, allow our enemies take the war to us and hope we catch them, and we will catch most of them, but some will get through. But we have tried plan B, there is a great big freaking whole in NYC so you know what that doesn't work so well. Kerry believes plan B works well, so he is not to be taken seriously. Its not about oil, its about killing terrorists before they can try and kill us, I like that equation better, the oil is just a bonus.

Well, that does it. This thread is so "over".
Bye.

PS. donna, agreed, but you're oversimplifying and don't see the "slippery slope".

bye, again.

I don't quite understand how diverting troops from battling UBL and the boys who attacked the WTC to go after a has been dictator without WMD advances the fight against terrorism. I am at a loss to see how killing 500+ Americans to advance a Shiite state in Iraq makes us one bit safer. I am puzzled as to how the "Uniter" who divided us so completely, the one who was going to have a "humble" foreign policy that avoided "nation-building" has produced a coherent foreign policy. All the Bushies are saying is that they have done a bang up job at this and we should take their word for it. Totten, your head is in a fishbowl. Kerry may not be much, but he's twice the leader GWB turned out to be.

Graham: I guess to fit into that pundit niche of "reformed lefty" I guess this is what one has to say.

Fuck you.

You have no idea how much I hate the fact that I'm a Bush supporter. It's causing me a great deal of personal distress, and my wife and I are arguing about it.

Now, why don't you go have your cute little arguments with other people who don't take the world seriously. You'll fit in better over there. I'm not kicking you out. This is just some advice.

Michael:

I don't know where all these trolls come from and why they end up here. Maybe it's just that getting linked on Instapundit means that such a great number will see the post that there will be a certain number of trolls just because of the sheer volume of traffic.

Anyway, you're a thoughtful and reasonable guy, and you treat most of these jerks with a lot more respect than they deserve. If my blog got a lot of moronic and/or abusive comments I would probably lose my temper a lot more or just adopt a zero tolerance policy and delete stuff and ban people all over the place.

Michael,

You might want to show this to your wife the next time you talk about Kerry vs. Bush. Debra J. Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle asked Senator Kerry a straight forward question on why he voted for the last Gulf War authorization resolution.

This is what she wrote about it:

Kerry's complicated exfoliation
Debra J. Saunders
Wednesday, March 3, 2004
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ

URL: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/03/EDGVG5CFUG1.DTL

"Kerry's answer was that Washington insiders believed that Bush didn't mean what he said. "I think that you had a hard-line group (then Pentagon adviser) Richard Perle, (Deputy Defense Secretary) Paul Wolfowitz and probably (Vice President Dick) Cheney. But when Brent Scowcroft and Jim Baker (former advisers to the first President Bush) weighed in, very publicly in op-eds in the New York Times and the (Washington) Post, the chatter around Washington and (Secretary of State Colin) Powell in particular, who was very much of a different school of thought, was really that the president hadn't made up his mind. He was looking for an out. That's what a lot of people thought."

What about what Bush said to the U.N.? That was "rhetorical," Kerry answered. And "a whole bunch of very smart legitimate people" not running for president thought as he did. "So most people, actually on the inside, really felt that (Bush) himself was looking for the way out to sort of satisfy Cheney, satisfy Wolfowitz, but not get stuck." Kerry continued, "The fact that he jumped and went the other way, I think, shocked them and shocked us."

So Kerry was "misled" because he believed that Bush didn't mean what Bush said."

and

"The scariest part is that Kerry looked as if he believed what he said. He had noted that all of his fears of where Bush might err turned out to be right. At the same time, Kerry asserted that his vote for military force made it "harder" for Bush to go to war."

In so many words, President Bush deceived Kerry by telling him the truth.

Welcome to Bush '04 Michael.

I know I fell one hell of a lot better knowing that my political party, and President, appeals to wavering independants rather than calling them names and insulting their motives.

The hesitant nod of a cautious independent is worth more than ten partisian voters any day. Hopefully Bush will continue to earn your vote. If he does not, I will be one of his many firm supporters wanting to know why he isn't rather than berrating the individual who finds themselves unable to vote for him.

The political party that finds itself forcing its members to conform to its standards rather than changing itself to mirror the needs of the day is a dead party. I feel for the Democrats who have taken this approach by demanding loyality oaths (A.B.B.) and blasting anyone who does not tow the line. At the same time, I'm glad the Republican party is able to appeal - and hopefully can continue to change - to suit the needs of those who find themselvs politically homeless.

Michael, don't let the bastards get you down. What Graham's doing is a standard part of the extremist's (whether left or right) playbook. If you can't attack the other person's arguments, attack their motivations, and if that doesn't work, start calling them names.

I try to be funny, usually fail. Seriously though:

Its not all about oil, its about islamic nut jobs who like to kill americans and jews, so the question is what are we going to do about that.

Agreed

We can take the war to our enemies, uproot the causes of thier mindset and plant freedom and liberty.

Agreed

In the short term, things get destroyed, people die.

Life ain't fair.

Or we can take the defensive approach, allow our enemies take the war to us and hope we catch them, and we will catch most of them, but some will get through.

Well, I think we need both a defensive approach and an offensive approach.

But we have tried plan B, there is a great big freaking whole in NYC so you know what that doesn't work so well.

Well, no. To me that mean we need improvements in our defense to go with the offense. Like fully funding homeland security.

Kerry believes plan B works well, so he is not to be taken seriously.

Here's where you lose me. Kerry supported the invasion of Afghanistan. He supports killing terrorists.

Its not about oil, its about killing terrorists before they can try and kill us, I like that equation better, the oil is just a bonus.

Agreed.

Trent: You might want to show this to your wife the next time you talk about Kerry vs. Bush.

My wife is with me on foreign policy and doesn't need any convincing.

Her best friend for life is gay and he is getting "married" this summer. He was in our wedding.

My wife is so viscerally repulsed by Bush's attitude about this that she cannot forgive him. And I don't blame her for a second.

Bush made his re-election personal for her. She feels the president of the United States spit in her best friend's face. And she gave me a look last night after I posted this that I never want to see on her face again.

So Graham really can just fuck off if he thinks I'm making my decision lightly to get attention, or whatever it is he thinks I'm doing here. I care a lot more about what my wife thinks than what anyone else in this world thinks.

Eric Deamer
If my blog got a lot of moronic and/or abusive comments I would probably lose my temper a lot more or just adopt a zero tolerance policy and delete stuff and ban people all over the place.

Honestly, this is why Totten gets the comments he does. He should never ban anyone no matter how many times they pour salt into his wounds. What you described is what happens at FreeRepublic.com. Do yo