In 1964, Barry Goldwater offered a choice, not an echo to President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Forty years later, John Kerry offers an echo, not a choice to President George W. Bush's Iraq war. Despite all the rhetoric about 2004 being the most important election in our lifetimes, the two major candidates offer quite similar views on the major issues facing America.

John Kerry explained on Monday that even though many of the pre-war assertions regarding Iraq have proven illusory, he still stands by his vote authorizing the president to use force in Iraq. Kerry can only amorphously offer: "I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."

Many prospective Kerry voters are delusional. They project their own anti-war views on their candidate, ignoring the fact that he, too, backed the war in Iraq. They don't support Kerry. They oppose Bush.

While the country is divided on the war, the two major candidates are united. They both agree that we should have invaded Iraq. They just quibble about the details. Given this scenario, the candidate who stands for something trumps the candidate who stands for everything--pro-war, anti-war, pro-conducting-the-war-differently, etc.

And then there is Kerry on the Patriot Act... Anyone else remember during the primary debates all the candidates wanting to repeal the Patriot Act (flat out)?

Now he wants to keep 95% of it and strengthen the rest!
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0525b_a.pdf

It’s too bad that in seemingly the toughest times we’ve had as a nation in the last fifty years, we have a choice between two relatively weak candidates.

Of course, they’ve allowed themselves to be weakened by our sickeningly politically correct society and feel good politics.

We really need a leader who’s decisive and untouchable and who will not be ruled by committee or public opinion polls.

I’ll continue to wait.

I agree with Mike on this one.

Dan, I love the new "Why The Left HAte America" book cover!!!

Dan, you say the candidates offer (present?) "quite similar views on the major issues facing America" which is evident by Kerry now and in his convention speech ignoring any substantial disagreement between himself and Bush. Yet, the differences are still there whether Kerry wants to mention them or not.

The most striking omission in the convention speech was the absence of any reference to abortion, seemingly a staple of Democratic speeches since 1992 at least. However, I still trust Bush more than Kerry when it comes time to nominate the next Supreme Court Justice, even if Kerry does ignore that confrontation for now.

T-Man,

Abortion is definitely one area where Bush and Kerry have substantive disagreements. On Iraq, the War on Terrorism, the Patriot Act, and even the size and scope of the federal government, they find themselves in agreement more often than not.

What do nominations matter since Spectar won his seat back? Does anyone honestly see a prolife supreme court nomination slipping through? And lets face it, the partial birth abortion bill stops what is essentially a non-existant procedure.

Dan,

I just don't think your argument holds up.

I agree that on the war (and on US policy in the Middle East in general) Kerry differs from Bush only as a waffling moderate differs from a black-and-white ideologue. But to say that the candidate who stands for something trumps the one who does not, this does not follow. Recall Yeates' statement about how, in the end of the age, "the best lack all conviction."

I would argue that, at least considered from the perspective of the present evil, the president who is less of an absolutist would be the better choice, since he would be less prone to POLICY error (straddling the fence as he does). Notice I don't say error simply speaking, but error in policy. Perhaps that's a bit perverse, but no more so than those who push for gridlock in Congress. There is a lot more to be said on this topic, but I will leave it at that. Greetings from Frankfurt-Niederrad.

Le G.