Last night "Mrs. JohnGalt" said Kerry is going to kill Bush on the Vietnam issue. For weeks (since the Dem primary got going strong) Rush Limbaugh callers have been lamenting that the Dems are attacking Bush and he's not fighting back. Good capitalist friends have capitulated on Bush and now, even JK is losing confidence in W. I have observed these developments and this posting we are commenting on was the result: To advance capitalism, limited government and to win the war on Terror, vote Bush in 2004.

Your sanguinity is healthy, but misplaced. Even if Kerry wins it will not be the end of the Republic. Hell, we survived TWO terms of W's predecessor. We may lose Washington and NYC to low-yield nuclear explosions instead of "only" the WTC but we'll recover. (As an aside, what do you suppose President Kerry's response would be to such an event, presuming he and the Pickle Queen were safely whisked away in Air Force 1?) The Dems on the other hand are rabid in their belief that the world will end within 4 more years if Kerry loses. Their very identity, i.e. their ideology and vision for the future, is at stake. They see it slipping away and they realize it will be nearly impossible to return to our current collectivist climate if there is a retreat. We're involved not just in a war on terror, but a war on collectivism. What the hell do you think the terrorists are fighting for, after all?!

If this were really over domestic social issues, as they claim, the Dems could have taken an even stronger self-defense position, said Bush isn't proactive enough against terrorists and terror states, and actually beat the crap out of him in November. No, they are for big government, world government, and they are absolutely scared straight to death that the democratic rule of capitalist law between sovereign nations with free governments might replace their vision of the UN as the world administrative branch and the ICC as world judiciary.

Fear not, brave soldier. The only people paying attention to the campaign right now are wonks like us and the Deaniacs. The campaign really starts when kids go back to school next fall.

I have a prescription for what ails you, JK: Go out today and buy a copy of "An End to Evil" by David Frum and Richard Perle. Read it cover to cover and call me in the morning.

Whew, so many things to comment on.

I couldn't actually watch all of the Tim Russert interview, it was just to painful. I agree with the concept of broadening the scope of the intelligence investigation beyond just Iraq, we should be trying to learn lessons for the future, not vilifying the past. However, I feel that by limiting the investigation to the info gathered and not how it was intrepreted and used by the political leadership we will miss a very important lesson, that intelligence is never a sure thing, and no matter how overwhelming the evidence seems to be that it can still be very wrong. Like if Clinton had set up an investigation to determine if Monica wore a blue dress.

I agree that the military issue should be about how a candidate will protect our citizens and not about the personal military background of 30 years ago. But character is a valid issue for a President and is a main issue that Bush used after the mess the Clintons made. This issue goes to if and how Bush served in the Air National Guard. Not an overriding issue by any means, but relevant, especially for someone who campaigned 4 years ago on character.

Now the mud slinging gets thick. Believing that 4 more years of this President will ruin the country or end the world is as ridiculous as believing that a Democrat in the White House will inevitably lead to nuclear terrorist strikes in this country or that all our international interests will be turned over lock, stock and barrel to the UN.

I still contend that the jury is still out on whether the invasion of Iraq was a sucess, or even justified. We need a succesful transition to a free democratic state. I am still optimistic and even believe in the concept that freedom could spread around the region, certainly we have already seen some good signs in Libya and Iran. History will be the judge here, if freedom and democracy envelop Iraq and some of its neighbors then the WMD issue will become and irrelevant footnote.

I am glad to see that Tim Russert gets a good grade on being a fair and impartial journalist. I beleive impartiality should be the goal, not fighting blatant leftism with blatant rightism.