"Senator Kerry is a good man."

By what stretch of the language does this make any sense? Someone who tells whoppers to start with, who tells whoppers to cover previous whoppers, who takes positions that depend on your ignorance for their credibility, is not a good man or a good presidential candidate. He is a good candidate for aluminum siding sales person or gigolo. Oh wait, he's already covered that last one.

The bumper stickers are GREAT, JK. And you're right, Sullivan is a whiner. As for Democrats and their voting choice, it seems to me there are two kinds of Democrats. One is the dyed-in-the-wool wealth redistributing socialist, and the other simply favors individual liberty and fears laws imposing "thou shalt not" religious morality by the NED-fearing right. Those in the first group should go right ahead and vote for JFK - he's cut from their cloth. The latter group, however, better wake up and smell the secular coffee. Kerry's preferences for conducting the war against terrorists have been proven by history to be a miserable failure. Let's debate the proper course of this country's future domestic policies, but let's first ensure that this country, and others like it, HAS a future. There can be no debate with men who keep you at the point of a gun (or an RPG).

We're agreeing too much, Johngalt -- I'll have to go back to Gay Marriage...

Seriously, your point is right. I would posit a third, "I hate Bush" faction but I totally agree with your bifurcation.

Macho Duck: my wife is on your side. His testimony against his soi-disant "Band of Brothers" in 1970 was shameful, his pandering and lack of core principles is nauseating, and his personality strikes us both as arrogant and aloof.

But, comparing him to Gov. Dean or Rep. Kucinich, Rev. Sharpton -- I can call him "a good man." Just don't make me prove it in a court of law!

JK, I didn't expect such relativism from you. You can call Kerry, "better," than aforementioned crackpots Dean, Kucinich, and Sharpton but, "good," is not a relative term.

Do I have to say lima beans are, "good," because I dislike them less than I dislike liver?

The return of dagny's soapbox:

Saying something is, "good," because it is the lesser of two (or more) evils is the path that leads to faulty conclusions like, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Beware of such relativism in thought and speech. It is a grave and immediate threat to our culture of freedom as it tears down our ability to apply standards.

Such abuse on my own blog, Dagny... (kidding of course!)

What really drives that comment is my desire to keep this election season rational. I don't want to demonize Senator Kerry. He's done much to disappoint me but I want to engage his supporters and those undecided on ideas and policy, not "Kerry is a Waffler" vs. "Bush lied!"

I want to vote on "Should we coordinate our foriegn policy more with the UN?" and "Is it fair to raise taxes on those who make 200K to fund more social programs?" and "Should we allow people to own a small portion of their Social Security?"

Dagny,

Would you thus conclude that Reagan was a supporter of terrorism for funding the Contra's? How about the rebels in Afghanistan in the 1980's. Keep in mind that many of our current Islamic jihadists got their weapons training in Afghanistan on US equipment. "...tears down our ability to apply standards"? Sounds like a case for sensorship.

On the bigger issue of John Kerry, fear not oh republican friends, Presidents are historically either very charismatic or gifted orators. Kerry is neither.

Bravo to you JK for trying not to demonize Kerry, although recent posts indicate you may be in for an uphill battle.

Silence,

Welcome home -- we've missed you! See, I need you to straighten me out when I veer off and whack a candidate for President from a major American political party too hard.

I've gotta ask, though, into which category do you place our 43rd President? Mr. Charisma, or great orator?

Silence, did you mention Reagan in this discussion for the express purpose of displaying relativistic values? Dagny clearly called such thinking "faulty" so I can't imagine why you think she'd believe such a thing, but apparently you do.

For the record, the Sandanistas came to power in 1979 by violent means and imposed socialism with the aid and guidance of Cuba and the USSR. The U.S. backed Contra counter-revolutionaries used violence against their immoral government, not against innocent individuals for the purpose of policy change in the government, i.e. terrorism. Afghan rebels fought against invaders from another immoral government, the USSR. Now, for the determination of what makes a moral (good) government or an immoral (bad) one, refer to JK's blog above 'Homage to Frederic Bastiat.'

I can't make heads or tails of your analogy between objective value judgments and censorship, so I won't even try to address it.

As for the "bigger" issue of John Kerry (bigger only in the sense that he promises to lead America in the opposite direction that Bastiat praises) I prefer to focus on the ideas that make him a bad choice for President when I "demonize" him. I couldn't care less how charismatic or well-spoken he is. If that's what it takes to keep him out of office I'll have even less confidence in the common-sense intelligence of the electorate than I now have.

Thanks, good to be back, I have been tied up with more (full court) pressing issues, having come down with my usual case of March Madness.

Kerry does deserve some whacking for sure, I am still waiting to hear his "message". Being not like the current guy is not a message. How is it that politicians get all fired up to run for President and spend huge amounts of time and money getting a campaign going yet never have time to sit down and figure out their vision?

George W. Bush is very charismatic. Oration is definetly not his game. Kerry and Bush are both good men, patriots who believe in the advancement of America, they just have different views of what that America will look like and how to get there.

Perhaps I missed the boat on Dagny's comments. I was simply pointing out that the definition of terrorist can be in the eye of the beholder. How would you classify the right-to-lifers that bomb abortion clinics? The U.S. has long been guilty of backing the lesser of two evils, or the one more sympathetic to our interests, not unlike most world powers throughout history. It is as I believe Dagny is stating, faulty logic. I worry we may be doing it right now with Pakistan.

While I am on my soapbox, I get frustrated with people who treat the war in Iraq as a battle in the war on terror. It is treated as common knowledge that Iraq was harboring and training global terrorists, which is simply not the case. As the removal of a brutal tyrant and the freeing of the Iraqi people the war is just and successful. As dealing a severe blow to Islamic terrorism it is neither. The terrorism we are fighting is not state sponsored and in the long run will not be won with tanks and soldiers. Terrorism tradionally has been used to achieve goals, against a ruling power, and designed to terrorize as its name implies. Now is seems designed to simply ratchet up the body count, so traditional means of combating it are not likely to work whether you designate those "offensive" or "defensive" strategies. Keep in mind that the Israelis have a long history of offensive tactics without much success.

On connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, see: http://pstupidonymous.blogspot.com/2004_03_14_pstupidonymous_archive.html#107984431191782036

On state sponsorship of terrorism, see: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/21654.htm Specifically:
"The fall of Saddam Hussein closed what had become the single biggest source of funds for Hamas in the past five years. Several other Arab countries have been forced to close channels through which funds were collected for and directed to Hamas." Also, do you remember Saddam's payments to the families of suicide bombers?

On the beneficial effects of the war in Iraq, see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3900155,00.html "Gadhafi's Son: Bush Plan Should Be Backed"

For even greater detail on Iraq - al Qaeda dealings (why haven't we heard about this in the mainstream press?) see: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Specifically the conclusion: "Was Shakir an Iraqi agent? Does he provide a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11? We don't know. We may someday find out. But there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans."

It amazes me that some people actually believe there was never any connection between Saddam's regime and islamic terrorists. This seems to me to reflect an overly simplistic view of the world where everything is black and white. (With a healthy dose of partisan myopia to help the medicine go down.)

It seems to me just the opposite, Bush and Co. see the world in black and white - good guys and bad guys. Surely all the bad guys must be working together. Thus you lump in Al Qaeda, Iraq, North Korea, and anyone else we don't like. So how do you account for Pakistan? Helps us against the Taliban and Al Qaeda; sells nuclear technology to terrorists and axis of evil regimes. Saudi Arabia helps in war on terror (grudgingly) and is a middle east ally; provides by far the most support, financial and people, to Islamic terrorism.

"Black and White" did catch my eye. I was flogged four comments ago for exhibiting "moral relativism" by Dagny. I didn't expect another randian-eponymed-commenter to use "black and white" pejoratively.

Silence, the media mantra that "there is ZERO collaboration between al-Q and Saddam's Iraq strikes me as equal in speculation to "Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks."

I say that the removal of both the Taliban and the Husseins had a sweeping effect on the finance and free operation of terrorism. Hamas has been hurt by the removal of Iraqi funding. Even Richard Clarke has spoken of connections and correlations -- but who would believe him?

JK, my use of "simplistic" view and "black and white" distinctions were a sarcastic reference - to the reflexive tendency of those with a relativistic mindset to charge that ANY rationale for the use of American (or any free nation's) power is naive and overly simplistic. "The inflexible use of military force is never preferred over the nuanced application of sophisticated diplomacy," we are told by the "cowboy" haters. The bold absolute principle of self-defense, leaving no room for "yes, but..." exceptions, is a mortal threat to the epistemological prison they attempt to hold us in.

As for conflicting behaviors of borderline terror states, the Bush Doctrine is not aimed at regimes "we don't like" but at the behaviors we must not tolerate from any individual, group or nation. "It is time for all nations to make a choice regarding terrorism: you are either with us or with the terrorists." Thirty-four years of nuanced and sophisticated diplomacy since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war has resulted in only a rise in terrorism and strengthening of totalitarian regimes. Three years of holding nations firmly accountable for actions on their soil has had the many positive results I enumerated in my previous comment. It is clear that the threat of "inflexible" military force is more persuasive than repeated condemnation by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Wow this is getting almost as many comments as Gay Marriage. It looks like we have something else to disagree on.

I think perhaps my comments were mis-interpreted in several ways. I will try to clarify. The definition of terrorist is NOT, "in the eye of the beholder." A terrorist is one who targets innocent civilians. If a group is targeting civilians to achieve military or political goals they are terrorists regardless of who is supporting them. Whether those Reagan supported were terrorists is a different question and whether he should have as the lesser of evils is still a third question but these specific questions are irrelevant to my point.

To conclude that terrorism is in the eye of the beholder is more relativist faulty logic. Please note that my comment above draws no conclusions about Kerry specifically but only about JK's reason for his conclusion.

I applaud your desire to avoid allowing election debates to devolve into name-calling. However, describing a man as, "good," when you consider most of his ideas bad is not the way to maintain reasonable debate. Don't concede that the standard bearer for these ideas you dispute is, generally, a "good man." If you do then what do you call a man whose ideas you DO agree with... a REALLY good man?

In fact, you weaken your arguments by this approach. It goes like this: "If he is a good man then his ideas cannot be "bad," only different. Then the standard for judging which ideas are better is only personal preference, i.e. green is "better" than blue because I like it better, and capitalism is only better than socialism because I like it better. Next I am told that I only like it better because I have received some unfair advantage of wealth, position, or intelligence and that "advantage" should, in all fairness, be eradicated.

I propose that, in order to maintain a civilized society, man must have objective standards of good and bad by which to judge the actions and ideas, and therefore the character, of other men. I further insist that to make such judgments, to call a spade a spade if you will, is not "name-calling." This capacity for rational thought, unique to human beings among the entire animal kingdom, is the only thing we have to check the other traits of humanity which differ from animals - dishonesty, self-delusion, guilt, and slavery to name a few.

In summary, as soon as you say the man whose ideas you disagree with is a good man you have lost the debate.

And another thing:

Silence, you said that, "tears down our ability to apply standards," sounds like censorship. I find it interesting that you assume that I expect the government to apply the standards which would be censorship.

I am saying that relativistic reasoning tears down the ability of individual human beings to make rational judgements based on objective standards. When individuals apply standards and make judgements and vote based on those judgements that is the opposite of censorship - it is freedom.