Like a rock, like a stone wall of conviction...

The Kerry campaign responds to anti-war criticism with a hard hitting statement on the war:

"those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

You tell 'em, Kerry.

UPDATE:

I meant the above as sarcasm, not as an endorsement of Kerry's first position per se. Kerry continually reveals, ala Bush, that he doesn't believe in anything except telling the crowd du jour what he thinks they want to hear. I think Kerry is wrong in both cases; believing as Dean did with regards to the war says nothing in particular about an individual's judgement or credibility. After all, lots of people in and out of the blogosphere whose judgement and credibility on many things I find stellar hold similar beliefs as Dean about the war. I'd still rather have them in the White House than anyone else, even though I disagree on that one particular, to an increasingly slight degree as time goes by.

It also reflects my continued and increasing annoyance at the Democratic party, the one party best situated to relieve us of the generally incompetent and odious Bush administration, nominating such a vacillating dissembler to be their candidate. It reminds me of the Virginia senate race of many years ago, when then-Sen. Chuck Robb was a dead man walking into the election, due to scandal and general incompetence in congress. Almost anyone could have beaten him; my father, with no political experience whatsoever, could have run against Robb and beaten him. And yet the Virginia GOP nominated the one man who could not- Oliver North. The result was 6 more years of Robb before he was swept out in the next cycle.

Hell, even switching the polarity of the ticket would probably seal the deal (Edwards certainly wouldn't promise much rock-the-boat foreign policy, and a vengeful GOP congress would likely stymie his domestic agenda, so win-win all 'round policy wise, and Edwards is a more likeable guy than Bush, trial-lawyerness aside). But no...

Share this

Brian, you are such an

Brian, you are such an interesting writer on so many issues. But you should stay away from partisan politics. This kind of comment and link (yawn) make this blog seem like another GOP front: anti-intellectual, tedious, and unreflective. It really drags it down.

Sorry that it feels like a

Sorry that it feels like a partisan front. I think Kerry's inability to articulate a message and his unwillingness to stand for anything make him an particularly bad candidate for replacing the current bad president we have in Washington.

It irritates me that the Democrats couldn't come up with anyone better than Kerry to relieve us of Bush.

Brian, Please DO NOT stay

Brian, Please DO NOT stay away from partisan politics! I find your comments refreshingly insightful, even though some of them may be painful[re Kerry].

I did not vote to nominate him, btw.

Diana

Brian, you are such an

Brian, you are such an interesting writer on so many issues. But you should stay away from partisan politics. This kind of comment and link (yawn) make this blog seem like another GOP front: anti-intellectual, tedious, and unreflective. It really drags it down.

So pointing out a politician's hypocrisy is tantamount to being a GOP front blog? Or are you simply dissatisfied with the author of the linked article and suggest a more suitable libertarian-friendly replacement like Ted Rall?