Steve Landsburg argues that the real reason to be opposed to the minimum wage increase is that:

...the minimum wage places the entire burden on one small group: the employers of low-wage workers and, to some extent, their customers. Suppose you're a small entrepreneur with, say, 10 full-time minimum-wage workers. Then a 50 cent increase in the minimum wage is going to cost you about $10,000 a year. That's no different from a $10,000 tax increase. But the politicians who imposed the burden get to claim they never raised anybody's taxes....


The minimum wage is nothing but a huge off-the-books tax paid by a small group of people, with all the proceeds paid out as the equivalent of welfare to a different small group of people. If a tax-and-spend program that arbitrary were spelled out explicitly, voters would recoil. How unfortunate that when it is disguised as a minimum wage, not even our Republican president can manage to muster a principled objection.

This is a valid point, that the costs of a minimum wage increase, a de facto tax increase, are borne by a very small group. But there are other reasons for being opposed to a minimum wage hike, in fact, the entire concept of a minimum wage.

First, some background on just who exactly earns the minimum wage. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Characteristics of Minimum Wage Earners, 2002:

• Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and slightly more than one-fourth were age 16-19. Among teenagers, 10 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. However, among those age 65 and over, the proportion was about 5 percent.


• About 4 percent of women paid hourly rates reported wages at or below the prevailing Federal minimum, compared with about 2 percent of men.


• The proportion of hourly-paid workers receiving $5.15 or less was about 3 percent for whites, blacks, and Hispanics. For whites and Hispanics, women were more likely than men to be low-wage earners.


• Never-married workers, who also tend to be quite young, are more likely to earn the minimum wage or less than persons who are married.


• The likelihood of a worker being paid the minimum wage or less is inversely related to the level of education attained. Among hourly-paid workers age 16 and over, a little over 2 percent of those who had a high school diploma but had not gone on to college earned the minimum or less, compared with less than 2 percent for those who had obtained a college degree.


• Part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were much more likely than their full-time counterparts to be paid $5.15 or less (about 8 percent versus about 2 percent). About 1 in 10 workers putting in fewer than 15 hours per week earned the minimum or less.


• ...Roughly two-thirds of all low-wage workers in 2002 were in service-type occupations, mostly in food service jobs.


• ...the proportion of workers with reported hourly wages at or below $5.15 was highest in retail trade (about 8 percent), agriculture (about 2 percent), and services (also about 2 percent). About three-fifths of all low-wage workers were employed in retail trade, and nearly one-fourth worked in services. It should be recognized that for many working in these two industries, tips and commissions might supplement the hourly wages received.

So, briefly, let's summarize who exactly earns minimum wage: 3 percent of the workforce who are, young, non high school grads, unmarried, part-time, in service (i.e. low skill) sector jobs, or in jobs also are supplemented with tips (which would rise them above purely minimum wage earners).

Since the young under 16 can't vote, the rest of the young rarely vote, and since this demographic would tend democratic anyways, why the ruckus over the minimum wage. And is another $.50 cents really going to hurt businesses? Landsburg surmises that most studies showing no effect on jobs have been suppressed, and that only the five showing negative results on jobs get reported. And that would be exactly the New York Times response? No, there is a real reason for the ruckus, and the democrats are being disingenuous about it, to say the least.

So, who exactly benefits from the minimum wage hike? Workers (how I hate that word, so Marxist) who EARN ABOVE THE MINIMUM WAGE. Why? Say you're a worker at a fast-food restaurant for almost 1 year. You started at the minimum wage, $5.15, and in the course of the past year, you've done well, worked hard, and earned a $1 raise. Now, after a year, you're earning $6.15. Then the federal government raises the minimum wage by $.50 to $5.65. Is it becoming clear who benefits most? Not the worker starting out, though the extra half dollar is nice. No, the real beneficiary is the worker who is at $6.15. They have to get a raise as well. And what about all the other workers who've worked their way up from minimum wage? Surely they're "entitled" to a raise as well.

Now there's also another sneaky secret to the minimum wage hike. If, as logic would dictate, all wages would increase, a secondary effect takes place. As workers earn more in dollar amounts, guess what happens to tax receipts? You guessed it.

The real evil in the minimum wage increase battle is that it isn't really aimed at workers at the bottom, but at everyone who earns hourly wages and who is above the minimum wage. And who exactly would those workers be? Union workers. And who are the biggest contributors to the democratic party? Unions. See for yourself. Of the top 20 donors, 14 are unions. I'm sure that's just coincidental though.

Why be against the minimum wage increase? Besides being inflationary, which will only diminish those wage increases, it does a few other things. Since firms can only pay X amount for wages, benefits, etc., called compensation, they will have to cut somewhere, and that would most likely be benefits. Already being done. And, if they raise the minimum wage, then firms will forgo any wage increases for a longer time, the initial "raises" already legislated in. Already being done. And lastly, they will forgo hiring new workers and demand more from the current workers. Already being done.

There is one last problem with an increase in the minimum wage, and that is the labor pool. As government artificially prices people out of the market for labor, guess where businesses will turn? Well, California's minimum wage is $6.75, and guess what California's biggest labor problem is right now? You guessed it, illegal immigration. I don't blame anyone for coming here to work for $5 an hour, especially when the best they could get is $1 hour back home. And if they don't hire undocumented workers, firms will will send those jobs overseas. I think they call that outsourcing. I think Senator Kerry referred to Benedict Arnold CEO's. And now he wants to raise the minimum wage?

(As a side note, refer back to the much reported supermarket in California some months back. Guess what the result was? After months of striking, the clerks got exactly what was offered originally by the stores. That and the loss of good will from a skeptical public.)

That's the real real reason to be opposed the minimum wage increase. And Senator Kerry either understands this and is being deceitful, or doesn't understand this, which makes you wonder what else he has in store. In either case, if elected, the chances of passage are slim to none. I doubt it would pass a Republican house, and I doubt it could get 60 votes to override a filibuster. But it fits nicely into the "two Americas" theme, and it might work to get him elected.

Okay, one more from the interview. Regarding President Clinton campaiging:

KERRY: He will. And there are places the president will go to, he's already committed to do events. Look, Larry, one American would not trade the economy we had in the 1990s, the fact that we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed. When we did go to war, we won it in Kosovo quickly and decisively and appropriately.

I want what he's smoking.

The 1990's economy, built on stock bubbles and CEO malfeasance, came to a halt in March 2000. The numbers are there to prove it.

We were not at war and young Americans were not deployed. Unless I'm forgetting something,

WE WERE ATTACKED ON 9/11

We won it in Kosovo quickly and decisively and appropriately.


We still have troops there. We did not have the international community. We did not exhaust diplomacy. We bombed civilians. What Kosovo showed was we could not rely on the allies to act. We had to lead. And the situation is not any better now than before. Had terrorism not taken precedence the last few years, and our attention could focus on Kosovo, we'd see it as a major disaster.

Senator, you are so totally unfit to lead this nation at a time of war. Oops, I forgot, you don't think we're at war. Which is why you are totally unfit for office.



UPDATE: 7/10/2004

Just thinking, really, Dean campaigned as being from the "democratic wing of the democratic party", a decisive attack on the Clintonian wing. Which is interesting really, seeing as how Clinton was in many ways a Republican president. We had welfare reform, balanced budgets, and spending under control. However, his 90's make the 80's look like the age of altruism. And if he actually were a Republican, imagine the vitriol, the "Rich got richer, poor got poorer" claptrap. A decade of decadence comes to a screeching halt and Bush is left holding the bag. At least there have been corporate indictments from this administration, not pardons.

Kerry seems to want to believe the 90's were everyone sitting around, holding hands, singing "Kum-bay-yah". Maybe they were. At 1600 Pennsylvania.

If you look at the transcript of the Larry King interview, something quite disturbing emerges. Larry King asks Mrs. Heinz Kerry about the war, and here's her reponse:

KING: What do you think of the war in Iraq, Teresa?

HEINZ KERRY: It's a tragedy.

KING: You think it's a mistake?

HEINZ KERRY: I think in terms of diplomacy, it was not diplomatic, meaning we went into it without going all the way to prevent it. And I happen, because I am in the Brookings Board, and the executive committee, of the institution, to have had an all-day briefing on this about six months before. And I heard, you know, very interesting things being said. And I couldn't believe that maybe these things could happen.

KING: In retrospect, would you not go now?

HEINZ KERRY: I would never have gone to war this way. I would have really waited.

And remember, with a vote was to give the administration, and Colin Powell specifically, the mandate, so to speak, to try peace. And they did till the end of February. They actually wanted to go to war in September. So, we were able to maintain peace till then. Why not wait a little longer?

Look closely, you'll see the most disturbing part. The diplomacy part? No. The secret Brookings meetings? Close. The "peace" quotes. Touchdown. The administration was given a mandate to try peace. We were able to maintain peace till then. Is she serious? And there you have the definition of peace: no war. This would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous.

Here's Kerry:

KERRY: I would disagree, Joe (Lieberman). Yes, there is a difference. And it's a very profound difference in terms of the cost to the American people and the risks to our soldiers because from day one -- day one -- way before we went in, I urged this president to do what was necessary diplomatically to build the international support that would have been at our side.

From day one I urged the president to exhaust the remedies available to us so that we didn't rush to war. I wanted this president to give meaning to the words "go to war as a last resort". I don't believe he did, Larry. It's just very simple. He didn't, and the facts show it.

We're paying an unbelievable price in the treasure of our young, and in the costs in billions of dollars to the American people, because this president miscalculated.

Notice that we should "exhaust" our diplomacy and remedies available before we "rush to war". This is a way of saying we're going to avoid war at all costs, a la Munich. And, senator, the facts clearly show that the French and Germans in particular were violating UN sanctions and the embargo not just with the oil-for-food scandal, but with weapons sales as well. The facts clearly show that the French and the Germans had billions in loans to Saddam's regime. The facts clearly show that our "remedies" had been exhausted, I think 17 times, which coincidentally are the number of UN resolutions Saddam violated. The facts clearly show that al Qaeda were operating openly in Baghdad. The facts clearly show that Saddam sent paychecks to Palestinian suicide bombers. The facts clearly show that Saddam banked on the French and Germans blocking the war. And this is the "international community" we need to build support with?

As Kissinger said, statemen have to make exacting decision with inexact information. With what the president had available to him, how could he have waited longer? What else was he supposed to do? After being stabbed in the back by the French at the UN (the whole de Villipein/Powell episode, rememebr that?), could we reasonably be expected to rely on them?

Kerry simply feels that if the world doesn't support us, we can't act. It is obvious, Kerry is not simply fit for the job. He picks an equally unqualified running mate. Even more, we could not survive a Kerry presidency. At least when Carter and Clinton were elected, we did not face the threat we face today. Never have we been presented a more clear choice.

I write two days ago asking if Kerry really wants to win? Now we know the answer. No. Last night on Larry King, when asked for his thoughts on the latest terror warning, said:

Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time. But all Americans are united in our efforts to defeat terrorism.

They offered, but he hasn't had time. Is he serious? Is he even being advised? Does he even care? Then he says:

I believe that John Edwards and I can wage a far more effective war on terror than George Bush has. I think we can do a better job of making America safe. But in these days ahead, we all join together no matter what.

How Senator Kerry? By going to the "international community"? And who are they senator? What specifically are your plans? Do you think capturing UBL is going to end the war?

Iraq is not the fronline in the war on terror because we invaded Iraq. It is the frontline because Iraq was the center of the terrorist world, and the terrorists understand that if Iraq succeeds, they fail. Why don't you get that senator? Why will you not say anything about the loonies in your party who think Bush went to war for oil? Why will say nothing about a ribald fundraiser, which you attended where Bush is lampooned in the most disgusting manner, at a time when we are at war? Or do you think we are not at war?

Mickey Kaus says (scroll down):

But we survived Carter and we'd survive Kerry (though it will be a long, hard slog!). I plan to vote for him because I think a) we need a break* from Bush's strident public global terror war in order to prevent it from becoming a damaging, lifelong West vs. Islam clash--in order to "rebrand" America and digest the hard-won gains we've made in Iraq and Afghanistan (if they even remain gains by next January). Plus, b) it would be nice to make some progress on national health care, even if it's only dialectical "try a solution and find out it doesn't work" progress. I could change my mind--if, for example, I thought Kerry would actually sell out an incipient Iraqi democracy in a fit of "realistic" Scowcroftian stability-seeking.

No we will not survive a Kerry presidency. Clinton allowed al Qaeda to grow for years. And we won't need health care reform as much because there'll be a helluva lot less Americans.

It is good to be right. But not when almost half the country thinks this guy should be president. Of course, as I predicted a few days ago, there will be some bombshells coming. And if Kerry keeps being interviewed, well, the race will be over before it starts. We won't even need the bombshells.

John Edwards has lived the new American Dream. Grow up and get rich suing people. He is the poster boy for the Get Rich Quick through the legal lottery crowd.

I often wonder whether Kerry really wants to win the race. His choice of making Langston Hughes poetry and themes central to his campaign made we ponder this idea. Unlike many people who spend their lives running for the presidency, I don't think Kerry did. That doesn't mean he didn't have political and personal goals. He just never yearned to be POTUS. Let me give a few examples.

1) His Vietnam service. He drops out of college to go fight in an increasingly unpopular war. He didn't have a family military background, he certainly had no impetus for joining, and veteran status was not going to be extremely helpful in local politics, where everyone in Massachusetts starts. Unlike many peoples' decisions about Vietnam, I don't believe his was guided by long term political goals.

2) His post-Vietnam conduct. If he'd have thought it out, he could have protested the war without impugning the integrity of the soldiers. Anyone with an ounce of political ambition would know that lies told to Congress in 1971 would come back to haunt them in a presidential race.

3) His extremely liberal voting record and scant legislative record. He has one of the most liberal voting records of any senator. Surely, had he higher goals, he'd have found a way to moderate his votes (see Hillary), especially in light of his former boss' (Dukakis) being tarred with the liberal label. And his lack of any significant legislative accomplishment means he hasn't really sought the spotlight. The simple fact remains that until last fall, Kerry was simply not a national political figure when he well could have been.

4) His flip-flopping on issues displays short-term political expediency, not long-term goals and he has never had a cause with which he could base a a career. Most politicans display issue duplicity, but he has been prolific.

5) In a campaign where national security is the major issue, he barely mentions it. His passing remark about having a military that is second to nobody makes that crystal clear. it's not that he is not taking the issue of security seriously, he isn't putting a high campaign priority on it at a time when it is on most people's minds. According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the war in Iraq and terrorism are the most important issues for 47% of voters, where only 22% name jobs as the most imprtant issue. Isn't he getting reliable poll data? When almost half the voters are concerend about security, wouldn't it be more prominent in speeches?

Those are just a few observations I've noticed about Kerry. He is really just a cad, a gold digger, a person more concerned with status, what others think of him, than what he actually does. Look at his foreign policy. Basically he is going to make sure the rest of the world likes us. Makes you wonder if the campaign is some sort of personal catharsis or something.

So, does this guy really want to win? If he did, don't you think he'd do a much better job campaigning? Let's start with the McCain fiasco. No matter how much McCain helps his friend out by saying he wasn't offered the job, it made Kerry look foolish. Less than a week after courting him, McCain shows up and gives a rousing intro to Bush. McCain's a maverick, but he's no Jeffords. He's very solid on conservative issues like abortion, guns, etc., and whatever moderates came into the fold, this was sure to piss of the democratic operatives, party loyalists, and liberal base. What was the guy thinking?

He spends weeks going over all the VP prospects, and he comes up with the obvious choice, and announces it early. This leads to even less interest in the convention where Kerry will need to connect with more than the already committed. Then when he makes the announcement, John Edwards was in another state. So, he introduces him and there's no big victory, arms in the air, picture. By the time they get a chance to share the stage, it's not big news. Seriously, who is running this guys campaign.

Instead of spending July fourth with veterans, he spends it in a small town talking about his growing up and working on a farm learning to cuss. Now there's a few things seriously wrong with this. Unless you are a DNA democrat, who is going to look at the brahmin Kerry and think, "yeah, farmboy"? Also, he talks about going to work on a farm like it was some kind of vacation or learning experience. I have never farmed, but I do know that farming isn't some poetic form of life. It's back-breaking, labor intensive work, not some neat summer excursion for rich N'Eastern brats to learn how the other half lives. And he'd have learned that farmers are salt-of-the-earth, God-fearing, folk. Sure, they aren't laissez faire free-market folk, but they aren't to keen on abortion, gay marriage, and secular liberalism. Who plans these campaign stops for him?

Getting back to the Hughes theme, Kerry has to know what Hughes was about. He was a Marxist, and his "Let America be America" poem is a scathing attack on America. None of this is disqualifying, and Hughes certainly is a great poet, but the central theme is this: America is a horrible, wretched, oppressive place, and needs to be redeemed by the we, the people. Of course, if you think about it, John Edwards "two Americas" and Dean's "take back America" blather, neatly fit Hughes' agenda. If this is really Kerry's central campaign theme, than he hasn't thought about the political ramifications of this too deeply. Is this guy getting political advice? If he is, he is either paying way too much, or is not listening. This would be tantamount to Bush citing Woodrow Wilson regarding race relations.

Mickey Kaus has done a great job highlighting more of these. If Kerry really wants to be president, he could show alot more competence campaigning for the job. Not that that should decide the election, but if he's going to campaign that the Bush administration is incompetent, he better at least have a competent campaign. And right now, he doesn't.

A while ago I predicted that Kerry can't beat Bush. I also predicted the surrogates would unleash the wrath of hell on Bush. Well, does Fahrenheit 9/11 qualify? Then, I predicted Bush winning with 53% of the vote. With the selection of Edwards as VP, this solidifies these predictions.

After many months of attacks from the democrats, difficult times in Iraq including Abu Ghraib, and an economy rebounding well, but not in the minds of everyone, the election is deadlocked. But is it really? Kerry has yet to break the mid to high 40's. Bush's numbers have ebbed and flowed, but Kerry can't get higher. And he won't. Mickey Kaus has highlighted the "stealth strategy" that Kerry is employing. The more people know about Kerry, the less they like him. Bush's approval numbers are rising, and though his poll numbers are not, it is not cause for concern. Kerry's support comes mainly from the anti-Bush voters who would vote for Hitler if he was a democrat.

Bush is the guy that beat Ann Richards then got re-elected with something like 65% of the vote. This is the same guy that handed Gore his hat in three debates. This is the same guy that outmaneuvered Al Gore in Florida. This is a guy that plays for keeps. His dad was too nice. He's not. He's is continually being underestimated, and if F9/11 does anything to the Bush-haters, it ought to convince them that this guy is far smarter than they want to believe. Last time I checked, Harvard doesn't give out MBA's like Halloween candy. But hate blinds people in many ways, and it will impossible for haters to use their brains.

Also, you think Karl Rove is an idiot? You think Bush hasn't selected the best team money (and he has tons of it) can buy? You think the team is sitting back doing nothing? WIthin minutes, they had a mile long dossier on Edwards on the internet, and it is already casting questions on the pick. You think they don't have some cards up their sleeve. You think they're not going to pull out all the stops? Kerry basically picks a younger more energetic version of himself. They are among the most liberal members of the senate.

Edwards' story is a great rags to riches story, but it focuses on domestic issues. And right now, ultimately, domestic issues will take a back seat to national security. Edwards "two Americas" stump plays great to the democratic faithful, but lacks basis in reality. And in a growing economy, it will lack a larger audience. But, for all the excitement that Edwards will bring, there are some surprises awaiting the democrats.

So, what does Team Bush have in store? Yes, these are predictions, but you heard it here first.

1) The "Kerry asks permission" ad.
Numerous Kerry quotes, maybe even Kerry's voice, flash across the screen about the need to restore the relationships with our traditional allies. Of course he means France. The viewers will see a door with the name France on it and will see a man approach the door and knock and knock and knock without getting an answer. Then Bush will come in and say "I will never ask any nation for permission before defending the United States of America." The point will be clear. Kerry will spend the rest of the campaign trying to convince voters he will be willing to act alone if necessary. Yeah right.

2) The French Connection ad.
Referencing number 1, all of the various French malfeasances will be highlighted. They will range from the violation of UN sanctions, French deceit at the UN to Powell, French recalcitrance regarding NATO troops in Iraq, French involvement in the Oil-for-Food scandal, etc. By tying Kerry to France, Kerry will have to either alienate voters or alienate the French. Hmmm, which will he choose?

3) The Oil-For-Food scandal and Darfur inaction
Right now, much of the reporting of the scandal has been under the radar. But when Bush turns up the heat, and brings some Iraqis to testify about the rampant corruption, Kerry's multilateralism will ring hollow. Bush pressed for AIDS relief to Africa a couple of years ago, and now, he can turn the spotlight on Sudan. He can make it a central theme, that we cannot let a genocide continue, and if the UN has any moral relevance, it needs to act. It didn't on Iraq, and it hasn't in Sudan. Note the recent Powell trip. The UN just doesn't have the same cache' that Kerry wishes it had.

4) The WDM bombshell
There are enough reports and evidence to conclude that Saddam's WMD's are in Syria. Like the Oil-for-Food scandal and any good news from Iraq, the mainstream press has dropped the ball on this one. It doesn't fit their "Bush lied" scenario. Sometime in September or maybe even October, the Bush admin will drop a major bombshell that the WMD's are in Syria. Even if they don't have access to them, they will be able to put immense pressure on the Syrians to open up to inspection of the Bekaa Valley. Now, they know the Syrians cannot use them, as that would bring total destruction from Israel, as well as us. And, the last thing the Syrian Ba'athists want is to end up like the Iraqi Ba'athists. Remember, al Qaeda operatives came into Jordan from Syria with truckloads of chemical weapons a few months ago. This one is going to be HUGE!!!

5) The unasked question
The one question that was never asked of Kerry, or any other democratic candidate was simply this: given all the intelligence, however incorrect it might have been, you don't know it though, given the intel on WMD's, on the al Qaeda and Saddam links, the breaking down of sanctions, the actions of Saddam funding Palestinian terrorists, and given what everyone including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, James Woolsey, Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, and even John Kerry and John Edwards said regarding the danger Saddam posed to the world and the US, and given all that in a post 9/11 world, as president, what would you have done? Would Saddam still be in power today? If not, how else would you have gone about removing him? Was Saddam in power an option? If so, under what circumstances, and why?

I am sure there are more, but these alone will blow the John-John ticket out of the water. I am not over confident, but I am also not terribly worried. Anything could happen. And maybe Peggy Noonan is right. Maybe America is just tired of being in throes of major historical events. But, I tend to think that when challenged, Americans rise to the occasion. And re-electing Bush with a large enough margin to justify the policy of pre-emption and continue to fight the war on terror are part of that rising. America will respond. I have complete confidence. I got it from the Gipper.

The pick of John Edwards reveals some very interesting aspects of the Kerry campaign. Though Edwards is immensely charming and personable, and not a wild-eyed liberal, he comes with some interesting baggage. One, he is arguably the richest man in the Senate. Yes, he came from humble beginnings, but he and Kerry are probably 1 and 2 in the Senate regarding bank accounts. It will be a hard sell to the "middle class" to have the two wealthiest members of the Senate "fighting for you". Two, he is relatively a lightweight politically. The Senate seat was his first office, and he hadn't even served a single term before running for president. He also has no significant legislative accomplishments. His rather short resume' will be a double edged sword. Three, if ever a group was more universally loathed than lawyers, I would like to know who they are, and Edwards is a trial lawyer. Four, the question will linger of Edwards' qualification to be the President. He could very well be the Dan Quayle of 2004.

The Edwards pick also belies some of the thought process that went into a VP pick. The McCain noise a few weeks ago couldn't have been all for show. It clearly made whoever took the number 2 spot clearly the number 2 number 2. It is hardly a vote of confidence that there is not a single person in your party to choose, that you have to jump across the aisle for the "dream ticket". And, Kerry clearly bypassed many in his own party who would lend gravitas to the ticket. And by picking Edwards, he chose a running mate for other reasons besides being the best pick. Clearly Kerry hasn't been lighting a fire on the campaign trail, and he and his campaign are in desperate need of some excitement. Simply being not Bush is not going to carry him to victory.

The Edwards pick is curious for other reasons as well. Both men voted for the war, but voted against the $87 billion. (Well, Kerry actually voted for it, ah nevermind...) Much to his credit, Kerry hasn't joined in the chorus of morons who chant mindless slogans, however he has been remarkably silent on the lies and insinuations of Fahrenheit 9/11. However, regarding the war, they both seem to have thought that it was necessary to fight, but not necessary to win. And Kerry has oft repeated that we were misled into war, which implies that both Kerry and Edwards were easily misled. But since Edwards was on the Senate Intelligence committee, he had access to the exact same intelligence that Bush had.

The best they can say about the war is that it was right to do, but done wrong. On that, they would have some valid points for sure, but that still leaves open the question of what they'd have done differently. And on that, they have never offered anything but criticisms. And Kerry is already suspect on national security. A choice of Joe Biden or Joe Lieberman would have been a much more solid choice, as both men are solidly behind the war and have impeccable security credentials. Kerry has vacillated on the war throughout the primaries and his pick of Edwrads offers nothing substantive to assure voters he is serious about security.

The only other logical choice for Kerry would have been to choose a more anti-war candidate, such as Tom Harkin. Kerry needs to walk a fine line between getting all the Deaniacs out to vote and not alienating the center of his party and the undecided voters. By picking Edwards, he does neither. So, he could have had a more Dean friendly choice, somebody the anti's could rally around, while Kerry plays up his Vietnam service to the center.

Edwards main campaign theme was that there are "two Americas", one for the privileged and one for the rest of us. It is going to very hard for Kerry to be one of the "rest of us". But does class warfare still resonate today? When more than half the owners of stock are middle class households and when home ownership is at an all-time high, it is doubtful. But, it is a message that resonates well as it requires no proof, just acknowledgment, as well as playing well to the democratic faithful.

There is no question that John Kerry is a patriot. His views on security are decidedly different than the president's. Even today, Kerry talked about restoring old alliances. I have yet to understand how that will help make America safer. Perhaps he can offer an explanation during the debates. For him to win however, he needs to talk down the economy, talk down the war on terror, make the war in Iraq seem a unnecessary and poorly led, and make Americans feel unsafe and unsure. This is a tough task to do. And it's not one that leads the winner to a strong position in the White House.

After a month hiatus to finish up some family/business issues, I'm back. So, to all my fan out there, as Ed McMahaon used to say, "Here's Johnny." Except I am not Johnny. Oh well.