Back in March I predicted Bush winning 53-46. Now, the swift boat story is gaining traction. There IS something to this story, the best evidence being the Kerry campaign's response. Ad hominem attacks, shifting stories, etc. I predicted (point nine) that Kerry would explode, that he hasn't been held to the scutiny of a national campaign.

In a word, he's history.

An article by Charley Reese called Vote for a man, not a puppet is making its way around emails of the Bush bashers. Reese is a long time conservative columnist and has given the Bush haters some joy. Fine, let them have their fun. Funny how they feel differently when democrats break ranks.

One needs to look at history to understand the Republican party today, and why there is dissension. From at least the 1920's through the 1960's, the Republican party was the Rockefeller, country-club party, and were clearly the minority party. The party was transformed by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan politically and by William F Buckley's magazine, National Review. Though not a majority party, the party unified around two primary goals: anti-communism and limited government.

The party grew in both numbers and strength, reaching its apex in 1980 with the election of Reagan. This was competed by Newt Gingrich and the party in 1994 when they secured both houses of congress. Will Rogers remarked once that he didn't belong to an organized political party, he was a democrat. The same thing is happening to the Republican party today. Once a party unified on a singular agenda, they now have a wide disparity of views on a number of issues.

Today, the Republicans are the majority, holding 229 house seats, 51 senate seats, and 26 governorships. Bill Clinton rescued the party by moving them to the center and singing off on much of the Republican agenda: welfare reform, balanced budgets, and the "end of the era of big government". On most issues, either the country is split 50/50, or their view is held by the majority of people.

In fact, the last democrat to get over 50% of the vote for president was Carter in 1980 when he got 50.08%. Before that, it was Johnson in 1964, while Republican have gotten over 50% in 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988.

The democrats today are a minority party, which has yet to fully sink in, as historically, in most peoples' minds, they were always the majority. Looking at the convention, you see almost unanimity on the war, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, etc. This is should not come as a surprise as those who holds differing views have relatively little place in their party.

There are however several segments of the Republican party. There are the Christian conservatives, part of the "base", concerned primarily with social issues, but sharing many conservative fiscal views as well. There are the libertarians, who want a drastically reduced federal government, expanded states' rights, and balanced budgets. They are split socially as many, like Goldwater support abortion, and many, like Reagan oppose abortion.

There is also a split on foreign policy. One segment, the much maligned neo-cons, favors a proactive foreign policy, expanding of democracy, and human rights abroad. Another segment is heavily isolationist, reserving military action only for defense. This group is also historically very anti-Israel pro-Arab. Though the war on terror has unified support, how to wage it and win it has not.

The last group is moderates and former democrats who hold a variety of views. Many left the democratic party over their extreme liberal social agenda, yet are union members who favor trade protectionism and labor. Many are homeowners, taxpayers, and small business people who struggle to overcome lawsuits, high taxes, and stifling regulation favored by democrats. Many are veterans who were upset at the virulent, anti-military, blame America first attitude taken by the democrats.

The convention this month will highlight the differences, where moderate Republicans like Arnold and Rudy Guiliani will speak, as well as conservatives like Rick Santorum. Overlooked in this internecine debate is that it couldn't take place in the democratic party. The late Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey, a good democrat in every sense, was strongly pro-life, and thus denied a chance to speak at the democratic convention in 1992.

Another factor is the media is overwhelmingly one-sided. Newsweek editor Evan Thomas recently said that the media's strong support for Kerry will add 15 percent to his base. Also recently, Daniel Okrent, editor of the NY Times wrote, "Is the NY Times a liberal newspaper? Of course it is". If Kerry is getting 15% from the media, and the "paper of record", the paper that sets the news agenda for much of the major media outlets is decidedly liberal, then it is going to have a strong effect on the political landscape.

Part of the split is also due to George Bush. He has gone on a spending spree, nor failed to address the social security time-bomb, which has angered fiscal conservatives. He has not fought for his judicial appointments which has angered social conservatives. He has sought a dramatic foreign policy agenda, trying to remake the middle east and promote democracy, angering isolationists. His amnesty plan for illegal immigrants has angered large numbers of his party. He has enacted tariffs on steel and lumber, angering free-traders. His pushing of the FMA and opposition to federal funding of stem cell research has angered some social moderates in his party. And that is within his own party.

He has spoken of his faith and lobbied for faith based initiatives which angers the secularists and leftists. He has cut taxes, which angers most democrats. He has fought a war, which again angers most democrats. He has rejected treaties like the ABM treaty and the Kyoto treaty, again which angers most democrats.

What is truly amazing is that he is not 10-15 points behind Kerry right now. The Republican party is going through growing pains. The democrats emerged as a majority during the depression and World War 2. The Republicans grew as much from the people joining the party, as from people leaving, or being pushed out of, the democratic party. On many issues, there is not a clear cut difference between the parties. THe actual economic differences are trivial. The major issues facing this country have long since played out.

Both parties are struggling to find their identities. One is just much more open to differences of opinion.

Senator Kerry lays out Iraq Plan. It is plain and simple: Cut and Run.

I know what our troops go through when they carry an M-16 in a dangerous place and can't tell friend from foe.

Reality check Senator. Our troops are not having a hard time discerning friend from foe. Those carrying RPG's, AK-47's, and wrapping up their faces, they're the enemy. We're killing Sadr's thugs by the scores, and I don't hear too many civilians being killed. The enemy on the other hand IS killing civilians.

I will meet our sacred commitment to our brave troops in Iraq — to end their mission successfully and bring them home as soon as possible

And you'll do that by voting against their funding? What exactly is their mission? Sadly, you have laid you're cards on the table. You're goal is to bring them home as soon as possible. We are facing an enemy who has patience.

Recently you claimed that the president, in taking the offensive against terrorists worldwide, has encouraged terrorist recruitment. That is absurd. What do you think it says to them when you're goal is to cut and run? They will see a weak America, unwilling to sustain the fight. That will surely encourage them.

You're plan is to:

Lead NATO to make the security of Iraq one of its global missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace there.

What planet are you living on Senator? Most of NATO is helping. You're friends the French recently blocked attempts to use NATO forces to train Iraqis. What does it say to all our allies who you've so casually dismissed? If I were them, I'd feel allienated.

NATO participation will open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries.

Such as?

Already several Arab nations have offered to help, plus we have Japan, South Korea, are helping in Iraq.

Internationalize the reconstruction efforts in Iraq to end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation and help coordinate the rebuilding.

In case you haven't heard, we are no longer "occupying" Iraq. The Iraqi interim government has full sovreignty and can ask us to leave any time it chooses. This comment only serves to assist the terrorists in Iraq trying to derail progress.

Launch a massive and accelerated training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can provide real security for the Iraqi people, including a major role for NATO. This is not a task for America alone; we must join as a partner with other nations.

What do you think we have been doing? Again, NATO is playing large role, it's you're buddies the French that are derailing things.

Plan for Iraq's future by working with our allies to forgive Iraq's multibillion-dollar debt and involve our allies in the development of a new Iraqi constitution and the political arrangements needed to protect minority rights. At the same time, we should convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's national affairs.

The administration has been working to secure forgiveness, and has already received some promises. Even France has agreed to forgive some. But, this legitamizes the rule of Saddam. Two of the largest Iraqi creditors, France and Russia, are also heavily involved in the oil-for-food scandal.

...it's a realistic plan to share the burden and secure the peace and bring our troops home.

Here we have in a nushell, the Kerry foreign policy. If bringing our troops home is a sign we've secured the peace, then World War 2 is not over because we still have troops in Europe.

You say that "At stake is whether Iraq will complete its march to democracy or degenerate into the next proving ground for terrorists." The next proving ground?

Are you that clueless? How about this or this? Saddam's Iraq was a proving ground for years. He funded terrorism, had weapons programs in development, had long standing ties to terrorists, had terror camps at Salman Pak and had the al Qaeda associated Ansar al Islam operating freely with his support. In addition, he sent thousands of dollars to families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

At a time of war, his foreign policy amounts to cut and run from Iraq, fight wars only when we have to, restore relations with France and Germany, and return the the Clintonian era of fighting terrorism with lawyers.

This pacifism enervates our ability to fight and defeat the terrorists around the world and encourages our enemies to be patient and wait.


To call this reckless is an understatement. It is simply dangerous.

Apparently, diplomacy and our European allies are not too successful in slowing the development of nuclear arms.

American intelligence officials and outside nuclear experts have concluded that the Bush administration's diplomatic efforts with European and Asian allies have barely slowed the nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea over the past year, and that both have made significant progress...

In the past two weeks Iran announced that it was resuming the production of centrifuges needed to produce highly enriched uranium though it has said it is still “suspending” actual enrichment activities. While the United States has threatened to take the issue to the United Nations Security Council, it has yet to win support from many allies...

The Iranians appear to be betting that Mr. Kerry, if elected, would talk directly to their leaders. Mr. Kerry has also said he would engage in bilateral discussions with North Korea; Mr. Bush has insisted on multilateral talks.

Is this a case for pre-emption? I think what the administration is doing is walking a fine line between using diplomatic measures, and knowing they will fail. This justifies the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war, and more importantly, shows the utter weakness of Kerry's position. Let's just hope that 1) this becomes a campaign issue, and 2) Bush comes out forcefully, thus challenging the Kerry doctrine of "war only when we have to".

Kerry's position is a totally reclkless and untenable. This man would cause grave injury to our security.