Let's take a trip back in time:

On 3/21 I wrote in You heard it here first:

I've been saying this for a while, but let me put words to paper. Or whatever the web is. The election will be Bush 53% Kerry 46%. I might not be the only one to predict this, but I haven't seen to many, so I guess I'm one of the first.

On 8/7 I wrote in Kerry's in big trouble:

John Kerry's campaign is in big trouble, and he knows it. At least his campaign people have to know it, and I think they're telling him. No, it's not the Swift Vets ad, though that will dog him for awhile. And it's not even his vacillations on Iraq. It's simple election math. Why nobody has figured this out before is a mystery to me.

I am hardly a political scientist, and I'm not writing a dissertation, but the conclusion should be obvious. Kerry can't get 50% of the vote, and right now, he is polling as high as he can. He cannot poll higher and he has three months until the election and cannot afford to lose any support. Talk about pressure.

So, it was clear two months ago that Kerry was in big trouble because he can't get 50% of the vote. I didn't even address the electoral vote dilemma he faced, since even now, he faces a serious uphill battle there.

As I wrote back in August from the same article:

In every election since 1960, when foreign policy mattered, Republicans have won. (I wonder what the liberals today would have said about Kennedy's "missile gap" and the effects of that. Russia began rapid expansion and put missiles in Cuba. Oops.) Only when issues are closer to home do democrats have a chance. And this year, what is issue number one? Iraq and the War on Terror.

And after three debates, what exactly is Kerry's position on Iraq?

Let's look at two recent polls, one from Zogby and one from Rasmussen. Neither polling service has reported favorably for the president, and in fact, Zogby has often leaned democratic, being the one poll showing greater support for Kerry than any other poll. Currently, Zogby has it 48-44 Bush and Rasmussen has it 49-46 Bush.

Looking further beneath the polls, even more damning data appears for Kerry. From Zogby:

“While Bush-- now at 48%-- had another good night continuing his upward trend, Kerry appears stuck at 44%. The good news for the President is that he has improved his performance among the small group of undecideds. Nearly a quarter now say that he deserves to be re-elected—up from 18% in our last poll.

Kerry is "stuck" at 44% while Bush makes inroads with undecided voters. From Rasmussen, even more damning inforamtion for Kerry:

The number of voters who prefer Bush over Kerry on both national defense and the economy has returned to the levels that existed before the first debate.

It is 53-42 on security and 49-45 on the economy, both in favor of Bush. Bush is regaining his lead among decided voters, undecided voters are turning towards Bush, Kerry is stuck in the mid 40's and the electoral college is increasingly more out of reach. All this is after three debates, including the debacle in the first. Bush's approval numbers have returned to pre-debate levels. This does not portend well for Kerry.

There is an explanation for this. As I had written earlier, the election is about war, terrorism, and Iraq. For all the problems in Iraq, a majority of Americans intrinsically see that Iraq is a fundamental part of the war on terror. Why else would every jihadist converge on Iraq if it was simply a "diversion".

Andrew Sullivan wrote in All the same that there wouldn't be that much difference between Kerry's and Bush's Iraq policies after January.

But when you ask yourself what their differences are in a tangible sense with regard to the practical questions of the next four years, the contrast isn't so stark.

Robert Novak has even hinted that a withdrawal is in the near future for a second Bush administration. But that overlooks the one overarching difference between Kerry and Bush.

Bush will fight the war on terror and Kerry won't. Pursuing terrorists where they live isn't even close to the same thing. But the differences are deeper than that, and Kerry revealed his hand in the NY Times article. Bush believes we can, must, and ultimately will, win the war. Kerry believes it's not a war and even more importantly, that it's not winnable.

I wrote in An Important Question, Senator:

Senator Kerry, you have said that Amreica cannot afford to lose in Iraq. Why?

I think the answer to this would reveal more about Kerry than anything we have heard the last year.

We finally got our answer. Americans don't like defeat or defeatists. In fact, where did Bush begin to lose support for the war? After Fallujah. I wrote in Mogadallujah:

If we don't pursue the terrorists in Fallujah, and we appear to be backing down from a fight, then the president will lose the support of the American people, and simply embolden his critics and the jihadists. Not going into Fallujah was a huge mistake. It was bigger than even disbanding the Iraqi army, which, all told, wasn't a huge mistake. If a bad month and stronger criticism has weakened our resolve, then the president will lose the one issue he has over Kerry. It is the one issue that voters will overwhelmingly side with him on, and that is his unrelenting pursuit of terrorists.

Voters will overlook mistakes made in the Iraqi war. They know it's going to happen and they'll allow for mistakes as long as a) we learn from them, and b) keep up the fight. We didn't keep up the fight in Fallujah. If we needed an Iraqi face on it, fine. But not at the expense of our commitment to winning. Though not Ap Bia, Fallujah could very well be the Mogadishu of the War on Terror.

Fortunately for Bush, Kerry has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Voters have overlooked mistakes as long as we stay on the offensive. Kerry's criticism rose along with his anti-war rhetoric, as did the boldness of the "insurgency" after we retreated. New successes against Ramadi and increasing the pressure back on Fallujah have helped in Iraq. It also helps back home.

Fareed Zakaria wrote in How to pick a war president:

The candidates should face three tests that help reveal their strengths and weaknesses as leaders in war. First, how do they define this conflict? Second, how do they define success? Finally, how do they think victory can be achieved? As we watch the debate this week, we should bear these questions in mind, listen for answers and judge the candidates accordingly.

The debates served one very useful purpose. They answered these question very clearly, and on all three Kerry loses. And so will he lose in December. I had my doubts recently, but I never should have doubted the wisdom of the American people. When you try to unseat an incumbent, especially in a time of war, you have convince voters that not only is the incumbent unworthy of reelection, but that you are a credible alternative. Kerry has done neither.

Update: Even before I finish writing, the TIPP poll shows the exact same thing, Bush 47-44.

The talk of the town after the first debate was how "presidential" John Kerry looked. He stood tall, communicated well, and had command of the facts. What his policies on Iraq are however, remain a mystery. We do know he wants to give nuclear material the Iranians, go unilateral with North Korea, and make sure US actions pass a "global test". Apparently all that matters is he appears presidential.

Two years after throwing out the Taliban, Afghanistan just held national elections. The historic importance of this event is almost indescribable. A nation, torn apart by civil war, terrorism, and economic disaster is managing to hold elections. People lined up peacefully and waited for hours. Ballots were collected and counted, and nary a terrorist bomb exploded nor ballot box destroyed. Over 10 million Afghans, almost half of them women went to the polls.

In spite of threats of violence, voters express optimism. How did some respond

At some polling stations men and women wept tears of joy as they got the chance to choose their President for the first time. It wasn't without its difficulties but overall the international observers say it was fair.

Hamid Karzai has faced assassination attempts and every day works courageously to bring stability and democracy to that embattled region. Today schools are crowded with young boys, and finally, girls. Millions have returned to their homeland in the largest repatriation in history. Business is booming in Kabul, shops are opening, investment is flowing in. Much work still needs to be done. The country still faces obstacles and violent opponents. But this an historic transformation.

And what has been the response of Senator Kerry? I searched google. I searched johnkerry.com. I searched high and low, and I guess what I found. Absolutely nothing. To say this is repugnant and disgusting is an understatement. This is a most unpresidential act of a man totally unfit to be president. How difficult would it be to mention the significance of "Ten and a half million Afghan people (a turnout of more than 85 per cent) swapping bullets for ballots." (eurocorps link)

Kerry is an embarrassment. Prime Minister Allawi comes to the US and all Kerry can do is criticize him while his campaign chair calls him a puppet. Afghanistan holds historic elections and he says not a word. Perhaps because if Afghanistan can hold elections, then maybe, just maybe, so too can Iraq. And that would put a damper in his presidential plans.

Thirty years ago he betrayed his fellow "band of brothers" by calling them war criminals, simply for political gain. What has changed?

Look at this picture.


They're not lining up to learn to fly planes into buildings, to strap bombs to their chest, or to behead western journalists. They're lining up to vote. And they are waiting to vote because of George Bush. John Kerry can't or won't even acknowledge this. How to describe this failure? Embarrassing. Disgusting. Juvenile. Selfish. Petty.

Unpresidential.

...As you know, I was a strong supporter of the Iraq war and want to thank the president for the courage and leadership he has shown. As I wrote several months ago, Iraq is central to the war on terror. As you know, I was at the forefront of our efforts against Iraq when I co-authored the Iraqi Liberation Act. Saddam posed a serious threat to the US and to the world. Currently the terrorists in Iraq are posing a serious threat to a successful transition to representaive government. We have a tremendous amount of work ahead of us. Has the war gone smoothly? No. No war ever does. I have been regularly briefed by the administration.

I did criticize the administration for failure to secure the borders and disbanding the army. But, I reiterate, the war in Iraq was fundamental to our security. What I think we need to do is evaluate where we went right, and where we went wrong, and change strategies accordingly. As president, I plan to do that. That is where the president and I fundamentally differ.

Moderator: Mr. President, you have one minute to respond.

Bush: Again, let me thank my opponent for his support and consistency on the Iraq war. He has been a leader in the Senate and a strong supporter of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fundamental difference between us is in continuity. We have been evaluating and assessing operations and have made considerable changes.

Some details cannot be discussed here tonight, as the Senator has mentioned previously. He has been attending security and intelligence briefings with members of the administration, and he is up to date with the current ground situation. Since we cannot discuss specific details...
...
...
And I think that is where we differ.

Moderator: Well, on to the next topic. Senator Lieberman, you have said that...


Well, it was a dream.

John Edwards launched his campaign on a "Two Americas" platform. Of course, that only played to the hardcore democratic faithful and has fallen on deaf ears with the population at large, thus it's total absence from Kerry's answers at the debate last Thursday. But it is ever present in the debate on foreign policy, and it is this difference which is most striking between Bush and Kerry.

30 years ago Kerry testified in the senate that:

and we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now.

Not much has changed in his outlook. In the New York Times interview, he equated terrorism to gambling and prostitution and says he wants to reduce terrorism to a "nuisance". Now, oddly enough, I think I understand what he's trying to say. It's just that this analogy sheds light into the soul of the man. He simply sees a different America than Bush does.

This election is clearly about which America we want to be. Are we to be, in FDR's words, the "arsenal of democracy" or just another nation at the UN? Churchill spoke of America's uniqueness when he said:

The price of greatness is responsibility. If the people of the United States had continued in a mediocre station, struggling with the wilderness, absorbed in their own affairs, and a factor of no consequence in the movement of the world, they might have remained forgotten and undisturbed beyond their protecting oceans: but one cannot rise to be in many ways the leading community in the civilised world without being involved in its problems, without being convulsed by its agonies and inspired by its causes.

If this has been proved in the past, as it has been, it will become indisputable in the future. The people of the United States cannot escape world responsibility. Although we live in a period so tumultuous that little can be predicted, we may be quite sure that this process will be intensified with every forward step the United States make in wealth and in power. Not only are the responsibilities of this great Republic growing, but the world over which they range is itself contracting in relation to our powers of locomotion at a positively alarming rate.

Churchill spoke these words in 1943, yet they are every bit as prescient and relevent today. Whose vision of America does this sound like? The candidate who believes we cannot simultaneously fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or does this sound like someone who believes America, in Reagan's words to be the "last best hope of mankind"?

I think it is obvious why Kerry chose gambling and prostitution analogies. Both of these are completely unwinnable battles, and likewise, Kerry sees the war on terrorism as unwinnable. There are clearly two visions of America in competition here.

Bush sees America able to transform the world.
Kerry sees America only able to incite more terrorism

Bush sees the American military able to act alone if necessry.
Kerry sees us needing our "allies".

Bush sees America the force of right and good in the world.
Kerry feels we must pass a "global test", proving to the world our actions are just.

Bush sees America's enemies as the enemies of freedom.
Kerry sees America's enemies as her own creation.

Bush believes America has the courage and fortitude to fight a long war, to susatain hardships, to endure, and to prevail. Thus casualties are the necessry price of freedom.
Kerry believes America hasn't the heart to sustain a fight. Thus casualties are the unnecessary result of poor leadership.

Bush believes that we can and will rise to the challenges that face us.
Kerry believes we can't and won't.

Bush believes that only total victory is the final outcome.
Kerry believes that "bringing the troops home" is final victory.

Bush has a grand vision.
Kerry simply has a plan.

How important is this war? The Athenians at Marathon, the Spartans at Thermopylae, the Romans at Chalons, the Franks at Tours, and the Americans at Normandy all held the fate of Western Civilizaiton in their hands. Who would you want to lead? What if Themistocles had decided that a satrapy was preferable? What if Lincoln had decided that the casualties at Antietam were too high? What if Churchill had been swayed by Galipoli and the Somme? What if Roosevelt had thought Normandy too bloody? What if Reagan had thought confrontation too dangerous? What would the world look like?

What if Washington had chosen the comforts of Mount Vernon over the hardships of Valley Forge?

There are two visions of America at stake in this election. One holds that we cannot, one holds that we can and must. I stand with with history on this one. We can and we must. This is an historical election. It is 1242 and the Mongols are at the gates of Vienna.

500 hundred years from now they will write about this war. Will it be Tours or Tenochtitlan? It depends on which vision of America wins in November.

Poor poor Andrew Sullivan. So obsessed with his own personal issue, he has lost perspective. His anger at the president over a constitutional amendment has clouded his judgment. His latest article, Kerry's Momentum: Can Bush Stop It? is an example in wishful thinking.

First, while the election has tightened, which everyone thought would happen, Bush is still up by 4-5% in ABC and Rasmussen polls. Kerry is still in the mid 40's, where he has been almost the entire election. If he has momentum, it is his support has solidified, not widened.

"My own impression was that Edwards easily won the debate on substance, but I was in a minority." Then maybe your distaste for Bush has clouded your judgment. Most people who saw the debates, came away with one impression of John Edwards: lightweight. Fortunately, as you say, "No one, however, believed that the debate changed the direction of the election as a whole. Vice-presidential debates never do."

"And so last Friday night, you saw the president give it all he's got. Bush was immeasurably better both in substance and style than he had been the week before - mostly coherent, energetic and even eloquent at times. On abortion, Iraq, and even stem cell research, he was strong, and even moving." The president did. He provided succinct, clear, and definitive answers to his policies and actions.

"But the problem was: Kerry certainly didn't seem too liberal. He emphasized fiscal responsibility more effectively than Bush did. He promised to add 40,000 new troops to the military. He vowed to restore old traditions of global coalitions." The problem is that Kerry sounds moderate. His record however is another matter. His words and deeds betray him. His positions and his words on the war would be funny if it wasn't a war. On 10/2, I wrote:

On Thursday night a man came before the American people and basically asked them to do two things: "Forget everything I've said and forget everything I've done." And the American people apparently are.

Apparently Mr. Sullivan did exactly that.

"More damaging, however, than Kerry's unexpectedly resilient debate performances are what Harold MacMillan once famously called "events, dear boy, events." The week began with a leaked private speech by L. Paul Bremer, Bush's hand-picked head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Bremer told his audience that "the single most important change - the one thing that would have improved the situation - would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout" the occupation." That's not exactly right. He did say that initially more troops would have been needed, however, he has thoroughly supported the president. Or perhaps that wouldn't fit Mr. Sullivan's agenda.

"And then the Duelfer report provided another body-blow. The fundamental rationale for the war - the threat from Saddam's existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - was declared wrong by the president's own study group. Yes, you can still argue that the decision to go to war was still the right one. I certainly would. But you simply cannot argue that the Bush administration's central rationale has been borne out. On the contrary. It has been demolished." Really? I guess Australia doesn't think so. And WMD's were part of the rationale, which included links to al Qaeda, something the 9/1 commission bore out. And carping about not enough troops or lack of WMD's ignores the fact that Libya has given up nukes, the Pakistani AQ Khan nuclear bazaar has been broken up, and Iran has been engaged. Elections are taking place in Afghanistan, will be in Iraq, and even will be taking place in Saudi Arabia.

"When asked to name three mistakes he had made as president, Bush couldn't name one. A little humility would go a long way at this point, but Bush seems unable to summon it up." What is it about liberals and contrition? An athlete makes a racist remark and all hell breaks loose if the person doesn't apologize. I don't recall FDR apologizing for Pearl Harbor, Normandy, Market Garden, Tarawa, Savo Island, Schweinfurt, Ardennes, and on, and on, and on. And really, admit a mistake for what? Bringing the fight to the terrorists? Fighting a war unlike any in history, for fighting an unconventional war and seeking real, democratic change in a part of the world unfamiliar with it? Mistakes are made by people who lead. Success comes when we learn from them.

"And then the final employment numbers before the election showed an increase only half of expectations. It's foolish to believe that the U.S. economy is in deep trouble." Yes, the economy is still struggling. We're in a war. Europe is experiencing no growth. But the economy is better than being reported. And most people understand the recession was caused by 9/11 not tax cuts.

"It's worth recalling at this point that very few incumbent presidents get re-elected by a narrow margin. They tend to get back in a landslide - Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton. Or they lose badly - Carter, Bush 1." I've already addressed this some time ago.

A look at history will give the answer. Quick, who was the last democratic presidential candidate to get 50% of the vote? Nope, wrong. (You thought Clinton, eh?) It was Jimmy Carter, with a whopping 50.08%. Before that, the last democratic president to get 50% was Johnson at 61.05%. So, in the last 40 years, only 1 democratic presidential candidate has cracked the 50% barrier, and to use a baseball analogy, he "just cleared the fence". By the way, the last "JFK" got 49.72% to Nixon's 49.55% in 1960.

Yes, reelections are never close. Mr. Sullivan chooses to overlook the Clinton elections. Both times he won in a "blowout", but he never got over 50%. Of course there was the Perot factor, but how many of Perot's votes wold have gone to Clinton? I also wrote:

In every election since 1960, when foreign policy mattered, Republicans have won. (I wonder what the liberals today would have said about Kennedy's "missile gap" and the effects of that. Russia began rapid expansion and put missiles in Cuba. Oops.) Only when issues are closer to home do democrats have a chance. And this year, what is issue number one? Iraq and the War on Terror.

Kerry can't get 50% of the vote. And even more importantly, he is well behind in the electoral college.

Sorry Mr. Sullivan, you are guilty of letting your passions interfere with your reason. Do you really believe Kerry will wage an aggressive war on terror? Do you really believe Kerry will finish the job in Iraq? Do you even know what he really thinks? His "global test" comment was probably as honest a comment as he has made.

For someone as astute as Mr. Sullivan, he should have picked up on this a long time ago. Kerry has to remind us constantly he will be equally tough and aggressive hunting down and killing terrorists. In fact, have you heard Bush use the word "kill"? No. The answer is simple. Kerry has to convince he will fight terrorists because we don't believe him. When Bush says "bring them to justice", everyone, not just Americans, but the unwashed bearded in the mountains knows what he means.

Why does Mr. Sullivan think that Kerry's words would betray 30 years of pacifism? Because he has one overriding selfish self-interest that supersedes ration. Let me finish with a rhetorical question. Mr. Sullivan, assume for a moment that we had, as Kerry has complained, gotten the allies on board, had more troops, and gotten a UN resolution, would he still call it "the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place"?

I've been contemplating a new look for a while. Going totally with CSS. There's absolutely no tables. I will add extra content and features as time permits. Please let me know what you think about the new look and feel. The hardest part is getting the Blogger tags set up right.