As the dems jockey for position to run in '08, we can now scratch Biden of the list.

I have to admit, I've only followed the Roberts show trial carnival hearings sporadically and in a few news stories. My only thought is this:

There was a reason senators were not elected directly in the original constitution.

Glenn links to a Zogby question over at Arianna's rag:

In our new poll, every president since Carter defeats Bush. But Kerry still loses to Bush by one point. What am I missing here?

Simple John. We remember, but we are forever forgetting. i.e. We remember something bad happened on 9/11 (yesterday by the way), but we forget what really happened. We were attacked. In fact, we were attacked not as a beginning act, but as a culminating event in what has been a long and often violent war. It's just that we never knew we were in a war, and right now, I'm fairly certain we've forgotten.

Why does Bush beat Kerry but nobody else? Because we remember that we were "safe and prosperous" under Clinton, when in fact, we had the stock market bubble, corporate scandles, and the rapid growth of al Qaeda. We remember the Bush pere was a go along, get along guy, he's not polarizing, and he's been helpful withthe Tsunami and now Katrina relief. This last act has also helped Clinton.

Reagan is one of the great presidents of the 20th century, probably one of the greatest ever. Carter? Well, 35% of the public would vote for anyone but Bush, and the rest probably were too young to remember the shame and disgrace his presidency was.

Now, Kerry was a horrible candidate. Period. Zogby doesn't get it, and neither do the posters. Reading the comments they come in two varieties: election fraud and voter stupidity. Just read them for yourself. I have said all along that the left hates democracy, and they do. They simply don't think we're capable of making the right decision. When we make the "wrong decision", its either we're decieved, stupid, or we've had our votes stolen.

It's sad really when you think about it. Perhaps that is why they think Iraq is such a failure. Surely 8 million Iraqis can't be trusted with a vote.

Now, there is one last thing Zogby misses: Bush is hardly a conservative. Poll conservatives and see what you get. He's spent like a drunken sailor, overseen a federal takeover of education, won't patrol our borders, won't stand up to the democrats vituperations, makes nice with Teddy Kennedy, has no clue about federalism, has a disaterous trade policy with China, won't pressure the Saudis, won't fight for his judges, and in general governs like a moderate democrat.

He's not a conservative. Save for his tax cuts and his aggressive (sometimes) war on terror, I'd say I've been rather disappointed in his presidency. There is as much angst and feeling of betrayal on the right as there is hatred on the left.

Lastly there's this: he's been a risky president. He's taken risks, undertaken bold (whether you agree with them or not) changes in Social Security and foreign policy. We are not a people accustomed to or naturalyl fond of this kind of rapid change whether thrust upon us or not. Except for Clinton's health care plan, every president represented far more the status quo, which is how we prefer it.

History will be his judge, but it is good that presidents get no more than two terms.

But back to the original point, the left doesn't get it now, nor will they ever. Their hatred blinds them. We do need a viable democratic party, especialyl one responsible enough to handle foreign policy. Without it, we're left with no good choices. Kerry never distanced himself from the luntic fringe. That in the end was his undoing. And as long as the luntatics are running the democrats show, they'll keep losing.

Most people who voted for Bush, and I count myself in this category, did so for one reason and one reason only. Kerry couldn't be trusted. But the American people could.

On the ride to school this morning from the gym I began to think of gravity. See, gravity is a fact, 9.8 m/s/s, but truth is an altogether different concept. Truth is what we believe, for example, religion.

While the scientist has fact, for the religious all they have is faith. Facts are scientifically provable, repeatable, and verifiable. (Hey Kent, this is true right?) For the faithful, all they can do is believe.

Glenn links to Riding Sun who aks the very question that has probably been on everyone's mind:

Four years later, terrorism remains a problem around the world, as we have seen in Bali, in Madrid, in Israel, in London, and, of course, in Iraq. Yet, it would seem, not in America. While America remains alert and, some would say, hypersensitive to the risk of another attack, none has come. Our buildings, our buses, our airplanes all are surely tempting targets to the likes of Al Qaeda and its sympathizers. Yet, four years later, they have not struck. In the tense days after 9-11, such a stretch of safety would have seemed like wishful thinking. And yet, that's what happened.

Why?

Why indeed?

The sine pari Mark Steyn bemoans the fact that

On this fourth anniversary we are in a bizarre situation: The war is being won -- in Afghanistan, Iraq, the broader Middle East and many other places where America has changed the conditions on the ground in its favor. But at home the war about the war is being lost.

While Autin Bay notes that:

Terrorism as practiced by Al Qaeda — and, for that matter Saddamist killers in Iraq — is 21st century information warfare. Terrorists don’t simply target London and Baghdad, they target the news media.

Recent polls have shown an appreciable drop in support for the war in Iraq. While not favoring immediate withdrawal, more and more the public thinks that overall we are a) losing b) creating more terrorists and c) on the wrong path.

All the evidence to the contrary, the tremendous changes taking place didn't happen in a vacuum and sadly are being missed by a large segment of the American public. What we have is a disparity between fact and truth.

The facts, when taken as a whole, represent a remarkable success story. We have accomplished the removal of two barbaric regimes with constitutional, consensual governments replacing them. We have captured and/or killed most of the top leadership of al Qaeda. We have caused great changes throughout a region living in what is basically the dark ages. We have uncovered the UN for the sham operation and criminal racket it is, and forced it to reform or die.

And yet, the truth is we are losing the war. The truth is the president lied, misled the nation, took his eye of the "real threats", got us bogged down in another Vietnam, is creating far more terrorists than we're killing, and has mismanaged the nation into failure to respond to natural disasters, oil crises, and economic malaise.

Remember, fact is what is, truth is what we believe.

I have written about this previously. Here is just one of the many examples:

their (the insurgents) strategy is entirely the Vietnam/Somalia strategy of a political victory.
...
Our enemies are operating on a different strategic level: where our goal is to crush the insurgents and establish a functional democratic Iraq, theirs in much simpler, wear us out. They know they have willing allies in the media, and not just Al Jazeera but the BBC, AP, and even CBS, CNN, et al. They believe we will eventually do exactly what we did in 1974. They just don't believe it, they're relying on it.

Probably the most egregious example of "truth" is that we are creating more terrorists than we're killing. Whoever came up with that one deserves special praise. It is neither refutable nor verifiable. It is also brilliant.

The facts are out there, so is the truth. In one sense however, gravity is vey similar to the truth: it is an accelerating force. And the longer an object is in motion, the harder to it is to stop.