update: don't know how I missed this earlier. It pretty much nails it:

Bush is no prize. But he's the devil we know, and a devil who, for all his flaws, takes seriously the threat facing our nation and appears to be trying to do something about it. With Bush, I expect I will have four more years to quibble with and argue about his tactics in the conduct of this war. With Kerry, once the campaign was over, I fear I'd have a difficult time convincing him there was a war at all.

It was recently suggested to me by one of my Progressive with a capital "P" friends that Kerry should be my dream candidate - that he is more Republican than Bush (lI will ignore for a moment the fact that I don't identify myself as a Republican, not that there's anything wrong with that!) but without all the religious right baggage that I don't care much for. Well aside from the obvious observation that that is just how Kerry is positioning himself this week, there is another small problem; he is a flip flopping wishy washy no plan having say whatever is politically advantageous power hungry unserious about national security billionaire class warfare waging warmed over piece of Dukakis. Other than that, yeah, he is a dream candidate!

I posted the above as a comment in reply to a comment suggesting that Kerry should be my dream candidate. A follow up comment from another poster, also now appearing here, along with my response, is posted below:

(KD = Kerry Defender, IC = Infidel Cowboy)

KD: Kerry DID release his military record! That is why there are no calls for him to do it. Who cares about Whoopi, is Bush that thin-skinned that he cannot take a little ribbing? That is typical Republican-party rhetoric.

IC: Kerry released hand picked portions of his record. What is in the rest that he is afraid to release? Are you as adamant that he release them as Kerry, McAuliff, and the media were that Bush do so? I sure as hell don't care about Whoopi, but since you brought up thin-skinned politicians who can't take ribbing, what is your take on the girlie men in the California legislature?

KD: And why the hell shouldn't I call Bush a "flip flopper"? Huh? Hmmm, let's see here.

IC: Did I say you shouldn't? Ok, as you suggest, let's see here.

KD: I am a uniter, not a divider - sure, whatever you say (thumbs up)

IC: you make a compelling argument - thumbs up!

KD: No child left behind - hmmm, every schoolteacher I know knows this is complete BS.

IC: The same teachers who hate charter schools? The same ones who saw federal spending increase by more than 50% over the previous administration? They hate the NCLBA crafted with help from liberal professors from Oregon? What are they afraid of - accountability?

KD: Osama wanted "dead or alive" - Osama "doesn't matter."

IC: Not sure what you are referring to here. I'm sure Bush would still be happy to have him, dead or alive. Maybe you are referring to this - where Bush explains that terrorism is bigger than one man. I guess some people need that explained more than others. Let's see the whole quote, instead of the led around by the nose by Michael MooreOn version:

Bush's answer: "Well, deep in my heart, I know the man is on the run if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not? We haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

"Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I've mentioned in my speeches, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death, and he himself tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. . . . I truly am not that concerned about him."

KD: There are WMDs in Iraq - bwahahha

IC: Well, Kerry, Clinton, the Russians, France, and, hmm..., just about everyone thought so. Pretty funny, no?

KD: I am against nation building - no witty comeback needed.

IC: There was a pretty significant world event of historical importance between the time he said that and now. Maybe you heard about it?

KD: Gay marriage is a state's right's issue - what changed his mind on that? The fact he is a "war president"?

IC: Hey, aren't you Kerry guys always saying the Cheney is the real president? He thinks it is a state's rights issue, a position well to the left of whatever Kerry's stance is this week. Wonder why ol' flip flopping George won't do what his evil master Cheney tells him on this issue? To tell the truth, I wish he would. The proposed constitutional amendment on gay marriage is an abomination. I will ignore the non sequitur raised in the "war president" remark.

KD: We do not need the U.N. - Oh wait; now we do.

IC: It is pretty obvious that we don't need the UN, as Bush pointed out:

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

KD: Condi Rice won't testify in public - whoopsie.

IC: Condi should NOT have - it is a violates the separation of powers called for in the constitution. Partisan vitriol forced his and her hand.

KD: We won't negotiate with North Korea - uhhh, we won't?

IC: Why should we? Clinton and company tried to appease them and toasted them with champagne, they developed the nukes anyway.

How smart is that? Time, plus undeserved trust, is exactly what gave North Korea the opportunity to join the world's nukes club. As a result we find ourselves forced to bargain with a brutal regime that threatens world stability and 37,000 of our finest in South Korea. After years of UN and Clinton Administration engagement (who can forget Madeline Albright's champagne toast with Kim Jong Il?), we are at the brink of an international crisis. North Korea only decided to 'fess up when it realized that President Bush wasn't pussyfooting.

KD: Veep Cheney and Bush cannot testify because the constitution says we can't - uhhhh, they did.

IC: They can't be forced to testify. They chose to. Amazing what a difference one word makes.

KD: Hmmmm, I remember Bush opposing the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security when it first came out - can you say flip-flop?

IC: Hey, more bureaucracy will always make us safer. I feel so much safer with, as transit librarian is so fond of calling it, the Rainbow of Terror color alert system. I also feel safer with the great new guidelines put in place requiring the seizure of nail clippers - I guess we need something for those thousands of newly hired federal employee bag screeners to do, right? However, since the department was created, I hardly think it is a flip flop for Bush to appoint someone to lead it.

KD: And what about the 9/11 commission? Didn't he oppose that, too? Now he flipping loves the thing.

IC: Because it was destined to be an election year partisan hatchet job? You probably have flip flopped yourself, since it vindicated Bush on a number of issues.

KD: And if the invasion of Iraq was for self-defense, why aren't we invading North Korea? We KNOW they have "nucular" weapons. And what about the Sudan? If anyplace in the world is producing terrorists, it is the Sudan. Wait, the Sudan doesn't have oil - my bad.

IC: Indeed, it is your bad. Sudan has plenty of oil, which is why China and France refuse to lift a finger to stop the genocide. Again. Anyway, military force isn't the only way to achieve results. North Korea has been forced into multi-lateral negotiations - a smart move by Bush since those talks involve China - the only country that has much influence over North Korea.

KD: Can you please shut the hell up on the flip flopping thing? Learn to think for yourself for a change. EVERYONE is a "flip-flopper," get over yourself.

IC: I find it amusing that someone who suggests that another should "shut the hell up" could also utter such an inanity as "get over yourself" - but for the record, I belive I mentioned flip and flop exactly once each in the article to which you are responding. I also find amusing your admonishment to think for myself - I read stuff from all over the spectrum, I recently read Howard Zinn's History of America, for instance. I don't support the Republicans on a number of social issues. I don't support the Democrats on national security, which for me, in this election, is the only issue that matters. I don't support Progressives hatred of capitalism. You on the other hand seem to be marching in lockstep with your fellow kool aid drinkers who have a blind hatred of Bush.

KD: By the way, it wasn't the Viet Cong who were holding Galanti, it was the North Vietnamese. I suggest you do a little more research on this conflict that "didn't matter," because the truth is, it DID matter - and it has been dictating our foreign policy since 1968.

IC: It doesn't matter in determining the path forward. Kerry shouldn't have brought it up. QED. I agree that it does matter what Kerry did when he got back, and I don't care who was using Kerry's words against his "band of brothers."

KD: The North Vietnamese, like any army in conflict, used psy ops for any advantage. Of course they used Kerry's speeches to their advantage. Just like they used Johnson's, Nixon's, other soldier's, etc. But it doesn't change the fact that Kerry went over there thinking he was going to change a country for the better, but quickly realized we didn't know what the hell we were doing.

IC: That is what he went over there thinking? I am pretty sure he was thinking that his request for a deferment was turned down and that he should volunteer for swift boat duty, since at the time, they were used in combat missions.

KD: He came back and spoke out against the war at a time when not a lot of people were. You want to know that truth, cowboy, atrocities happen in war, all the time, every day; done by young men who cannot take their situation anymore. Americans did not know about these atrocities because the media wasn't reporting them, Kerry was telling the TRUTH. War is hell. People do stuff in war that would amaze you - regular people like you and I.

It doesn't make these people bad people, but they have to live with it the rest of their lives. Some can, some cannot. Kerry wasn't doing it to call anyone out, or get anyone in trouble. He was doing it to show the American public what war is capable of making people do. No one was talking about what the Vietnam conflict was doing to our fighting soldiers.

IC: I know plenty about the truth. My father that I don't know was there. He came back hooked on drugs and incapable of being a husband or father. My uncle who still has flashbacks was there. Having Kerry pile on with his charges of atrocities probably didn't help much for either of them, and yes, apparently he means them:

KERRY: "Why are all these swift boat guys opposed to me?"

BRANT: "You should know what you said when you came back, the impact it had on the young sailors and how it was disrespectful of our guys that were killed over there." [Brant had two men killed in battle.]

KERRY: "When we dedicated swift boat one in '92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn't talking about the swifties, I was talking about all the rest of the veterans."

I am sure that my father and uncle would be comforted by your acknowledgement that they aren't bad people, even though it doesn't come in as official and public of a format as Kerry's congressional testimony, and even though they probably consider themselves to be among the vast majority of soldiers who didn't engage in atrocities.

So there you go, KD - if you really do want to think for yourself, there are plenty of links for you to start reading up on. Not nearly as easy or as much fun as just repeating lines from Farenhate 9/11 or the latest DNC talking points memo, but it was worth the effort. Have fun and thanks for playing!