(I wrote the following over about a 4 day period. The second half, about the President will follow later.)

My wife sent me an email today. She asked if I had registered to vote yet. The truth is that I haven't yet. That may sound kind of amazing, or, at least, perplexing, given how I have weighed in on so many things about the campaigns, and the candidates lately.

So, I have spent the last few hours letting that roll around in my head. Trying to figure out a good way to explain myself.

The best answer is that, at this moment, if I had a vote (as in, I was registered), I wouldn't know what to do with it. The absolute truth is I don't really like either choice. So, the next obvious answer is which do I dislike the most. If I don't want to vote for either, there must be one that I want to vote against the most. The answer is not really.

Lets look at both candidates for a moment.

Kerry
What I don't like:

1) I really hate the way he behaved after Viet Nam. I understand hating war, hating having been put in a bad situation, and wanting to prevent others from being put in the same situation. I believe he did some things that were just flat out wrong, though in dealing with that. In many ways, given what I have read from testimonials from vets, and former POW's, what Kerry did was every bit as bad, if not worse, than anything Jane Fonda did in the same period.

2) I feel betrayed. That he would vote to send me to this place at this time, and then vote against funding that would give me equipment that I need to do my job, or just survive burns me. It is just like his behavior after Viet Nam all over again. Then to make lame excuses about it, just adds insult to injury.

3) He presents himself as some kind of alternative. Just what alternative is he offering? What answers is he putting out there that are new? (All right, I am pretty much a "one issue voter" in this election, but given my situation, can you blame me?) Basically, he talks about building a coalition to take over here. Well, the President tried that. In fact, you can call the President a "cowboy" all you want, and talk about he went against the will of the international community, but the truth of the matter is that the President did have multiple UN resolutions backing his action in Iraq. Everyone likes to conveniently forget that, especially the French and Germans. But it is the truth, they are all about 13 years old now, but he had the backing of UN resolutions. He was, simply, enforcing UN resolutions that were part of the cease fire from the first Gulf War. The international community, France and Germany, in particular, had too much to lose if they were enforced. They were making billions off of the "Food for Oil" program, and programs to rebuild the Iraqi oil fields. Those contracts became null and void when Saddam fell from power. So, Kerry would re-attempt what the President tried to do. (As a side note: If you are
one of those who say the weapons inspectors should have been given more time, how much time should they, and Saddam been given to find and reveal the truth? What is reasonable? 3 months, 6 months, a year? Well, Saddam and the inspectors had 12 years. There's the UN and the international community in action for you. The cease fire from the first Gulf War was signed in February of 1991. One of the conditions of the cease fire was that weapons inspectors would be given free access to wherever they wanted to go to insure that Saddam's WMD programs were dismantled. In March of 2003, the President had had enough. There might have been faulty intelligence, but the point is there never should have had to be any intelligence at all. There should have been documented proof from, by then, years of weapons inspections. If someone has worked that hard to keep you from finding out if they have something, isn't it pretty reasonable to assume they have it?)

4) Kerry strikes me as very elitist. It has come out that he has owned, for years, an assault weapon that was covered by the ban that just expired. Then, he had the gall to chide the President for not renewing the ban. Sorry, Senator, you want me to take you seriously on this one? Then cough up your Chinese assault rifle. Given the way that you behaved in front of the Senate, testifying for the VVAW, there can't be anything from Viet Nam that you would want as a memento. You already threw away your medals. Now you want to explain a war trophy that was illegal for you to have? As for that, you want to explain how you legally got that thing into this country in the first place? I know current military regs, and if I try to bring anything like that home from Iraq, and get caught, I am going to jail. Let's back up for a second on this one. Senator, one more time, didn't you vote for that ban when it was enacted? But you kept a gun
that you made illegal for, supposedly, anyone in America to have? And you admitted to it in public? I'm no lawyer, but that sounds suspiciously like confessing to a crime. I could go on in this vein for a while. His wife's comments about what kind of people would not support her husband's health care plan. (She actually said "idiot" when speaking to the press.) There there is his stance on Health Savings Accounts. If that doesn't smack of the attitude that the average American is too stupid to make responsible health care decisions for him/herself, and that the government needs to take that money from us and spend it for us.

5) He and his campaign are whiners. Let me give you a short time line here. The Swift Boat Vets ad came out. First, his campaign tried to suppress them (more on that in a bit), then they whined because the President had not made a statement specifically condemning the ads and asking them to come off the air. So, what did the President do? He, finally, made a statement condemning ads by all of the 527 organizations and asking them to be taken off the air, including the ones that supported his campaign. Then, the Kerry campaign complained because the
President had not specifically cited the Swift Boat ads. Apparently, the President blew that off. Then, the Vice President made a statement that he felt that if Kerry was elected that another terrorist attack, like September 11th, was more likely than if the President was reelected. The Kerry campaign threw a fit over that one. They said the VP was being divisive, and un-American. The VP is a candidate running for reelection. He was stating what he felt was the
case for his reelection. Yes, that is divisive. Someone stating that he or his group is better than another group is exactly that. But, that is the nature of political campaigning. Isn't that what candidates supposed to do? Get up and tell you why you should vote for them instead of the
other guy? What was the VP supposed to say? "I think John Kerry is a great guy. He will make a great President. America will be safer as him as President. But, I would like you to vote for us anyway." That's ridiculous, but, apparently, that is the expectation that the Kerry campaign has of their opponents. All I have to say is: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

6) Kerry, in his campaign, has lied to the American public about issues that are crucial in a
President. I saw on CNN, recently, where he made a statement to the effect that he was all for supporting the Constitution. That's nice. Given that the Constitution is the highest law in the land, the law that all other laws are based on, and as President, the one law that he would
swear to uphold as part of the oath of office. But, in that, he lied through his teeth. The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. As the Constitution stipulates, that gives them the force of law as if they were part of the Constitution itself. Where to begin with this one? Let's go back to the "gun" thing. He supports the assault rifle ban that just expired (a limit to your Second Amendment rights), in regards to the American public. However, he received, as a gift during this campaign, a shotgun that would have been illegal under the ban, and he has publicly stated that he owns a "souvenir" from Viet Nam that is a Chinese assault rifle that was covered by the ban. So, the Senator, apparently, wants the Second Amendment to apply to himself, but doesn't trust you and I with the same rights. There there was the occasion, recently, when a heckler showed up for one of his campaign speeches. The heckler was assaulted by other audience members, and security ushered the person out. Kerry congratulated the persons that
committed the assault, and when the members of the press that were traveling with his campaign tried to interview the heckler, they were told by campaign staffers that if they spoke to the heckler, they would not be allowed to continue to cover the campaign. Apparently, the Senator has a problem with Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech, First Amendment Rights, both, at least when those freedoms allow negative things to be said about him or his campaign.. I will admit, that case for Freedom of Speech might be stretching it a bit there. So, let's look at another example, on that one. The Swift Boat ads, and ads by other 527 organizations that do not support him, are another case in point. Every time a 527 organization has come out against Kerry he has tried to get their ads taken off the air. Do you know what 527 organizations are? They are a thing that was created by the legislation that did away with "soft money" ads. Under the "soft money" ad thing, national parties could pay for ads from party funds (outside of the legal limits on an individual candidates campaign budget) as long as those ads were about an issue, not the candidates. Legislation since the last Presidential election outlawed that. But, the new law allows for groups that are not the parties, or the campaigns
themselves to put up ads themselves pertaining to a campaign. There are fairly liberal limits on contributions to these groups. The main restrictions are basically that it cannot come from or be an extension of a political party or a candidate's campaign. That's what the Swift Boat Vets group is, a 527 organization. In fact, when you look at the primary movers and shakers in that group, you will find that they are, mostly, Democrats, not Republicans. But the concept was that this
allowed the average citizen to have their say, and have their voices heard in the campaigning process, not just in the vote. As I showed above, Senator Kerry, apparently, is against this, at least when it is against him. The legislation that allowed this situation was cited at the time as a means for the average citizen to exercise their First Amendment rights in the political process. Senator Kerry, on the other hand, has expressed his dissatisfaction, at least when the ads are
against him. He doesn't mind you and I having Free Speech, apparently, as long as we don't disagree with him. Does that sound like Free Speech to you?

7) What has he done? The man has been in the Senate how long? What legislation, what motion, amendment to a bill can be pointed to as something that he accomplished? Look at what his campaign has to say. These are the people that have the most to gain by coming up with even
the smallest things that he accomplished and dragging it out as an example of his success as a legislator. What are they touting? Nothing. A large part of the Presidency is convincing an often hostile Congress to get on board your legislative agenda. If he couldn't do that while he was in the Senate, the chances of him doing that from the outside are even less likely.

What I do like:

1) He did serve in the active military. No matter what he did after, or, if you believe everything the Swift Boat Vets have to say about him. He did it voluntarily at a time where it was very unpopular to do so. Many people were dodging active military service anyway that they could
to avoid going to Viet Nam. This is important. I don't think a person is really qualified to act as Commander in Chief of our military unless he has done something to acquaint himself with the realities of military life. Bill Clinton is the perfect example of this. He was all for allowing openly gay people in the military at the beginning of his first term. The military threw a fit, but he wouldn't back off of his stance. That is, until he visited an aircraft carrier. I'm not sure what he
expected in terms of living conditions for sailors aboard ship. But, what he found was that the rooms that the enlisted men lived in were tiny, and there were stacks of bunks. Cots that hung from the walls. Every bit of space was used. To the point that the bunks were so close together that a sailor felt it when the guy below him rolled over in his sleep. That's how close the bunks are, vertically. After seeing that, he backed off on the gays in the military thing.

2) He thinks on his feet better than the President does. Think back to when you have heard the President speak. He either sounds very Presidential or he sounds like a "Bubba" that is out of his element. It's gotten to the point that Slate Magazine regularly publishes "Bushisms". I have linked to a couple of those from this blog. The times that he sounds Presidential, he is in a scripted situation. He has a speech that he has either on teleprompter or he has memorized. When he sounds like a goof is when he goes "off script" and starts improvising. Kerry does not have that problem.

3) Looking back over the last 20+ years of national government, for all of their reputation as the "tax and spend" party, the Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than the Republicans. Social Security is and has been heading for a crisis. Medicare/Medicaid has been in much the same boat. Government grew at alarming rates during the Reagan, Bush, and Bush administrations.

Unknowns and Intangibles

1) We don't know who John Kerry, if elected, will select as his cabinet, or closest advisers. Especially with what is going on in Iraq right now, the posts of National Security Adviser, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense are crucial elements of any administration. When I
do my appraisal of the President, I will address the current people in these positions. But, for Kerry, we just don't know. He could pick people that are much better for each one of these posts, much worse, or about the same.

2) I don't believe the President has burned any bridges, diplomatically, but several of them are smoldering. John Kerry, I think, has a better chance of fixing those relationships. The question is: Is that a good thing? Or did the President say and do some things to our "allies" that have needed to be done for a while? I will address that in my post about the President.

In the next installment:
I do for the President what I just did for John Kerry.