"He will never be a strong President and a foreign policy crisis will render him impotent."

If being married to THAT for however many years hasn't made him impotent, I don't know what will!

And with words like "moonbat" and "nutball" being thrown around, I'm really going to miss this election season!! *laugh*

Very insightful post. However, do we really want another terrorist attack and 4 years of KERRY as president just so that conservatives can show that liberals are messed up in the head?

Also don't forget the stupidity of the average liberal voter. Theykeep voting for liberals while the politicians they vote in keep messing up.

I think the best thing for us is to have a hands-down vote. That is, for Bush to win by a huge margin, so huge that there is no doubt in anyone's minds.

We shall see, though. We shall see.

I have thought the exact same thought: would a Kerry victory be better in the grand scheme of things? If you're a Republican not particularly happy with the way things are going for the party in terms of ideology and practice, then a Kerry victory would hopefully make the Republicans rethink their stances on a couple of different issues.

If you really are worried about big government and and big spending, then a Bush victory would hardly dissuade him from continuing in that direction. So, if you are a Republican Bush supporter and you vote for Kerry in order to change the way your party thinks about itself, then that just seems like political expediency to me, and a good example of political expediency is when Kerry and Edwards voted against that $87 billion for our troops.

I think you have drunk the Buchanon kool-aid.

1) A single term president does no good for the Republican Party or the conservative cause. It just shows that we're losers.

2) As for foreign policy, Kerry is aligned with Carter. Kerry will not respond with force to terrorists, even if there is another attack on our soil. I would rather see another 4 years of Clinton than 4 years of Kerry.

3) The bulk of Kerry's support comes from the anti-war, hate-America left. If he goes against his base we will see the riots and violent protests of the 60s.

4) Bush will win, not because America has seen the light and is embracing conservative values, but because they fear a Kerry presidency in a time of war. If Kerry wins and then is ousted in 2008, it will be because of an anti-Kerry backlash, not a pro-Conservative wave that sweeps across America.

5) When the "true" Republicans ousted Bush 41 in 92, they thought they would regain the White House in 96. They were wrong. Remember it was Gingrich who lost the battle with Clinton, and it was Gingrich who resigned in disgrace and Clinton who left office almost as popular as Reagan.

Paul, you claim that ousting Bush is good strategy. I don't think you have a strategy, other than being upset with Bush and wishing for a Reagan dynasty. Not even Reagan lived up to the myth surrounding him that you guys have invented. Reagan's legacy was voodoo economics and destroying the Soviet Union and freeing hundreds of millions of people from tyranny. It took him 2 terms and a few more years to accomplish.

Bush's legacy will also be voodoo econmics and destroying Islamic terrorism, freeing hundreds of millions of people from tyranny. He needs 2 terms to accomplish this, plus a few more years of a president who will support the Bush Doctrine. A Kerry presidency will get rid of the Bush Doctrine and replace it with a doctrine of appeasment, blame, and defeatism.

Four more years of Bush is as important to America's future, as was a second Reagan term.

I believe that a Kerry presidency would be a disaster for the Democrats in the long run. I was hoping, though, that there would a be large Bush win and this would be a repudiation of the looney progressive wing of the Democrats. But I have become skeptical, the democrats slow loss of power hasn't woken them up. Even this Bin Laden democrat talking points tape won't wake them up. They are gonna go down in flames before they return to sanity. But its gonna take a decade before they realize this isn't the 60's anymore.

I don't care what anyone says -- we've got to stop John Kerry. It goes beyond party affiliation. The man is a traitor. I'm in the midst of watching "Stolen Honor" on PAX-TV (on Time-Warner Cable). The man is a TRAITOR. I'll take Hillary or any other Lib lamebrain over this man who's a TRAITOR.

And I don't understand this need by some Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot in order to make themselves look ... well, intellectual.

Osama bin Laden could nuke the five largest cities in America and receive no greater response than a non-binding UN resolution telling him to STOP IT! -- and the Dembat base wouldn't figure it out. Instead they'll cook up "Republicans did it!" conspiracy theories.

If 9/11 didn't get through to them, nothing will.

What a stupid post. Your idea is not taking into concideration the fact that the next pres will be putting at least 4 judges on the supreme court. We cannot have kerry the socialist, kerry the traitor or kerry the waffleing fool making up a court which will excelerate the europeanisation of the United States.

Yikes don't read more into this than I wrote. (ahem, Remy) I don't want the guy to win. BUT I can also belive that and belive that if he does win it will damage the Dem party. In fact, it is common sense to believe both.

Why did you write:

I'll be disappointed if Bush wins.

Plus, Spoons says you are predicting a Kerry win.

I don't know, Kevin. Letting kids burn themselves on the stove in order to better appreciate the dangers of playing with fire is one thing. Letting them explode a brick of plastique in their bedrooms to learn the same lesson is entirely another. I just can't help but think that a Kerry presidency would break things so badly they couldn't be fixed.

Paul,

I voted against GHWB in 1992, and I do not regret that vote. Bush 41 was a lousy President, and a lousy Republican.

Bush 43 is a good President, and a great Republican. See 2002 Senate, House, and Gov races. For taking the fight to the enemy, and winning, he deserves to be reelected.

Think of the pluses (for Republicans) his reelection will bring:
1: Crushing the hopes of the moonbat left.
2: Huge blow to power and prestige of MSM.
3: No Democrat appointed Judges.
4: Chance to go after vote fraud good and hard.

Those are good enough to counterbalance any Carter / Clinton 1st term benefits.

My sympathies, Paul. On the bright side, you only have to go through this for a couple days. I got this for over a year! :-)

"Plus, Spoons says you are predicting a Kerry win."

Whaddya mean "Spoons says." Don't blame me, HairyPundit. Paul predicted a Kerry win right here in this post.

And I don't understand this need by some Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot in order to make themselves look ... well, intellectual.

I think you forgot one other benefit of a Kerry Presidency-there would not be a Hillary run in 2008.

I think for the good of the nation and the GOP we need a strong two party system. I think that strengthening the GOP can be achieved with a Kerry defeat. I believe that there will be a Bush Landslide - a total repudiation of JFK as a candidate. This will awaken the Dems where they will t least realize that they need to field a candidate that mainstream America can consider voting for.

When they do that, that will force the GOP to field an equally electable candidate. The Dems will finally realize that the Liberal agenda can only be advanced using Conservative methods. I think I heard someone call that "Compassionate Conservatism".

The GOP benefits by capturing a larger portion of the Dem base (blacks, hispanics and Jews) - the country benefits because BOTH parties adopt the conservative methodology and we get TWO viable candidates for the highest office.

Greg D:

A compelling argument can be made that Bush 43 is a good President. Not great, but good, in a lot of ways. I believe he's better than the alternative. It's much harder to claim he's a great Republican, aside from the possibility of some double-secret-Rovian mind-game that, 20 years from now, makes clear his genius in somehow secretly having promoted conservative views such as free trade, fiscal sanity, and small government. He's been a great Republican party-builder, and faithful to the Republican politicians, but only a so-so Republican, based on everything we can see right now. The two are very different things, you see.

I'm with Cameron, on the plastique-as-character-builder metaphor. I don't believe that the cause of moderate conservatives will be advanced by four years of ineffective inaction by a Kerry presidency combined with a hostile Republican Congress. Not at this time in our history, anyway.

But I can understand arguments to the contrary, Kevin's and Spoons' included.

Jim:

I guess they think it's some sort of rhetorical device to make the conversation interesting. Personally, I find it tedious and dishonest.

Crud. Sorry, not Kevin's argument, Paul's. Sorry for the imprecision, folks.

"Why did you write:

I'll be disappointed if Bush wins."

That would be because I'm an idiot. If you read the rest of the piece, it is an obvious typo. Or I hope it was obvious. thanks for the heads up, i fixed it.

Greg all of those are good points. #3 will be the worst part

- Paul....I ran a piece with this same basic theme back three months ago...I seldom get very many comments on my stuff because I don't do a lot of editorializing. Generally I try to just "news it" along with common sense.... I think that to say people are emotionally involved in this election like never before would be a colossal understatement judging from the reactions...

- Personally I think in the end the fact we are at war will still decide the issue in the end....

- Of course that little Oktober thing this afternoon may have some effect too...but even without it I think Bush still wins....

We could write a similar post about many a disaster or fiasco.

For instance, we could observe that Hitler's luck in choosing correctly among competing plans for attacking the West in June 1940 gave him an overconfidence that led him to ignore advice and author strategic blunders that greatly hastened Germany's defeat. This does not mean that the Germans' routing the French and British and easily overrunning Europe was to be wished for or welcomed.

"Tactics?" "Strategy?" Let's reach for our common sense instead.

heeding your words...

"A few more victories like this will ruin us." That's where the Democrat party is in 2004.

couldn't agree more.

Paul:

Good thing I decided to stop writing half way through my rant, which was written when you were still "disappointed if Bush wins." I took that statement at face value, and instead of evaluating it, I freaked out.

If your point is that the Republican party will survive a Kerry presidency, well yeah, of course it will. I do think the points I made are still valid. Kerry will not fight the war on terror, the Bush Doctrine will be thrown in the trash can, and the economy will tank.

Ris:

Yes, a Kerry win could preclude a Hillary run, but even if she does have an open shot in 2008 I don't think she will win. Hillary is an unabashed idealogical liberal. Americans prefer those who live in the center, which is how Bill was able to win in 92. In other words, Hillary is no Clinton.

A Kerry presidency would be destructive to Republicans because it would institutionalize the illegal voting tactics of the left. We won't recognize this country in four years if Kerry wins.

Click on The Final Two Objectives for comment on the two most important objectives we must accomplish in the next one and 1/2 days. Our focus has narrowed to these two items, and they are both achievable.

No, Remy, the economy will do well over the next four years regardless of who is President. The better argument is that the Democrats will get credit for the upturn when Kerry wins.

Spoons:

I disagree. Kerry will raise taxes on the middle class, just as Clinton did in spite of promises of a cut. Fortunately for Clinton, the Tech bubble overcame the damage of the tax increase. In Hawaii, where the economy never benefited from the Tech bubble, the economy soured and did not begin to pick up until 2002.

Kerry's plan to increase taxes on those making over $200,000 will hurt small business across the nation, including the one I work for. On top of all that, is Kerry's desire to increase gasoline taxes. Kerry will abort Bush's economic recovery before we see any benefit. Then he will blame Bush for the bad economy.

Salt:

I think that is an excellent point. We need to show the Dems, and all Americans, that cheating is not conducive to winning.

Quite honestly, your analysis is completely preposterous on so many levels that I would overflow your comment limit if I tried to address it all.

Most notable among the flaws in your argument is the implied notion that Republicans are Republicans first, Americans second. If I have the choice between screwing the country or screwing the party, the party takes the hit. Period. Four years of Kerry will be catastrophically bad for the country regardless of the efforts by Bill Owens or Rudy Giuliani in 2009-2017 to turn the situation around.

Second most notable is your preposterous reversal of cause and effect: Carter did not get us Reagan; Reagan was the man he was before NIXON won in 1968, never mind Carter's election in 1976. Carter's personal malaise that he inflicted upon the country may have helped the COUNTRY realize it needed someone else, but the nation did not have a choice to pick Reagan in '76 (after he lost to Ford).

Really, this is a conceptual thread akin to wondering whether Bush secretly welcomed the bin Laden tape's appearance. It is unworthy conjecture of a type that has achieved prominence and some respectability since Clinton's Wag-The-Dog presidency. That does not make it right or legitimate. My party or my country? Forget the party, the country must succeed.

The Monk, I'm guessing you broke the rule about reading the whole thing before commenting.

Interesting idea, but I'm not convinced. On the terror front, most certainly. On the domestic side, nah.

If Kerry wins with all of his outlandish, Santa Claus type promises, the spineless politicians of Republican ilk will most probably stampede to the left to cover their asses.

This is the same behavior that got us the disasterous Prescription Drug Benefit. Think an entire Senate of Arlen Specter wannabes.

Certainly we'll finally end up winning the war, but it will be at greater cost due to our 4 year vacation and domestically in 8 years we'll look much more like Europe.

Interesting idea, but I'm not convinced. On the terror front, most certainly. On the domestic side, nah.

If Kerry wins with all of his outlandish, Santa Claus type promises, the spineless politicians of Republican ilk will most probably stampede to the left to cover their asses.

This is the same behavior that got us the disasterous Prescription Drug Benefit. Think an entire Senate of Arlen Specter wannabes.

Certainly we'll finally end up winning the war, but it will be at greater cost due to our 4 year vacation and domestically in 8 years we'll look much more like Europe.

Paul,

The worst part would be that the Republican Senators, ballless wimps that they are, wouldn't filibuster all Democrat judges the way the Democrats have done to us. :-(

Patton:

You're right, I'm thinking of Bush's skills at building the Republican Party, rather than his BS "Compassionate Conservative" programs.

However, for all his moderate ways, Bush has been good about helping conservative Republicans get elected. That's going to pay off for a long time to come.