Joe Katzman has one of the best explanations that I’ve seen for my reasons in thinking that a President Kerry would be a disaster, even though I too think that it’s vital that we somehow, despite the odds, develop a second major party that has the defense of the country foremost in its mind:

I…understand the impetus to look at two candidates who offer less than the times demand, and see the stakes before us, and tell oneself that Kerry will have to do the right thing.

But you know what? He absolutely does not.

Look at Europe now, or look back into human history – illusion and passivity in the face of real threats is an option, and some leaders and states will take it.

One question: is Kerry one of those people? Simple question. Simple answer.

Kerry’s positions on issues like Iran are clear, and were openly stated in the debate: normalize relations with the world’s #1 terrorist sponsors while they undermine Iraq & Afghanistan, offer them nuclear fuel, propose sanctions the Europeans will drag their feet on in order to stop a late-stage nuclear program that’s impervious to sanctions anyway, and oppose both missile defense and the nuclear bunker-buster weapons that would give the USA defensive or offensive options in a crisis.

Gee, I’m sleeping better already.

Despite the fact that I think that George Bush is in many ways disastrous, and wish that there were a viable alternative, I remain convinced that the only realistic alternative would be even worse. And I think that the best way to slap the Dems in the face, to throw the bucket of icewater on them, to wake them up from their hysterical dreamland, is to repudiate them thoroughly at the polls–to force them to face reality, and shed themselves of their delusions about the enemy we face.