I predict that within a few hours of this becoming a major media story, there will be moonbats at DU accusing the perpetrators of being Republicans, out to make Kerry supporters look bad.

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.

From Wolverine country.

Bo is the former coach of the Michigan Buckeyes, err…Wolverines (I think they play in Lambert Field?), and even in liberal Ann Arbor he’s still revered as a minor deity. His endorsement will carry a lot of weight there, in what’s turning into a close race.

A screed. From Lileks.

Perhaps the

A screed. From Lileks.

Perhaps the

A screed. From Lileks.

Perhaps the

…about tonight’s debate.

Has Kerry learned his lesson yet, or will it still be possible to get hammered by playing the simple drinking game of taking a sip of wine every time he says the word “Vietnam”?

[Friday morning update]

OK, credit where credit’s due. By my count, he referred to his service only three times, and used the actual word “Vietnam” once. Maybe he is learning. However, ultimately, while Bush could have done better, Kerry finished himself off with the “global test,” and the notion that the US can’t be trusted with nukes. It’s the same old nuclear freeze mentality from the eighties. He appealed to his party’s left to hold the base, and he’s lost the center.

Are the Iranians finally starting to throw off the chains of the mullahs?

If so, and it happens before the election, I’m sure that John Kerry will be quite disappointed. He’ll probably send Joe Lockhart out to complain that the new government is a US puppet.

You know, I’ve jokingly blamed George Bush for all the hurricanes we’ve been getting, but the morons at Moveon.org are doing it for real.

Alan Henderson has more.

That’s what the Kerry campaign says about the timing between the “Fortunate Son” campaign and the Sixty Minutes broadcast.

Right.

Who do these people think they’re kidding?