Kerry seems dishonest because he is dishonest. Look back to what he did after he came back from the Vietnam war. He says he is against the war one minute, and for the war the next. He claims that you can fight a "sensitive" war against Terrorism. Terrorists don't bargain with you, they don't keep promises, all they're interested in is making sure that everyone that isn't Muslim is dead. Its that simple. Bush may not be perfect, but he doesn't waver, and he has a resolve to finish what has been started.

Bush seems to be doing the best anyone could do. I still don't know the justification for the war on Iraq, but I think the president has access to confidential information that justifies the war very well. It is to his credit that he acted on that information, even knowing that the decision would be unpopular.

Kerry reminds me too much of Clinton. Clinton's lying and scandals made him ineffective. He was asleep at the wheel and now Bush is taking the heat for Clinton's mistakes. Thus I think the US can't afford dishonesty in a president.

Sometimes it's unclear whether a leader is honest or not, since the leader can't reveal all of the information available. The way to tell whether a public figure is honest is to look at their honesty in private dealings. Clinton proved himself completely dishonest. Bush seems to have a good record. Kerry seems to be waivering, like you said, Matt.

Corrections welcome!

I think that you would have to be lying to yourself quite a bit if you believe that GW is an honest man. He used Al Qaeda to sell the war on Iraq to the American people when he knew it wasn't true. Also, I think that if he had some sort of "ace up his sleeve" regarding his war rationale, that it would've been revealed by now.

It's not anti-American to question your leaders' motives. Truly patriotic people participate in the democratic process, and this includes asking questions and expecting intelligent responses. No good reason has been given as to why we went to war in Iraq, and none have been offered in this post.

Instead of analyzing GW's motives, you both seem to be over-rationalizing his actions because you really like him as a president. This is natural. I used to do the same thing for Clinton because I liked him as a leader, even if, deep down, I knew he was lying about his extra-marital affairs. I think I would've had more trouble apologizing/rationalizing for Clinton though if his lies helped lead to the death of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens and American soldiers.

Finally, a challenge. Thanks, Tom.

Yes, I question Bush's motives, but again, AFAIK Kerry supported him. With a simple vote, Kerry was essentially saying, "if I were in your place, I'd go to war." Bush and Kerry both carry this burden.

On other fronts, I think Bush is headed in a much better direction than Kerry. Bush is working to shrink the government, giving the power to change society to individuals, while Kerry wants to expand the government, wasting that power and confusing the mission of the government.

I see the government not as a central figure but as a single institution among millions. The only necessary difference between the government and a private organization is that the government has a state-mandated monopoly on basics like lawmaking and law enforcement. While I am wary of monopoly abuse by large corporations, I am terrified of the type of abuse that only the government could bring about through its all-encompassing monopoly. Thus the government's responsibilities should be minimized, not expanded.

That stand, of course, might lead to rebuttals like "then how will we provide universal health care, you heartless snob?" Well, we've already done pretty well without it, don't you think? Depending on the government for such things would be a terrible net loss.

I wish that I could disagree with you regarding the burden of the Iraq decision. In my opinion, the Democratic leadership really dropped the ball on that one.

As a side note, I also find it interesting to see how so many people (Shane not included) are demonizing Kerry, when he is the most conservative Democrat to run for president in at least twenty years. Heck, his speeches sound a lot like GW's dad. But I'm getting off topic.

I do have one disagreement, however. I don't believe that our current healthcare system works. One example of how the system doesn't work can be seen when you look at poor adolescents in public schools.

Look at it as a tale of two students. Student #1 comes from a middle class family that is lucky enough to have decent healtcare. When #1 needed glasses, he simply went to the doctor, and insurance paid for most of his visit costs (but not the lenses, unfortunately). When #1 was diagnosed with depresssion, he was able to visit a psychiatrist for a very low cost, and his medication is $20 per month. #1 is also a fairly good student, and it helps that he can see and can mentally focus on his school work.

Student #2 very rarely goes to the doctor because his family can't afford it. The last time he saw a physician it was in an emergency room and he had an extended fever of 102. He has far less than perfect vision but he does not wear glasses. He has never visited a dentist. He also suffers from depression, and has serious problems focusing on his schoolwork.

Now, I got a kick out of your "heartless snob" comment earlier. I assure you that I will try not to lob any exaggerated insults at anyone on your web site. In that same vein, you may think of me as a "bleeding-heart liberal" for what I have said so far. However, my goal isn't to make everyone love each other in a nice socialist utopia.

My concern is education. I want everyone to receive a quality education because I value it and believe that learning is one of the best things about living. The problem is that there are millions of #2 students in this country who aren't on a level playing field. They have the same books and desks and teachers as the students sitting next to them, but poor health care is severly limiting their true potential.

So I guess that I view universal healtcare as being closely tied to education, and I view education as being closely tied to our country's overall quality-of-life. That's why I'm in favor of it, just like I'm in favor of other "socialist", but helpful institutions like libraries, public education, roads, social security, and the police.

Thanks for the polite and thoughtful response!

Excellent comments, Tom.

I've observed that children are a consistent special case in law and politics. It is a given that parents and society have the right and obligation to make many choices on behalf of children. Children also have special restrictions, protections, and privileges. The number of differences makes it hard to equate socialism applied to adults with socialism applied to children. For example, I find it very difficult to refute the need for public education, since I have certainly benefitted from it. Therefore, it might be proper to expand the government's role in child health care. (I haven't thought of it that way before.)

Now, I wouldn't classify police as socialist, since they are part of the executive branch. Libraries act as an extension of public education for children, so I think they are also well and good.

Roads are an interesting case. If the government had not built roads, we would have a lot of toll roads. People probably wouldn't drive as much and would be forced to live closer to where they work. Greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles would be less significant, but we would not have freeways that extend from New York to California. In this case, it seems that a well-bounded element of socialism has led to progress overall. Note, however, that it is difficult to apply this same pattern to other kinds of progress, such as the building of the telephone system or the expansion of the Internet.

The issues surrounding social security make my head spin. It's hard to conclude anything about it, except that I've found one small piece of evidence against it: the abuse of social security numbers. Citizens were promised it would not be used for anything but social security, but today it's used by schools, banks, employers, and even the driver's license division. The broken promise is a sign that social security was not well-conceived.

Anyway... while I prefer to give Bush the chance to continue his course, I think Kerry would be a fine president. He would be unpredictable sometimes, but as long as he remains dedicated, he won't fall into a trap like Clinton did.