Why Bush and not Kerry?

Right-leaning readers of this blog know that I am a (gasp) liberal. And left-leaning readers know that I am voting for (gasp) George W. Bush. Like Ron Silver, the liberal actor who gave a keynote at the Republican convention, I can plainly see that the religious fanatics who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001 are profoundly anti-liberal and that George W. Bush (with Tony Blair and John Howard) is standing against them to defend Western liberal democracy.

Even though Bush and I may disagree on gay marriage, we agree that gay people should not be buried alive or beheaded. Even though Bush and I may differ in part over issues like abortion rights or stem-cell research, we agree that women should not be stoned to death for having sex out of wedlock. And I may quibble with him over his economic or health care policies, but those will be moot discussions if our economy is destroyed or our healthcare system is overwhelmed by smallpox epidemics due to bioterroist attacks.

John Kerry's anti-defense record in the Senate and lack of a coherent stance on Iraq and the Global War on Terror have shown that he is not the man to lead this fight. It's that simple. If the Democrats were the party of Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller, I'd have no problem. But this election cycle, they are the party of appeasement, the UN and Michael Moore. Sorry, no sale.

It is a major irony of our era that liberals have outsourced the defense of liberalism to conservatives.

UPDATE: A special welcome to visitors from the Hugh Hewitt Vox Blogoli IV Symposium. Thanks for stopping by. Please stay awhile and explore by going to the main page.