"...I too would prefer the Platonic Ideal of the pristine untried Obama...."

Uh, what? He's been in office seven years.

"...Zell. I thought both speeches were excellent...."

I gather all that lying his face off doesn't bother you?

Was it September 11th that changed Zell Miller'sopinion, do you think?

Did you notice the White House reaction?

I don't have any questions about your having doubts about John Kerry's possible policies or attitudes; that's entirely debatable and questionable.

Other stuff I don't understand, such as why you believe Bush's strong words translate into competent execution of policies. Has attacking Iraq (which I supported, recall) actually made us safer from terrorism?

Has Bush competently handled attacking and defeating al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and worldwide?

Has Bush made us safer in preventing nuclear arms in North Korea? Has he displayed a clear and consistent policy in regard to Iran, and its potential nuclear arms?

How do you see his tough talk translating into effective policies? Has his government, overall, been honest, as well as competent?

Where's the case for any of this?

Rather than answering all your questions here, let me refer you to my many "Anyone But Kerry" posts.

I don't agree with many of Bush's positions, but I don't agree with many of Kerry's either. But Bush trumps Kerry on the most important issues this year, which are foreign policy, and although both propose too many "big govt" solutions for my taste, also Bush understands entrepreneurship and wealth creation better than Kerry.

"Rather than answering all your questions here, let me refer you to my many 'Anyone But Kerry' posts."

Judith, if I'd not read every single one, and not been a quite dedicated reader of yours, I'd not have asked the questions.

I don't want to call you on the phone to try to understand these questions. I ask you in writing in hopes you can explain your thinking in writing. I don't imply, of course, that there's any obligation involved. I'd just like to toss these questions back and forth in writing in hopes of greater mutual understanding, and that, of course, perhaps maybe another person or two might be swayed.

We've got a bit less than two months. Perhaps this might be, if not altogether fun, somewhat interesting?

Okay, Gary.

Yes, using the yardstick of every long-term nation-building effort attempted over the past 60 years, Bush's handling of Iraq is competent. More important, he has not lost sight of the ultimate goal, which is a government accountable to its people and an economy based on market forces integrated into the global economy (which go hand in hand with accountability).

Kerry is willing to settle for "stability," doesn't think the wogs are capable of democracy and market-driven economies. Kerry wants to abandon the Iraqis like he aided and abetted abandoning the Vietnamese 35 years ago. Our occupations of Afganistan and Iraq have not caused a refugee problem, but Kerry's policies will.

Also, Kerry wants to give Iran nuclear fuel. how competent is that? Kerry disses our current allies, then claims he will be more diplomatic with allies than Bush, and he doesn't seem to be aware of the contradiction. How competent is that?

And how competent is Kerry in general? He's a kept man who has a half-time hobby of playing at being a US Senator. At least Bush was in business for some years before running for office. Has Kerry actually ever worked for a living his entire life?

I won't even start on his demagoguery about outsourcing.