Which presidential candidate’s foreign policy does this sound most like?

“We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators.”

“It has always seemed to me that in dealing with foreign countries we do not give ourselves a chance of success unless we try to understand their mentality, which is not always the same as our own.”

These quotations are from neither of our two presidential candidates but rather from a famous English leader. I’ll give you a hint. I got the idea for this post from Thomas Sowell’s latest column (dated August 26, 2004).

I found this graphic on the blog Resplendent Mango. Ms. Mango has started something she calls the Eowyn Voters League (EVL), and I’m definitely sympathetic to the cause. I certainly don’t want my children to learn this lesson the hard way.

Go here to read more about EVL.

The unifying theme of their (Democrats’) otherwise contradictory messages is that we can return to the infantile delusions of September 10, and not the crisis-filled adult world of post-September 11 that now confronts George W. Bush.

I got this quote from Victor David Hanson via Worldmag blog. The quote is the final sentence of an article in the August 6th National Review entitled A Return to Childhood. I agree with everything Hanson says, and I have something to add to his argument. Not only are those who are listening to the Democrats and who plan to vote for John Kerry falling for a siren song of false security, but also those third -party utopians who plan to throw away their votes in a meaningless gesture instead of voting for an imperfect candidate who might have the will to win this war in which we are engaged, those third party voters are deluded. Peggy Noonan, in the column I wrote about yesterday, says,
Because I am a conservative I support the party that best represents conservative views, the Republican Party. Sometimes I get mad at it; often it disappoints me. It is imperfect, and not perfectible. But to a greater degree than in the past I feel an urge to help it. Since peace was wrenched off the tracks on 9/11, deep in my heart I have pulled for President Bush, Vice President Cheney, members of the current administration, and Republicans in the Senate and the House. With the decline of the Democratic Party I have become convinced there is a greater chance we will win the war if the Republican Party wins the election.
This is the way adults think. There are no perfect political parties, no ideal political candidates. I will never find a political candidate who will agree with me on everything, and in this post 9/11 world we do not have the luxury of voting for someone who sounds more Christian or more conservative than GWB and thereby throwing the election to the Democrats. John Kerry doesn’t even seem to know who our enemy is; he and his supporters believe that I am the enemy of America, Bush and his right-wing, extremist, fundamentalist voting base. I do not understand this kind of thinking, and I do not understand the thinking that says because GWB is wrong on immigration or wrong on the war in Iraq or not pushing hard enough to end abortion or whatever, I will vote for Candidate X who says all the right words and has absolutely no chance of winning this election.
I believe our continued existence as a nation is at stake in this election, and I further believe that if we elect John Kerry we will pay for our mistake with “blood, sweat, and tears.” As Peggy Noonan implies, there are no guarantees. We are already in a war with Islamic terrorists around the world; the question is not how can we get out of this war? Nor is it should we be fighting this war? The question is how can we win this war and defeat these terrorists and show the world the fallacies of their evil worldview? And who can lead us as a nation to do so?

I just read Peggy Noonan’s most recent column in the Wall Street Journal. She’s taking a leave of absence, without pay, in order to work fulltime as a volunteer to help Republicans win the election this November. She doesn’t say specifically what she’ll be doing, I think at least partly because she doesn’t know exactly yet. Anyway, I’m impressed. I can’t quit my job or take a leave of absence, but I’m happy to see that someone as talented and articulate as Ms. Noonan can and will do so. Like Peggy Noonan, I believe that this election is very important and that it’s vital to the health of our nation that GW Bush win. I’ve already written something about my views on the election of GWB in this blog, and I will continue to do so off and on. And I’ll be praying for Peggy Noonan and all of us. The God who has allowed to live and vote in this country of unprecedented liberty and justice for all is allowing us another chance to choose our leaders and choose the direction of this nation for the next four years. May we make truly wise choices by the grace of that same God.

Ok, it’s not original, but it’s still a very good reason.

Chief justice William Rehnquist–Age 78
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor–Age 73
Justice John Paul Stevens–Age 83

Conservative presidents do not have a very good record in the past 50 years of appointing true conservatives to the Supreme Court. However, liberal Democrats have a very good record of appointing liberal justices to that court. So, worst case, it’s a choice between a chance of getting a truly conservative Supreme Court justice or the near-certainty of getting yet another liberal appointed to the Court. And I actually believe that the words of the Constitution, although not on par with Holy Scripture, mean something. I think that the only way to change the Constitution is to amend it, not to read it as a “living document” that means anything some judge thinks it ought to mean. So I’ll be voting for GWB who might have a small chance of appointing judges to the bench who believe in interpreting the Constitution to mean what it actually says.

OK, I shouldn’t link this because of some crude language, but it really is funny. Go here to see a short movie making fun of both Kerry and Bush. I found this movie linked at a (liberal) blog called Daniella’s Misadventures.

I found a link to this story at Moteworthy. Key quote:

”Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?”

My immediate reaction is: I can’t believe anyone had the gall and the selfishness to tell this story to a reporter from the New York Times.
My next reaction: What is she going to tell the son who was “lucky” enough to survive and be born? “Son, you were such a wanted child. I got rid of your twin siblings so that I could focus all my time and attention on you.”
What a crazy world we live in. Father, forgive them.

From a (entire speech here) speech by George W. Bush at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN on Jully 12;

To overcome the dangers of our time, America is also taking a new approach in the world. We’re determined to challenge new threats, not ignore them, or simply wait for future tragedy. We’re helping to build a hopeful future in hopeless places, instead of allowing troubled regions to remain in despair and explode in violence. Our goal is a lasting, democratic peace, in which free nations are free from the threat of sudden terror. Our strategy for peace has three commitments: First, we are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy. We will confront them overseas so we do not have to confront them here at home

Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.

Does anyone believe that John Kerry would have the ability or the courage to protect the United States of America by going to war if necessary? Or would he stand by and watch helplessly and wring his hands while other nations harbored terrorists and stockpiled weapons? Even if Kerry would defend the U.S., wouldn’t the terrorists be more likely to believe that he is weak and unwilling to fight and then attack us? If George W. Bush warns another Saddam Hussein that we will not tolerate terrorists who plot to kill us and destroy our freedom, will they not believe him?