Why is Kerry so close, considering how unlikely a Presidential winner he seems to be? One reason is that Bush hasn’t increased his vote since 2000. GWB’s ceaseless pandering to those who won’t vote for him has gained him very little. GWB, of course, is the last to catch on.

Lawrence, perhaps I haven’t been paying close enough attention but isn’t W worshipping at the UN’s altar as well? George even went one step further than Herman Munster will ever go, he actually followed through and attacked a country based on a UN resolution.

Has anyone seen or heard him make an intellectual argument for removing Uncle Saddam from power that’s autonomous of resolution 1441? That’s a sincere question.

Talk about surrendering US sovereignty to the “global test”. This man is not stupid, but appears intellectually paralyzed by this, he knows his job is to protect the constitution, but has been compelled to state that he’s acted on behalf of supranational body.

He appears so conflicted when discussing this, as though its taking all of his energy to supress the impulse to say, as president, I’ve remained faithful to my oath of office and neutralize anyone or state that harms our interest that threaten the survival of our constitutional republic. The tortuous pausing episodes in his speech, it makes for anxious viewing.

He acts as if stating a principled, constitutionally mandatory viewpoint would be apocalyptic, and it would be to liberals.

Minor correction: should have stated “uphold the constitution”

I agree with the poster that from the moment Bush decided to seek UN approval for the toppling of the Hussein regime, he made his own position and leadership incoherent.

Obvious brings up a point that’s all-too-easy to forget in the midst of this election. Bush is a globalist as well. I think it is fair to say he is less of a gloabalist than Kerry, since he scrapped the ABM treaty, Kyoto, and the International Criminal Court. Do Bush/Blair represent one faction of the NWO and Soros/Kerry another?

Kerry wants to put the US on the altar of the UN the minute he takes office. While I expect that Bush has no problem per se with sacrificing US sovereignty, he seems have a use for delaying its ultimate demise.

I appreciate Carl’s insight: that Bush/Blair and Soros/Kerry are simply variants on the NWO theme. That strikes me as true, and I don’t think pairing Bush with the leader of a socialist party is at all off-base. In truth, other than a tactical difference about Iraq, just how do the world views of George Soros and Tony Blair differ?

We’ll end up in the same sterile place following either pair, although the Soros vision (I don’t believe Kerry has a vision) may get us there a little sooner. HRS

The question then becomes whether it is better for it to happen quickly, without first killing off any remaining internal conservative resistance to the NWO, or to take longer and be sure to stamp out internal resistance - I mean build consensus - along the way. Bush is what we would traditionally have called a liberal, inasmuch as he wants to boil the frog slowly, whereas Kerry is more of a radical.

I think Carl, Mr. Sutherland, and Matt are underestimating the difference between Bush and Kerry on globalism, which is substantial. While both sides aspire to a global order based on a single all-encompassing liberal principle, Bush and the neoconservatives want a global order led by the U.S. and organized around some notion of democracy, while Kerry and the left seek a global order led by the UN and organized around left-liberal notions of equality and bureaucratic uniformity. These are not minor differences. The U.S. under Bush remains virtually the only major force in the world today opposing UN-style globalism, even if not consistently and not always for the best of reasons. Here is an example of Bush’s anti-globalism which is close to my heart because I covered it as a reporter for NewsMax: In the summer of 2001, the U.S. stood virtually alone against the entire world and blocked the UN from moving in the direction of global gun control. See my final article in that series, “Global Gun Controllers Surrender to U.S.”

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/24/111205.shtml

While there are differences between the Soros/Kerry and Bush/Blair versions of the NWO, both lead ultimately to the same place. The overt globalists of the Soros type are actually a little more honest about it. The trouble with the democratism of Bush and the neocons is that is has insufficient philosophical resistance to the equalitarianism of Kerry and the Left. Unable (indeed, unwilling) to articulate a coherent traditional alternative to the Leftist vision, they keep mamboing Hegelianly along. HRS

Mr. Charles de Nunzio has a worthy discussion of the depressing options facing traditional Christian patriots in this country for this election:

http://www.charlesdenunzio.com/blog/2004/10/on-upcoming-us-presidential-election.html

http://www.charlesdenunzio.com/blog/ (scroll down a bit)

Mr. Auster’s post with the article was interesting, and adds another plus to the Bush side of the ledger, despite the fact that Bush is generally not a second amendment supporter. He explicitly stated that he would sign a renewed “Assault Weaspons Ban” if Congress passed it, after all. He’s never attempted to roll back any of the numerous idiotic gun restrictions already on the books, either.

Perhaps it would be better to say that Bush/Blair wish to use the US as the vehicle for their utopian dreams while Soros/Kerry wish to employ the UN for theirs. It’s not that Bush has any love of the US, its constitution, or its traditional majority population per se, but sees the continuation of America, albeit in a degenerate form, as useful for the moment. He supports US sovereignty only to the extent that such sovereignty can advance his utopian vision of democracy. In effect the United States would morph into a new improved UN.

Blair is the more difficult one to figure out: One the one hand, he’s clearly a leftist who desires to destroy the few remaining shreds of the traditional Britain through immigration and multiculturalism, already imposed in a totalitarian fashion by his minions. He continues to push for Britain’s submission to the Tranzi regime in Brussels. On the other hand, he splits with both Brussels and other leftists to side with Bush on Iraq and the WOT. It’s almost as if Blair is siding with Bush in order to improve his - and New Labor’s - position in the EU hierarchy.

The weakness of establishment GOP non-conservative presidential candidates can be measured indirectly, by looking at how they have fared against the extraordinary sequence of weak Democratic candidates.

Think how weak John Kerry is; then consider that Dubya is in a tight race with him. Remember Mr. Personality, Al Gore, a.k.a. the Cigar Store Indian? Tainted by Clinton scandals, supported gun control and lost some historically Democratic states beacuse of it, yet finished in a deadlock with Dubya. Bush 41 was so high on approval ratings that the leading lights of the Democratic Party declined to run beginning in 1991. By 1992, Bush’s popularity was waning, but they had already announced they were not running, and Clinton emerged from a weak field, ridden by scandal from day one. Yet he could beat Bush 41. After the health care debacle and numerous scandals, how strong an opponent was Clinton in 1996? Too strong for Bob “it’s his turn” Dole.

How about Michael Dukakis in 1988? Another weak candidate, yet he led Bush by a huge margin before Bush’s advisors told him to pretend to be a conservative and run the Willie Horton ads, and Dukakis took his ill-advised tank ride. Bush 41 managed a come from behind victory with false conservatism and a false tax pledge.

Reagan had two weak opponents, also, but he won in two landslides. Is there a pattern here that the GOP establishment might notice? The last conservative nominee wins by landslides, and everyone since struggles along against the weakest lineup of leftist losers you can imagine?