Us presidential election 2004

[Bernadotte 0]

And back to Florida, home of double-dipping snowbirds...

I read the entire article thinking I would find out what "double-dipping" meant.

Would you mind pointing out what you are referring to?

[xawery 0]

That's why US politics is so interesting to watch. It's so passionate, so dyanmic, vibrant and sometimes bordering to the fanatical. It's really refreshing compared to ours. I really envy you in that respect.

I beg to differ on this matter. The fact that politics are fun to watch is caused by factors which have quite a detrimental effect on actual policymaking. I'll highlight the one that annoys me most:

Lack of nuance. To make politics 'exciting' and 'easy to consume' for the broader audience politicians resort to sound bites, short slogans and oversimplification. That's a poor substitute for substance. Sure, politicans can say one (oversimplified) thing when on campaign and then do another (perhaps better fitting but more opaque) when actually in office, but this only creates the image of the lying politician, because he "didn't deliver on his promises".

Politics and policy making are inherently dull to those who do not happen to be interested in or knowledgeable about the subject of discussion. Simplification and stratification just so as to make it more 'dynamic and entertaining' is NOT a good thing.

Example - one would conclude that since the American way of conducting politics is more passionate and dynamic it would get more people involved in politics and the issues at hand. Sadly, this report by PIPA (which might have already been mentioned by someone) clearly shows that people have no idea at all what their preferred candidate's ideas actually are...

I've had my share of 'exciting and dynamic' politics here in the Netherlands. Pim Fortuyn's ascent and death caused a paradigm shift in Dutch politics. Suddenly every political party decided that it MUST pamper the whims of the 'common man'. This resulted in the worst bout of populism I have ever witnessed in Dutch politics. Superior politicians were replaced by better looking, younger people. The elections that followed were really embarrassing, at least by my standards - there were moments where the discussion was clearly about the man/woman, not the ideas his/her party stands for. Disgusting.

Let politics be boring and the discussion inoffensive, as long as it results in sound policy. Polarisation of views has rarely led to that.

'Exciting' politics sure are 'fun', but they can stay on the other side of the pond. Here at home, I'd much rather have politicians who care about what's good for the country, and not what will catch the attention of joe average.

/edit: rephrased sentence to remove ambiguity

[denoir 0]

I see your point, but don't you think it is beneficial if people take an active interest in politics? It affects all people, not just the ones sincerely interested in the process.

Democracy assumes people making informed choices - that they know what they want and that they know what the different candidates stand for. Otherwise we're just going to have enlightened despotism with an element of chance. In turn, the only way to get the great masses to get involved is to catch their interest.

And yes, it inevitably brings the problem of populism, but what's the alternative? Enligthened despotism is very risky as you put your full trust in one or few people.

I would however also like to claim that apathy invites populism as well. Uninformed people are a much easier targets for propaganda. The Swedish EMU vote is a perfect example where the apathic voters fell prey to xenophobic populists that painted a twisted picture.

A healthy dosage of polarization and debate leads to people getting informed - if nothing for else than to find arguments for making their case.

[shinRaiden 0]

The double-dipping by snowbirds I mentioned has to do with allegations of people that live up north in the summer and move to Florida in the winter possiblely voting in both states' elections over confusion over residency status.

Anyway, Xawery, you're right on. The politicians think that the populace thinks soundbites and the whole song and dance routine is 'exciting', and may motivate those who don't care about the process. How many people seriously care about discussing the appropiations for janitorial supplies for the department of the Interior, and the CIA toilet bugs slipped into that budget rider?

In the GOP precinct I now run, it's a real tricky balancing act to convince all the ranchers that they should be giving their elected leaders a piece of their mind, and not sending cow pies to the county council. Of course it is 'fun' to go sit in on a county council meeting and listen to the farmers inform the 'communist' councilmembers that if they or the Dept. of Ecology agents had better bring a warrant and the sheriff if they want to come on their property, etc.

But seriously, how productive is it? The inflammatory rhetoric scares off those who are sympathetic to your cause (on both sides) and further enables the left's insidious class-warfare conspiracy to take over the world through anarchy and apathy.

I think the biggest problem is that as people have developed a misconstrued notion of representative federalism or public democracy, they think that the politicking is to be left to the old fogies with nothing better to do, and the governing to the apparatchiks. They don't view it as their responsibility to pick up the phone or write a letter or show up in person to tell the elected officials how to do their job, and I think that is rather unfortunate.

[shinRaiden 0]

Ok, enough sanity. Back to the inflammatory rhetoric.

Systematic intimidation and destruction spreads to Phoenix, AZ

Quote[/b] ]

A pile of shattered glass joined egg shells filling the entryway to the GOP offices, located on Humphreys Street across from Wheeler Park. Fliers with information criticizing President Bush were staked up outside the door.

Local GOP coordinator John Echols said he received at 7 a.m. phone call from an employee at Enterprise Rent-a-Car next door reporting the vandalism. Echols arrived to find the smashed door, but little else in the way of damage. Still, police are considerting the crime as a felony because cost to replace the door is expected to exceed $1,000.

Quote[/b] ]

For Echols, it's nothing new. In 2002, someone threw a rock through a window at the Republican headquarters, then located at the Bashas' plaza at the north end of Humprheys Street.

Quote[/b] ]

Supervisors with the patrol and detective divisions have not heard of any significant problems regarding the damaging or theft of campaign signs.

"We don't get that many reports," said Sgt. Gerry Blair of the police department. "Most of the time, people don't report it."

He added that it has been his experience that campaign sign damage or theft is considered a nuisance by residents, and it has become an expected occurrance.The department will receive sporadic reports during a campaign season, but not to the level mentioned by the political party headquarters staff in Flagstaff.

Felony criminal damage is another matter, Blair said. Those crimes, like what happened early this morning, seldom go unreported.

"This is a felony and will be treated as such, and if we figure out who did it, we'll pursue prosecution," Blair said.

Blair emphasized that residents who experience campaign sign damage or theft should call police, so investigators can begin discerning patterns in the crimes.

"We can't investigate crimes we don't know about," he said.

[Acecombat 0]

Now for some graphical conclusion of what this threads all about or what Bush vs Kerry is all about

[Bernadotte 0]

And back to Florida, home of double-dipping snowbirds...

I read the entire article thinking I would find out what "double-dipping" meant.

Would you mind pointing out what you are referring to?

The double-dipping by snowbirds I mentioned has to do with allegations of people that live up north in the summer and move to Florida in the winter possiblely voting in both states' elections over confusion over residency status.

Where?  The article makes no mention of anything like that.  

Why introduce the article with such an entirely unrelated allegation?

Ok, enough sanity. Back to the inflammatory rhetoric.

On second thought, now I understand.

[shinRaiden 0]

'sigh. I forget that to hang out in leftist conspiracy circles is enlightenment, but rightest conspiracy hacks are 'nut-jobs', to quote JibJab.

Anyway, this was oldnews from August. NY Daily News.

And somebody's comment on it:

Quote[/b] ]

This explains the “dangling-chad†syndrome!

The double-voters were worn out from all that voting, and were unable to complete punch a hole in a piece of paper.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ok, enough sanity. Back to the inflammatory rhetoric.

OK

Quote[/b] ]In Broward County, at the regional library in Pembroke Pines, a voter complained that Kerry supporters used abusive language about President Bush and had signs and banners within 50 feet of the entrance.

Kerry supporters were "shoving anti-Bush propaganda at us," complained the voter, who said he shouted back "Vote President Bush!"

A woman who voted in Plantation at the West Regional Courthouse said she was offended to see five or six people with "huge stick on badges" for Kerry/Edwards, standing near the voting machines.

"Never in all the years of voting do we remember being allowed to show a badge or poster or literature while inside the area where the voters are standing ready to cast their vote," she wrote.

Juan D'Arce of Miami complained to the Republicans that he tried early voting in downtown Miami. He was wearing a Bush pin, but he couldn't stand the taunting, so he turned away and did not vote.

Howard Sherman complained about his voting experience at North Shore Branch Library in Miami-Dade County. He found a crowd of Kerry supporters blocking the door.

"They were positioned directly in front of the entrance to the library in such a manner that it would be impossible to avoid them while entering the polling place," he reported.

Sherman said he tried to slip through the thinnest part of the crowd, but a woman in a Kerry T-shirt grabbed his arm and asked if he was voting for Kerry.

"I seem to recall from civics class that this sort of electioneering is illegal," Sherman complained to the Republicans.

Republican Lawrence Gottfried, who became a poll watcher in Delray Beach after what he thought was inappropriate behavior at the polls, said the things he saw upset him.

Gottfried said that while working at the Delray poll, actor Danny DeVito and his wife, actress Rhea Perlman, showed up. Gottfried is a fan, but he didn't ask for an autograph.

"I said, `Look Mr. DeVito, I'm a big fan of yours and Rhea's, but you are blocking the entrance. You're campaigning, you've got a Kerry-Edwards button on, and it's not appropriate."

Gottfried, who used to be a Democrat, said the things he saw were "ridiculous."

"There is a time for partisanship and it's OK to have a different point of view, but don't violate the sanctity of the polling area," he said.

Full Article

[shinRaiden 0]

Er, I just posted that. Bottom of last page. No double-dipping now...

Okay, you were just quoteing a different section of the same article that I hadn't quoted entirely. nm.

The truth is out there Scully, get with the program and don your tinfoil hats, we get four more years in T-10 days...

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]Sherman said he tried to slip through the thinnest part of the crowd, but a woman in a Kerry T-shirt grabbed his arm and asked if he was voting for Kerry.

    In that case I would of spat in her face and used my free arm to vise grip her arm free of mine. I wouldn't care what candidate she asked. If a stranger grabs my arm and challenges me in public they are going to get a big ball of spit in their eye.

     When a partisan mob forms within the no soliciting, no campaigning buffer zone around a polling center the cops should wade through them with rubber bullets and tear gas. That goes regardless of the party the mob is strong arming for.

[billybob2002 0]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041024/D85TG1380.html

Quote[/b] ]

Ohio Provisional Ballot Ruling Reversed

Oct 23, 9:08 PM (ET)

By JOE KAY

CINCINNATI (AP) - A federal appeals court ruled Saturday that provisional ballots Ohio voters cast outside their own precincts should not be counted, throwing out a lower-court decision that said such ballots are valid as long as they are cast in the correct county.

The ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals supports an order issued by Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. Democrats contend the Republican official's rules are too restrictive and allege they are intended to suppress the vote.

Ohio Democrats on Saturday night decided not to file an appeal in the case, one of the first major tests of how such ballots will be handled in a close election. Polls show that the race between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry in the key swing state is too close to call.

Federal judges in several states have issued varying rulings on the issue of provisional ballots, which are intended to be backups for eligible voters whose names do not appear on the rolls. Saturday's ruling was the first time a federal appeals court has weighed in.

The state's Democrats had filed a lawsuit challenging Blackwell's directive instructing county elections boards not to give ballots to voters who come to the wrong precinct and to send them to the correct polling place on Election Day.

Blackwell has said allowing voters to cast a ballot wherever they show up, even if they're not registered to vote there, is a recipe for Election Day chaos.

The Ohio Democratic Party and a coalition of labor and voter rights groups had argued that Blackwell's order discriminated against the poor and minorities, who tend to move more frequently.

U.S. District Judge James Carr on Oct. 14 blocked Blackwell's directive, ruling that Ohio voters who show up at the wrong polling place still can cast ballots as long as they are in the county where they are registered. Blackwell appealed to the 6th Circuit.

"Today's ruling reaffirms Secretary Blackwell's understanding of the law," Blackwell spokesman Carlo LoParo said in a statement. "Unfortunately the frivolous lawsuits filed by the Ohio Democratic Party and its allies have needlessly wasted the valuable time of election officials across the state as they prepare for this important election."

Democrats said Saturday they were disappointed by the ruling but were ready to move on with election preparations.

"To avoid any confusion, we are not going to appeal this ruling," David Sullivan, voter protection coordinator for the Ohio Democratic Party, said in a statement. "That way we can ensure that voters and election officials understand that voters must be in the proper polling place before casting a vote."

Similar court battles are under way in other states. In Florida, a federal judge ruled Thursday that the state must reject provisional ballots if they are cast in the wrong precinct.

In Michigan, a federal judge said those ballots must be counted if cast by voters at the wrong precinct but in the right city, township or village. That decision also has been appealed to the 6th Circuit, but the appellate court has yet to issue a ruling in that case.

In Missouri and Colorado, judges have ruled that votes in the wrong place don't have to be counted.

Provisional ballots are not counted until after the election. They are set aside and inspected by Democratic and Republican election board employees to establish their validity.

States nationwide have adopted individual standards for when a provisional ballot can be cast and counted. Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia require a provisional ballot to be cast in the correct precinct, or it will not count.

In 2000, Bush beat Al Gore by only 3.6 percentage points in Ohio, which went for Democrat Bill Clinton in the two previous elections. More than 100,000 provisional ballots were cast in Ohio during the 2000 election.

I guess the race and poor card did not work...this time

[billybob2002 0]

Did anybody catch that program? From what I have heard, it was more balance than people thought.

[Akira 0]

Did anybody catch that program? From what I have heard, it was more balance than people thought.

I'd also be interested to know what other media formats they discussed and used.

[Bernadotte 0]

People take offense when I sling wild accusations around, and when you guys do the same I'm just supposed to sit idlely by and nod my head? How boring.

How boring?

How Republican of you to hold yourself to the same standard of behaviour as those you oppose.  Just the other day I heard one of you arguing: "Why should we rebuild Iraq?  After all, Osama bin Laden isn't helping us rebuild the World Trade Center."  But I know how you feel.  The view from the moral highground is not very stimulating, is it?

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Hell! Even if you can beat 'em, join 'em.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sherman said he tried to slip through the thinnest part of the crowd, but a woman in a Kerry T-shirt grabbed his arm and asked if he was voting for Kerry.

    In that case I would of spat in her face and used my free arm to vise grip her arm free of mine. I wouldn't care what candidate she asked. If a stranger grabs my arm and challenges me in public they are going to get a big ball of spit in their eye.

Really?  What happened the last time you spat in a woman's eye?  And please don't tell us it's never happened.  There are loads of folks out on the streets taking surveys and selling stuff who occasionally reach for your arm.  It's certainly nothing to feel frightened of or threatened by, is it?  There are plenty of ways of telling them not to touch you, like... uhhh... telling them not to touch you.

[ran 0]

Someone's talking about spitting on a woman ?

My god ... what's wrong with some people ?

[xawery 0]

Denoir wrote:

Quote[/b] ]I see your point, but don't you think it is beneficial if people take an active interest in politics? It affects all people, not just the ones sincerely interested in the process.

Democracy assumes people making informed choices - that they know what they want and that they know what the different candidates stand for. Otherwise we're just going to have enlightened despotism with an element of chance. In turn, the only way to get the great masses to get involved is to catch their interest.

I certainly agree with you that people taking an active interest in politics is beneficial; it's the fundament of the concept of democracy. The point is however that oversimplifying the issues and deliberately seeking conflict for the sake of controversy and exposure is not the way to do it. By doing so you don't evoke an active interest in politics among the masses; rather, you degrade politics to a soap-opera level which happens to suit the interests of the masses. You achieve the complete opposite of what you set out to bring about.

Quote[/b] ]And yes, it inevitably brings the problem of populism, but what's the alternative? Enligthened despotism is very risky as you put your full trust in one or few people.

I would however also like to claim that apathy invites populism as well. Uninformed people are a much easier targets for propaganda. The Swedish EMU vote is a perfect example where the apathic voters fell prey to xenophobic populists that painted a twisted picture.

Again, I agree with you, but you appear to assume that there is a positive correlation between "passionate, vibrant, dynamic" politics and a well-informed electorate. I can only find evidence to the contrary (vide the PIPA report). What is more, the example you give of the Swedish EMU vote supports my claim - it was the xenophobic populists who used "exciting, oversimplified" politicking to reach their goals.

Quote[/b] ]A healthy dosage of polarization and debate leads to people getting informed - if nothing for else than to find arguments for making their case.

Aye, and I think we are reaching common ground here - we both agree that what each democracy needs is an active and well-informed electorate. I just don't think that oversimplifying and polarising is going to achieve that.

You mention "a healthy dosage of polarisation and debate". This actually made me smile - it's like saying that a country needs "just enough government". What is a "healthy dosage", what is "just enough"? That's the whole purpose of the discussion. It is obvious that neither complete polarisation nor complete apathy of the electorate will do a country good - it's a matter of striking a balance.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sherman said he tried to slip through the thinnest part of the crowd, but a woman in a Kerry T-shirt grabbed his arm and asked if he was voting for Kerry.

    In that case I would of spat in her face and used my free arm to vise grip her arm free of mine. I wouldn't care what candidate she asked. If a stranger grabs my arm and challenges me in public they are going to get a big ball of spit in their eye.

Wow you definitely have ethics , someone grabs you and asks a question and you spit in this face , thats nice.

I wonder which planet i woke up on today ....

[theavonlady 2]

I wonder which planet i woke up on today ....

Can't you read?!

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Wow you definitely have ethics, someone grabs you and asks a question and you spit in this face

And you see nothing wrong with blocking polling places and interrogating people before they enter? That woman had no right to grab someone and ask them if they were voting for her candidate.

[Blake 0]

Nobody's supporting blocking polling places. And it's nobody's business who you vote. But spitting a woman in the eye for grabbing your arm, is eh, rather unmanly thing to do wouldn't you agree

[theavonlady 2]

But spitting a woman in the eye for grabbing your arm, is eh, rather unmanly thing to do wouldn't you agree  

That would leave my options open then.

[Bernadotte 0]

After 40 years of endorsing only Republican candidates for president, Florida's Orlando Sentinel has decided to support Kerry.

Quote[/b] ]Four years ago, the Orlando Sentinel endorsed Republican George W. Bush for president based on our trust in him to unite America. We expected him to forge bipartisan solutions to problems while keeping this nation secure and fiscally sound.

This president has utterly failed to fulfill our expectations. We turn now to his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, with the belief that he is more likely to meet the hopes we once held for Mr. Bush.

Our choice was not dictated by partisanship. Already this election season, the Sentinel has endorsed Republican Mel Martinez for the U.S. Senate and four U.S. House Republicans. In 2002, we backed Republican Gov. Jeb Bush for re-election, repeating our endorsement of four years earlier. Indeed, it has been 40 years since the Sentinel endorsed a Democrat -- Lyndon Johnson -- for president.

But we cannot forget what we wrote in endorsing Mr. Bush in 2000: "The nation needs a leader who can bring people together, who can stand firm on principle but knows the art of compromise." Four years later, Mr. Bush presides over a bitterly divided Congress and nation. The unity following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- the president's finest hour -- is a memory now. Mr. Bush's inflexibility has deepened the divide.

Four years ago, we expressed confidence that Mr. Bush would replace the Clinton-Gore approach of frequent military intervention for one of selective involvement "using strict tests to evaluate U.S. national interests." To the president's credit, the war in Afghanistan met those tests. But today, U.S. forces also are fighting and dying in a war of choice in Iraq -- one that was launched to disarm a dictator who did not have weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea have worsened.

Before the Iraq war, Mr. Bush brushed aside dissenting views -- some within his own government -- about Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities. And because the president failed to round up more international support, more than 80 percent of the coalition forces in Iraq are American troops, and the United States is spending $1 billion a week on the conflict.

Four years ago, we also called on Mr. Bush to pay down the nation's multitrillion-dollar debt before cutting taxes or increasing spending. Yet since then, he has pushed through massive tax cuts, and the national debt has risen from $5.8 trillion to $7.4 trillion. Discretionary spending -- not including defense and homeland security -- has risen 16 percent over three years. The president has not vetoed a single spending bill.

Mr. Bush has been unwilling to reconsider any of his tax cuts, even as the rationale for them -- a huge budget surplus -- has vanished, and the country has gone to war. Other presidents have raised taxes to pay for wars; Mr. Bush is borrowing the money, leaving the bill for future generations.

Four years ago, we called it a "disgrace" that 43 million Americans lacked health insurance. That number has risen under Mr. Bush to 45 million. Yet the plan he now touts on the campaign trail would reduce the ranks of the uninsured by less than 20 percent, and he has not offered a way to pay for it.

Mr. Bush has been a disappointment in other crucial areas. He has weakened environmental protections, pushed an energy policy that would perpetuate America's oil dependence and given up on free-market agricultural reforms that could jump-start trade talks.

Indeed, Mr. Bush has abandoned the core values we thought we shared with him -- keeping the nation strong while ensuring that its government is limited, accountable and fiscally responsible.

We trust Mr. Kerry not to make the mistakes Mr. Bush has.

Mr. Kerry's two decades of experience in the U.S. Senate have given him a solid grounding in both foreign and domestic policy. There is no disputing his liberal record representing Massachusetts, but we believe he has moved to the middle. In this campaign, he has put forth a moderate platform with fiscal discipline at its core.

Despite his differences with Mr. Bush over the wisdom of the war, Mr. Kerry recognizes the imperative of securing and stabilizing Iraq. He would intensify efforts to enlist more foreign help, and speed up training of Iraqi forces and reconstruction in the country.

Mr. Kerry would bolster national security by adding 40,000 troops to the overstretched U.S. military, and doubling its special forces. He would accelerate the program that secures nuclear material in the former Soviet Union before it can fall into the hands of terrorists.

Mr. Kerry would enhance homeland security by doing more to protect ports and other vulnerable facilities. Unlike Mr. Bush, he understands that government accountability and civil liberties must not be needlessly compromised in the name of the war on terrorism.

Mr. Kerry's health plan would extend coverage to 27 million Americans, more than three times as many as Mr. Bush's plan. Contrary to what the president has been saying on the campaign trail, Mr. Kerry's plan would be voluntary, and include private-sector options for coverage.

Also to Mr. Kerry's credit, he has pledged to strengthen environmental protections. His energy plan would do far more to promote conservation and alternative fuels.

Mr. Kerry proposes to pay for all of his plans, primarily by repealing tax cuts for Americans earning more than $200,000. He has not called for tax increases on middle-income Americans.

Mr. Kerry has committed himself to reinstating pay-as-you-go rules that helped turn deficits into surpluses during the 1990s. Such rules would force him to scale back his plans if he can't pay for them.

In sum, we believe Mr. Kerry would be a more bipartisan and effective leader than Mr. Bush. In the Nov. 2 general election, the Sentinel endorses John Kerry for president of the United States.

[theavonlady 2]

The Austin American-Statesman, one of the most liberal papers in Texas, endorses George W. Bush for President:

Quote[/b] ]Despite flaws, Bush better leader for perilous times.

A country so deeply divided over such an array of issues should pause a moment and take a serious, sober look around.

Americans should ask themselves whether they really believe that European nations critical of the war effort will intervene in Iraq if Sen. John F. Kerry is elected president. They won’t.

Further, we should ask whether they really believe that anything less than a fundamental change in the way Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs are funded is adequate to meet future demands.

The war on terrorism

Redirecting the focus to the world as it is, Libya has given up its nuclear program and Afghanistan held its first free presidential election ever, and the process — the first in which women took part — went rather peacefully. A changed Libya and a changed Afghanistan were the direct result of President George W. Bush taking action.

We generally have supported the war on terror as well as the decision to go to war in Iraq, but we have never been shy about criticizing the prosecution of them either. The judgment of the president and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as well as Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, has been clouded at times, and if Bush wins a second term, changes are certainly in order.

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz need to go. Changes at the top of the Defense Department hierarchy would signal not weakness but a commitment to break from the mistakes of the past three years. The young people bearing the brunt of the burden and their families who share that burden deserve no less.

But there is no guarantee that a change in administrations would bring either stability or security to the Middle East in the foreseeable future. In fact, changing administrations now might embolden enemies who believe that Americans don’t have the stomach or the patience for the kind of protracted, unconventional warfare in which we are engaged.

Three years after terrorists struck at targets in New York and Washington, we live in a world that looks familiar but is vastly different from the one we knew before Sept. 11, 2001.

President Bush got some things wrong, but there is much he got right. We are faced with an unrelenting foe who strikes from the shadows and won’t be deterred by diplomacy or international resolutions. Bush’s resolve and commitment to stay the course are clear. As Winston Churchill once said, “When you’re going through hell, keep going.â€

Though Kerry is an honorable man who knows firsthand the horrors of war, he is deluding himself if he thinks a different administration will change the outlook of a foe that doesn’t make war on an individual administration, but on the West in general and the United States in particular.

Dubious also is any notion that the United Nations will suddenly start enforcing its own sanctions and resolutions if there is a different occupant in the White House in January.

Touche!