The original response to Robert was based on this comment:

One tactic of traditional warfare can be adapted to this new type of war: Deprive your enemy of resources. Terrorism's most important raw material is cannon fodder. Starve 'em.

You seemed also to feel a strong pull to the knee-jerk cry of "appeasement!". Well, Tom, understanding the nature of a problem isn't appeasement. It's simply smart. And if you and Bush are actually sincere about considering war the last resort, why are you so afraid of the possibility that there might be a solution that doesn't involve all that juicy killing and bombing? Doesn't the possibility of a "cost-effective" solution appeal to your Republican heart?

The short answer is, because there IS no magic solution to a war with the cult of radical Islam that isn't going to involve killing and bombing. I don't have one. Robert sure as hell doesn't have one, unless that vague reference to "starving them" is supposed to be one. Nobody else around here has come up with much either.

The premise around here is that a potted plant could have done a better job than Bush. That Al Gore certainly would have done a better job. That John Kerry WILL certainly do a better job.

BFD. Talk is cheap. HOW will they do a better job? What will Kerry change? Exactly what is involved in fighting terrorism in a more "effective, sensitive" way? Oh, right. It's a secret. He has yet to come up with anything other than vague talk about bringing in allies (by which he means allies other than the ones we have.)

Why vote for Bush?

Bush has policies I like.

A foreign policy that actually tries to change things for the better, instead of endless wringing of hands and making speeches in the U.N., or hoping that aggressive dictators will change their spots if we just wait long enough. A foreign policy that actually dares to think U.S. interests might be more important than France's. Or anyone's. A policy that believes in the moral good of America. I don't see Kerry doing that.

Bush supports lower taxes and thinks private enterprise is a good thing, not the heart of evil. Does Kerry?

Bush has policies I don't like.

He isn't getting a handle on government spending, a definite downcheck in my book. But tallying up Kerry's wish list adds up to a whole lot more. Bush isn't controlling the borders as much as I'd like. Would Kerry the Democrat do better? Or open them up even more? I didn't like that Bush didn't push guns for pilots. Would Kerry?

***

Now, here's probably the top reason I voted for Bush last time, and will vote for him again:

John Kerry and Al Gore firmly believe that it is their destiny to be president. That they were meant to run the country. That they and their colleagues deserve the job, and that their virtues and superior skills make them the only suitable choice. That they are better than the common man, who would be lost without them. Kerry in particular radiates this, especially whenever he is dealing with "regular" people. When he called a Secret Service man a son-of-a-bitch, that said something to me. There have been other examples. His "Joe Sixpack" act over the past weeks isn't fooling anyone.

For future reference, Hillary falls firmly into this category, too.

George Bush sees the presidency as a duty, a job that he intends to do as best as he can. He behaves no differently in the Oval Office than he would have if someone had drafted him for the job. Bush believes that he needs God's help in this, not to tell him what to do from on high, but to help him do the right things on his own. I never get the impression from Bush that he thinks he's better than the guy who brings him his dinner at night, that he thinks America NEEDS him to survive, and that he thinks it's self-evident that the sun shines out of his ass.

The man has a certain humility, arguably earned the hard way in youth. Not an inferiority complex, which is something different entirely.

I got the impression that if Bush had lost in 2000, he would have gone back to his ranch and cheerfully put his feet up. Maybe run for governor again, or maybe Senate. Who knows? Maybe get involved with another sports team, or just sit back and write a book or something.

So, how has Al Gore adjusted?

Have you ever noticed that Republican ex-presidents seem to quietly go out to pasture, while Democratic ones seem to have a desperate need to hang around the halls of power like a bum son-in-law? Does anyone remember what George H. W. Bush, or Gerald Ford did during Clinton's impeachment crisis? Right. Almost nothing. If Reagan had been healthy, I'd bet you wouldn't have heard from him either. (I really thought Carter would go to a graceful and honorable retirement, and he looked well on his way. No such luck. Everyone knew that the Clintons were going to cling to Washington like limpets).

Bush doesn't NEED to be president. And frankly, I will always prefer a leader who doesn't think he was born to the job.