Reply #3: Critique [View All]

But that has not happened, even in a week in which Mr. Kerry rejected calls from the antiwar Democrats to set a deadline for the withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq. If anything, Democrats have grown more enthusiastic in rallying around Mr. Kerry, dismissing as inconsequential their differences with him on this presumably central issue.

It could very well be inconsequential. Whatever Kerry says now may be inconsequential on January 20. Between now and then, Bush will be in the White House mucking up his own colonial project in Iraq beyond any hope of salvation. The difference between Kerry and Bush that makes Kerry the man to support is not that Kerry has a revulsion of US colonialism, but that he is a pragmatist. Kerry will not try to salvage a situation that is beyond hope, regardless of whether he thinks it was a good idea to undertake the project.

"There are antiwar Democrats who will fume and still vote for Kerry," Mr. Nader said, adding: "I don't think Democrats should give their candidate a pass on the war. If Democrats are so freaked out by Bush that they are, like, 'Do anything you want, John, we'll support you,' well, as I told him in our meeting, he's not going to be left with a mandate."

Here, Nader is wrong. I will vote for Kerry, but that should in no way be taken by Kerry or his people that I am giving him a blank check. It has a lot more to do with my revulsion of Bush, who should not only be turned out of office but turned over to Interpol. I am prepared to vote for Kerry, celebrate his inauguration and then protest his policies and initiatives. However, I expect Kerry to allow the police state provisions of the Patriot Act to die a quiet death under the sunset clauses; I do not expect anybody to be put on a no-fly list as a consequence of exercising the right to dissent. That is why I am voting for Kerry.