is this the November Surprise?
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/bennett200411020922.asp
First, as my readers and listeners know, I call it straight. I don't do RNC talking points and I have my criticisms. The administration has been too easy on China, which is an evil and growing giant. We've been too appeasing of Saudi Arabia, which is a thugocracy. And we've been out of control with our domestic spending. President Bush has not vetoed a single bill, including what I think is the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold campaign-reform law.
Those criticisms having been noted, I am entirely confident that John Kerry would be much worse on every score mentioned above, especially on spending. But there are strong reasons to support President Bush. Aside from him being a decent and good man. Note how little one hears of bringing decency or honor back to the White House — it's a non-issue thanks to the way President Bush has comported himself and run his administration.
Moreover, we live in perilous times. We are at war, a war of civilization versus barbarism. This is a time that calls for both certainty and commonsense. John Kerry is uncertain in the war on terrorism and way to the left of the mainstream on domestic policy.
Look at Kerry's recent record — which is to say his recent statements. He's spoken of not having enough troops in Iraq, though in his DNC convention speech he said he'd seek 40,000 more active duty troops — but "not for Iraq". He's spoken of bringing troops home from Iraq in six months, one year, and within one term. As recently as in the second debate — in a single debate, in a single venue — he said Iraq was a threat, and then said Iraq was not a threat. When President Bush said that he saw a threat and took Hussein out and that Kerry would have left Hussein in power, Kerry said that had he been president, Hussein would "not necessarily be in power." Kerry repeated this hesitant claim to Tom Brokaw last week.
More…