This is the real theme to the GOP Convention: "Desperately trying to convince America we're something we're not - mainly compassionate, inclusive, and moderate."

The Democratic Party borders on incompetence - but at least they're honest.

I'm not sure honesty wins elections.

Marketing wins national elections, nothing more. Looking at how parties sell the candidates, Bush v. Kerry might as well be Pepsi v. Coke. And while Republicans may have invented and perfected modern every-true-partisan-all-at-once-stand-up-and-say-the-same-thing-as-loud-as-you-can-over-and-over electioneering tactics, the Democrats are racing for that same bottom just as fast as they can. My prediction is that within ten years the only viable campaign message will be "I'm that candidate". Or more likely: "I'm not that candidate".

Actually, I just stayed home so I could tape all the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads.

"If they question Kerry's medals,... they question everybody's medals."

Pure baloney. I do not know a single veteran (other than Kerry) who is worried about having his or her medals questioned by the Swift Boat guys.

McCain's position on this issue is wrong. These men have a right to speak, and Kerry has not yet addressed the issues they have raised, other than issuing blanket denials, threatening to sue TV and Radio Stations and to intimidating bookstores from selling "Unfit for Command."

Kerry held out his four months in Vietnam as qualifying him to be President, and now he claims that questioning his service is off limits. It is also not simply old news, as I believe the assertions made by the Swift Boat Vets, if true, go directly to his fitness to be President.

Smith's French comment was one of the most ignorant I've ever heard in my life.

Which "assertions" are those, Jim? Did Kerry refuse to take a flight-screening physical after training to be a pilot, and fail to show up at all for the last year of cushy National Guard duty? No, wait, that's Bush, and his fitness to be president is beyond question, right?

I thought Arnold's speech was pretty good. I really wasn't expecting much, though, so "pretty good" is a relative term.

By failing to follow his own stated convictions Arnold has now become a "girlie man" for the Republican party. No surprise he lost his integrity when he entered politics.

Sam,

I think that his fitness to be a wartime president has been proven, and the prospect of John Kerry in that role scares hell out of me. But, I'm sure you don't agree, and I doubt that either of us will ever convince the other to switch candidates.

We'll just have to wait and see and hope for the best.

"By failing to follow his own stated convictions"
What convictions did Arnold not follow?

I know he buckled a bit under some of his initial promises, but the total number of issues he tackled was unrealistic. I don't recall Arnold not following his stated convictions.

Jim - What more can Kerry do to refute claims that he didn't earn his medals other than produce his official military records? Even the Swift Vets' OWN records refute their versions of the "truth." Why didn't they question their own medals if they were supposedly based on lies?

If the Swift Vets are angry with Kerry for speaking out about the atrocities in Vietnam (and that's what they are actually angry about) then fine, they can speak out about that all they want. But from everything I have read, their story about Kerry not being under fire, etc. is just baloney.

These men have a right to speak only so long as they are speaking the truth.

And don't even get me started on the comment that Bush's "fitness to be a wartime president has been proven." Yes, he has certainly proven that he can start wars.

(Sorry, I just watched Zell Miller's and Dick Cheney's speeches, and I'm a little worked up.)

Now, calm down, Red. Just think about all those dividends you're collecting on your stocks, which, thanks to W., are taxed at half the rate that ordinary joes pay on their salary. That ought to mellow you out.

Red,

He can do this.

"...the dumbest president we've ever had..."

Our military is killing the terrorists in the Middle East, instead of downtown America. That's brilliance.

The mistake Kerry supporters make is thinking that folks care about Bush's intelligence. It may be moderate, but he has a moral backbone and the balls to back it up - which Democrats/Liberals today lack - period.

Really? Do you think there are fewer terrorists now than there would have been under a Gore administration?

Most of the creeps that we are killing in Iraq would never be in a position to attack the United States. But among the thousands of recruits we are arousing and inspiring, there certainly are some who will try -- and they're sitting in Saudi Arabia and Europe right now, not Iraq.

Maybe it was right to throw some hands in some Muslim countries in the Middle East for a while. But now I think the statement has been made, and it's time to come up an endgame strategy. Bush has none.

I honestly think they kind of have to. And John McCain also is critical of George W. At least on The Daily Show.

"Do you think there are fewer terrorists now than there would have been under a Gore administration?"
Yes. Because Saddam is now gone. With Iraq no longer giving broad support to Islamic Terrorists, they are dwindling in number.

[ Gore, as a Democrat, doesn't have the balls to kill the terrorists. Instead, he would have 'negotiated' until they regrouped in larger numbers. ]

But Iraq is a straw man for terror. Libya already fell in line (the week Saddam was pulled out of a hole). And Saudi Arabia is learning that terrorists are their problem too. If the Democrats in the US Congress would have let the FBI do the job, 9/11 wouldn't have happened ('profiling' suspicious Arabs is a good thing).

It's going to take long time to kill all the terrorists in the world. Democrats won't do it.

Jack: Oh right, my stock portfolio! How could I have forgotten that? I feel much better. Although...

The mistake Kerry supporters make is thinking that folks care about Bush's intelligence. It may be moderate, but he has a moral backbone and the balls to back it up - which Democrats/Liberals today lack - period.

The mistake Bush supporters make is not understanding how serious the rest of us believe it is for a President to mislead this country into war. I'm not going to use the word "lie," because Bush was (only slightly) more wily than that. His reasoning for invading Iraq went through a not-so-subtle evolution, and I am not going to stand for that from my President. It's APPALLING. At the RNC, I'm hearing all this talk about liberation, freedom, and democracy in Iraq. Huh? At the outset, we heard all about 9/11 and Saddam's supposed connection to it. In between, of course, there were the WMDs. So personally, I'd rather have a different set of balls in there doing the job with integrity.

Jim, I read the SBVT link. They want a full apology, but what should Kerry apologize for? I have actually heard him say (long before SBVT came along) that he wishes he had used less harsh language when testifying about atrocities in Vietnam. As far as "getting his story straight," what they have presented doesn't sound like conflicting stories to me. Plus, there are the official records. So why is he going to waste valuable campaigning time rehashing that one day in Vietnam? And yes, everyone's medals do become suspect when you start comparing war injuries to see who was more deserving.

Bush was dishonest about our CURRENT war, and that's much more relevant and important right now.

(By the way, there are a zillion other reasons I would never vote for Bush besides the Iraq war. Hell, if I were a Republican I'd be livid.)

"I think that [W's] fitness to be a wartime president has been proven."

Yeah, I was very impressed with how he decided not to cancel his photo op in a second grade classroom after hearing that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center at 8:45 am on 9/11/01. He confirmed to a reporter on his way out of his hotel that morning that he was aware of the crash, but decided to go ahead with the photo-op instead of making himself available to give the order to shoot down stray commercial planes--an order only the president has the authority to give. I also love the way he just sat in the classroom and did nothing for twenty minutes after he heard about the second plane and knew we were under attack. If he had canceled the photo op and given the shoot-down order immediately, the second and third planes might have missed their targets too. Bush was negligent on the morning of 9/11/01; he is a weak leader and we are all in danger as long as he is president.

Scott, you are seriously deluded to think invading Iraq has made Arabs less angry at the U.S. or caused terrorists to "dwindle in number." Al Qaeda has recruited more than 18,000 new soldiers for its cause since we invaded. Because we failed to secure Iraq's borders, Al Qaeda are flooding in there by the truckload. Saddam being gone makes no difference, because he was contained by no fly zones, sanctions, etc. and in no position to "aid" Al Qaeda anyway.

Kerry refuses to permit access to his military records. He plucked his favorites and put them on his website.

As I said, no one is going convince anyone on the other side of anything here. Let's just agree to disagree. Now I'm going to have a cocktail.

Cheers. We're all Americans.

"Scott, you are seriously deluded to think invading Iraq has made Arabs less angry"
I never said that.

The Arabs have nothing to be angry about. Perhaps they are embarassed at their impotence in not dealing with terrorists - but the terrorist problem is our problem now. If the rest of the world doesn't like someone finally stopping the problem - too bad for them. The rest of the world had a chance to solve the problem but decided to do nothing.

Now that the Russians are dealing with Islamic terrorists of their own in a big way (the school take-over), look for them to get serious about a solution. If you wet yourself over the USA stopping terrorists, wait for the Russians to do something.

"or caused terrorists to "dwindle in number."
By 'terrorists', I meant state-supported terrorists.

With Iraq gov't out of the terrorist-supporting business (as well as Libya, Pakistan and Afghanistan) there are a lot fewer places to operate in the open.

Iran also needs to be stopped, but that can wait until the spring. And you can bet Israel is going to take the lead on fixing the nuke problem Iran has.

Kerry doesn't have to worry about anyone questioning his medals, he doesn't have any. He threw them away in 1971. It doesn't matter that he claims that he threw ribbons instead of medals, ribbons are symbols of the medals and the medals themselves are symbols. He had them, he threw them and it's too late to come back now and claim he still has them.

And you can bet Israel is going to take the lead on fixing the nuke problem Iran has.

Who's going to take care of the "nuke problem" that Israel has?

Scott in Japan:

Thank you for your takes on terrorism. I haven't laughed so hard in days.