Yep. Here's what I wrote about Kerry:

One of the president's constitutional duties is commander-in-chief of the military. All else being equal, I prefer a candidate with military experience and preferably combat experience.

Here's the catch. I want a president with military experience for a reason. I expect him to be more decisive. I expect him to be more aware of risks and consequences, including the risks and consequences of not acting. I want him because he has more camaraderie with the military. (One of Clinton's weaknesses was that he never served and wasn't comfortable with the military, though by the end of his second term he was learning on the job.)

I don't give a damn if Kerry served in Vietnam if he's too spineless to ever deploy the military against America's enemies because he's terrified of repeating Vietnam. I want a veteran, but I don't want a shell-shocked veteran. If he can't decide whether or not to fight our enemies, and whether or not to stick to his guns despite that week's opinion poll, I don't want him in the White House.

Posted by: Les Jones at February 17, 2004 02:16 PM

My take on this is very similar to yours. (Lots of links.)

I was more against Bush than you, for his domestic policies. Pro-choice is a big decider for me, and his attempts to insinuate government sponsorship of religious activities creeps me out. But I am very glad Bush is our president now, even though I still feel the same way about his social policies as I did then.

I would vote for a seasoned socially liberal hawkish Democrat in a minute. But the only one dropped out of the race. Edwards is just too inexperienced, and I have zero respect for Kerry and Dean.

Posted by: Yehudit at February 17, 2004 02:17 PM

Didn't Bush campaign on cutting taxes, a Medicare drug benefit, expansion of the Federal role in education with a focus on accountability, increased military spending and urging a faith-based effort to deliver social services? No suprise here. Yes, he did advocate a more humble foreign policy but 9/11 changed everything. Did he proposed a strong increase in Federal spending we have seen, not specifically, but during an economic slowdown, it's not exactly unconventional economics. It's hard to argue President Bush isn't anyting other than mostly the sum of what he has previously advocated.

On free trade, his policies have been uneven. Steel tarrifs and the sacred cow of Florida sugar have put a dent in the Aussie free-trade pact.

Posted by: Gary B at February 17, 2004 02:20 PM

while i don't disagree with much of what you wrote, Gore is NOT intelligent--he flunked out of divinity school.

David

Posted by: David at February 17, 2004 03:01 PM

It's been my impression that Kerry is quite simply a hologram projected from some other planet.

How else does one explain how he keeps harping on "creating jobs" and "fixing the economy", berating Bush for MC'ing NASCAR instead of "starting the economy", when we're in our sixth consecutive month of job growth fueled by Bush's tax cuts?

Does Kerry, like, not watch the news or something? Or does he think just braying the words "jobs" and "economy" will hypnotize enough people into voting for him?

If Kerry wins the nomination, Bush will win in a cakewalk. He'll have an easier time than he would have with Dean.

Posted by: Brian Tiemann at February 17, 2004 03:13 PM

Rumor has it that Gore flunked out of divinity school because he kept on referring to God in the first person.

Posted by: Jim at February 17, 2004 03:48 PM

Maybe he can use a slogan like

"Kerry: permanently stuck on September 10th"

Sort of like Ground Hog Day, without ever learning anything.

Posted by: Chrees at February 17, 2004 03:49 PM

Stephen, since you know where the President stands, and it's on firm ground, I have some questions I imagine you can clarify for me. I shall be most grateful.

1. Where does the President stand on shrinking the deficit?

2. Where does the President stand on shrinking the role and size of the federal government?

3. Where does the President stand on supporting freedom, not dictators, in the "stans"?

4. Where does the President stand on what should be done about North Korea?

5. Where does the President stand on what should be done about Iran?

6. Where does the President stand on what should be done with Syria?

7. Where does the President stand on the "Israeli/Palestinian roadmap" he swears he supports?

8. Where does the President stand on an initiative to create a moon base and land people on Mars?

9. Where does the President stand on whether Jews are accepted into heaven without accepting Jesus?

10. Where does the President stand on President Bush's refusal to support the Kurdish and Shiite revolts in 1991?

11. Where does the President stand on why no WMDs have been found?

12. Where does the President stand on why he's repeatedly said that he watched the first plane hit the WTC on live television as it happened?

13. Where does the President stand on his current assertions that his proposed budget will shrink domestic non-mandated spending?

14. Where does the President stand on the usefulness, or necessity, or lack thereof, of "nation-building"?

15. Where does the President stand on free trade and not engaging in subsidies of domestic industries, such as steel?

I have a number of other questions about where the President stands, but that's enough to start. Any words that help clear up for me the clarity of his stances will be appreciated.

Posted by: Gary Farber at February 17, 2004 03:55 PM

Two more biggies: where does the President stand on disarming the warlords and establishing security through-out Afghanistan. This relates to being "serious about the war."

And where does the President stand on funds and efforts to establish port security, provide necessary funds to "first responders," and other domestic security endeavors long-recommended by the Hart-Rudman Commission and other officials?

Posted by: Gary Farber at February 17, 2004 03:58 PM

A separate sort of query. The President spent months opposing a "Department of Homeland Security." Then, suddenly, he declared he was for it. Where did he stand originally, and where does he stand now on that decision?

Posted by: Gary Farber at February 17, 2004 03:59 PM

After looking at Kerry, I think I know what happened to all that missing Iraqi Botox.

Posted by: David D at February 17, 2004 04:21 PM

I voted for Bush in 2000 for one reason: The thought of seeing Al Gore on TV every day for four years appealed to me like a root canal performed by Teamster on crack.

For me, it was 'No controlling legal authority'- Al apparently thought he hadn't broken the law because it wasn't clear who would prosecute. That's not something I want to see in the White House.

Posted by: rosignol at February 17, 2004 04:53 PM

The times do call for strong leadership. Criticize policy, thats fine. Keep bringing up the fact that no w.m.d. have been found, groundless because EVERYONE thought that he had them. Who do you think Syria, Iran, Arafat, hizzbollah, hamas et al want to see as president? I am a conservative who will vote for Bush. There is no one left on the Democrat side that I would be comfortable with as a wartime leader.

Posted by: Lou Hebert at February 17, 2004 04:53 PM

"I voted for Bush in 2000 for one reason: The thought of seeing Al Gore on TV every day for four years appealed to me like a root canal performed by Teamster on crack."

Stephen, you are the master of analogies.

Posted by: Krista at February 17, 2004 05:48 PM

I'll take a small stab, Gary - reducing fed government? Trying to oursource 850K jobs and Rummy's taking on the union. That was out last week.

NK - meeting's coming up

Iran - election's coming up

'stans - all in good time

Syria - don't show hand before you have to. You'll never know if he doesn't get elected.

As to the port responders - etc. Has all the money allocated already been spent? Did NY get all that was promised? If so, what did they spend it on?

As to shrinking the deficit, check out econopundit.

Some of the others, I really don't care.

Posted by: Sandy P. at February 17, 2004 06:37 PM

Gary Farber:

I'm not Stephen, nor the Prez, but a few of these clearly already have answers.

1. Where does the President stand on shrinking the deficit?

In the midst of a recession? Bad idea (iirc, this was part of what got Hoover in trouble). Couple that w/ "compassionate conservatism," and it becomes a lot less important, I suspect, for this Prez.

2. Where does the President stand on shrinking the role and size of the federal government?

A lot less than conservatives like, but a lot more than liberals give him credit for (or haven't you noticed all the "Feds are taking away money for education" stuff that Josh Marshall and others have tried to peddle)? BTW, from these questions, does this mean that you support shrinking the deficit, size of FedGov, etc.?

3. Where does the President stand on supporting freedom, not dictators, in the "stans"?

We supported the USSR during World War II, and various dictators during the Cold War. This is little different from the arguments (made by Republicans in 1940 and Democrats in 1980) that somehow if we're going to fight for freedom, our fight must be pristine.

But look at it this way: if having the USSR on our side helped produce a better world in 1945 at lower cost to us, and having Rios-Montt and Deng Xiaoping helped collapse the USSR in 1991, is that worth it? I'm not so sure it isn't.

4. Where does the President stand on what should be done about North Korea?

Where does any Democrat stand on NK? I'll say this for W, at least we're not supplying the North w/ quite as much stuff to keep them propped up. You DO realize that, by 1999, the United States was the largest supplier of aid to the North Koreans? And that it was getting us s*** in terms of NK compliance, right?

But if YOU have an answer, by all means, I've little doubt that much of WAshington, Tokyo, and Seoul (not to mention Beijing) would be curious to know what it is.

5. Where does the President stand on what should be done about Iran?

Lessee. Deal w/ the Iranians---and undercut the democratic forces. Don't deal w/ the Iranians, get criticized for not having a solution. Must be great not to actually have to have an answer for the questions yourself?

6. Where does the President stand on what should be done with Syria?

Is there any answer to this question that you WON"T criticize? Especially if it's perceived as "raising tensions in the Middle East"?

7. Where does the President stand on the "Israeli/Palestinian roadmap" he swears he supports?

Probably about where the Dems stand on Oslo. W/ the advantage that the Prez doesn't force the Israelis to cover their eyes and plug their ears before another bus goes "boom"!

8. Where does the President stand on an initiative to create a moon base and land people on Mars?

Where did JFK stand on putting a man on the Moon for a permanent presence?

9. Where does the President stand on whether Jews are accepted into heaven without accepting Jesus?

Huh? Where did Mario Cuomo stand on abortion, him being a Catholic and all?

10. Where does the President stand on President Bush's refusal to support the Kurdish and Shiite revolts in 1991?

And where does John Kerry stand on the deaths of tens of thousands of south Vietnamese after helping to persuade the US to withdraw? And where does the Prez stand on Bill Buckner's bone-headed play in the '86 World Series?

11. Where does the President stand on why no WMDs have been found?

With Bill Clinton.

12. Where does the President stand on why he's repeatedly said that he watched the first plane hit the WTC on live television as it happened?

Repeatedly? Even if that's true, why does anyone care about this? Do you have a list of this sort of nonsense for every candidate?

13. Where does the President stand on his current assertions that his proposed budget will shrink domestic non-mandated spending?

Fair enough, a genuine question.

14. Where does the President stand on the usefulness, or necessity, or lack thereof, of "nation-building"?

Where did you stand on the issue of national defense spending prior to September 11th?

15. Where does the President stand on free trade and not engaging in subsidies of domestic industries, such as steel?

Where does ANY President (or politician) stand on the separation of principle and vote-getting?

Gary, lots of "gotcha" questions, but presumably you recognize (as do Stephen's readers) that that is what they are. Some are serious policy questions (esp. on spending), but the focus, as Stephen notes, for many readers is on the war. You might persuade more folks that there's a problem there, if you either found some consistency in the Kerry camp on even whether this IS a war or not; or if you found the Dubya camp ain't fighting as hard as it can/should.

Posted by: Dean at February 17, 2004 08:33 PM

Thanks for the attempts at answers. One point, however, Dean, is that I am neither President, nor running for President, nor an advisor to anyone so doing. It's not my responsibility to have my own policies on these questions. It is, however, the responsibility of the President, and should be of any candidate.

As well, Stephen asserts that it's perfectly clear where the President stands on the issues, and it's simply the case that I'm not at all clear, at best, on where the President stands on the issues I asked about. I'm not trying to play "catch the man out with a nik-pick," and I'm not asking because I think the President's policy is necessarily wrong or I oppose it. I simply want to know what the policies are.

I'm not offering a Democrat as having superior clarity or answers. Life and discussion is about more than A & B binary questions.

Getting all defensive about what I'll "criticize" is silly and pointless. The President simply needs to have policies and be able to defend them. Doesn't he? And, yes, if a Democrat wants the job, he'll have to make his own case, as well. Anything controversial here?

Posted by: Gary Farber at February 17, 2004 09:20 PM

To take just one, however: "Where did you stand on the issue of national defense spending prior to September 11th?"

Reasonably strong, particularly ever since Gulf War 1 in 1991 when I decided that I had been totally wrong in being, prior to the invasion, in favor of a "containment" policy rather than supporting the invasion. I think we all know I was initially wrong there, but I also recognized it immediately after the war. I've consistently given luke-warm, cautious, support, for the recent military invasion and liberation of Iraq.

I supported our military intervention in the Balkans, save that it should have been far sooner and not withheld the use of Apaches and threat of ground forces.

I've written many posts calling for the enlargment of end strength in recent years; I questioned cancelling the Crusader artillery system, while also opposing the Boeing tanker lease deal.

I've written a great deal about traditional liberal/leftist tolerance of Communism and excessive blind tolerance of those who dismissed its danger or even accept it as their own philosophy. And so and and so forth, on various specifics over the years. I'm sure we can find places to disagree, but it's possibly more useful to find places to agree, or if we must disagree, to at least try to do so productively and civilly.

Do I get a cookie now?

Posted by: Gary Farber at February 17, 2004 09:29 PM

Nope. Based on the answers you just gave, I'd say that you're displaying remarkable inconsistency, suggesting that you have no idea what your own concept of policies are.

Did your policies evolve over time? Too bad. I will choose to interpret that as evidence of a lack of principles. See how easy this is?

THAT is what I come away w/, on the "didn't Bush oppose nation-building when he got elected" line of argument. But, then, FDR was one muddle-headed idjit (or a conniving liar) when he promised that "Your sons will not fight any more foreign wars," even as he was risking them in the North Atlantic.

No, you're not running for President, and every person is entitled to ask questions of their candidates. But when you salve off questions, including ones about Gulf War I (last I checked, he wasn't in the decision-making loop) and whether Jews can get into Heaven, well, somehow, call me suspicious, I don't think the answers to any of these questions are REALLY what you're getting at.

Posted by: Dean at February 17, 2004 10:50 PM

I didn't make up the fact that Bush is on record as answering the question about Jews with "no," -- in 1993-4 --, in the Houston Post and NY Times, to be specific, and was certainly widely discussed in the Jewish community; he did make a clarification in 1998, which I had forgotten when I wrote that question here. I wouldn't suggest it's a significant issue any more. It, however, was in the past. It's not some wacko accusation, as you imply.

Asking what the President's contemporary views of past American policy are is also a more than legitimate question. I find it difficult to imagine you believe it is out of line to ask such questions of the candidates.

"Did your policies evolve over time? Too bad. I will choose to interpret that as evidence of a lack of principles."

Okay. Since we're not conversing in good faith, and you accuse me of lacking principles, enjoy conversing with someone else.

Posted by: Gary Farber at February 17, 2004 11:22 PM

Michael Kinsley left the issue open in 1999; I don't consider it worth re-arguing; I'm simply pointing out that it was a past topic of debate. I don't intend to say more about it.

Posted by: Gary Farber at February 17, 2004 11:28 PM

Gary:

Did you finish reading that line? Or the very next line?

If you want to interpret my statement as accusing you of lacking principles, be my guest. But if you DID read the rest of the line, you'll see that my POINT was that people's views evolve. Sorry if your failure to get that point somehow gave you the impression that we're not conversing in good faith.

As for the business about Dubya and the Jews, I'm not Jewish, so this issue doesn't resonate w/ me. But I am curious: JFK was elected in 1960. This was before Vatican II, before the Vatican specified that Jews did NOT kill Christ. Would you have inquired of JFK whether he believed Jews were Christ-killers? And if the Church hadn't made an official statement yet, would you have believed him, if he said "No"?

More to the point: Why the HECK does this matter? I could well imagine a devout Baptist believing that all manner of Catholics may not make it past the Pearly Gates. Does this automatically disqualify them for political office? Are you sure that, speaking as a MINISTER, Martin Luther King, Jr., would have said that even those who did not believe in Christ would automatically attain Heaven?

And while it's certainly true that one can inquire as to candidates' views of the past, perhaps it's just coincidence you're asking about Poppy's---which I"m sure never crossed your mind. But why that, and not whether we should have conducted an opening to China in 1972, whether we should have allowed the Ayatollah to take power in 1979, or even whether the '94 Agreed Framework was a good idea?

Posted by: Dean at February 18, 2004 12:56 AM

"3. Where does the President stand on supporting freedom, not dictators, in the "stans"?"

We just told Uzbekistan we are cutting off their aid because they didn't improve human rights enough last year.

At this point I don't care if Bush doesn't think I'm going to heaven - he's the best friend Israel has had in several administrations.

"7. Where does the President stand on the "Israeli/Palestinian roadmap" he swears he supports?"

Bush still supports the road map. The road map says step one: the Palestinians have to stop terror and develop democratic institutions. They have not stopped terror or built democratic institutions. Moving forward in spite of this would not be supporting the road map.

I think you can find out Bush's positions on Iran, Syria, Saudi, NK, and other countries by watching how his admin treats them. And remembering that Bush is a very good poker player.

Posted by: Yehudit at February 18, 2004 01:02 AM

"15. Where does the President stand on free trade and not engaging in subsidies of domestic industries, such as steel?"

He repealed some steel tariffs a few months ago, didn't he?

Anyway, you could construct fairly accurate answers to all these by googling news stories on the topics. Since Bush is actually president now, you don't have to guess what he would do, you can watch him doing it and form your own conclusions.

Posted by: Yehudit at February 18, 2004 01:06 AM

Gary, you are framing the debate the wrong way.

You take a series of low prominence issues and imply that because the President has not made them major issues he has no position.

You are confusing priorities with ambiguities.

I will not debate each point but I'll use NK as an example. He does not talk about NK every day. But he has been quite adamant that he refused bilateral talks that he wanted multilateral talks. He has taken much heat for that decision. (mostly from the Dems)

Clearly you can not say that he has no position. You can say you don't like his position. You can say you want him to be more aggressive. (which is also a policy debate) But it you can not, in good faith, make the argument that he will waffle on NK.

His Presidency stands in stark contrast to Clinton's. During the Clinton administration everything was a crisis. He would bite his lower lip and flip invisible pancakes while he spoke and if you looked close enough, you could swear he had a tear in his eye.

What did he do about these issues? Well, unless the bill contained partial birth abortion, he would sign whatever the Republicans in congress sent him and declare victory.

Having said the above you do address some more important issues (deficit) but again just because Bush does not speak about them does not mean he has no opinion. His has changed some policies (steel tariffs) but that is more in response to changing landscapes than randomness.

Actually, mostly the folks on your side bash him for being a right wing ideologue who "has a radical right wing vision for America." The whole "neocon" nonsense revolves around the fact that he has these unambiguous ideas.

If you disagree with some of his policies that is fine. But saying he does not take a stand on an issue is sorta disingenuous.

Posted by: Paul at February 18, 2004 07:44 AM

"I voted based on who I could stand to watch on TV."

I greatly appreciate someone who is so honest and forthright. However, I take the obvious lesson from reading that sentence - dont read further, this is not a serious person.

Posted by: tano at February 18, 2004 11:49 AM

"Actually, mostly the folks on your side bash him...."

You don't know what "my side" is. "My side" can only be found in what I've written; not in what anyone else has written, unless I've endorsed that quote.

That you assume I belong to some "side" beyond that is telling, and sad.

Posted by: Gary Farber at February 18, 2004 01:16 PM

Excuse me Gary, but I take exception to your #12 specifically (amongst numerous others I won't comment on now). I consider myself somewhat politically savvy, lots of info from all sides of the net and minimal TV news exposure. I have NEVER even heard of this! If this piece of crap is important enough to put in your short list, it just tells me where your priorities are. All I can suggest is that you ask whatever questions from this list that are relevant to today of the Dem frontrunners and see what kind of answers you get. I'm sure there's a whole lot of people besides those on LGF who'd be interested in the answers!

Posted by: MargeinMI at February 18, 2004 04:57 PM

Marge in Michigan, see here:

"THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.

But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, 'A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack. "

See here:

"Q What was the first thing that went through your head when you heard that a plane crashed into the first building?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida. I had gone down to tell my little brother what to do, and -- just kidding, Jeb. (Laughter.) And -- it's the mother in me. (Laughter.) Anyway, I was in the midst of learning about a reading program that works. I'm a big believer in basic education, and it starts with making sure every child learns to read. And therefore, we need to focus on the science of reading, not what may feel good or sound good when it comes to teaching children to read. (Applause.) I'm just getting a plug in for my reading initiative.

Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."

And in the meantime, this teacher was going on about the curriculum, and I was thinking about what it meant for America to be under attack. It was an amazing thought."

Damn that vicious source of anti-Bush propaganda, the White House!

"I consider myself somewhat politically savvy, lots of info from all sides of the net and minimal TV news exposure. I have NEVER even heard of this!"

I don't make references to things that aren't entirely verifiable. There are plenty of other sources of discussion of this, and various confusions about September 11th.

I don't make much of this single point. One can simply conclude that the President is confused -- it's not hard to get confused about what happened on a traumatic day -- and he's stayed confused.

I didn't bring it up because I was making a list of Top Confusing Things About The President. I brought it up because I spent about thirty seconds thinking about things where the President has been very unclear, and I'd like to know where he presently stands. Stephen asserted that it's all very clear, and that's a virtue of President Bush.

Thanks, though, for your polite suggestion that I simply made this up.

What does LGF, by the way, have to do with the price of beans in Denver?

Posted by: Gary Farber at February 19, 2004 01:00 AM

In my opinion, asking questions about one's clarity is a waste of time; listen to their words, see their actions, or lack of actions, and decide for yourself. Why isn't the best question: if both candidates answered all of your questions, whose would be believable, more consistent, less ignorant of the realities of the current climate, and, unfortunately, whose answer is better than the other's?

P.S. - that may be more than one question...

Posted by: wch at February 19, 2004 02:58 PM

Umm, Gary, I'm confused what's your issue with Bush's account.

I voted for Bush because I looked at Gore's budget proposal.

For our current situation, deficits are better than taxes in/near a recession. I don't know if cutting spending would hurt us. Being as things are picking up so well, I think cutting spending would be good. I think Bush wants to eliminate deficits after '06 which is an ideal time frame from my perspective.

Posted by: aaron at February 20, 2004 05:29 PM