The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

This one's a day old, but too good to pass up. From yesterday's Best of the Web column by James Taranto at OpinionJournal.com, here's an AP report regarding the exchange of rhetoric by the campaigns earlier this week:

Bush also took issue with Kerry's pronouncement this week that he and running mate John Edwards were proud of the fact that they opposed in the Senate the $87 billion aid package for Afghanistan and Iraq. Kerry said they had done so because "we knew the policy had to be changed."

"He's entitled to his view," Bush said. "But members of Congress should not vote to send troops into battle and then vote against funding them, and then brag about it."

Kerry's campaign responded that Kerry had served in the Vietnam War and questions linger about Bush's wartime service in the Texas Air National Guard.

"Considering that George Bush actively avoided combat duty and has pursued policies that have made the nation less secure, he is on very shaky ground when it comes to questioning the commitment that Vietnam vet John Kerry has to our national security," said former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., a Vietnam War veteran and frequent Kerry surrogate. "This is just more attack-dog politicking by an increasingly desperate, partisan White House."

Okay, I'm officially calling Max Cleland an idiot. No, I'm not questioning his patriotism -- just his sanity and intelligence. This is the entire election campaign boiled down to the basics.

Bush challenged Kerry (and his cocker spaniel/running mate) on a policy choice. The choice was to vote for or against funding for the troops who were in Iraq, after they had voted to authorize the use of force (granted, Kerry isn't sure what he voted for, but anyone with two functioning brain cells knows he voted to allow the use of force) in Iraq. To not provide funding to the troops because the "policy had to be changed" is meaningless crap, and they know it. If the authorization had not passed, how would the policy have changed, exactly? Bush is challenging Kerry to explain his vote.

This isn't dirty politicking. This is a question for an opponent on his voting record in office, on a vote that took place last year, on a vote that concerns one of the most important issues in this election.

The Democratic response says a lot about Kerry's campaign. Max Cleland's response is to whine about attack-dog politics, all the while engaging in it. They rip Bush for his National Guard service, rather than addressing the issue of the vote on funding. They won't deal with the issue itself. That's part one of the response.

Part two of the response is pretty simple as well -- point out that John Kerry served in Vietnam, and Bush did not. What's not funny is that this is the entire reason they have for voting for Kerry -- nothing more, nothing less. This is his reason for everything. It's to the point that I wonder if he popped the question to each of his wives this way:

"Honey, will you marry me? Hold on... okay, I'm sure. Maybe not... nah. I am sure. No, really I am. Hold on, let's try that from the top. Please, will you marry me? Before you answer, I think you should consider an important fact -- I served in Vietnam."