I don't like John Kerry.

No great surprise there, right? Anyone who has been reading this site even for the last few days could figure that part out. But as unapparent as it may be, I actually do have some rational basis for my position.

Kerry has done a number of things that are really at odds with my own personal beliefs. His flip-flops, his positions, his actions, his pronouncements, and his history are all disagreeable to me in the extreme.

I have an extreme dislike for John Kerry.

Part of my reasoning is perhaps a little selfish. Last week I started a new job with a fairly large component of the military-industrial complex. I have a real fear that come November, should Kerry win, I will get a pink slip before I even make to my one year anniversary. This is not an unfounded belief. Kerry voted against the very program on which I'm working by voting against its host platform. Kerry is weak on defense. He is a pacifist, a modern day Neville Chamberlain. If John Kerry were President, I don't believe that we would ever defend any of our interests around the world. I have no doubt that Kerry would be a big believer in outsourcing - not for jobs, but rather the responsibility for our national security.

When our troops went off to battle in Iraq, what was Kerry's komment?

Did he say "God bless" or "Godspeed" or "I stand behind our men and women in uniform during this troubled time?" Did he have the internal fortitude to take the high road like Joe Lieberman and to put aside partisan politics during the duration of the war?

No. John Kerry's only anti-Establishment traits came out in full force.

Kerry is the ultimate Washington insider in every way, except for his opportunistic opposition to Vietnam. It was during his escapades in the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) that I think that Kerry developed his knee-jerk anti-military streak. He cannot articulate a reasoned and rational argument against the military, he can only rail with the blind hatred of a zealot.

Why did Kerry refrain from showing class during the war? Because his roots wouldn't allow him to. He saw a use of force and had his knee-jerk reaction. He couldn't bring himself to admit that there might in fact be a time and place where military force might be of some good (He didn't have to agree, just to at least acknowledge that the other side might have a valid point).

Instead, Kerry aped the Bush Administration and called for a "regime change" - in Washington.

I loathe John Kerry.

I've seen comments a number of other places that Kerry seems to be a ticking Deanesque time bomb. He almost seems to be preparing for an Iowan proportioned meltdown. His mouth is his own worst enemy. He says some of the stupidest things. Bush may mangle the language, but Kerry mangles all pretext of logic.

And further, he has no pretext of a sense of morality. I'm not talking about gay marriage, but rather about the abhorrent use of language on his website.

I have no doubt that the language on Kerry's site was not unknown to the candidate. Every comment that comes through on this site is read and reviewed. Inappropriate comments are erased. Virtually every site owner does something similar.

What the Kerry Kampaign seems to be doing is trying to pass off any semblance of responsibility by playing off the lack of knowledge about how blogs (which is essentially what his site is) work. He simply does not want to admit that his little foray into the world of cussing is having repercussions.

I abhor John Kerry.

He has so little apparent understanding of cause and effect it is downright scary. He doesn't seem to understand how raising taxes on the wealth creating class might end up reducing the overall tax receipts. He doesn't understand that Marxist redistribution is counter to the very idea of the capitalist marketplace that he espouses so well when needed (second paragraph, may require registration). He has failed to discover that tyrants like Kim Jong Il love him so much, not because of who he is, but because based on his past actions and statements, they view him as weak and sympathetic to their cause.

Tyrants and dictators love Kerry because Kerry loves them. He has attempted to defend in some way nearly every Communist dictatorship of his time, from the Soviet Union to Nicaragua to China to Vietnam. At a time when North Korea's Communist kleptocracy was on the verge of collapse, Kerry started talking about them in relatively favorable terms. But why does Kerry show such solidarity with such a sordid crowd?

Kerry has good Marxian principles. He absolutely believes in the redistribution of wealth (so long as it isn't his). Kerry believes in the wonders of big government. Pure capitalism is as foreign to Kerry as a Turkish lesbian. For Kerry, communism isn't a utopia, it is a goal. He may not have explicitly stated as such, but his actions very clearly point to such a desire.

As a result it has been easy for Kerry to attack one of the key building blocks of our free and prosperous society - business.

It is free enterprise that keeps us moving forward so quickly. Capitalism fosters innovation. Capitalism fosters a "can-do" attitude in our nation. Capitalism brings technological advancements unthinkable just a few short years ago. Capitalism is the engine that drives the research and development in the business world that keeps pushing the edge of that envelope.

Kerry's drug proposals would have the effect of gutting the rationale for R&D at the big drug companies. His cuts to the defense budget would seriously threaten the already shrinking technological gap advantage we have over our adversaries. Profits and the accumulation of wealth simply run counter to Kerry's beliefs. He could never allow unfettered markets, or anything that even came close to resembling them. We would be more likely to see a five year plan under Kerry than deregulation.

And business leaders have taken note of the candidate's views and pronouncements.

But most importantly, how would John Kerry have reacted to today's events? If John Kerry were in the position of José Maria Aznar what would happen?

Aznar has the second most unenviable job in the world today (the most unenviable was to be the al-Qaida goober that called in to take credit.) He has to simultaneously heal and protect his nation in a time of great need. How he handles this will likely define his Presidency - even more than his unwavering support for America in our time of need.

Aznar has skills and tools to handle this well. He has the support of the one man who has already, personally, been in his position.

Would Kerry react with resiliency? Would he react with a stubborn will to move his people forward to greater glory and achievement?

Or would he wallow in the cult of the victim? Would he, instead of calling out the National Guard and the military, call on the FBI to launch a priority investigation? Bottom line, would he be a Bush - or a Clinton?

I fear what a Kerry Administration would mean for our nation, I really do. I think that John Kerry is singularly ill-equipped to deal with any task facing a President, except for lying to foreign leaders.

John Kerry is not anywhere close to being the best choice for our nation.