The problem with most John Kerry supporters is that they're not really for John Kerry - and it shows.  Whenever you ask someone why they're voting for Kerry, instead what you get is a vitriolic listing of all the bad things that Bush has done.  Ask them what Kerry plans to do when he's in office, and you get a blank stare. 

Unfortunately, this doesn't help the undecided electorate.  They are - by definition - undecided, and telling them why the current President's an asshole only serves to make you seem petty and angry.  And unfortunately, when it comes to a lot of voters, a pleasant attitude is more meaningful than a boatload of facts. 

Therefore, I have decided to go for a weekly writing on what I like about Kerry.  He has some good ideas, even if he doesn't always express them as clearly as he could.  If you already know why you're against Bush, the idea is to move you away from Anybody But Bush and into Somebody For Kerry territory. 

A vital note: Conservatives will trot out the usual array of "Kerry will say whatever you want" insults and claim that it doesn't matter what Kerry says.  That's not true for two reasons:

1)  Kerry's voting record has been fairly consistent on the issues he feels strongly about.  His record on women's rights has been so consistent that Bush's team has, paradoxically, criticized him on it (How can someone flip-flop and be the most liberal man in the Senate?), his record on Civil Rights has been top-notch, and he's been mostly consistent on government reform.  He also worked overtime on the MIA issues back when it was a very unpopular choice, and got results.  When he believes in something, he'll work on it. 

(Dismayingly, he's also shown a strong preference for unrestricted free trade in his voting record, thus making him a rather Republican choice.  But that's an issue for a later day.) 

2)  All politicians lie, so to claim that Kerry will say whatever you want to hear is a rather dim thing to say; so will Bush.  Bush wanted to invade Iraq, so he said "Hey, there's a threat there," and then shifted to the "It's good that we brought democracy there" reasoning when the threat didn't pan out, and now that the torture trials are hitting the headlines he is now moving towards not mentioning Iraq at all.  Yet for some reason, that constantly shifting array of "Why Iraq was bad" not considered flip-flopping. 

In other words, Bush lies as well.  He promises a lot of things and doesn't do 'em, either - the difference is that Bush does whatever the hell he wants and then lies about why he's doing it, whereas most politicians will lie about what they're going to do.*

Remember, Bush ran on a platform of international non-interference, but after 9/11 he did a complete about-face.  Who's to say that Kerry - who was not weak on defense beforehand, but merely middling - might not also have changed his mind? 

But that's enough about Bush.  Let's go with what I like about Kerry today, and it's a strange one:

Kerry is strong on homeland security. 

You see, Bush's take on terror is pretty much "Invade Iraq and make it harder to fly on a plane" and let everything else slide. 

Whereas Kerry realizes that the next attack is not likely to come from the same direction.  It's been shown that a guy with a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher - the kind commonly available in, say, Afghanistan - can take out a commercial jet airliner, no sweat, and the terrorist could probably get away afterwards in the confusion.  In fact, it's been suggested that this is where the next wave of terror attacks might come from.  Yet Bush has done nothing about this. 

It's been shown that our shipping ports are tragically underlooked.  Less than 2% of all packages entering America are even looked at, let alone looked at carefully.  Many terrorist experts believe that it would be horrifically easy to sneak a vast array of bomb parts or chemical weapons parts into America for use on our home soil... And yet Bush has done nothing about this in his three years. 

Likewise, our chemical plants and nuclear facilities are tragically underguarded.  A couple of dedicated, suicidal terrorists with assault weapons could take over a plant and do truly horrific things with it - picture a large, mall-sized cloud of deadly gas wafting over the horizon of a major town - and yet despite cries for better plant security, Bush has done nothing.  In fact, he's cut funding to some of these programs. 

Let's be honest, here: Al-Qaida are smart fucking people.  They've been experts at analyzing our weaknesses and striking where we weren't looking.  The brilliance of 9/11 was that they turned several boxcutters into the worst terrorist attack ever, and they're likely to strike in another comparatively low-budget operation where there's little security to stop them.  Bush's campaign has been centered around the idea that they'll hit us in the same place twice... But Kerry thinks otherwise. 

He's for increased chemical and nuclear plant security.  He's for massively increased port security.  He's for channelling more money to homeland security (and Kerry's voting record is also strong on giving money to cops). 

Will Kerry do it?  Well, obviously, I believe so... But even if you doubt him, he's still far more likely to do it than Bush, who's had three years, done nothing about any of these issues, and has a consistent record of caving to the pressures of Big Business every time. 

Kerry's far more likely to tell the chemical plants, "Yes, it's a lot of money, but American security is paramount.  Suck it up and deal."  Hell, that's what liberals are good for - getting corporations to bend over and take it in the name of the public safety.

That's one reason I'm for Kerry this election.  I might deal with Iraq next week, if I have the time. 

* - And I have more on Bush's supposed "strength," but I'll save that for next time.  Remember, this isn't about Bush, it's about Kerry. 

(Tell me I'm full of it)