Well, that settles that issue (Barnett's support of Kerry).
Barnett Posts more recently
September 05, 2004
This election is looking better and better for Bush
Internationally, Taking Sides in the U.S. Presidential Race: In Europe, seeing a world election in which the world has no vote," by Patrick E. Tyler, New York Times, 4 September, p. A10.
Bushs Second Term: Aiming for a transformation, by David Brooks, NYT, 4 September, p. A27.
Kerry Urges Voters to Look Past Bushs Last-Minute Promises, by David M. Halbfinger, NYT, 4 September, p. A1.
Already the Europeans are fretting over four more years of Bush, but they see it coming, primarily because he comes over as a strong leader and John F. Kerry doesnt.
I think David Brooks has it right: Bushs second term will be more transformational than the first. Already, hes rewritten what it means to be Republican, which used to mean small government but now means a very activist government and a very activist foreign policy.
Meanwhile, Kerrys latest pitch is to beg voters not to listen to Bushs promises. That sort of tack worries me a lot. Doesnt sound like a winners approach, now does it? Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at September 5, 2004 09:25 AM
You're most welcome. I'm not saying that he is a bad advisor in that capacity. He might be a great tactical advisor for all that I know.
But beware of anyone who implies that our President and Republicans want one world government. Our Party and President have absolutely refused to put us under UN jurisdiction on a number of important issues while only delivering empty ruses that imply false fondness for cozyness with the UN gang. We refuse when we must and pretend when that will defuse or postpone fights until we wish to fight.
It's common knowledge that Kerry and the Democrats are those who want one world government.
Feeding conspiracy fodder ("globalization," ad infinitum, falsely/erroneously assigned to us) to our domestic kooks and foreign enemies--even if only dim folks are affected by it--is one tactic toward getting Democrats in the White House, and that's the most dangerous tactical propaganda against us that anyone can issue, IMO. Issuing any piece containing that word used frequently and libelously in our behalf during the last days of a campaign is antithetical to our effort.