Yesterday, chrisishardcore posted about Marshall Whittman endorsing Kerry and wondered if this meant the moderate Republican was "heading the way of the dinosaur".

I disagree. Here are a couple of reasons why I think moderates should vote for Bush:

#1- IRAQ
Would John Kerry pull us out of Iraq? No. No matter who sits in the Oval Office next year, we will stay in Iraq. The absolute worst thing we could do is pull out and leave the Iraqi people at the mercy of the Mujhadeen. We have to finish what we started, and see the Iraqi people through to democracy and self-sufficiency. If we see it through to the end and Iraq becomes a self-sufficient, free country, it will be one of our country's greatest accomplishments in a long time. If we pull out and let the country collapse it will be one of the worst moments in our entire history.

So the important question is, "Which president would provide us with the strongest military?" I don't think anyone could seriously say John Kerry would make our military stronger. His Senate record of voting against military spending and weapons technology is unwavering.

The way John Kerry has badmouthed the war in Iraq will make it impossible for anyone at home or abroad to support him there. He promises to gather foreign support, but foreign leaders will never want to help him in a war he obviously doesn't believe in, and young men and women in America will never follow him to battle. When a president says unequivocally that he believes our cause is just, soldiers will go to battle at his command. When a president says this is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, who wants to fight for him? The number of young people joining the military will completely dry up. If John Kerry is elected, there will have to be a draft.

It was a mistake by the Kerry campaign to make the Iraq issue his main focus. No matter how much he attacks President Bush's actions, he can never convincingly say he would be better to lead the war. Kerry has been forced to trumpet his four months in Vietnam unceasingly to try to make himself seem like a plausible military leader, but it just doesn't fly.

#2- HATRED
For years, Republicans have been referred to as "mean-spirited", but I have been shocked by the last four years of bile-choked hatred from the left. I keep hearing from left-leaning people how Bush is "the most hated president ever" or that the country is "united in hating Bush", when the truth is that Bush still enjoys a lot of support from the conservatives in the country, and what has changed is the depth of hatred from the left. The dialog from the left by people like Michael Moore and moveon.org just keeps making things uglier, and all pretense of civil discourse or disagreement has disappeared. Personally, I don't think the average American feels the same hatred the far left is sputtering about.

The horrible thing is that the Democrats have embraced this slide and made it into the mainstream of the party.

A vote for John Kerry is a show of support for this shift in the Democratic Party. I think it is important we not support this shift.

Interesting to watch the opinions of last night's debate and see where lasting damage was done.

Those that support Sen Kerry are talking about Bush's looks and mannerisms. The DNC even has a video on its homepage of the president's most uncomfortable and awkward moments.

The Bush supporters are talking about what Kerry believes in and stands for. We should disarm ourselves and call a summit. A president can't take action unless it passes the Global Test.

People can acknowledge that Bush spoke poorly and looked awful, but I don't see that making a decision for the undecided voter. Kerry's comments are the kind of topic people will discuss at length and the kinds of frightening issues that rattle around in your brain for days. Could definitely affect a voter's decision.

Will Kerry end up "winning" the debate but losing in the long run?

Debate made for plenty of water cooler talk today. I thought Kerry would have won over support with his performance, but everyone seemed to get the same impression I did, "Nice smooth performance, but still can't vote for him."

One coworker's comment was very representative of the lot: "I was starting to like him, but then did you hear what he said about ..."

Sounds like two of his statements stuck out to everybody. Makes me wonder if these will become the defining statements of the debate:

1 - GLOBAL TEST. The commander in chief can't defend America without permission from France?

2 - BUNKER BUSTERS. We're supposed to get rid of our weapons and have a summit because talking will be effective with the throat slitters.

We invaded a country, removed their genocidal despot, and started the process of creating a free, democratic government, and it took until several months into the reconstruction of the country before we hit our one-thousandth casualty. There's no way that would have been possible without the incredible technological weapons advancements of the last decade. If John Kerry had succeeded in blocking all the military projects he voted against, how many casualties would it have taken before we succeeded in removing Saddam Hussein?

Also: There's a new posting at The Green Side. I love the messages this Marine Major sends home about what his troops are doing and how things really are over there.

As you have seen from the news, Fallujah is reaching critical mass. Actually nothing has changed except for the fact that there apparently is the will to do what has to be done. We will see. The Marines are ready and the only thing they worry about is the backbone of the decision makers. If we are told to take the town again, we just cannot be ordered to stop like last time.

Read the entire message here.