Well known blogger Andrew Sullivan has argued that a Kerry victory might be a good thing because it would force the Democrats to finally get serious about foreign affairs. That the war on terror would be a wake up call for them and their constituents about the ways of the real world.

I think that's a dangerous assumption. Imagine if the election today was between George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter. Would you vote for Carter over Bush? Even given what we know about his first presidency?

If not, why would you vote for John Kerry, a man who is even more dove-ish than Carter and more liberal on foreign policy than Carter. The main difference between the two men is that Kerry, unlike Carter, is willing to say whatever he needs to say to try to get elected. So dove-ish Kerry is willing to do the tough talk of "killing terrorists" in stark contrast to his entire career which has largely been based on a pacifistic dove-ish policy. Only when he decided he wanted to run for President did he briefly vote a bit more mainstream in the senate.

Far from making the Democrats have to start getting serious about the war on terror, a Kerry presidency could be akin to sending Chamberlain to Munich. We could end up in a situation 4 years from now where the world is vastly more dangerous. One that would require real sacrifice in order to clean up.