There has been a lot of talk on the blogs lately about who everyone is coming down to voting for. Some of the decisions come as a slight surprise, while other bloggers, while reaching the "right" conclusion seem to go through a surprising amount of agony getting there. I may as well state mine and provide my bottom-line reasons.

Of course I will be voting for George W. Bush. In fact, I will be voting straight-line Republican for the first time in my life.

Let me first state in passing that while many "right wing" bloggers are really one-issue voters and maintain many of their "liberal" bona fides (like Roger L. Simon, for instance), I will admit that I am not. I have cast off much of that baggage. I don't care for the Democrats on many domestic issues - taxation, the culture of jealousy they foster, their tightness with big unions, their pandering to the race profiteers, their contempt for the religious and their tendency to equivocate on crime and punishment - so, as I perceive the basic core tendencies, the Republicans get my tentative nod on those domestic issues regardless.

But I have two further core issues that serve as the clincher for me - America's leadership in the War on Terror and the character of the man in the White House.

When Aznar lost the Spanish election, it was seen as a repudiation of his closeness with the United States and our activities in Iraq. The terrorists won. Spin it however you want, and many did. Some tried to say that had the Spanish intending to vote for the opposition changed their votes, then THAT would have been a terrorist victory. There may be some truth to that. But the simple fact is that the international press trumpeted that vote as a repudiation of the Iraq War and the American approach the War on Terror. The terrorists themselves certainly took it as a great victory. Mission Accomplished.

That is exactly what will happen should John Kerry triumph in November. Kerry and his party have excoriated the current Administration at every turn for marginalizing the UN, for "going it alone," for pursuing a strategic war on terror - including the invasion of Iraq. A Kerry victory can only be cast as granting a mandate to reverse this trend - to cozy back up to the UN, an organization that cannot even unequivocally condemn terror, to scrape for the approval of European Nations who's interests and alignments no longer mirror ours (nor should they), and to return to a time when states could harbor and support terrorists with no fear of real action by the United States. Instead, they'll be free to hide behind their friends in the UN once again, knowing that John "Multilateral" Kerry will never touch them.

Despite John Kerry's lame attempts to spin himself as a strong on defense candidate (despite a decades-long record to the contrary) there will simply be no other way to spin a Kerry victory.

I read the Chris Matthews interview with Jimmy Carter (leave it to Jimmy Carter to label even the Revolutionary War as the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time") and their conversation turned to whether Carter received sufficient credit for the Israeli-Egyptian peace accord. Of course, Carter did receive his share of credit, but the real heroes were Begin...and most of all Sadat. And what did Sadat get for his efforts?

He was viciously murdered - a lesson not lost on other Middle East leaders. If we expect any leaders in the Middle East to break the vicious cycle and take a great risk to change their ways, the United States must show true, alternative leadership. We must provide the gravitational pull toward which leaders of all stripes can align themselves. How else can we expect a change? What are the alternatives? Throwing themselves to the wolves of a corrupt and manipulated UN? Can they expecting a spineless, accommodating EU to take a risk on their behalf? Can we truly align ourselves - ever - with such an entity. America can never truly be accepted by Europe unless we are willing to give up the very core principles of individual freedom that make us Americans.

The United States must provide this alternative which will always make us appear to be at odds with some of these vogue international institutions, and we must be a strong and reliable friend to those who choose our path. We are the only nation on this planet strong enough to provide this alternative, and only George Bush and the Republican Party have the credibility to ensure that that continues. Whatever John Kerry will actually do, a Kerry election cannot be viewed in any other way than a whip cracked across the back of an uppity USA and that is a product of Kerry's own choice of rhetoric.

There is a Japanese expression which says that the nail that sticks up must be hammered down. America must not be hammered down. John Kerry may be able to convince people that they can vote for him and still support a strong America. They're wrong.

That brings me to the second part of my reasoning, and this'll be quick - character. I simply cannot sit and watch the opportunistic flip-flopping of a guy like Kerry as he claws for power and come out on the other side feeling that this is a man with the proper moral fiber to lead. I understand the expediencies of a tough campaign run, but my feeling is that Kerry has gone beyond the necessary to show his true colors and lack of a real core. Besides, a man's history can tell you a lot about a person. Yes, people change, they have turning points. Has John Kerry ever separated himself from the less honorable moments in his past? No, on the contrary, he just continues to try to justify himself. Sorry, but I'm not gonna vote against these guys. I voted last time for a guy who was a smooth talker and had OK ideas but no internal compass. I won't do it this time.

So there you have it, the Solomonia.com endorsement for the Presidential campaign goes to...George W. Bush.

Update: Armed Liberal has an interesting and more in-depth take in writing his endorsement.