The not too subtle message

David Brooks has an interesting column in today's NYT about why the Republicans have chosen McCain, Giuliani and Schwarzenegger to lead the charge at the convention:

...they are here in New York to say that George Bush is fighting the war against radical Islam with their sort of tenacity, their sort of constancy. For ultimately, they are suggesting that whatever mistakes he has made, he has the courage that is required, and his opponent does not.

If Sept. 11 had not happened, I doubt McCain, Giuliani and Schwarzenegger would be as intertwined with George Bush as they have been. But it did happen. And whatever their cultural and personal differences, they do see eye to eye on the global conflict with radical Islam.

The coming weeks will be so tough because the essential contest - of which the Swift boat stuff was only a start - will be over who really has courage, who really has resolve, and who is just a fraud with a manly bearing.

I think he has a point.   While you can argue about whether Bush, et al. have made mistakes in Iraq, done the right thing on gay marriage or stem cell research, etc., it is clear that he has been steadfast in his determination to take the war to the terrorists.   Not just in military terms, but in the political and social spheres as well, including the mideast democracy initiative and the US-sponsored Arabic satellite network.   For me, personally, this is enough to ensure my support for Dubya, come November.  Kerry's a decent guy and all, but aside from my distrust of his liberal desire to increase the role of government in our lives, I think his "nuance" would be disastrous in the war against Islamist terror.   There is a time for nuance, and multilateral consensus, but not when the other guy in the fight wants to either kill you or convert you to their intolerant, extremist view of the one, true religion.