For me, there is only one test of candidates for Congress this fall. Do they actively support aggressive opposition to terrorists and terrorist-supporting nations, including the continuation of the occupation and pacification of Iraq? If both candidates fit that description, then of course you can look at other issues. But whenever the choice is between Churchill and Chamberlain, then no other issue really matters, does it?Living in Texas the congressional races aren't a tough call for me. "In this corner, the incumbent, back from her fourth trip to Iraq. In the other corner, an unemployed radical political activist seeking a soapbox for his current pet issue." It's the next presidential election which may be a tough call. Hopefully--and oh how I hope--we may get both parties putting up candidates willing to take the offensive. Then I'll have a chance to vote for someone instead of just against.
. . .
[I]f we elect appeasers, then the war we eventually fight will not be bloodless and relatively clean-handed. It will truly be a world war, and a thousand times as many people will die as have died in Afghanistan and Iraq.
[Hat tip to john_of_arabia]