I can't point to Bush flip-flops. On the other hand I don't consider consistency on an erroneous course as particularly desirable. Each time a decision is made, aren't there many other factors to consider beyond consistency with what was decided before? Nor do I consider it flip-flopping to consider nuances as situations develop. So I don't see either of these qualities definitive of either Bush or Kerry as either good or bad.

I find it very difficult to wade through all the media hype and political manipulation to really know what either candidate is really capable of.

As to the question of what Kerry might do differently: I just returned from a trip to Sweden and Norway. What I heard there is that 90-95% of Europeans do not support Bush’s policies. One of the people I spoke to was a Swedish professor of Political Science who does support Bush so I think his information was probably accurate. Interesting also was that in countries like these, and I’m sure in most others, what happens in the U.S. has enormous consequences. They follow the U.S. stock market on a daily basis, maybe more closely than we do. We are truly the giant on the block and what is good for us is generally perceived as what is good for them as well. Interesting also, was how universally English was spoken. One German speaking Swede told me that now, when he does business in Germany it is more common to do it in English.

So one thing Kerry may be able to do differently is to re-establish support from Europe to take some of the burden from the U.S. financially and militarily. I think the fact is that Bush has taken the great sympathy for the U.S. after 911, and turned it to antipathy in much of the world.

For me, one of the most disturbing things the Bush administration has done is the attempt at abrogation of all legal process in taking prisoners, attempting to hold them indefinitely outside the jurisdiction of any legal body, and denying them any process to assert their guilt or innocence or as being entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions. To me this is conduct for which losers are tried for war crimes and the victors get away with because no one has the power to condemn them. Is this how we bring democracy to the world? What does it cost us to act as civilized people and allow each accused to assert the facts as to their conduct? A little flip-flopping here rather than waiting for the Supreme Court to rebuke you would be quite desirable in my opinion.

Mark