The conventional wisdom is that Republicans are strong on foreign policy and national defense and Democrats are strong on the domestic stuff. Both parties play on this perception and use it to shape their support. They consider each realm "their turf" and protect it as such - even when the reality is at odds with the perception - there are just too many people with too much invested in those perceptions not to fight to keep that ideological turf.

The effect is, of course, that it's very difficult for any politician to get credit outside of their perceived ideological province. Note how little credit George Bush gets for his domestic efforts, despite programs and spending that would choke even a moderate "conservative." The "left" will never allow him to get credit for what he's done, and the "right" doesn't particularly want the credit.

And I remember the Clinton years. In those days my politics were more left and I was a supporter of his. I remember how every time Bill Clinton even thought about a muscular response to the various threats looming abroad all we heard was, "wag the dog, wag the dog, wag the dog" - over and over and over again. Now I am not looking for a debate over whether that perception was accurate or not. To me it became impossible to sort out. Bill Clinton diddled and lied - that's his fault. But the Republicans amplified and magnified and pushed every issue they possibly could as a political wedge to cripple a sitting President and make it nearly impossible to know whether he was indeed playing cynical political games or simply doing the best he could. In either case, his hand was weakened.

Honest disagreement from a loyal opposition is necessary, and can't help but to probe for weakness in policy and make the final result stronger. Petty, 'say or do anything,' political games to protect partisan turf is a disgrace and an inherent weakness in our democracy.

So now I see the same thing happening. As Zell Miller said, "because of [a] Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief." John Kerry has literally and concretely flip-flopped so badly that he has changed places with his erstwhile opponent Howard Dean and taken up the positions he himself chastized Dean for. It appears Kerry and the Democrats will do or say anything, no matter how cynical, to get back into power - even to the point of debasing themselves and throwing honor to the wind for the goal. As Hitchens says in his most recent, much-linked-to piece:

Is this what politics has become? Has it always been so?

When the election is over we will still face the same foes. We will still need to have a national debate on how to deal with those issues, but it must be an honest debate. People who support one plan of action today must be held accountable for their support tomorrow, unlike the 'abandon ship when the going gets tough and there's a political profit to be made' Democrats.

If George Bush is honestly wrong, then let's discuss. He needs to be held honestly and fairly accountable. But he ought not be politically weakened when he has the serious business of governing and protecting our nation to do. Because when the election is over, these guys are still going to be out there:

Ramin Parham on Iran: The Heart of Darkness - There is no word to describe the horror.:

And they're going to have nukes.