Commentaries appear at regular intervals. If you would like an invited commentary for your publication, please let me know!

Substance over style or style over substance?

The answer should be obvious, but unfortunately millions of voters will be choosing style over substance in November.

When I was younger there was a certain appeal to supporting trendy movements. In fact, the more counter-culture or counter-establishment the movement, the more it appealed to young people. There is a certain satisfaction in striking out on a path that you know those who are older than you are would disapprove of.

With age comes wisdom, and that wisdom is that substance matters. What you want in a leader is a clear, consistent position on the issues that matter: national security, the economy, federal spending and the judiciary.

Now, I will be the first to state that President Bush has not been perfect. Indeed his position on spending has been very similar to his predecessor: spend money if it will bring in votes. The war, however, brings another aspect of spending into play. I'm all for cuts on the domestic front, but our troops needs the best, and plenty of it. His opponent, however, has been all over the map: the deficit is too high, but President Bush has not spent enough on the war. President Bush should spend whatever it takes to achieve victory, but $200 $120 billion is too much. The deficit is too high, but President Bush has not fully funded education. The only thing clear about Kerry's spending plans is that his priorities will constantly change.

The economy has been running well for the past three years. There is room for improvement but there is something to be said for an expansion entering its fourth year and where we have rebounded from job losses to job gains over the past two years. Unlike the President, John Kerry does not have a clear message. Tax cuts are fine, maybe...it depends. Sure, the middle class can keep them, unless Kerry decides that more spending is a higher priority...or was that fighting the deficit? Kerry is for free trade, unless another country makes things better than we do. Tariffs are bad, but domestic industries must be protected. We can cut taxes for people who are rich, but we can cut taxes for rich corporations that play by Kerry's rules. The only thing consistent about Kerry's economic proposals are that his friends will be rewarded and his enemies will be punished. Gee, shouldn't that be national defense position?

President Bush has been very clear and consistent on the judiciary. He prefers judges who support the Constitution and the Founder's intent. Kerry, on the other hand, insists on litmus tests to determine whether judges will reward his friend and punish his enemies. Once again, that should be his national defense priority, not his judicial philosophy!

So, what about national defense? President Bush has clearly laid out the Bush Doctrine: get your enemies before they can get you. In a post-9/11 world it makes a lot of sense. Our enemies are not nation-states run by rational individuals, they are irrational despots and terrorists. They will not respect or abide by international agreements any more than previous dictators and outlaws have. Kerry, however, seems to think that law enforcement will bring about a resolution of our problems. The trouble for Kerry is that we tried that during the Clinton years and it only allowed our enemies to grow stronger. Kerry has pledged to follow the same failed policies that created a nuclear North Korea and allowed Saddam Hussein to control Iraq for 12 years longer than he should have. There's an old adage that goes "you can pay (less) now or you can pay (more) later". Paying the price now is a far better choice since it involves the lives of Americans.

Substance over style: it's the mature decision.

When I was younger there was a certain appeal to supporting trendy movements.

President Bush has not been perfect.

The economy has been running well for the past three years.

Q: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?

A: No, I was careful not to say that.