The Chicago Tribune has

endorsed (breathalyzer test required) George W. Bush for president. I guess this underscores the main difference between Bush and Kerry supporters (cf my foreign policy post below). The former believe that the world is fundamentally a more perilous place than the latter do. And that, along with (a) John Kerry's nonexistent plan for Iraq and (b) his insistence on getting the approval of a coalition of the bribed and coerced before acting, is why for them there's really no contest over who to choose come Nov. 2nd.

As I've said before, I am a moderate liberal, and I'm not going to vote for either Bush or Kerry. You already know why Kerry is not an option. On the foreign policy issue: while I think that the world is much more dangerous than the Democrats would have you believe, and that the UN is ineffectual at best and hopelessly corrupt at worst, I just can't ignore Bush's poor domestic stewardship enough to vote for him (let's face it; he's no Winston Churchill, and no Tony Blair), although I agree he would do a better job than John Kerry in staying the course in Iraq and Afghanistan, and maybe even doing something about the travesty in Sudan. (Via InstaPundit)