The San Francisco Chronicle's Debra Saunders has an interesting column about differences between the Dems and GOP when it comes to what might be called internal integrity:
A New York Times/CBS News poll in July found that three-quarters of Democratic voters and 86 percent of Boston delegates opposed the war in Iraq. Yet both John Kerry and John Edwards voted for the resolution authorizing force in Iraq in 2002.
The same poll found that 19 percent of GOP voters and 3 percent of GOP delegates oppose the war. Those delegates are in harmony with Bush and Veep Dick Cheney, even if 51 percent of all voters polled oppose the war.
That's the central difference between the GOP and the Democrats: The Democrats were willing to—no, they chose to, by nominating Kerry –sell out their core issue in order to beat George W. Bush.
Whole thing here.
Despite Bush's apparent climb in recent polls (it's also assumed that, unlike Kerry after the Democratic convention, he'll get a true bounce from the GOP convention), it's obviously way too early to declare the race. But Saunders is right to suggest that a party that nominates a candidate at odds with its core beliefs is a party in trouble. This helps to explain weak and inconsistent messaging on the part of the Democrats. And it also suggests John Kerry may need to become more vocally anti-war in Iraq to mollify the Democratic base–a tactic that will only lend more weight to the flip-flop millstone around his neck.