Ronald Reagan remembered liberating the concentration camps. He told world leaders that he took photos, and vowed to defend the Jews. After World War II, he said like most people he just wanted to go home, sleep with his wife, and rest.

Of course, Reagan spent the war in the propaganda department, stationed in Hollywood; he never liberated anything more significant than a six-pack of beer, and going home to sleep with his wife was rather unremarkable, as he slept at home throughout the war.

Somehow, Ronald Reagan managed to become a decent President despite the fact that he made up his conduct in World War II out of whole cloth.

John Kerry, by comparison, is at most guilty of moving the dates he was in Cambodia by one month for dramatic effect; yes, there's some debate over whether he deserved every Purple Heart he was awarded, but the Navy decided he rated them at the time; it seems churlish to question, almost forty years later, whether the Navy was right then, or a group of partisans is right now, especially since the debate seems to be that Kerry wasn't injured too badly, not that he wasn't injured at all. (My money's on the Navy, especially since the partisans were swearing Kerry could not possibly have been in Cambodia ever--until it turned out he could, at which case their story changed).

At any rate, there are serious questions here, folks. Can you get over your irrational Kerry hatred long enough to address them? Ronald Reagan was the second-greatest President of the twentieth century, and he boosted himself far more than Kerry has. George W. Bush may or may not have reported for duty for about a year of his tour in the national guard. And Kerry may have tried to move the dates on his visit to Kampuchea to add a bit of pathos to his story.

None of it is as important as how we're going to address the vital issues ahead of us. Has George W. Bush been a good president? Has he led effectively? Has he steered our economy, our government, and our military effectively? If your answer is yes, you should vote for him. If no (and I answer with a resounding no), then Kerry seems like a capable alterative. In four years, we can judge whether President Kerry has succeeded, and if not, we can throw him out, too.

I care far more about the future of this nation than whether John Kerry was off by twenty days when giving a speech eighteen years ago. And what the SBVAK cause celebre proves is that, unfortunately, a great many on the right are not more concerned about out nation's future. And that concerns me greatly. Because the stakes are too great to be unserious now.