Personally, I found the speech incoherent, paraniod, and extremely judgmental in its assumptions about the inner workings of the minds of Democrats. Especially the part you quoted.

Take this statement:

"I actually admire a straight-up enthusiastic murderer more than someone who with eyes fully open endorses murder in order to further a certain set of personal ambitions."

I'd prefer the person who murders to further a certain set of personal ambitions. It shows intelligence and innovation, and most importantly, the potential to be REASONED WITH. Don't want to be murdered? Find out what he REALLY wants! How are you ever going to dissuade a "straight-up enthusiastic murderer?" You can't! Well, you can kill him, I guess.

The world WOULD be simpler if all problems were only solvable by killing those who disagreed with you. Nobody changed their minds, all beliefs were set in stone, and if a disagreement arose, whoever kills the other first is right. Which, I suspect would make Sartwell rather happy. All this wishy-washy reasoning and compromise makes it hard to really believe in anything!

That said, I would agree that Kerry is better compared to the latter (a murderer with an agenda, killing to get ahead), and Bush to the former (just likes killing, can't really explain why, doesn't care). If you don't like reasoning with people, hey, Bush is your man I guess.

I diagree that the trait of decision-making based solely on personal ambition shows the potential to be reasoned with. If a person with this disposition (let's just call him JK for the sake of brevity) has a goal, and certain actions are thought to further that goal, no amount of reasoning is going to change JK's path. The only thing that will change JK's path is if the actions thought to advance the goal change. This change isn't a reaction to a reasoned, princpled exchange, it's a reaction to a shift in the winds of power.

Don't want to be murdered? Don't find out what he really wants, because he REALLY wants murder - it's politically advantageous, given Sartwell's factual scenario! Instead, you need to change the political winds so that JK will not view murder as politically advantageous - which I submit is much more difficult.

So are you saying it's equally possible to reason with someone who murders as an end in itself? Or more possible?

Either way, I'd love to know why you'd prefer someone who loves killing to somone who doesn't love killing per se, but is willing to tolerate it because he really loves something else he can only get by killing.

Say, for example, somebody who loves America a lot, and murders because he wants to protect America. Would you dislike that person more than somone who is ambivalent about America, but loves killing just because it makes him feel good? Apparently Sartwell would.

Of course, in reality we've solved this little problem by making a rule that if you're protecting America, killing isn't murder. But anyway ... let's pretend it's murder for purposes of this discussion.

I doubt if either can be reasoned with. I was not saying that the one who murders as an end CAN be reasoned with, just that your critique of Sartwell's metaphor was misdirected.

you take my comments (and Sartwell's speech) way too far. This has very little, if anything, to do with murder...
in fact, I'd rather pick a different metaphor than murder since you keep taking Sartwell literally instead of using his murder comment as a rhetorically useful, but extreme, example. Nobody's endorsing murder, just making the point that Kerry wasn't even worth the paper he was printed on in 2004 because his motivations and reasoning were deeply flawed. Kerry meant nothing because he meant nothing. That is not circular; think about it.

I think OTHER PEOPLE's convictions and values meant a lot more to Kerry than they did to Bush. How you feel about that generally determines whether you think Kerry had convictions or not.