Mickey Kaus is a centrist, but reliable, Democratic voter. He wants very much to vote for Kerry, but he doesn't want to say he's voting for Kerry in order to appease the terrorists -- oh, I'm sorry, not "appease" them per se, just not make them all angry n' stuff, the way Bush has.

He wants them as peaceable and amiable as they were on September 11th 2001 when they crashed four airplanes filled with human beings into three buildings and the earth, killing 2800.

Now, see the problem with that rationale? Well, I suspect Mickey Kaus sees the problem here too, because he keeps trying to find cute ways to say "appease them" without actually uttering the words. His current formulation is that we need a "time out" from "Bush's history-making," by which he means we need to take a refreshing pause from our current policy of not appeasing terrorists.

Taking a time out from not appeasing them would seem to mean going back to appeasing them, but at least this way of saying it is sort of cute and vague and you can still claim to be all in favor of defeating maniacal Muslim murder-cultists.

After a time out, of course. A time out which will last anywhere from four to eight years.

Another cute way to say what he doesn't want to say is to employ the shorthand "Pedro Martinez."

Now, Pedro Martinez was the Red Sox ace who pitched a good game against the Yanks in last year's ALCS, but who was left in the game a little too long and wound up blowing the game. Kaus uses this analogy to say that while Bush has done all the right things, apparently we need to vote him out of office as soon as possible and put in the guy who didn't want to do the right things. See, because, you know, having the guy who did the right things in the game could lead to him doing not the right things in later innings.

Apparently Kerry, who's been wrong all along under this rationale, will do better in the late innings. I guess the theory is "he's due."

Here's the thing, though:

Kerry really ought to be foresquare behind this Pedro Martinez analogy, because, after all, in this silly little fart of an analysis he's the relief pitcher who'll be coming in to save the game. Trouble is, Kerry -- the very decisive man who wants to lead the free world -- that he can't even clearly say that the Red Sox should have yanked Pedro Martinez in that game without worrying that someone might take offense and not vote for him.

Son of Nixon finds Kerry unable to give a decisive answer on this, one of the more trivial questions posed to a presidential candidate:

Kerry actually responds that, yes, he believes that Grady should have removed Pedro. Then Kerry interjects "Am I in trouble?" for giving that answer. My God! He sensed that he actually provided a clear cut answer to a question and his first reaction was that he may be in "trouble". Isn't it painfully obvious that this man is in no way qualified to lead?

There's more there. Kerry, who notoriously said he didn't like this whole "Yea" or "Nay" system of casting votes, perferring a "Yes, but..." or "No, unless..." system, also can't answer simple questions about baseball without launching into somnolent soliliquoys.