During the four years of the Bush administration, I have watched in frustration as the current president has expanded government, run up deficits and run away from the limited-government principles typically espoused by Republicans. I have sworn, up and down, that I will absolutely, positively not vote for Dubya for a second term.

I'm still holding firm.

But after hearing a few nights of speechmaking by Democratic luminaries at the Democratic Convention in Boston, I cringed in horror, and even had a fluttering thought that I might vote for George W. Bush just to keep these lunatics out of power.

Even Democratic attempts to appear centrist don't take the edge off my fright. I heard a few minutes of the unctuous Jimmy Carter, who pretends to be saintly and against the nastiness of politics, yet can't help himself from saying nasty, character-impugning things about his political opponents.

Al Gore, who had spent weeks spreading malicious conspiracy-laden claptrap about the Republicans, was on best behavior when he tried to laugh off his bitterness at having lost the last election. Somehow, I remember things differently: Wasn't it Gore who pioneered new ground in having his lawyers try to steal the election, rather than the Republicans who orchestrated the supposed 2000 electoral theft?

Hearing Bill and Hillary blather was just too much of a reminder of the way things used to be. Bill might be the Democrats' rock star, but I would much rather listen to a statesman than an Elvis impersonator.

Ted Kennedy was calm, given the source. But are we really supposed to believe that the current administration is committed to "the politics of fear and favoritism"? (Oh no, the Democrats would never resort to fear and they never hand out special privileges to their favorites.)

Even more offensive was Kennedy's twisting of the nation's founding into an egalitarian experiment. No, the founders did not try to "make the world safe for diversity." They wanted to make the nation safe for individual freedom in the face of government tyranny.

Vice presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards was his smarmy self, spinning ridiculous yarns about "two Americas," divisive claptrap designed to give government more power to take from the one, evil America and redistribute it to the good, noble America.

Kerry - do you know that he served in Vietnam? - shamelessly exploited his military service, making references to bands of brothers and gunboats at every opportunity. Even as he was engaging in divisive "us vs. them" rhetoric, he was insisting that he is the candidate to unify America.

My favorite line? "That is the kind of America that I will lead as president: an America where we are all in the same boat." That's my fear: all of us sinking together.

You see my problem. No matter how bad the Republican candidate, the Democrat is always worse.

These days, Republicans constantly back away from their supposed support for limited government and they embrace big government when it comes to security issues and foreign affairs. But Democrats have a near religious faith in unlimited government as the solution to every human ill.

Forget about the phony centrism on display in Boston, as Democrats try to lure the undecided voter and not scare away everyone else. Look more closely at the delegates, at the nutty things in which they believe and the conspiracies they are so fond of endorsing.

Just remember, Bush isn't just a bad president, he is Evil Incarnate. He is willing to wage war to enrich his oil buddies, and he is trying to dominate the world for personal gain. Republicans hate the poor. They are racist and would probably sacrifice children if they weren't so eager to deprive women of their right to choose. I almost forgot that they are trying to turn American into a theocracy.

Aren't there any Democrats worth electing?

I certainly know many Democrats who are wonderful people, but their philosophy is not consistent with a free society. Our founders viewed government as something necessary in a few limited roles, but as the essential danger that a free people face. Today's Democrats have unending trust in government, and hostility toward the private sector.

The last good Democrat president - probably the last great president, period - was Grover Cleveland, the one-time Buffalo mayor and New York governor who is widely hailed as an honest, self-effacing promoter of the founding fathers' core principles. He was, perhaps, the last classical liberal (i.e., libertarian, as opposed to modern liberal) to ever win the nation's highest office.

If a bill didn't pass constitutional muster he vetoed it. If some powerful constituency didn't like it, he told them to elect someone new in the next election. He actually stayed up late reading the text of the bills he was handed to sign or veto. He was a man of few words, yet deep convictions. When he talked about compassion, he meant a personal virtue, not the government's dispersing other people's money around. He rebuked special interests, refused to squander taxpayers' dollars, pushed through government reforms, opposed tariffs.

He avoided war, stood up against greedy government pension-seekers and owned up to his own past misbehavior when scandal arose about an illegitimate child. He believed in states' rights and stood up to union thuggery.

Compare that to modern Democrats, who generally believe in the opposite of what Cleveland stood for. Of course, how many Republicans these days really believe in the principles of Cleveland, even though they sometimes use the right rhetoric?

In using Grover Cleveland as the standard, one would never find a candidate good enough to vote for again. Not voting is a defensible position, but those who like to vote are left with a quandary.

Do we vote for a Republican who has expanded government, waged war and impinged on civil liberties at home, or for a Democrat who is likely to expand government, send more troops to the war zone and impinge on civil liberties at home?

Isn't democracy wonderful?