As the dust settled after the Super Tuesday round of Democratic primaries, it became clear the chief candidate anointed to carry the “anybody but Bush” banner in November turned out to be everything but Bush in name only.

Of course, most rank-and-file Democrats chafe at the idea that their presumptive nominee differs little from their chief object of scorn, contending that a “world of difference” exists between Sen. Kerry and President Bush on the “important issues.” But just how much of that difference is simply a matter of scale rather than principle?

Consider — one of the chief talking points of the anti-Bush crowd has been the duplicity that lead to the Iraq war.

Never mind, of course, that Kerry was among those who voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, meaning we are left with one of two conclusions — either Kerry was so easily duped that he missed an ongoing charade millions of Americans saw through before the fall of Baghdad (even without the help of classified intelligence), or he’s simply a shameless political opportunist.

Neither case is a particularly flattering portrayal of Kerry’s character and decision-making abilities — in either circumstance he embodies the same pathologies of poor judgment or outright treacherousness for which he attacks the current president.

It doesn’t stop there, of course. Another key “dividing” issue in the race is civil liberties, an issue for which Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft have received much well-deserved derision. Kerry calls for an “end to the era of Ashcroft,” conveniently omitting in his scathing critique his own critical role in serving up the Bill of Rights on a silver platter when he voted for the Patriot Act.

Kerry apologists will of course point to the political climate under which the reviled Patriot Act was passed, yet if Kerry could not show the political backbone to stand up for civil liberties when it mattered most, it begs the question of on what grounds Kerry has to criticize the current administration’s excesses.

Likewise, Kerry’s supporters love to point out Bush’s triumph over federalism with his bipartisan “No Child Left Behind” Act, an unfunded mandate to the states that further federalizes what has traditionally been a local-level issue.

Absent yet again is any recognition that among the bill’s supporters was one Senator John Kerry — beguiled yet again by the same criminal mastermind who currently occupies the White House and still can’t seem to pronounce “nuclear” correctly.

If Kerry can be so easily fooled by someone whom lefties can hardly ridicule enough for his intellectual shortcomings, what then does this say about Kerry himself?

Furthermore, on the massive deficits Bush has racked up in his reckless spending binge, Kerry offers no better alternative.

Indeed, nowhere does Kerry propose substantially reigning in federal spending or trimming new entitlements — rather, his plan for both the deficit and the economy is to simply roll back the Bush tax cuts and redistribute them to other businesses — a practice which when carried out by Republicans is usually derided as corporate welfare.

Voters looking for substantial change in Washington can also keep looking when it comes to Kerry.

Not only does he strongly support mandatory minimum sentencing for particular federal crimes, but among his policy planks include aggressive pursuit of the failed “War on Drugs,” expansion of the massive farm subsidies bill and far more of the same kind of tax giveaways to corporations under the pretenses of “keeping American jobs.”

Indeed, with a candidate like this, why should the Democrats even waste their time and money running a candidate when they have all this and more already with the sitting president?

Ultimately, Kerry’s candidacy is yet another steady reminder of a political truth — when politics comes down to victory-at-any-costs brinkmanship, voting for the lesser of two evils is inevitably the result.

The remarkable lack of contrast between Bush and Kerry’s foibles is simply proof of this fact — but don’t tell that to the Democrats, for who, like Kerry, principles are an expendable issue.

Giving up one’s core principles for the sake of temporary partisan advantage — it’s an idea that sounds positively Republican.