That's a great point, Reagan Man. I was wondering what was worrying the fellow.
Meanwhile..
RE: A Pew Research Center poll last month found that 97 percent of conservative Republicans favored Bush over Kerry.
FairOpinion what part of 97 out of 100 don't you understand? This is not between two conservatives.
But there are the rights and responsiblities of citizens letting elected leaders know what we think. Some of us have problems with some things the President does. We would like to let him know. Is that asking too much to be permitted in a free country?
This Washington Times article (below) suggests that the Bush Admnistration needs to try harder to address concerns of citizens beyond fiscal conservatives. There are six million evangelicals out there who did not vote in 2000 . The article addresses evangelicals' concerns. Is it asking too much for the Bush administration to recognize citizens' concerns? Isn't six million votes at least worth expending more energy, on B.S. if nothing else?
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040219-115609-3712r.htm
"'If there is a rerun of 2000, when an estimated 6 million fewer evangelical Christians voted than in the pivotal year of 1994, then the Bush ticket will be in trouble, especially if there is no [Ralph] Nader alternative to draw Democratic votes away from the Democratic candidate,' added Mr. Knight, whose organization is an affiliate of Concerned Women for America (CWA) . . .Religious conservatives helped Ronald Reagan win the presidency in the 1980s and helped Republicans retake the House and Senate in 1994, but complain that they have little to show for their loyalty to the GOP." [End excerpt]
Though generally sympathetic to ILLEGAL aliens nevertheless evangelicals recognize that "Illegal immigration must be halted at all costs: any nation that cannot define and defend its borders is hardly a nation at all." (From another source.)
The ILLEGAL aliens problem is where to find the separation between working class conservatives and mainstream Republican Party "cheap labor" conservatives. That's a real problem. Yes, I know that the Rats are worse.
Sorry for the long post. I just want to add the following. It's not germane to the above. No one has to read it, of course.
As far as the war goes I am all for "taking it to the enemy." That means getting rid of a threat and establishing a foothold at the same time. I approve of the policy, neo-con or not. If FDR had to put up with this yapping crap he probably would have interned the whole lot of them. Of course, we were all Americans in those days, few at that time had "moved beyond being Americans."
I do agree with the following however. But guys like Halper must realize that we are in a war the JCS Chairman, Gen. Meyers, has described as perhaps more serious than W.W. II.
"Actually, the neocons were originally liberal hawks," [Scott McConnell, a former neoconservative who broke ranks in the 1990s and is the executive editor of The American Conservative] says. "When I first became a neocon I was a registered Democrat." Prestowitz, author of the recent book Rogue Nation, echoes this. Today's neocons are not conservatives, he told me, but "right-wing Trotskyists" who are every bit as determined as their counterparts on the left once were about revolutionizing the world. Clarke and Halper call them "Wilsonians with guns."
"There are six million evangelicals out there who did not vote in 2000 "
Do those evangelicals believe Kerry will address their concerns better and is closer to their value system?
YES or NO?
There's data that shows evangelical Christians make up 20%-25% of the voting public, with the GOP getting about eight in ten of those votes. That makes the Religious Right, aka.Christian Conservatives, a powerful part of the GOP`s base. I don't know if 6-million evangelical Christians stayed home in 2000, but if 6-million conservative Christians stay home this time around, Bush will probably lose.