jla, when push comes to shove, I don't believe you will place that de facto vote for these two dangerous creatures. I understand how badly you want a conservative president, but you know that we don't have the luxury in this critical, post-9/11 election to address the chronic problems. We must address the acute ones. Or the patient will die.
1776, 1812 and the latter half of the 20 c. were equally perilous times. (Did you know that a few Russian generals lobbied for a nuclear first strike against the U.S. in the 80s?). Surprisingly, Washington, Madison, and Reagan were also Christians and managed to lead the nation onto a victorious, and virtuous, pathway despite some sounding the clarion call of expediency and insisting that we 'temporarily' abandon our nation's idealism in order to subdue a threatening menace.
The aforementioned gentlemen chose the right course of action, as they very well knew that morality and Judeo-Christian ethos were/are not incompatible with the security of this country.
In my opinion, if HRC wins in '08 it will be on account of the GOP nominating a Giuliani-type candidate. Don't wish to see HRC sitting in the oval office? Then the conservative, true conservative, candidate should get your vote.
Reap what you sow.
I have to also say that you don't mask your disdain and contempt for Christian conservatives all that well. Some may even take it as a very personal, and undeserving, insult.
I'm surprised that you would say this, jla. I don't have distain for Christian Conservatives. You are missing my point.
What I do have distain for is ANYONE putting his personal beliefs and wants ahead of the defense of this country and the safety of our children. ( I believe your argument for doing so isn't even consistent with your stated values: voting for hillary is the ultimate act against life.)
My feelings for the CC or anyone on the right who would place a de facto vote for hillary is no different from my feelings for my jewish brethren who vote for her. Is there any reason I should give the former a pass? If anything, the CC deserves more scorn because, UNLIKE UNINFORMED AND DISINFORMED LEFTIST JEWS, THE CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES UNDERSTAND WELL THE DANGER OF THE CLINTONS.
NOTE: I am not arguing for Giuliani here. I am not arguing for a secularist. What I am arguing for is VOTING FOR HILLARY'S OPPONENT, WHOEVER THAT PERSON MAY BE. (It may be a conservative or moderate, it may be a Christian, it may be an Italian or a Jew. It may be pro-life or it may be pro-choice. I don't care which.)
What I am trying to say is that it would be the height of irresponsibility to place a de facto vote for hillary clinton.
As for 1776 or 1812, total annihilation wasn't a possibility, so I put those eras aside. In the cold war, MAD and a nuclear bipolar world maintained rational actors and limited threat.Today's post-9/11 world, OTOH, is asymmetric, not rationally based and the threat is unlimited.
Post-clinton, post-Watson and Crick, anyone can put together an A-bomb or a dirty bomb or a biological WMD. And with global travel, anyone can place it anywhere. And the islamofascist terrorists want to do all of it.
So, I don't agree with your premise that the era of terrorism has an analog in history.