Replies

>>It is coming to the absurd point where a Democrat President in '08 would be better for national security.

Why?

Because the Dem could triangulate by securing our borders, profile Muslims, and take out Tehran. The MSM and the majority of the public would support these actions. It would re-align politics (for the Dems) in a way that Karl Rove could only dream of.
<<

Whoa !

We have a closet DemoCrat here !

The Democrats will never act against illegal immigration, they need those stooges, the Latino Vote, to stay in power .

While the Mass Media, especially in Nuke York City are the acolytes of The 'Crats, does not mean a Crat President will get a blank check to through illegal aliens(minorities) out of this country !

Libs like Ted Kennedy want third worlders to take over America !
That has been The 'Crat plan for the past 41 years !

We have a closet DemoCrat here !

Hardly. I've been voting GOP for 20 years. I'll vote Libertarian if there is no GOP candidate on the ballot. I'd sit home rather than vote Dem.

The Democrats will never act against illegal immigration, they need those stooges, the Latino Vote, to stay in power .

The Howard Deans wouldn't. The Hillary Clintons would. Remember Slick Willie's triangulation on welfare reform? The calculated risk was that blacks wouldn't leave the Dem plantation. Same risk would be taken with respect to hispanics.

It isn't about ideology for someone like Hillary Clinton. It is all about attaining power. The preferred method would be as a socialist. But she'd run as a Bible-thumping moderate with a hawkish defense policy if it garners her 270 electoral votes. I suspect the same could be said about Bayh of Indiana, Mark Warner of Virginia, and Osama Bama Ding Dong of Illinois.

Think it isn't possible? We're rapidly descending to a "only Nixon could go to China" moment...permitting a Dem pseudo-hawk to do with foreign policy what the Republicans have abdicated from doing.