Replies

...now that I have a few moments to respond more fully:

In the real world, you deal with situations as they exist; not as you wish them to be. Someone said, politics is the art of compromise. Historically, that is true. It doesn't mean you give up your principles - it just means you fight hard to get your agenda through obstacles and resistance to get at least some of what you want to acheive.

It has also been said that politics is the art of persuasion. And that is the "art" in which conservatives should excel. We must continue to persuade our fellow Americans that our ideas are better and more in line with constitutional principles of freedom and liberty, than the democrats' ideas (sorry for the oxymoron).

The Republican running in the Connecticut senate race is so far behind that no amount of effort (realistically speaking) can propel him into office. And, as a matter of national security (my family's security), we need help in the war on terror in congress. If we can't get that help, all of the other important domestic economic, social, fiscal, environmental issues will mean nothing if America begins a slow descent into oblivion. So, I repeat; if a democrat offers sincere help in fighting this ruthless and dangerous enemy - I'll take that help; but continue to fight him on the other issues.

Rush is fond of saying he will retire from radio once everyone in America agrees with him. He should live so long.

In the real world, you deal with situations as they exist; not as you wish them to be. Someone said, politics is the art of compromise. Historically, that is true. It doesn't mean you give up your principles - it just means you fight hard to get your agenda through obstacles and resistance to get at least some of what you want to acheive.

The real world as it is today would require any Republican who votes for a Socialist such as Lieberman to sacrifice their principles and the security of our country considering he is in favor of Democrats taking control of Congress. The Democrats taking control of Congress would sacrifice the security of our country. Lieberman is in agreement with the Democrats on all other issues other national security. Lieberman would lose his battle for national security because he would be the minority and agree with the Democrats on all other issues. The Republicans will lose everything and gain nothing.

The Republican running in the Connecticut senate race is so far behind that no amount of effort (realistically speaking) can propel him into office.

This refrain implies the only reason a person should vote for a candidate who the voter perceives as the winner and completely disregards the candidates positions on all other issues. That is as dangerous as it is ludicrous.

And, as a matter of national security (my family's security), we need help in the war on terror in congress. If we can't get that help, all of the other important domestic economic, social, fiscal, environmental issues will mean nothing if America begins a slow descent into oblivion.

That won't happen with Lieberman given is inconsistent stance against the war on terror and a Democrat controlled Congress. Schlesinger, who has a consistently strong position on national security, will receive strong support against the war on terror in a Republican dominated Congress. That can only happen if people do not vote for Democrats. Your assumption Schlesinger will have a weaker position on national security escapes me.

So, I repeat; if a democrat offers sincere help in fighting this ruthless and dangerous enemy - I'll take that help; but continue to fight him on the other issues.

Lieberman is not offering sincere help. He would have voted for The Secure Fence Act and be against Amnesty for illegal aliens, some of which could be terrorists, if he were truly sincere. The only difference between Lieberman and Lamont is that Lieberman presents in a much slicker package, enough to fool many Republicans. The only thing Lieberman offers is the same Democrat controlled Congress we had from 1944-1994.