Replies

"So, to sum up your position, you would rather have a President who has a greatly negative effect on your rights, and will not protect the security of our country; rather than a President who will have a somewhat negative effect on your rights, and who will protect the security of our country to the best of his considerable ability?"

Essentially correct for me. I'd rather some anti-liberty tyrant who turned up the heat and stimulated a real response, than a mushy Republicrat who is simmering the frog to death.

If I am going to have a President who doesn't care about my liberties and the Constitutoin, then I'd rather send the Republicans a painful message they might learn from, in hopes that they start doing the right thing in the future.

(And don't try to convince me that "open borders" Bush cares about protecting the country. Frankly, Bush fears leading on real border security because the Dems would call him a racist. I think that Gore or Hillary would have had far less reason to fear securing the borders. Imagine the Reagan Dems sticking with Gore as he shuts the borders, and gets serious about illegal immigration. Just as only Nixon could go to China...)

"Essentially correct for me. I'd rather some anti-liberty tyrant who turned up the heat and stimulated a real response, than a mushy Republicrat who is simmering the frog to death."

You mean you would rather have a Bill Clinton as President for 8 more years? Are you saying that the country is better off than we were prior to Clinton's election? If your answer is yes, we lose.

Just to add my two cents to your post, if the Pubbies are driving us toward the cliff at 100 mph, and the Rats at 120 mph, I'd rather get there quicker, so we can get about cleaning up the mess that much sooner. I'll never vote for a Rat, but Bush long ago lost my vote in 2004. This just affirms my decision.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!