Replies

Doughty,

I think you make some good points overall, but I think you over-stating it by saying that the people were are voting for today would have been Democrats in the 1960’s or 70’s. I do not think George Bush would have ever qualified as a Democrat, nor John McCain. Guys like Rudy and Romney might have, but only to the extent that they were trying to remain electorally viable in the Northeast. Rudy is often ripped on here as a Leftist, but people ignore his consistent stand on Law & Order issues where he was always well to the right. And his economic stands were always right/center. Romney was right/center too, like his Father who I’m sure you remember, but he moved Left when he tried to win in Massachusetts.

This is Politics...people tailor their message to the Electorate...

And for me, even if I agree with you on many of your points (and I do!) the problem is that it ignores the most critical issue of our time...National Security. For me, this issue ALWAYS trumped all other issues, but in the post 9/11 World, it is even more important than ever. So I’ll compromise a little on Social/Economic issues in order to prevent a catastrophic Democratic Presidency in the arena of Foreign Policy. Think about how long we’ve been paying the price for the Foreign Policy blunders of our last 3 Democratic President??? Between LBJ, Clinton and that monumental vermin Carter, we have been “running against the wind” all over the globe in terms of National Security.

And even though you are right that people like Rudy, Romney and McCain represent a significant compromise on a number of issues, it is grossly unfair to lump them in the same category as the Leftist Democrats.

And as for the Supreme Court issue, it is much, much more critical than you stated. The next President will likely appoint 3 or even 4 justices...

1. John Paul Stevens (Liberal)—is nearing 90 and will retire or die soon.

2. Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Liberal)—is about 75 and NOT in good health.

3. Anthony Kennedy (Moderate to Conservative)—is nearing 75 and has hinted at retirement.

4. Stephen Breyer (Liberal)—is in is early 70’s and has discussed retirement.

5. Antonin Scalia (Conservative)—is in his early 70’s.

Okay, let's take a look at Bush. He involved us in a war on the other end of Asia. (with just cause) He introduced another "great society" program. Unlike the democrat from the sixties I'm comparing him to, he actually listened to his generals, didn't try to macro manage the war from the oval office. Still, I'd say these are interesting similarities. Niether Johnson or Kennedy were what I could call anti-military. Do you really see Kennedy as much more left than Bush? I'll grant the philandering wasn't exactly a page torn from the right side of the book.

I'm not going to compare Bush to the nuts from the 70s, because once McGovern touched the democrat party it was never quite the same IMO. And Hillary is an excellent example.

As for the court appointments, I still don't see us gaining much if Giuliani is involved. For that matter, I simply cannot trust Romney. McCain, heaven help us.

What I see is one continual excuse after another why we can't allow the democrats to rule from the left, and each and every one defends ruling from the left on the right.

What is your plan to turn this around? If we must remain silent and vote in liberals all the time, what saves this nation?

I'm not trying to be personal here, but for arguement's sake, this is what I reference when I state that the republican party has become a wing of the democrat party. The democrats (read that socialists) can't lose no matter who wins. And so goes the nation...