an open love letter to Republicans

[greedygretchen]

this is an opinion piece in the new issue of High Times...it's a really good issue-it's the activism issue with lots of tips for budding activists...so, i thought this piece made a lot of sense...rather than type out the whole thing i'll highlight some interesting points

A Love Letter to Republicans by John Buffalo Mailer

"Our Policy should be: If we know there's a terrorist leader in Afghanistan, we're gonna send a crack team of assassins there and blow his head off."-Republican rebel

"Remarks like this are why I have more fun talking to Republicans. Democrats have a harder time cutting through the bullshit. There's always the pretense that we have to be nice. The Republican rebel is a friend of mine. This guy is around 30 years old, works in finance for a major Wall Street firm, wears a suit to High Times parties and is a total individual. He's cool as sin but gets written off nine times out of ten by people who call themselves open-minded liberals before he's even uttered a word...

"We're living in a time of extrordinary potential for unity...Unfortunately, our government is using fear to keep us divided, not only from the rest of the world but from each other. Had our current president not co-opted the universal support America enjoyed for a minute after 9/11 and used it to get us into an impossible war with no apparent end, the world could have united in such a way as to really fight terrorism. But that didn't happen. Even within our own borders, we are as divided as the America of Civil War years. Republicans and Democrats might as well be opposing baseball teams. You don't see a lot of logical discussion to find the common ground between our two sides. We are much more content to throw potent words like evil and coward around...It's useless. Actually, it's extremely useful-not to the people but to the current administration and all the corporations in bed with them.

"I asked my friend the Republican rebel if he thought George W. Bush represented the Republican party. No. He did not. 'Then what would you say is the ideal Republican candidate?' 'Fiscally conserative, social tradiionalist-meaning live and let live, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, give back to society, work hard; doesn't meddle in people's lives and is not obsessed with domestic issues.' That doesn't sound too bad. But I haven't seen any candidate that represents that, Democrat or Republican...

"My point is not that we should throw our hands in the air, give away our right to vote, smoke a bowl, and call it day. No. We need to get the most environmentally damaging, foreign relations-trouncing, civil liberty-desecrating administration in our country's history out. The way we get this administration out of the White House is not by alienating all Republicans by lumping them together with Bush supporters...I believe we can make it through these rough times, but it's up to the activists to take the initiative and let all the Republicans out there know that this is not a protest against them-this is a protest to show that we are all onto the administration's agenda. Once united, we won't have to take it anymore." END

I was thinking about starting this thread and I received an e-mail containing this opinion piece by Republican congressman-from Texas no less!- Rep. Ron Paul

Police State, USA By Rep. RON PAUL
Last week's announcement that the terrorist threat warning level has been raised in parts of New York, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., has led to dramatic and unprecedented restrictions on the movements of citizens. Americans wishing to visit the U.S. Capitol must, for example, pass through several checkpoints and submit to police inspection of their cars and persons.
Many Americans support the new security measures because they claim to feel safer when the government issues terror alerts and fills the streets with militarized police forces. As one tourist interviewed this week said, "It makes me feel comfortable to know that everything is being checked." It is ironic that tourists coming to Washington to celebrate the freedoms embodied in the Declaration of Independence are so eager to give up those freedoms with no questions asked.
Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens' lives. This doesn't stop governments, including our own, from seeking more control over and intrusion into our lives. As one Member of Congress stated to the press last week, "people who don't want to be searched don't need to come on Capitol grounds." What an insult! The Capitol belongs to the American people who pay for it, not to Congress or the police.
It is worth noting that the government rushes first to protect itself, devoting enormous resources to make places like the Capitol grounds safe, while just beyond lies one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the nation. What makes Congress more worthy of protection from terrorists than ordinary citizens?
To understand the nature of our domestic response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, we must understand the nature of government. Government naturally expands, and any crises * whether real or manufactured * serve to justify more and more government power over our lives. Bureaucrats have used the tragedy of 9/11 as an excuse to seize police powers sought for decades, such as warrantless searches, Internet monitoring, and access to bank records. It should be no surprise that the recently released report of the 9/11 Commission has but one central recommendation: bigger government and more spending at home and abroad.
Every new security measure represents another failure of the once-courageous American spirit. The more we change our lives, the more we obsess about terrorism, the more the terrorists have won. As commentator Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig von Mises Institute explains, terrorists in effect have been elevated by our response to 9/11: "They are running the country. They determine our civic life. They shape our private life. They decide how public resources are spent. They may dictate who gets to be the next president. It should be obvious that the government doesn't object. Not at all. The government benefits, by getting ever more reason for ever more money and power."
Every generation must resist the temptation to believe that it lives in the most dangerous time in American history. The threat of Islamic terrorism is real, but it is not the greatest danger ever faced by our nation. This is not to dismiss the threat of terrorism, but rather to put it in perspective. Those who seek to whip the nation into a frenzy of fear do a disservice to a country that expelled the British, fought two world wars, and stared down the Soviet empire.
Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.

Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas.

wow-this guy's a republican from Texas and I agree with every word he wrote- and i'm a bleeding heart from L.A!! We need to stop demonizing each other and making ignorant statements like Republicans are all in-bred hillbillies when we know that's not the case...it is just more divisive rhetoric...
so my apologies to all the Republicans i've judged (solely on the basis of them being Republican)...i don't know why i never realized that Republicans are also being adversely affected by the bush admins policies-we all are...
but one final word to blindly loyal Bush supporters-y'all can still go fuck yourselves!

[travesty]

Nice! Very well put!

[Ace42]

Shurely if the Republicans did not support Bush, he would not be their candidate? Shurely, any Republican that is not towing the party line, whilst possibly a Republican in a truer yet recidivist way, is de facto being "un-Republican" ?

[greedygretchen]

Shurely if the Republicans did not support Bush, he would not be their candidate? Shurely, any Republican that is not towing the party line, whilst possibly a Republican in a truer yet recidivist way, is de facto being "un-Republican"?

this is exactly what I am talking about...why are we lumping all Republicans in together? There is a broader base of Republicans that will not be represented at the convention...Is it the everyday,hard-working Republican that supports Bush or the rich, elite i.e. his "base" that supports him and his bid for pres? now Bill Maher said that Nader takes a higher percentage of Democratic votes but he does also take Republican/conservative votes-what does this tell you?...for instance-I am a registered Democrat but I do not support John Kerry

[Ace42]

this is exactly what I am talking about...why are we lumping all Republicans in together? There is a broader base of Republicans that will not be represented at the convention.

for instance-I am a registered Democrat but I do not support John Kerry

Republican:
n.

1. One who favors a republic as the best form of government.
2. Republican A member of the Republican Party of the United States.

On this board, we are clearly *exclusively* using the second definition, irrelevant to their position to the first part.

Clearly, if a person thinks their preferred party is not representative of them, they should *change parties* - this is common sense, no?

[Yes, I understand the difficulties of doing this is a two-party system, but as we do not have a two party system in the UK, I am sure you can see why I would not be sympathetic. It is not like it is a problem which your nation can't address on its own terms]

Someone who disagrees with what the Republican party (the big whigs, the movers and shakers, those demonstrably in charge) is doing should not support them with party membership? And so, even though they might technically be a Republican (they are still on the mailing list, their subscription and membership hasn't yet expired, etc) apart from an arbitrary title they self apply, they might conceivably have Democrat tendancies?

Ask yourself this - if you cancelled your Democrat registration and started signing up to the Republican party *BUT DIDN'T CHANGE YOUR POLITICAL SENSIBILITIES* - would you call yourself a Republican or a Democrat?

IMO, when I use the terms (rarely, being a non-American) I use them in the ideological sense, rather than in a literal pedantic "what does their badge in their wallet say" sense.

[greedygretchen]

2. Republican A member of the Republican Party of the United States.

On this board, we are clearly *exclusively* using the second definition, irrelevant to their position to the first part.

actually thanks Ace42 your post forced me to look up the definitions of both republic and democracy (democrat=advocate of democracy) and a few other words :o

Republic: n. 1. A government whose head of state is not a monarch and is usually a president 2. A country governed by the elected representatives of its people

Democracy: n. 1. Government elected by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives 2. A political unit that has such a government 3. Majority rule 4. The prinicipals of social equality and respect for the individual within a community

to me these definitions actually seem kinda the same-see republic #2 and democracy #1. and now that I think about it American government can be referred to as a "democratic republic" or a "republican democracy" which shows the very,very thin line between a literal "republican" or "democrat"...So you see, we Americans can only really distinguish a Republican and a Democrat through party lines (being that there are only two parties)-that means through issues like abortion, affirmative action ,welfare, health care, education, poverty, racism, sexism...or basically which party's rhetoric do I agree with most? so it is only natural that we *exclusively* use the second definition of Republican because that is exactly what we're referring to!

Clearly, if a person thinks their preferred party is not representative of them, they should *change parties* - this is common sense, no?

I am not asking Republicans to change parties because Republicans probably still define themselves as Republican or as following the party lines or ideals on the issues- however many Republicans can disagree with the way the leader of their party is implementing those ideals and in America just because you are registered as a certain party does not mean you have to vote that way (except in primaries)...this means republicans could also support a third-party candidate if they so chose (where're Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot when you need them?)...there has to be a realization by Democrats and liberals that not all Republicans support Bush-all you have to do is Google "republicans against bush" and you will see a number of websites supporting this...not all Republicans are gmsisko1 types and lumping them together makes the campaign against the war (republican's kids are dying needlessly too) that much more hard fought.

Ask yourself this - if you cancelled your Democrat registration and started signing up to the Republican party *BUT DIDN'T CHANGE YOUR POLITICAL SENSIBILITIES* - would you call yourself a Republican or a Democrat?

never ever under any circumstances whatsoever would i ever register as a Republican unless i had absolutely changed my political sense and sensibilities-what would be the point of changing otherwise- as I can still vote cross-party?

[Ace42]

to me these definitions actually seem kinda the same ... which shows the very,very thin line between a literal "republican" or "democrat"...So you see, we Americans can only really distinguish a Republican and a Democrat through party lines

Aha, this is exactly what I was getting at. Just making sure I was not going to be told "Bush is not a literal Republican, so someone who follows him is not literally a Republican, even though they follow the party!"

That would've been quite frustrating and cause me to add another post explaining... Oh well, it's better I write another post agreeing rather than disagreeing to make my point.


I am not asking Republicans to change parties because Republicans probably still define themselves as Republican or as following the party lines or ideals on the issues- however many Republicans can disagree with the way the leader of their party is implementing those ideals

Surely, the Party leadership defines what the party stands for by its very definition? It seems that due to being stuck in a static two party system for so long that the literal distinction between the parties has been lost; the US people now have an engrained sense of what the parties represent, which sticks with them even when the parties cease to represent these ideals.

that means through issues like abortion, affirmative action ,welfare, health care, education, poverty, racism, sexism...or basically which party's rhetoric do I agree with most?

So if the party's policies and rhetoric change, and your sensibilities don't, surely that means you *cease* to be in that camp? I am sure that over the course of years, the two parties have changed their stance on numerous issues, so we can conclude that what defines a party is its *current policies* as voiced by its *current leadership* - neither party stands for slavery [replace any obsolete issue instead] (whilst it was certainly an accepted position at one point in time) but that doesn't make them "unrepublican / democrat" or whatever.

All you have to do is Google "republicans against bush" and you will see a number of websites supporting this...not all Republicans are gmsisko1 types and lumping them together makes the campaign against the war (republican's kids are dying needlessly too) that much more hard fought.

Shurely Republicans against Bush are like Catholics against the Pope or Nazis against Hitler? While your thelogicial / political views may be inline with *traditional* / past dogma, that does not mean that you are "one of them."


never ever under any circumstances whatsoever would i ever register as a Republican unless i had absolutely changed my political sense and sensibilities-what would be the point of changing otherwise- as I can still vote cross-party?

What is the point in voting for the candidate you do not support? I assume party membership is what finances a candidate afterall (I might be wrong) - it seems like fighting against yourself to financially support someone standing against the person you intend to vote for.

[greedygretchen]

Surely, the Party leadership defines what the party stands for by its very definition?

Ideally-yes but realistically no! there are hypocrites in power (in both the Democratic and Republican parties and in all kinds of religious and secular organizations all around the globe) who say things people want to hear but are really out for their own agendas!! who say they will implement the true ideals of the party/organization and then don't...

So if the party's policies and rhetoric change, and your sensibilities don't, surely that means you *cease* to be in that camp? I am sure that over the course of years, the two parties have changed their stance on numerous issues, so we can conclude that what defines a party is its *current policies* as voiced by its *current leadership* - neither party stands for slavery [replace any obsolete issue instead] (whilst it was certainly an accepted position at one point in time)

what is it exactly that you are trying to say in regards to my first post? that all Republicans are the same? that there are no Republicans who feel bush is doing a bad job? that all Republicans are like gmsisko1? and of course political rhetoric and issues change with time as history has shown...but am I not dealing with the *current issues* and what it *currently means* to be a Republican or the stereotypes we place on Republicans?

Shurely Republicans against Bush are like Catholics against the Pope or Nazis against Hitler? While your thelogicial / political views may be inline with *traditional* / past dogma, that does not mean that you are "one of them."

sorry but i googled nazis against hitler and catholics against the pope and i found only one site(and it was more about Eastern orthodox vs. regular catholicism)...i think the Republicans Against Bush movement has legitimacy and relevance in this day and age-they do not like the leadership of their party and are trying to do something about it-but your "one of them" comment is exactly what i am referring to when discussing the "demonizing" of Republicans

What is the point in voting for the candidate you do not support? I assume party membership is what finances a candidate afterall (I might be wrong) - it seems like fighting against yourself to financially support someone standing against the person you intend to vote for.

i wouldn't vote for a candidate i didn't support...did i say that? no, what i said was that i would be willing to vote across party lines to vote for candidates i truly did support rather than voting for a Democrat simply because he is a Democrat and the point of this would be to let the Democratic party know that i am not happy with their complacency either and that they need to get with it or they are not going to get my votes...and i have not donated any funds to the Democratic party even though I am registered Democrats although I did receive solicitations from John Kerry for donations

[Ace42]

what is it exactly that you are trying to say in regards to my first post? that all Republicans are the same? that there are no Republicans who feel bush is doing a bad job? that all Republicans are like gmsisko1? and of course political rhetoric and issues change with time as history has shown...but am I not dealing with the *current issues* and what it *currently means* to be a Republican or the stereotypes we place on Republicans?

What I am saying is that I'd define "Republicans" as those people who are or follow the current leadership (and therefore idelologies) of the Republican party. This means that while a Republican might disagree, in doing so they are being *less* Republican. IE more moderate. So, if they vehemently disagree with the party in its current incarnation, then they are *not* Republicans, irrespective of what they choose to call themselves, irrespective of what literature and pamphlets they receive, irrespective of what membership cards they carry.


sorry but i googled nazis against hitler and catholics against the pope and i found only one site(and it was more about Eastern orthodox vs. regular catholicism)...i think the Republicans Against Bush movement has legitimacy and relevance in this day and age-they do not like the leadership of their party and are trying to do something about it-but your "one of them" comment is exactly what i am referring to when discussing the "demonizing" of Republicans

No no no, it was not meant as such. Infact, although I can see why you'd take it that way, it meant quite the opposite. The reasons "Nazis against Hitler" and "Catholics against the Pope" do not exist is because you cannot be part of a movement, and yet against the ideas set forth by the movement's leaders. So you can't be a Nazi, and be against Hitler, you can't be a Catholic and disagree with the pope. It is exactly the same with "Republicans against Bush" - it might just as well be "Pacifists against peace" - it is oxymoronic, like "Communists against socialism."

Merely agreeing with the Republican party's PREVIOUS (and now obsolete and irrelevant) ideologies does not make you a Republican.

"I might claim to be able to fly. Lo, I say, I am flying. But you are not propelling yourself about while suspended in the air, someone may point out. Ah no, I reply, that is no longer considered the proper concern of people who can fly. Infact, it is frowned upon. Nowadays, a flyer never leaves the ground and wouldn't know how. I see, says my somewhat baffled interlocutor, so when you say you can fly you are using the word in a purely private sense. I see I have made myself clear, I say. Then, says this chap in some relief, you cannot actually fly afterall? On the contrary, I say I have just told you I can."

(Courtesy of Mr Tom Stoppard)

In the same respect, Republicans against Bush are using the term in a purely private sense. What authority do they have to say they espouse Republicanism better than the elected leader? Surely the fact that he is the elected party leader means that the majority agree with the concept of the party following the leader, not vice versa. If the majority of people had a problem of how he is redefining Republicanism, they could simply eject him, or start a new party and call it "Old-Republicans" or some such?


i wouldn't vote for a candidate i didn't support...did i say that? no, what i said was that i would be willing to vote across party lines to vote for candidates i truly did support rather than voting for a Democrat simply because he is a Democrat and the point of this would be to let the Democratic party know that i am not happy with their complacency either and that they need to get with it or they are not going to get my votes...and i have not donated any funds to the Democratic party even though I am registered Democrats although I did receive solicitations from John Kerry for donations

Surely being a party member is support? Not only do the figures convince them they have support (and the will assume it to be unconditional) but also doesn't membership entail some sort of subscription? If there is no monetary donation, what does being a "party member" entail apart from adopting a name to self-apply? According to you, it doesn't necessarily bare any relation to politics or even which candidate you are going to vote for. It seems to totally defeat the purpose of belonging to a party that you do not intend to vote into power.

Supporting a party, but handicapping their candidate strikes me as incredibly backwards. Like the tribe that decided to carry logs down the hill to their workshop, and a traveller points out "It would be easier just to let them roll down" so they go "oh yeah" and carry them back up in order to do so.

[ChrisLove]

Just as a side issue, gmsisko posted a link to a conservative message board a few weeks ago, I went and had a look through it and there was as much Bush bashing in there as there is on this board. The true conservatives seem to hate Bush - particularly his economic policy.

[greedygretchen]

Thanks, ChrisLove for bringing it back in focus...it's not the side issue-it's the issue of what this thread is about...i really could care less about the semantics of what really,truly constitutes a "Republican"...i just know that there are people calling themselves "Republicans" that do not support Bush and Democrats and liberals are doing a disservice to the campaign against Bush and against the war when we stereotype all "Republicans" or "conservatives" as ignorant Bush supporters...and Ace42 during the recall election race here in California Arnold Shwarzenegger (sp?) and Bill Simon both "Republicans" ran against each other...does that mean one of them was not really a "Republican"? and you didn't really address my statement that leaders can be hypocrites and that leaders don't necessarily always abide by political party "standards" or "values" and when that happens there is nothing wrong with dissenting within or outside of the party line

[Ace42]

Ti just know that there are people calling themselves "Republicans" that do not support Bush and Democrats and liberals are doing a disservice to the campaign against Bush and against the war when we stereotype all "Republicans" or "conservatives" as ignorant Bush supporters...and Ace42 during the recall election race here in California Arnold Shwarzenegger (sp?) and Bill Simon both "Republicans" ran against each other...does that mean one of them was not really a "Republican"? and you didn't really address my statement that leaders can be hypocrites and that leaders don't necessarily always abide by political party "standards" or "values" and when that happens there is nothing wrong with dissenting within or outside of the party line

See, there is a difference between "Republican" and Conservative, and this is what I have been getting at. While the two may seem to be synonymous, there is a distinction. While Republicans are merely members of the party, and to be a Republican means you must be inline with the party, being conservative is a much more nebulous term. You can be conservative in outlook and subscribe to Republican ideals, without being a Republican.

I still see your point about putting all conservatives in the same bag - as that is a broad spectrum.

While I'd say people lumping all conservatives together in a big "bushloving" bag is a great disservice, I'd say that is not necessarily the case with Republicans. If Republicans do not like being all put into a great big bag of generalisations, then they should stop consciously and willingly associating themselves with a party which they feel no longer is representative of them. It is that simple. I'm trying to think of a non-political analogy...

If you were a sportsfan, and your team had a lot of fans who were amiable, and although they weren't the best in the league, they did their best to entertain and play fair, and you respected that, you'd be happy calling yourself a fan, right? You'd wear the T-shirt, and say "I'm one of these people" - now, if the whole team got swapped, (maybe moved to another city) and started cheating etc and messing about trying to get better ratings, and all the new fans were Hooligans, what would you, now in a minority, do?

Would you go around telling people "I'm a *real* fan. These new people aren't fans of the team!" - would you even want to associate yourself with the team which, apart from name, bares little resemblance with the team that you enjoyed watching so much?

Surely, you'd be disgusted, and say "fuck it, I'm going to find another team with like minded fans so we can get back to how it was, how it should be. I'm not going to be reresented and a representative of a group of thugs"

Surely, just sticking with the same name because it's a name you have been accustomed to, even though there is no longer any significant similarity is merely stubborn and peevish, and totally ridiculous?

Yet fans still do it. Why? I dunno, but I think it is a little pathetic. Why be a minority trying to pull against the majority, telling others how it "should be" when it is (in this analogy, and in the case of the political one) just as easy to hang up your shirt and give yourself a new label?

I think that it is the same with Republicanism / Democrats. While I am not expert in US politics, from the insightful TV we get of your political satire, from the comments on this board, and from newspapers and other media, it does seem to be the case that Republicans would rather label themselves in a highly innaccurate manner, rather consider the possibility "their" party (which, clearly isn't in agreement with them, otherwise they'd not have elected Bush) no longer agrees with them.

As for two republicans running against each other - that is totally beside the point - the party follows the elected leader, and thus is represented by the majority candidate. His policies are the party's policies, the opponents are NOT as they cannot and will not be enforced or put forward.

As for a political leader subverting his position to drive the party in a way contrary to the wishes of the party-faithful, that is an interesting one.

You could argue that by voting for a shifty leader, even if they didn't know he was, they voted to make their party likewise "shifty"
I believe one of your founding fathers said "every people get the government they deserve" Likewise, you could argue that when a party votes in a leader (rather than having a system of total referendum) they are in effect, turning over their authority to him. So, during his period of election, he has their voices, so to speak. Until his tenure expires, or he is removed from office, he still defines the direction the party moves in.

Take the Nazi party (Socialist Workers Party) - Hitler drove that party away from socialism and social justice. In effect, he was "anti-socialist-workers" and still a Nazi. The party follows the leader, even if he is totally making a mockery of the traditional stance of the party.

Leaving Hitler to one side for a moment, surely if the majority of Republicans did not support Bush, he would not be their leading candidate, nor would he still be in office, etc? If Republicans did not support Bush, shurely it would be impossible for him to keep office?

Shurely, that must follow, that "Republicans against Bush" are a small splinter group which is no more "true blue Republican" than ANY splinter cell is part of its former group?

Take the IRA - they had numerous splinter cells that operated independantly, and often directly against the IRA. There were all sorts of fragments with different names they self applied, some calling themselves "provisional IRA" some "The real IRA" etc etc.

Would you say these are all "true IRA" even though they all have different, and often totally conflicting stances? AFAIK Sinn Fein has disavowed a number of factions that still maintain they are members of the IRA, having kept the name. (I am not expert on Irish politics either, so if anyone can offer clarificatio, it would again be appreciated) - so they'd say certainly not.

What if Dubbyah forcibly ejected these "Republicans against Bush" from the party (I am sure the party is capable of ejected people from it) - would these people, irrespective of who they vote for, still be "Republicans" because they call themselves that, and claim to have something in common with the other republicans who want nothing to do with them?

Basically, what I am saying is, I am not the one putting Republicans in the same bag as Bush, they are the ones putting themselves in the same bag, and then saying "hang on, but we're not like these other people in here"

[ChrisLove]

Its funny, but my friends always used to regard me as the 'right wing one'. I think I am a conservative at heart, I just dont believe in killing people for financial gain and as an economist I sure as fuck dont believe in damaging the economy for short term performance blips to win elections.

I have talked about ths before but basically I favour market driven solutions to problems and I believe that where possible government should be kept as far away from politicians as is possible. I also rate Thatcher.

I do not regard Bush as a conservative, I regard him as a criminal for whom becoming president of the United States was the most profitable course of action. it is unfortunate that most republicans dont realise how against the things that they really stand for Bush is.

In fairness, in an election, I would probably vote for the Liberal Democrats in the UK but I do not regard true conservative ideology as a write off.

[jegtar]

Every new security measure represents another failure of the once-courageous American spirit. The more we change our lives, the more we obsess about terrorism, the more the terrorists have won.

People say things like this but when something like 9/11 happens they look for someone to blame. "Clinton/Bush didn't do enough to protect us!" Maybe they didn't want to change our lives any, because that would mean the terrorist would win.

Just because we lock our doors at night don't mean the bad guys have won. If a cop searches you before he put you in his car that doesn't mean that you have won! It means that he cares about his and other people's safety.

Just my opinion