MDM4AU 332 Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 National Security & The Elections The Washington Post ran a story this weekend about President Bush and Karl Rove being, quote "inexplicably upbeat" about the Republican's chances this November. Although the story never said it, I think they're confident because they believe that security will be the top issue and that, more importantly, security is synonymous with Republicans for many Americans. But the Real Story is that they're only half right. I agree that security will be the number one issue this fall, but I don't believe that it will translate into people just robotically voting Republican. Think about it, most people this year aren't going into the voting booth thinking about who has the best plan to privatize social security or who supports a ban on stem cell research. Most people are going in there to vote for who's going to keep them safe. But "safe" can mean different things to all of us. If you live near the border, you're probably a lot more concerned about immigration and a fence than if you live in New York where we're more concerned about our subways not blowing up. All of us, no matter where we live, or how we interpret "safe" are looking for candidates who get it. And that's not a Republican thing or a Democrat thing - it's an individual thing. For example, here in New York, our Republican Mayor, Michael Bloomberg said that he opposes any restrictions on private planes around Manhattan because, quote, "A terrorist would never use a small plane." Right. Well you know what Mike, we didn't think they'd use big ones either at one point. That just shows a complete lack of imagination on Bloomberg's part. Then there's Joe Lieberman. He's been disowned by the Democrats, but here's a guy who, on my own radio program agreed that we're facing the end of the West as we know it if we don't win this war. Now there's an INDIVIDUAL - not a donkey or an elephant - who I agree with and who's going to get my vote. (Sorry for making that public, Joe.) The next few elections are quite possibly the most important in our country's history. It is absolutely critical that you vote for the person, not the party who you think really "gets it" the most because, honestly, these aren't the Reagan Republicans anymore and they're certainly not the JFK Democrats our grandparents voted for. Times change, and so do the parties -- but what hasn't changed is that it's still up to us to figure it all out. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 I voted against all incumbents. Absentee ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Neither party is all that interested in controling our own borders. The GOP is closer to being on the right path, but President Bush certainly isn't going to lead the way on this issue. Hell, the Dems want open borders where illegals can come in and vote in our elections. So much for security there. For example, here in New York, our Republican Mayor, Michael Bloomberg said that he opposes any restrictions on private planes around Manhattan because, quote, "A terrorist would never use a small plane." Right.Well you know what Mike, we didn't think they'd use big ones either at one point. That just shows a complete lack of imagination on Bloomberg's part. More to the point, it shows a lack of comprehension on the part of the writer. A rental box truck is far less trouble to handle and navigate and it can carry FAR more explosive materials than a private airplane. Think about it, why go to the trouble of learning how to fly ( and not take off or land, as the 9/11 terrorist did ), then procure a plane somehow, and fill it with what... a 1000 lbs of explosives ? Why not just rent a U-Haul and pull a Timmothy McVeigh ? No. Banning private airplanes is NOT the answer. Sounds like a Democrat to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 They sure are spending a lot money and accomplishing nothing. The argument, "but we haven't been attacked since 9-11" is fast becoming just another lame slogan used by those who want to justify the enomormous deficit/debt. The immigrant problem is a cheap fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUman43 5 Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Absolutely! I say "fire them all." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.