>>>I'm betting on Ru Ru Rudy!
>>>
>>>8 more years!
>>
>>Naw, the best would be Barack Obama vs. John McLain. The worst...Hillary vs. Cheney.:-)
>
>First, this is what a democrat had to say about the democratic party:
>
>"This election outcome should have been implausible, if not impossible. With a litany of complaints — bad economy, bad deficit, bad foreign war, bad gas prices — amplified by a national media that discarded any pretense of neutrality, a national opposition party should have won this election."
>This was Zell Miller talking about how the democrats have left the people.
>http://www.hannity.com/story.php?content=/zell_miller

John,

Being a Georgia resident for the past 23 years, I know about Zell. The Republicans used to call him "Zig-Zag Zell". I personally don't think that the Democrats have "left the people". Rather, I think it's a matter of not getting the message out in a way that appeals to voters. This time, the Republicans did it better.

>
>Hmmm, I'm thinking Rudy will be the republican and Obama would be great for the other side. He'd get beaten resoundingly as will anyone else the democrats put up because of the democratic party's platforms. I'm glad they don't "get it". The country is not liberal. If you look at the election on a county by county breakdown, almost the entire nation went for Bush. Kerry carried on the large population centers. Send us another clown, I say.

Personally, I think that the Democrats are more centerist than the Republicans are. You're right, the country isn't liberal. However, I have a problem with how the Republicans are conservative.

For example, a conservative would want the budget to be balanced. Yet, the Bush Adminstration has rung up the largest deficit in spending in history after inheriting a budget surplus. Remember that it was the Republican's who wanted a balanced budget amendment to the constitution.

A lot was made about Kerry's vote against a bill for 87 billion dollars for the war in Iraq. There were, however, two bills: One that paid for the 87 billion, one that didn't. Kerry voted for the one that paid for itself.

Conservative values also want smaller government. Yet, under Bush and the Republicans, we've seen the largest expansion of government since the Lyndon Johnson adminstration.

True conservatives also want less government in regards to the individual. Yet this adminstration has given us some of the most intrusive laws and concepts: The Patriot Act, banning abortion, no stem cell research, and opposition to gay marriage or civil unions.

>Oh yeah, it's McCain, not McLain.

Yep. You're right. I stand corrected.

>I'm thinking your party will go for Hillary though. There's been too much smoke for there not to be some fire. Bring on the beast. Rudy is "America's Mayor" and the people in the northeast love him. He is not as conservative as I would like, but I would vote for Osama Bin Laden before I'd vote for her. You know I am speaking for a LOT of southerners when I say that!<vbg>

John, first, I'm an independent, but I don't think Hillary has a chance. Second, I don't think that Rudy will run.

>Next thing to watch for is the restructuring of social security and the IRS. I can't wait.

I can't understand why Social Security needs restructing. Remember, in 2000, Bush said he wouldn't spend the Social Security Trust Fund. He did. He also said he wouldn't cut the Job Corps. He did.

As for the IRS, I agree that it needs overhauling. Nevertheless, cutting taxes to improve the economy doesn't always work. Under the Clinton Adminstration there were a number of tax hikes, yet we enjoyed the longest period of prosperity in history. Further, Bush is the first president ever to cut taxes during a time of war. Such times require shared sacrifice (another conservative value).

John, I hope you're taking this with the proper attitude. I think you are. We disagree, and can agree that we do. However, I have one question for you.

As I recall, you're in law enforcement. I want to ask about how you feel about the Bush Adminstrations allowing the ban on assault (semi-automatic) weapons to expire. It would seem to me that you would've been against it.

While I believe that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution allows us to have guns, I also believe that there are certain limits. IIRC, the amendment specifies that the right is limited to the purpose of the "...maintenance of a militia". However, since we have a standing army, it would seem that right can be limited. IOW, since you have to have a license to drive a car, why shouldn't you have to have a license to own a gun?