From the desk of Tolstoy:

>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.
>

This is the mistake the dems are making. They believe they had a good message, they just didn't yell it loud enough. Believe me, we heard it and it mobilized us. Michael Moore stoked me. Until he came out with fraudulent 911 I was just going to vote. After that I donated money, time and energy. I engaged everyone I could to talk about it. I set up a 4 line auto dialer and ran it 12 hours a day for a week calling only people who had voted "R" in the previous election (I helped in another campaign, so I had the voter data and wrote a program to snarf the phone numbers from the internet). I believe I had an impact and I believe there were thousands of others like me, who got energized by michael moore. The new mantra should be "it's morals, stupid." What someone does in the privacy of their own home is one thing, but when you have the gay community trying to shove their agenda down our throats . . . .

>>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.
>

Ever buy a car? Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and spend. I believe this war is like that. Hopefully, once this is over, we can get things back on track.

>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.

Agreed, I think you'll see a change on this in this next term. I hope. One of the things I learned in college is that all systems share two basic tenets:
1. To continue to exist
2. To grow
Given that, it is usually not a good thing to start a new government program. Fortunately, I think we will be having a new round of base closures in the next few years, so that should help some.

>
>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.
>
The Patriot Act was needed to counter terrorism. A popular misconception is that it gives law enforcement carte blanche to do whatever they want. Not true, they still have to work through the courts. One thing the PA did was enable different branches of law enforcement to talk to each other. Prior to the law's passage, it was illegal for the cia to discuss intel with the fbi. How crazy is that?


>>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.
>
I haven't followed those two issues too closely. However, I seem to recall that both parties have raided the trust fund for years in order to run the government. This is one reason it needs fixing. The good thing is it will take both parties to pass it, so there should be a place to come together.
Everyone who is familiar with social security seems to believe it is in need of something. This will be a good opportunity for "coming together."

>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).
>
Bush's presidential election has run counter to the conventional wisdom in many areas. When has a president had so much bad press, a war going badly, 90% of the media against him (even faking news - see rathergate), lining up ambush stories two days before the election,bogus early exit polling, and had most of the popular actors and singers of the day come out so violently against him and STILL WON. He cut taxes in a time of war and the economy is on the rebound. Last month over 300,000 new jobs were added. Under Clinton, you may remember we had a time of prosperity which I believe was induced by the Republican tax cuts. He was also aided by the stimulus of the Y2K problem. Every business in the US has a computer, it seems, many several, hundreds or even thousands. That little problem generated jobs for programmers, techs, hardware suppliers, etc. etc. etc. I'd love to see how well the economy would have done without that.

>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.
>

I am. I actually enjoy a rousing debate and you don't get into ad hominem attacks. If you raise and issue that can change my thinking all the better. Hopefully, I will raise some issues that cause you to take a different perspective, or maybe even influence a lurker to look at these issues from a slightly different perspective. There is a danger in allowing ourselves to be sucked into just regurgitating the talking points for either side. I know we are all guilty of that from time to time, but occasionally I try to have an original thought.

>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?

You know, I've been a cop for 30 years and have been shot at 6 times, once this past summer while out working a gang saturation. I've never been shot at by someone with an assault weapon. It's sort of a specious argument to me. On the one hand, I could care less if they said noone can own a howitzer, but some of the guns they call assault weapons are not. An automatic shotgun isn't necessarily an assault weapon. I've got several friends who have an sks or mac10, even know a deputy who has a thompson sub machine gun. That is too cool. I don't think they've used them to kill anyone yet. They do like to take them out and blast targets though. I've been to swat training and shot machine guns, pistols, and shotguns. My all time favorite gun is the H&K NP5A. It is the seal team's primary weapon. They carry it and 6-30 round 9mm clips, plus a pistol. The gun shoots single, two shot bursts or full auto. I am a marksman with any of the above, but I'm not a threat to anyone but a homicidal criminal. I've taught my wife and kids how to shoot a gun and to respect them. There is no such thing as an unloaded gun. The gun issue is a ruse. The liberals work incrementally and this is well known, which is why you get such a violent reaction from the gun owners. First you outlaw the assault weapons, then maybe, shotguns, then . . . .

The thing to do is to enforce the laws we currently have on the books. We arrested a guy two nights ago on a warrant. He was sitting on a bed which happened to have a bag of marijuanna on it and a sawed off shotgun underneath. I told my guys to charge him with the shotgun and take the case "triggerlock." This is a program designed to take drug dealers and gang bangers off the streets for a LONG time. I think he'll probably get 10 years for that, unless he decides he wants to work with narco to get his supplier and help them move up the food chain. We call it "rolling over" on them.