Max, I just shake my head when I read many of your rants as you lean so far left its tough to believe both your legs are the same length. You are also guilty of the mud slinging you accuse others of. I am generally a conservative. Most of the people I served with in the Navy were the same. I cannot stand Obama mostly for who he has aligned himself with, I cannot support Hillary for more reasons than I care to spend the time to type. I am also NOT supporting Mcain but I am going to vote for him because by doing so I am voting AGAINST the other two.
While I was on active duty, I hated Bill, mostly for what he did to the office of POTUS, and partially to what he did to my Navy but I supported and defended the office. The Bush bashers of today like yourself have taken it to a new level.

Its not all his fault, the war, gas prices, economy, housing slump, global warming, etc. Many things can be attributed to the problems we face today, some may even be partially GW's fault, but Bill is also guilty of contributing to the mess we have and your beloved DFL party does not have infallable solutions to all these problems. I can assure you, Mcain doesn't either, but IMO, the people he will surround himself with will be much better suited to resolving our countries problems than those your choice has already proven he will (and has) chosen to surround himself with.

Excellent post. I voted for GW twice, and looking back it was the right decision, but let us not confuse GW with a conservative-big difference. I think a lot of what has shaped his presidency has to do with 9/11 and the whole terrorism fiasco, leading then to the war. I generally think that he is an idiot (especially during Letterman's "Great Presidential Speeches" segment), but he is still the president and I believe that title affords a little bit of respect from the left.

Well, Lip & Wade, since you believe the president's office demands such respect, I'm sure you'll agree that Senators deserve the same respect - right?

Wade, as usual, you've misjudged my positions. I will vote for the democratic nominee because I feel I have no choice - but there's no party to represent me (liberal socially & economically conservative). When I have the choice between a party that I believe in their social aspects, & the other party who preach fiscal discipline but don't have any, I'm going to stick with the one I half-agree with.

Lip - you are exactly right. I've made the argument before, that Republicans & conservatives are two completely different species. I have repect for conservatives (even if I don't always agree with them!). For Republicans, none. And unfortunately the current admin is full of Republicans & sorely lacking in conservatives.

Its funny how someone can label a person a far left or a far right buy judging on one or two particular subjects. Seems to me these people that do the labeling are afraid of compromise and have to attack and label someone in order make his or her position sound creditable. Keep your labeling to yourself. And back up your arguments with facts rather than pointing out what you think is a weakness.

yea, I guess I'm a label-er by labeling some as a label-er yeeha!

Yes Max, Senators also deserve some respect. I assume you reffer to Sen Obama or Sen Clinton? Am I correct to believe you think I should reffer to them with their title but its ok for them to reffer to the President as "Bush"?
Could you please explain how one can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative? Is that something like, a person believes healthcare should be free for all but doesn't want to have higher taxes to pay for it? How then will it be paid for?
Then also please tell me what by your definitions, You would describe me as.
I believe gov't should run on a budget like the rest of us, taxes should be kept low, and healthcare should be affordable. Welfare should be for the needy not the lazy. Illegal immigration should be stopped, that You AND I have a right to keep and bear arms, we should be defenders of freedom and democracy. Less gov't is better gov't. I do not need the gov't to take care of me and there should be no "free lunch".

One more question for you. Do you ever listen to Lew Latto on the radio? He describes himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, that he is NOT a republican and he is standing behind John Mcain wholeheartedly. Somehow I don't get the feeling you and him would agree on much although you both label yourselves the same way.

Actually, I believe Lew Latto has stated he is a Republican and not a conservative.
I can only catch his show certain times of the year.
But I believe he has stated as such.
He does seem to be more socially liberal, though.

Fiscally conservative: pay-as-you go for new & existing programs, eliminate the deficit, tax citizens to the level we need for the services that are necessary. I DO NOT believe that a "fiscal conservative" is someone who shouts NOOOOOO every time a new tax is proposed, but one who tried to balance the books. Pawlenty is half of a true fiscal conservative, but certainly not Bush, nor most of the folks in Congress.

So I fully agree gov't should live within its budget. But how many people do you know who care about the deficit? Or could tell you the difference between the deficit & the debt? Not durn many.

And although I generally agree that less gov't is superior, I also believe strongly that it should be targeted where needed. In other words, scrap the stupid seat-belt & helmet laws, have someone with half a brain run gov't appropriations.

For shorthand, see Tim Penny. My kind of guy.

Tim Penny, a true deficit hawk.
Kudos also must go to former Republican Congressman John Kaisich, another true deficit hawk.
The Deficit Hawk should now be placed on the Endangered Species List.
It used to inhabit Washington, D.C. in small numbers but it's numbers are now diminishing

I dont think the country can afford any new programs. we still have to shore up medicare and SS before they either bust or bankrupt us in the future

I don't get this statement. Can someone tell me when I've been taxed enough? 40% of my check is gone before I get it and that doesn't include sales tax, gas tax, property tax, etc. I'm pretty sure I'm paying about 65-75% of my money to taxes. Will it be enought when we hit 100% or will I then have to earn 110%?

Max, this is what scares me, and sounds like Hillary. As Sandman has said, who decides what is enough tax? Between property taxes, income tax, sales tax. I think we already pay too much tax. I believe a flat tax or national sales tax should replace the current system we have but good luck getting that approved. I too like Tpaw so we can agree on that. I just think the services provided are getting out of hand, too many programs provide too much assistance to too many that don't really NEED it but are too lazy to do anything to EARN it.
To me, what is coming from the mouths of the Democratic candidates lately sounds more and more like a push toward socialism. The Rep candidates are not better, just the lesser evil in my book.

if it wasnt for pawlenty and his veto pen, minnesota would have already turned into a "worker's paradise" by now.
plus who decides which services are necessary. one politician can claim the bridge to no were is a necessity. or studing the mating of bears is necessary. when i see all the pork spending in the last 7 years, that tells me washington has WAYYYYY too much of our money

plus i dont trust pay as you go. the democrats ran in 2006 attacking all the GOP earmarks, rightly so, and promised a pay as you go. now they decided the earmarks and prk spending is fun. when asked about their promise to curb earmarks, raum emmanuel tried to claim,"we didnt run promising that."

i see the "its all GWB fault" thread has been locked. ROFL!!

Sounds like Hillary? No, the key word in that sentence is 'necessary' & I agree, reasonable people can vary wildly in what is 'necessary' & what is not. For me, the gov't writing law to insure $300B in mortgages for folks who went too far out on a limb isn't 'necessary'. Neither is maintaining a helium reserve. Some would argue fish stocking is frivolous. My point is that choices need to be made & right now nobody is making any, it's just one program on top of another. No gov't program ever dies of old age or obsolesence.

And tj, pay as you go always sounds good when you're in the minority. I think it's been a stock position of whatever party's in the minority for 20 years, promptly to be ignored when that party flips into the majority.

I miss the old GOP that actually cared about deficits & spending. We need that opposition back in Washington desperately, as Pawlenty has provided it in Minnesota. Economic policy is one place where I believe gridlock is the best thing for the U.S. (see: budget surpluses of the late 90's).

And i agree with all of the above. i used to consider my self more of a GOP leaning independant till BushCo and the current GOP clowns came along. and the dem message is one i cannot get behind. so now i roam the wilderness.
bush did not veto one single spending bill from the gop congress. and one cannot argue that, "well, its hard to veto spending bills from your own party." carter and clinton did it.

and your right, no gov program ever goes away. they grow and they grow and they grow. some argue that the war is costing us too much. true. but wars eventually end