Re Schaivo, I do not disagree. But did the actions of the “extreme”, in that instance, have lasting effect?

I don’t think so.

Though I do not disagree, either, with your basic assumption on other domestic matter’s. Most American’s do search for and vote for the middle ground. On most occasion’s that is a good thing.

I do not think that applies in regard to the larger battle that we are currently engaged in. The middle ground could be the death of us all.

I think it all comes down to equivalence. Caution, here comes my ‘nut’ side. We have been conditioned for so many years to think that nothing is better than any other thing. That compromise is the order of the day, that we should take no pride whatsoever in our lives as American’s. I just think our way of life is worth fighting for. But, oh so many think not.

Sorry if incoherent, it is late.

Sorry if my point was unclear. I was pointing to the extreme view that the administration of the past 6 years has taken on issues that the evangelical/fundamentalist political groups feel are important.

For example, the Terri Schaivo instance was one where a traditional conservative or Republican view would have kept the federal government out of that poor woman’s life. It would have, instead deferred to the State, which in this instance deferred to the husband. To believe that Mrs. Schaivo’s situation was worth federal intereference was an extreme viewpoint. Most Americans did not approve of the extreme view. This is similar in the questions surrounding abortion, same sex marriage, etc. Most Americans seem to want a middle of the road approach, yet the past 6 years have laid heavily on the far right. The Neo-Con foreign policy seems similar. Most Americans are willing to defend the homeland and even go on the offense when necessary… they do not, however, tend to accept a single extreme policy that relies entirely on the views of one subset of the American people.

I hold no false hope about the Democrats. I find their tendency to do the same is concerning. We shall see if they have learned their lesson, but I doubt it. I can foresee an agenda dominated by crazy Global Warming fundamentalists, or a foreign policy based on some extreme Neo-Chomsky philosophy.

If that happens, I think we’ll see the American people react as they did last Tuesday.

Does that seem more clear?

I agree that this is a good summation of the issue. My main point was that the past 6 years have been dominated by a agenda where foreign policy has been dictated by the neo-conservatives, which I don’t think represents most Americans views about foreign policy. Domestic Policy has been dominated by an agenda which appears to fit frighteningly with the most extreme of the evangelical/fundamentalist view. Even though most Americans are Christians, I don’t think the domestic policy fits what most Americans want.

Both the neo-conservative and the fundamentalist movements seem to take extreme views. They seem to hold an almost dogmatic position, where their way IS right and anything else is appeasement, sin or foolishness. This has never played well to the American people throughout history. Sure a war, attack or a threat might get the excited and willing to accept an extreme for awhile, but they soon calm down and realize that One Way rarely appears to be the best way. That, I think is why the Democrats won. Not because they have the best agenda, but because the other side had an extremist agenda. Americans may be a lot of things, but in the end they’re pretty tolerant folk…

America is a tremendously dynamic country that gets itself into binds and then, Houdinilike, gets itself out again. Whatever our troubles (name your poison) we’ll blunder, barrel, muscle our way through. Uplands ahead, folks.

Don’t sit around moping in the corner. Grab a shovel and join in the joyous work of digging out!

I know I see us spiraling ’round the toilet bowl, accelerating towards the drain. We just gave the terrorists a huge morale boost, and a psycological kick in the teeth to our valiant troops.

The only thing I’m looking for now is a pool with reasonable odds on where the 1st nuke is going to be lit off in this country. The Dems will gut nearly every national security effort we have so I suspect it will be sooner than later.

Dclydew sometimes lapses into hyperbole, and he’s often overcome by his agnosticism, but he’s generally good-natured, honest and decent. I think he’ll answer.

I’m confused, too, about why he fused Evangelicals with Neo-conservatism. I suppose you could make the case that Evangelicals might represent a kind of hyper-Americanism, which could be expressed in Neo-con foreign policy, where it connects with support and aid for Israel.

I wonder if this is what dclydew meant.

Are you sure you are American? I have a hard time thinking that someone that actually lives here and pays attention would say something that uninformed. Please explain why Fox News is “state run”. I really want to hear this.

“Hallucinate” would be a better word when you start talking about neoconservatives or evangelicals. You wouldn’t know one, if it jumped out of the bushes and gave you a Bible.

Second, the pessimism about the future is interesting. There are huge challenges in front of us ranging from the war in Irag and radical Islamism to domestic spending issues like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid (healthcare). It reminds me of the Jimmy Carter era.

Regardless of what you may think about Ronald Regan, he did restore optimism in America and our ideals and he has to receive a large part of the credit for winning the Cold War.

What we need is articulate, fiscally conservative leadership. People need to understand that the Islamists have been at war with us since 1979 and are not going to stop until we stop them. (Just like the multi-generational conflict with the Soviets.) People need to be reminded of all good things that come with personal freedom and responsibility. People need to hear how government centric solutions to Social Security and healthcare will not only take their treasure, but also limit their freedom.

The Dems will fall flat if they run to the left. Conservatives need to take back the Republican party from the Bush wing of the party. Hallmarks such as a strong national defense coupled with rational foreign policy, fiscal conservatism and smaller government need to be front and center.

Bush is not a conservative. He has been fiscally unrestrained as has the Congress. (He has never vetoed a spending bill to my knowledge.) In addition, Bush will probably mess up immigration policy with the help of the Dems during the next two years, although you could actually have conservative Republicans fillibustering the President and their own party to try and block bad legislation. (That would be interesting.)

I do think Bush has gotten the big idea right in taking on the Islamists. The execution has been shoddy.

There is no place like America and that is why generations have defended her, made the ultimate scrifice and given us our future. It is our responsibility to take our part in making this true today as well. The future does not have to be dim, but it will take competent and aggressive leadership to deal with all that is at hand.

By the way, did you read the latest about Al-Queda stating that they believe they are winning the war?