The shock here is that you are finally figuring out that Obama is attacking McCain and Palin – he has been attacking them all along – and far nastier than ever he was attacked by McCain, but the MSM has everyone convinced it is the opposite – and obviously Don, that includes you.

While McCain falls all over himself to apologize for people he has no control over who make remarks about Obama, and then they are mostly true anyway, Obama sits back like a Cheshire Cat and takes no responsibility for what is a part of his campaign strategy – and looks like the good guy taking the high road. 

It shocks me how much of America is conned by the left – McCain has to work with 1/10th the budget of Obama, has to work with that idiot Bush’s screw-ups being blamed on him, and the Democrats that are MOSTLY responsible for the economy collapsing and he gets blamed, and they are so arrogant about it that they are cooly campaigning as we speak about collapsing the economy with their spending and taxing MORE.  Obama commits criminal acts against our election system and the news we hear in main stream media is a Republican that registers in California because his personla registration is at his mom’s house.  And they arrested him, and with all the graft in 14 states from Democrats and ACORN, and nobody has been arrested.

And what Obama etal have said about Palin, and now about McCain’s wife in the Times – and you are finally figuring out that Obama is attacking.  Wake Up Don.  You are supposed to make media – accurate?  And you are just figuring out Obama etal are attack dogs.  Not only is Obama an attack dog, and has been all along, he is the lowest form of RACIST attack dog.  Al, and Jesse, and Louis, could take lessons from Obama.

Palin has been nothing but an attack dog since the day she was selected by McCain.  McCain himself has recently turned into a petty misrepresenter of the truth, especially in the last week or so.  It’s the “Rovian” way, of course. 

Now, if Obama (Shouldn’t there be at least a little respectful “truce” here on the part of the GOPs while Obama visits his dying Grandmother?) has finally begun to fight back and engage in counterattacks – - it’s just tit for tat (or, in this case, is it tat for tit?)

Even GOP political analysts, commentators and historians have agreed that Kerry lost in ‘04 primarily because when the GOP Swiftboaters and other 527 GOP slimeballers attacked him – - he chose to rise above smear, innuendo and slimbeball tactics and not engage in that kind of so-called “campaigning”.  Very unfortunately, he was wrong.  He should have swiftly booted the swiftboaters.  He didn’t.

So, if Obama and his guys now pull out all the stops and begin to attack McCain and Palin with both barrels, full-time, no-holds-barred – so what?  Tit for tat or tat for tit, your choice!

Everybody can thank that nasty nerd-geek Rove for taking campaigning to that place.

(Rove’s even a cannibal, eating his own by slimeballing McCain in SC in 2000 via robo phonecalls claiming McCain fathered a black child out of wedlock.  Now, McCain employs former Rove assistants!  Go figure!)

Extremist political partisanship and an attitude of “win at all costs” suck.  If this problem continues to get worse and worse, as it has over the last three elections, it will become a greater threat to the future well-being of this country than is fundamentalist Muslim terrorism.

TK,

As much as I don’t care for George Bush (in fact, I DESPISE the man), and didn’t vote for him in 2004, Kerry is a traitor and should have been thrown in prison for his lying testimony to the Senate of routine and wide-spread atrocities allegedly perpetrated by our soldiers on Vietnamese civilians.
It was a testimony based on the felonious “Winter Soldier Investigation” which Hanoi Jane helped to form, and who should also have been thrown in prison where she belonged.

The Naval Investigative Service found that many of the veterans who spoke in that ‘investigation’ refused to be interviewed even when offered immunity, and some who reported the most grisly atrocities were fake witnesses who had used the names of real veterans.
From what I know, Kerry has never issued an apology to his fellow veterans.

With that in perspective, one might say we had less of a choice in 2004 than we have in 2008.

To pizcaj, Post 3;

Honestly, for me, what’s past is past.  You can never go back; you can’t change it; it is what it is; and it’s useless to incessantly rehash it and rehash it and rehash it.  Hopefully, though, the open-minded, objective, intellectually-based and analytical review of the past will result in lessons learned by those reviewing that past.

In my case, the lesson I learned is that if Carl Rove, his accolytes or his adherents are managing a campaign according to so-called Rovian principles, the end game will be devoted to spoken and published smears and slime, often via fear-factor innuendo, unsophisticated misrepresentation, and the politics of personal destruction.

In my case, I believe Palin is genetically pre-disposed to that strategy, but that the Rovian strategists have destroyed the “real” John McCain by convincing him to violate what seemed to be his originally high principles and go for the slime and smear stuff.  I was disappointed in his judgement when he selected Palin; I am equally disappointed in his willingness to engage in the same kind of Rovianism that was used against him in 2000 in South Carolina. 

Bad judgement and willingness to change his lifelong principles “to win”?

And, obviously, the other side knows all about Rovianism, so, if they’ve prepared themselves for a muck fight and begin slinging it back in whatever comparably nasty way they can divine – - so what!  Live by the gun, die by the gun!

And, I do have to say:  prior to the coming of George W. Bush, the two presidents I VERY strongly objected to the most were Johnson and Nixon.  Johnson’s handling of foreign affairs (Viet Nam) was the worst, although his domestic policies were ultimately beneficial.  Nixon’s handling of domestic affairs was beyond atrocious, although his foreign policies were ultimately beneficial.  George W. Bush has surpassed to worst of both!  I thought I “disliked”, maybe even “despised”, Johnson and Nixon, but, now, Bush is all alone in my all-around “despicable” category at an intensity level several factors beyond anything that ever came before.  All-around “Worst Of The Worst”.

Unfortunately, I believed during the 2000 campaign that Bush would turn out this way and my favorites back then to be the GOP nominee were Colin Powell or John McCain,  I appreciated McCain back then and would have voted for him, but I would have preferred Powell then – - and now.

TK – “Honestly, for me, what’s past is past.  You can never go back; you can’t change it; it is what it is; and it’s useless to incessantly rehash it and rehash it and rehash it.”

I would agree with that statement, TK, if Kerry was decent enough to repudiate his testimony and lambaste the Winter Soldier Investigation for their fraudulence. Since he did not, I have to believe that he still agrees with Hanoi Jane and her cohorts to this day, and therefore, I certainly don’t think him psychologically fit to be President.

I agree with your assessments of the previous presidents except for Johnson’s domestic policies. The welfare mentality that his ‘Great Society’ programs brought about, has severely damaged Black Americans. I agree with Thomas Sowell’s analysis that the Black family unit was much stronger before the Civil Rights Act that Johnson passed. An analogy to this would be if you had a damaged water heater in your house (racial discrimination), you don’t seek to repair it by tearing down the entire house, rather you simply fix the water heater.
Johnson’s passing of the Immigration Reform Act was another monumental blunder, as well.

With the exception of Reagan, who was not really a conservative but rather a decent Republican president, I have equal contempt for all presidents after JFK.

pizcaj – Bravo, you assessed the Presidents since 1960 mostly accurate.

Jack Hansen,

I have war veterans like you in mind whenever this subject comes up. You guys faced hell over in Nam and faced another drawn out hell for all these years back in the States because of the likes of Kerry.
I’m well-aware, and very thankful, for your brave, heroic service to this country.
God Bless.

pizcaj, LadyTexan and Wesley in Dallas (the three remaining regular and humane posters on this site) and all the other occassional posters that are NOT low life as*holes from the Daily Kos:

I am finally leaving this site.  I tried to do what I could to save this once good site that I loved to post on.  But except for you few, the rest of the posters now are all from the left and they are full of hate and lack all shame.  I have felt compelled to lash back at them in the nastiest of language just as they attacked me, but my heart is not in it any longer – it is too hard on the soul to take the low road as they do as their normal course.

The liberals that are taking power in America, you have met their likes here and they are examples of the hate that America is becoming. And if McCain actually wins, then the ensuing riots in America will give you a great idea of the haters that are in this country now. The main names they post under here are Brian R Sullivan, TK, and dave – but they post under numerous numerous aliases, but then they are so UNsly in how they post under aliases, you all I’m sure know all the aliases – are not worth the heart ache.

I have informed AIM that there site has been beaugarded by the left and is really no longer relevant as a Conservative leaning forum since they refuse to monitor what has become impossible to even post on any longer.  No one wants to be attacked constantly for what is normal opinion for a Traditionalist or Conservative American.

Since America seems to be slipping off the edge into socialism and communism, and in violation of the very Constitution that the government swore to uphold but does not any longer – many acts of the government are no longer valid as they are unConstitutional and are therefore the acts of an authoritarian government.  So the handwriting is on the wall, and it is only a matter of time before a revolution has to take place, as law abiding Americans take their government back from the criminals that operate it.  This will also include a Civil War, to take out the leftists that destroyed that government and their aiders and abettors.  When that time comes I hope to meet up again with the good people that were here, and we can return the pleasure to the low life felons that took this site from us.

After the election, I may check back to see if they have left BUT knowing they just will not leave and enjoy the heartache and destruction they create in others lives, I suspect they won’t be gone.  So probably this site is gone until AIM chooses to have a moderator to edit or delete the low lifes here – and ban them from all further postings.

Had they done this when Brian R Sullivan first came on this site (he was the first criminal thug to commence the hate speech on this site), just think of all the good people that used to post here that perhaps you had even developed friendships with that are now gone, because AIM would not protect us from the filthy vitriol of the left.

I will be making sure other sites know that this site’s forum has mostly been taken control of by the far left haters ala Daily Kos, so I suggest that the few of you left also go elsewhere as this site has really become unrelevant to the discussion of the articles posted and the exchange of Conservative and Moderate political ideas.

Good luck pizcaj, LadyTexan and Wesley in Dallas, and the other more occasional posters that are not part of the Obama left haters that have control over this site.  As for the haters, Brian R Sullivan, dave and TK, and your aliases – rot in hell.

To pizcaj, Post 5;

Plenty of “guilty” guys (Simpson), “incompetent” guys (Bush), and incarcerated felons (Liddy) never “repudiate” what they did or own up to their doing it – so why would you expect that repudiation from anyone else in particular? 

Besides, there’s more than enough room for “reasonable doubt” in the Kerry situation to which you refer for the issue to remain unresolved – and there’s certainly the possibility that Kerry’s testimony was true insofar as his perceptions and perspectives go.

For whatever it’s worth:  I happened to be getting married in the summer of ‘68 and my best man (a commissioned Army officer) was on active duty in Viet Nam and was able to get a leave for a week to attend the wedding.  On the evening of my bachelor party he regaled us with stories not very unlike Kerry’s testimony, including stories quite a bit like what actually occurred at Mi Lai – and he eventually pulled a small sack out of his pocket (similar to the Chivas Regal sack), saying “Check this out!”, and he spilled out four or five small, unrecognizable things on the table – which turned out to be human ears he had ostensibly taken from captured (and executed) Viet Cong infiltrators at Cam Rahn Bay, where he was stationed.

While I never personally saw any of this kind of stuff going on myself, and while the “ears” and their story didn’t bother me, several friends who served in Viet Nam in different places and at different times later told similar and some worse stories.  In the end, different people have different perceptions and different perspectives on this kind of stuff – but it’s clear to me that warfare is atrocious.  On the other hand, this kind of stuff has also occurred here, perpetrated by violent criminals on innocent victims.  So, obviously, the worst of the worst is always possible – anywhere.

???

TK,

As far as Simpson and Liddy, they never ran for president, and if they did, I wouldn’t vote for them because of their past crimes. Concerning Bush and his apparent incompetency – that hadn’t become evident until after his election. I’m not aware of anything he did or said before being elected president that remotely shared any commonality with Kerry’s treasonous Senate testimony.
Since it was the presidency at stake in 2004, I don’t see what it was for Kerry to repudiate the Winter Soldier Investigation, along with his Senate testimony, so as to get this behind him and move on to a likely win over an unpopular president.
In my opinion, he just couldn’t, because his pathological hatred for this country over-ruled his desire to attain it’s highest office.
As far as atrocities – It’s inevitable, especially in a conflict against an enemy who melds into the civilian population, that a lot of civilian collateral casualties by our troops was bound to occur. It’s also a given, that any organized institution (military, police, etc.) will have a small rogue element of misfits within its midst who would purposely commit atrocities on civilians. However, people like Kerry and the radical fringe of the anti-war crowd would have you believe that these rogue elements were much larger in scope than they actually were.
It’s my contention that Iraq and Vietnam would have been quick and easy wins for us if the grand scale, ruthless image that those like Kerry and Hanoi Jane painted our soldiers with, was indeed true.

Jack,

A short vacation away from this site by you is probably what the doctor is prescribing; always follow your instincts. Every now and then, I do the same thing myself for a few days…nothing wrong with that.

To pizcaj, Post 10;

Liddy committed criminal acts sanctioned by a president of the United States, did prison time, and neither he nor the disgraced president he worked for ever “repudiated” their acts.

Your issue with Kerry’s congressional testimony is arguable on the facts and will always remain so.  You may have whatever visceral reaction to it that you choose and most who have taken ideological or partisan sides will never have their minds changed, regardless.

For me, well before the election of 2000, I knew George W. Bush had been arrested for and found guilty of theft; that he had multiple DUI arrests; that there was talk that he was an abusive (due to alcoholism) husband; and, I believe, there was sufficient information available for (like you regarding Kerry) one to adopt the conclusion that instead of completing legitimate military service in Viet Nam, special favors were done for good old Dad to get sonny-boy assigned to a neighboring state’s National Guard, following which, sonny-boy never reported even for that duty.  There may have been sufficient circumstantial information available for one to also believe, as was at least the case with one brother, that G.W. was as involved as was at least that one brother in the major Texas savings and loan misappropriation of funds scandals of the ‘90s.  For me, I didn’t believe Bushleaguer was properly qualified to be president back then – - and eight years of his history in office seem to support that conclusion.

Kerry’s unfitness for office will always remain arguable.  George W. Bush’s will not.  One is purely speculative; the other is real.

And, personally, given the hindsight realities and stories I’ve heard from friends, classmates and family members (who were there) about real atrocities committed by U.S. and allied military in Viet Nam – - I have no problem either way: some keeping silent about what they saw or what they might have participated in – - others speaking out about what they saw or participated in.

Frankly, I do believe speaking out takes more courage and is the more personally responsible way to go.  And, of course, “anti-war”, especially from among those who were actually there, is a very reasonable and defensible personal philosophy for one to embrace.  And, I sure as hell don’t want the opposite: a “war-mongering” president.

I did not vote for Bush II, Gore or Kerry, but I can’t help believing that whatever the shortcomings of Gore or Kerry, they each would have been a better president than Bushleaguer. (Note: I did vote for Bushleaguer’s father.)  In fact, my personal perspective has always been “ANYBODY BUT (G.W.) Bush!”

(Do you know that you have to go all the way back to 1928 to find a Republican administration that did not include a Nixon or a Bush?)

However, it’s all finished business. Today and tomorrow are W-A-Y more important than yesterday.  Carrying on about Kerry or Bushleaguer now is a nonsensical waste of time.  The only thing that matters are the lessons (if any) learned.

???

TK – “Liddy committed criminal acts sanctioned by a president of the United States, did prison time, and neither he nor the disgraced president he worked for ever “repudiated” their acts”.

And again, TK, as I stated in my previous reply to you; I would not have voted for Liddy precisely because of his criminal acts, had he run for president. The same goes for Nixon had he been permitted by the Constitution to run again. Although with Nixon, I wouldn’t even need to consider Watergate in deciding not to vote for him. His big government expansion policies, enactment of affirmative action laws, and continuation of the Vietnam debacle would have been reasons enough for me not to vote for him.

[Speaking of the Watergate break in, it amazes me how the same MSM and Democrat party who wanted to hang Nixon for that deed, didn’t seem to mind Clinton’s illegal confiscation of FBI files of political enemies and Maggie Williams illegally removing files from Vince Foster’s office as sworn to by a Secret Service agent.]

My issue with Kerry’s testimony has nothing to do with ideology or partisanship. I despise all presidents since JFK, except for Reagan. I simply looked into the Winter Soldier Investigation and found it to be a discredited left-wing propaganda machine.
As stated in the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth website,
“None of the Winter Soldier “witnesses” Kerry cited were willing to sign affidavits, and their gruesome stories lacked the names, dates and places that would allow their claims to be tested. Few were willing to cooperate with military investigators. The Naval Investigative Service found that several of the veterans said to have given statements at Winter Soldier were in fact impostors using the name of real veterans.”

I also found it suspicious that this committee was funded by Jane Fonda. So, to me, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck…you know the rest.

Also, on the subject of ideology, I am firmly opposed to Jimmy Carter’s political ideology, however, greatly respect his Naval service, unlike G.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. You correctly pointed out Bush’s evasion of Vietnam because of ‘favors done for good old Dad’ in keeping him out, and I’ll point out Col. Holmes involvement in getting Clinton (who was classified 1A) out, as well.

Finally, if you’re going to bring up past transgressions such as alcohol abuse and DWI’s, then hell, we might as well castigate the majority of past presidential candidates as well as Congress and the Senate. I hate to be put in the position of defending Bush, but the alcohol and DWI factors do not rise to the level of the demonetization of our brave and hapless troops to a Senate committee by Kerry.
Just because someone ‘speaks out’, doesn’t mean that their intentions are, by default, accurate or noble.

Just out of curiosity, TK, if you didn’t vote for G.W.Bush, Gore, or Kerry, who did you vote for in 2000 and 2004?
In 2000, I reluctantly voted for G.W.Bush after Buchanan dropped out of the race, and in 2004, I voted for Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka after seeing what a fraud G.W. turned out to be.

To Pizcaj, Post 13;

1988 – G.H.W. Bush
1992 – Perot
1996 – Perot (would have voted for Powell)
2000 – Write-In Buchanan (might have voted for McCain)
2004 – Write-In Buchanan

My personal choice for president before the 2008 campaign began was Colin Powell.  Once the primary candidates emerged, I switched over to Ron Paul.  When it looked like he couldn’t get the nomination, I began to favor Huckabee. Once he was out of it … ?

I still believe the politics, demeanor, intelligence, talents, abilities and know-how of Colin Powell and Pat Buchanan make each qualified to be president.

I am an Independent (I prefer “Traditionalist”), but could be a Conservative (or Blue Dog) Democrat in the image of JFK – or a States’ Rights Republican as is Buchanan – or even a traditionally Liberal/Moderate Republican like Powell. 

My most intense political pet peeve is abjectly ideological partisanship, which I believe is currently the most destructive force aligned against the continuing best interests of this country.  I believe the Democratic Party is controlled by a small minority of extremist lefty loons favoring every oddball and misfit mini-minority they can find – and the Republican Party is controlled by a small minority of extremist righty neocon and religious rockheads – with both parties currently and equally being beholden to a variety of fat cats and Big Business special interests. 

And, frankly, if the appelation “Conservative” as used today even remotely resembled the TRUE Conservatism of Barry Goldwater (minus his militant militarism), I might consider it.  In JFK’s day, southerners and Dixiecrats called him a “demon liberal”, but with the exception of his position on integration and racial equality, he was very traditionalist and very conservative back in the day – - and much more so than most of today’s so-called “conservatives”.

Today, the interesting thing to me about Goldwater’s “original” or “traditional”  conservatism is that he totally disavowed the Religious Right, accepted the Roe vs. Wade decision as presented, and he supported gay rights – among many other traditional conservative tenets.  Unfortunately, most of “Goldwater Conservatism” is apparently not very important to many of today’s so-called conservatives – or neoconservatives – or whatever they call themselves (red staters?).

Anyway, my only points are that most “bad guys” don’t normally repudiate their own “badness” – and I only brought up the past alleged transgressions of Bush II simply to illustrate that MY perceptions of Bush’s lack of qualifications to be president could be exactly as important to me as are the disqualifying characteristics you found in Kerry.  Different strokes for different folks.  To be honest, though, in practical terms and with hindsight, I do believe Kerry probably would done a better job than has G.W. Bush. (And, I don’t fault Kerry for his congressional testimony and, in terms of its veracity, I believe it’s probably impossible for anyone to empirically prove it to be true or false.  In terms of my own vision of the truth, like far too many other things, the action itself has been drowned in apparently incurable and totally ideological partisanship – which ALWAYS obscures the truth, usually terminally.)

All-in-all, it’s ALL water over the dam.

(Goldwater’s granddaughter and William F. Buckley’s son (along with Powell and several other long-time Republicans) supporting Obama should be sending a very clear message to the GOP to “shape up” – and “shape up” certainly doesn’t mean the GOP should be supporting totally unqualified people like Sarah Palin for the possible accession to the presidency.)

TK,

I guess we’ll remain dead-locked as far as Kerry’s congressional testimony, but it was interesting trading perspectives, nonetheless.
I have doubts, though, about Kerry doing a better job than Bush as president. My problems with his testimony aside, Kerry probably would have been just as bad, though in different ways, because of his very liberal leanings. I feel he would have been just a different form of a national nightmare compared to Bush.

As far as Powell, I can understand his rumored resentment of the Bush administration, however, to endorse a radical left-winger with long-term ties to a racist pastor and a domestic terrorist bomber, caused me to lose all respect for him. To me, that method of ‘teaching the Republicans a lesson’ is a good example of cutting off the nose to spite the face. It’s replacing one evil with another evil. To me, third party is the only way to go, as both party’s are utterly and hopelessly corrupt to the core.

On the other hand, I’ve also been disenchanted with Buchanan’s past endorsements of the Bush father and son’s candidacies, since their political philosophy’s are diametrically opposed to his. Very disappointing, especially since the Republican establishment viciously turned on him after he edged out Dole in New Hampshire during the ‘96 primaries. Go figure.
It will be interesting to see if Buchanan endorses McCain. I know Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin would never do that.

One thing concerning McCain that made me laugh, because it was right in front of me all this time, and I never saw it. I came across an article yesterday that addressed the issue of certain disenchanted conservatives who are reluctantly planning to vote ‘the lesser of two evils’, thinking that McCain would more likely nominate conservative Supreme Court judges. The columnist said that this would be highly unlikely because a conservative-leaning court would overturn McCain-Feingold.

To pizcaj, Post 15;

I really do think Kerry is, shall we say, more “sympathetic” to the real world than is Bush II and I think that would have, first, caused him to be a little more more connected to “the working man” and his problems than is Bush, and second, I believe he would have been more sensitive to the handling of foreign affairs in a way that would have preserved more of America’s pre-existing good will than has Bush.

Regardless of Powell’s motivation (or even his party membership), I have always thought of him as an all-around, top-shelf, honorable, ethical, intelligent and reasonable guy with very dynamic and effective leadership capabilities.  I believe he would be a great president because of the man he is, not because of the party he might happen to belong to.  (The Bushleaguers dissed him, used him and hung him out to dry!  If I was him, I’d have changed parties four years ago and run for president against Bush!  Now, I’d have endorsed Obama earlier and actually campaigned with him. If Obama wins, I’d like to see Powell come back as Secretary of State or even Secretary of Defense!)

Not as readily nor not as much as some, Buchanan, when push comes to shove, ALWAYS ends up supporting the party and whomever it supports.  He’s ever a loyalist (always in a very REASONABLE way), although I do feel he has the same justification as Powell does for, in fact, turning on the party!

For people whose focus is predominantly on the Supreme Court and who are desirous of overturning Roe vs. Wade (rather than on any other Court-related issues), it’s probably a good bet for them to vote for McCain for the reason you stated.

Now that I’m thinking about it – maybe Powell for President and Buchanan for Vice-President could have been my personal “dream ticket” for this particular time!

???

TK,

For someone who wrote-in Pat Buchanan twice for president, I find your apparent admiration for Colin Powell interesting. I don’t know if you’re aware of the fact that Powell is pro-affirmative action, thinks we don’t need any more conservatives in the Supreme Court, and in fact, thinks Governor Palin is too conservative. Buchanan is a big admirer of Palin from what I heard him say, and he’s more conservative than she is.
But then again, since you did consider voting for McCain in 2000, I guess you possess a more flexible attitude than myself in considering an acceptable candidate; A flexibility that ranges from Paleo-Conservative to Moderate Republican.

As crazy a thought as your theoretical Powell/Buchanan ‘dream ticket’ initially sounded to me, I do wonder what Buchanan’s response to Powell would have been, if he were approached.

Besides my agreement with that article stating that McCain would not nominate conservative justices due to the likelihood of McCain-Feingold being overturned, McCain had already stated his desire to not overturn Roe v Wade, and in fact, has never voted against the continued funding of Planned Parenthood over the years.
His supposed ‘anti-abortion’ stance has always been a charade, in order to appease his Arizona constituency.

I appreciate your submission of past votes to me TK, but I am also curious as to how you’ll be voting this election. I’ll be voting for…surprise surprise…Chuck Baldwin.

To pixcaj, Post 17;

My point was that I think the somewhat “counter-balancing” philosophies of Powell-Buchanan (at least on those issues on which they differ) make for a good “combination” or “collaboration”.

Personally, if McCain loses, I think “Reagan Republicanism” is dead (as will be the influence of the “Religious Right”) and that the party will have to redefine itself.  For me, finding a middle road between “Powellism” and “Buchananism” would be a good way to go. (???)

Rather than calling it “Paleo-Conservatism”, I’d prefer call it a middle-of-the-road combination of “Traditional Conservatism” and “Moderate Republicanism”.  (???)

Personally, although they differ on several issues, I find BOTH Powell and Buchanan to always be “reasonable” and “realistic” and able to justify their positions on real-world facts and practicalities.  (???)

In terms of “voting”, this election is as difficult for me as was 2000 and 2004, where I was NOT supportive of Bush, Gore or Kerry.

I hate to “waste” a vote again on a write-in or third-party candidate, but … ???  I am REALLY TURNED OFF by the “Republicanism” of the last eight years.

TK,

To me, a Powell/Buchanan ticket would represent an already proven failed experiment, because issues like abortion, affirmative action, and role and size of government involvement, are too polarizing to bring the traditional and moderate factions under the same tent. This has been shown during the 1990’s when the H.W. Bush faction of the Republican Party clashed with and eventually overcame the Reagan faction. I, for one, would not want to see my paleo-conservative values diluted by such a ticket. There is only one Constitution, and I feel that Moderate Republicanism’s adherence to unconstitutional policies such as big government, open borders, and affirmative action are unacceptable. Reagan, of course, failed miserably concerning the borders, but then again, I didn’t consider him a paleo-conservative.

I don’t see how a McCain defeat would mean the death of Reagan Republicanism, as McCain’s moderate views are more in line with Powell’s rather than with Reagan’s. Reagan Republicanism is already dead in the current Republican Party; the bailout, among other things, has proven that.

Your assertion of Powell and Buchanan to “always be “reasonable” and “realistic” and able to justify their positions on real-world facts and practicalities”, again illustrates your wider scope of acceptability with the two philosophies, where I’m much more rigid.
In fact, you’re flattering presumptions of a theoretical Kerry presidency, from post #16, might even be an indication of a somewhat, more eclectic political philosophy on your part.

Nevertheless, I hope you don’t agonize too much on who you’ll cast your vote for, TK. I went through that agony in 2000, and will not be going through it again, this election.