I too am a disenchanted Conservative; however, born in the 40's as many of you, I don't recall any other conservative president that came close to President Reagan. FDR got us rolling into his third term toward "socialism" that most "libs" today think got us out of the "Great Depression". While I might agree he was a great speaker (could be a great political "deceiver" as well), he realized who most of our enemies were, even though he was rather "short sighted" when it came to Stalin. Truman, who was never included in FDR's "inner circle" had tremendous fortitude to end the war as a victor to save our "boys" regardless of the media consequences. His performance in MHO was not "stellar" in Korea, but he sure as heck wasn't going to let the "communists" take over without a fight even if we didn't have the active duty forces, at the time, to prevent it. And, he (as a former Army Capt.) proved that a 5 Star General had a "Commander-in-Chief". "Ike" Eisenhower might have followed with an "R" next to his name as to "party affiliation", but he could not stand to be called a "conservative" by even his closest friends. JFK, who has gained "monumental" status as a "liberal" by the press was more conservative than the Republican he ran against and would not have a tolerated even some of the "libs" in the Republican party of today. LBJ, who gave us the "Great Society" put the "African Americans" (that allowed themselves to be "duped") back into slavery through his "socialistic" programs and rewards without performance required. He "orchestrated" the Vietnam War from his office with a "no win" strategy that cost us more lives per year than this war has cost in 5. Even at that, most would have stayed in that war to the end if there was a goal of defeating North Vietnam rather than get them to the "peace table". Nixon was a "Centrist delight" who brought us the EPA and installed other government programs befitting Bill Clinton. However, he trusted the American people less than they trusted him and tried to make sure he would win the next election that cost him the White House. Gearld Ford beat out Ronald Reagan for the nomination and was more liberal than even George Bush (Sr.). In a post Nixon era where the party was made a "pariah" by the ""Anti-Vietnam"", anti-Nixon, anti-Republican media through association, Ford was a Michagan ex-football player who was characterized by falling over a fold in the carpet. His adversary in the next election from Plains, GA was the "holier-than-thou" preacher (his sister was) who would "give us change we could believe in". And, he did give us change! Our military was reduced to the lowest levels we'd had since after WWII; he used wheat and commodities to punish those countries who did not adhere to his attestations ideas of "good human relations"; he installed "windfall profit" taxes and we had "gas lines" at our service stations; we made a lot of talk to nations like Russia, Iran, and China who knew we were a "paper tiger". (I have a rifle caliber to remind me of how many days we had hostages in captivity in Iran - will they dare again?) He may not have been in office but 4 years, but we are still seeing the effects of his work as we witness him laying a wreath at the grave of Araphat, hugging Hugo Chavez, visiting Syria, and "propping up" the "Butcher of Cuba".) Carter alone should be a "reminder" that "sitting out" elections for a "smooth talking liberal" is not a good idea! Yeah, we got Reagan and I do agree he was probably one of the greatest Presidents we ever had (the media hated him) and a true conservative who loved this country and gave us pride in ourselves; however, he had to make compromises (both "houses" were Democrat). His decisions to pull out of Lebanon was not one of the best, but he never appeared (at least to most people that supported him) that he ever did anything for pure political gain. He did take on George H. Bush as his VP, who was no conservative by any "stretch of the imagination", but a N.E. Rockefeller "blueblood" who claimed Texas as his "non taxable" home of residence. He decided that "international politics" was more important than "national" politics and a "smooth talking" man from Arkansas won the "electoral college" (but not fifty per cent of the popular vote), because of a "small statured dynamo" called Perot, who was a "bonified Texan". Clinton tried to install "liberal" policies, which got him a Republican congress in '94. After winning the election, losing the "House" (first time in 40 years), he passed a bills the house gave him that he couldn't veto and the press made sure he got credit for all the ones the public wanted. If he had to run a second term without being an incumbent, I don't think he would have won (the same might be said for George W. if we had had someone else to choose). Because of the "stain-on-the-dress", fans of Bill will never forgive "social conservatives" and one example is how much they hate "George W.". Clinton made the "terror issue" a "law enforcement" problem while invading Bosnia for "Human Rights" violations (Saddem was not included with the bad "Serbian"). We made a "stab" at Rwanda, which ended with a quick pull out; while we witnessed "hint" after hint of "Muslims" who were working up to the ultimate "hit" (World Trade no. 1, Kenya embassy, USS Cole, firing on U.S. aircraft by Iraq in the "No Fly" zone, etc.) We got George W. Bush, which should have been a "landslide" victory against one of the most "liberal" people in D.C. who was a "sitting" Vice President who could not even carry his own state. Gore already had his "wacko" book out on "global warning" and the focus of the election ended up in Florida on "hanging chads". George W. never was a "fiscal conservative", but a so called "compassionate conservative" which has translated to a Rockefeller Republican. If the Democrat party was not so intent on listening to the "far left loonies" in their party and go back to the "Blue Dog" conservatives that match the majority of this country, George Bush would have stayed in Texas. Instead, he won (yes, he did win even by multiple recounts!) by a "prayer". I shudder to think how 9/11 would have been handled by "Owlgore" (many Democrates expressed the same at the time). So, I guess I have to ask the question whether you agree with any or all of my "synoptic" comments of our past presidents......other than President Reagan, when have we had a conservative president? And, even if you agree with Bob Barr, who I admire, and some of the Libertarian policies, are you really ready to let out country take a chance with a "socialist" like Obama (discounting the remarks of his "racist mentor" and pastor, Muslim kin in Kenya, #1 liberal voting record in the Senate against every precept you believe in) that he will teach the Republicans a lesson in who should be in charge of their party and we all are willing to serve a master who has a two houses of Congress which will be run by liberals to change the face of our nation in a way that Carter only dreamed of. If you remember, we now have our present congress because we Republicans wanted to teach "the party" a "lesson" (I can't say the results has been received favorable except by the very "liberal" who are far worse than any Ford, Nixon, or Bush). Saying that, "well you can't blame the election on me because I didn't vote" or "I voted for a candidate even though I knew he would have no chance of winning" will ring a bit "hollow" when those issues you "hold dear" have to be overturned by a bunch of "Black Robes" (like we'll ever revisit Roe V Wade again). My conscience would bother me far worse if I thought I would "enable" someone who detests the soldier, private entrepreneurship, 2nd amendment (individual) rights, rights of the "unborn", families where Fathers are necessary, rights of the individual, etc. We've had worse crisis than this and have survived. Thanks for letting me "vent".
