Why I voted for Romney

reasoning. I, too, voted today for Mitt, and for a lot of the same reasons.

I may disagree with your ranking of some of your priorities, but can't argue with your thinking.

One thing to point out on this war issue, which seems to be getting blown all out of proportion in my thinking. In a little less than two weeks, I turn 59, and in my lifetime we haven't had one single year in which we've been at peace, and some of our enemies were a lot more dangerous than a bunch of disorganized religious fanatics in the Middle East.

They are NOT going to destroy our country. HOWEVER, our unreasoned fear of them could lead us to destroy it ourselves, if we give up all our freedoms and liberties in a Chicken Little fear of those idiots.

Something to ponder, my friend.

If you think you're going to start writing regularly again, let me know, and I'll relink you on my Blog Roll.

The difference between the years 1949 to 1991 and the modern era of 1991 to now is that we are in the midst of what amounts to a power vacuum. We have 1 worldpower, not 2, and unlike the British or the Romans, America has minimal desire to be a world power. Further, modern weapons make disorganized fanatics far more dangerous than the barbary pirates or even Hezballah was 20 years ago.

Yet as you mention, we are equally threatened by rot from within as by attacks from without. We need to be very careful how we fight against these threats.

I don't know yet if I will be writing regularly or not. I am working 2 jobs and I am rarely on the computer any more. I miss writing, though, and I am going to try to keep up a little better and about once every week or two, cruise the blogs and comment on what's interesting and post if I have something worthwhile to say.

The Establishment Republican duo are sworn enemies of the Right, no matter what they say to cover it. But Obama is an outright Communist, no kidding. Hillary may be (choke, choke) the best choice in this election. Internationally, China is rising and continually expanding it appetite for natural resources. Sooner or later, they will enter into a defense treaty with some American enemy, and the stakes will rachet up . Say, Iran?

I know McLame would pick a disasterous justice for the Supremes. How do I know it? Easy. He is an enemy of the Constitution. He authored the greatest assault on the Constitution in the past 30 years (McCain-Feingold), which turned the 1st Amendment into Charmin.

Come on over to The Swamp. We haven't seen you there lately.

When I heard Hewitt on the drive home from work today saying SCOTUS justices and the war were reasons to back McCain if he ends up the nominee, I had to ask what evidence do we have that he'd make picks better than Souter or O' Conner were? Is it his McCain-Feingold, McCain- Kennedy, McCain-Liberal of the week, legislative record of the last 8 years that makes us think he will pick good justices or perhaps his gang of 14 stonewalling of Bush nominees? He has shown that to him, the court is a place he has no qualms about compromising with liberals. The arguement that McCain may get a few right, but Clinton or Obama will get even less is a sad sad arguement to make.

Unfortunately, he is not alone. The fact is, so many justices have been Republican appointees, we should have a very conservative court but we don't because Republicans are the only party who feel a real need to "reach across the aisles" and pick a "moderate".

I can't bring myself to go kamikaze yet if he wins because of the war issue, but McCain is not a reliable constructionist on court nominees, among his other faults.

If McCain wins, he will have to do something major to get my vote. One possibility would be to choose Duncan Hunter, Newt, JC Watts, Santorum, or another REAL conservative as a running mate. This sounds bad, but the man is over 70. If he wins, he may not serve out 8 years as President, and we may get a good president that way.

I've read quite a bit lately about how conservatives vote with their heads and liberals with their hearts. It sounds right, and must be at least half so (liberals don't do anything with their heads other than bury them in the sand).

But Romney has had to drop out now essentially because people - conservative people - didn't "warm to him". How much have we read about how stiff he is, how unconvincing, etc. Your play-doh analogy made me laugh.

How is the GOP going to be better of with McCain, who everyone believes so principled (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this), when the principles he upholds are often not the right ones?

Conservatives wound up taking the wrong page from the liberal playbook.