I just voted. Yes I voted early, but since I'm not a Democrat you don't have to worry about me voting often. In my state we have what is called "early voting". I voted Republican. Mostly. I voted Green for a few local offices. I've no idea why those were partisan races anyway.

Why did I vote Republican in all the major races? Because for the last 6 years we've had an out of control federal government that spends far too much money. I want that to change. But you don't fix that by voting for people who promise changing things by spending even more.

That's the dig faster to get yourself out of the hole strategy I hear a few of my fellow RINOs talking about lately. Yeah, that's real smart.

Could it get any worse under a Democratic Congress? Of course it could! Much worse. Higher taxes and more spending. It's what the Democrats are promising.

And with big-spender Bush in charge, "compromise" will mean spending somewhere between the White House's "way too much" and the Democrat's "obscenely disgusting too much".

Then there is the foreign policy front. This is what really worries me. For every one legitimate criticism by Democrats of Bush foreign policy and Pentagaon ineptness there are 10 fantasies of dangerous proportions. These foreign policy fantasies range from "let the U.N. handle it" to "let's talk about the problem some more" to "ignore it and it doesn't exist".

I'd like to see many of the Bush foreign policy "realists" replaced. The fact is they are not realists. I'd start with Donald Rumsfeld and work my way down.

But the fantasies of the Democratic party are the opposite side of the same coin. It is proper to hold Bush accountable for mistakes made in Iraq, but where is the accountability for the Democrats who essentially wanted to do the same things as Bush, but wanted to go in under the auspices of the U.N.? As if internationalizing the same policy would have made some difference.

Or the accountability for those Democrats who, last year, called for precisely what we are doing right now: training Iraqi forces to defend the country themselves?

And how would things get better by calling an international conference to discuss Iraq? That is what other leading Democrats are saying right now. Calling an international conference. This is what passes for "realism" in Democratic circles.

Working towards realism cannot begin by electing a party that would give France veto power over American foreign policy. It's bizarro logic.

And do you think the Democratic leadership in Congress is really "moderate"?

The Right Place, using three different measures, has built a scale to measure just how "liberal" or "conservative" each member of Congress is. The lower the number, the more liberal. The higher, the more conservative. The scale ranges from 0-100.

Nanci Pelosi, the next Democratic Speaker of the House? She gets a 6. To put that in perspective, a left-of-center "moderate" should score at least in the 30-40 range.

Should the Democrats take over the Senate Carl Levin would chair the Armed Services Committee and Jay Rockefeller the Intelligence Committee. Both score 9 on the scale.

The Chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee would be Charlie Rangel. He scores 4, making him one of the most liberal Congressman in the entire House! You want this guy in charge of the committee that proposes tax bills?

See the whole list here. Anyway, go ahead and vote for the Democrats. That's real smart.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:01 AM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 595 words, total size 4 kb.