Yes, but to be fair many of us weren’t born until the 1970’s (1980’s?) when much of the damage was already done. It’s hard to see things in context when you’ve only been exposed to one context. Especially us Blue Staters. I’m waking up. Thanks Mr. Buchanan.

Because about 95% of the voters vote based on the principle that one must always vote for the lesser of two evils (including more or less half the people here), we could hypothesize that this voting practice caused the present situation. The alternative? If people voted to wrest control of a political organization (such as the GOP) from an evildoer, one would not be voting for evil but to ensure the voters in the NEXT election would have the opportunity to vote for a man that does good. As a general rule then, voting for evil leads to greater and greater evil.

Can Mr. Murgos explain his comment “…(including more or less half the people here)”? Does he mean that about half of VFR folk are voting for Bush come November? If so, did I miss a poll that was taken here, even informally, of how posters were voting?

To the contrary, I believe that, judging from comments about Bush from VFR folk over the past four or five months, I would doubt more than 25% of them plan to vote for Bush, if that. Of course, what one does in the voting booth is one’s own business. It’s just that given the statements made and positions taken by a large majority of posters here, I find it hard to believe that Bush will get any support here at VFR.

Mr. Levin’s estimate could very well be more accurate than mine.

I suspect though as we near decision day, more people will become scared and will begin rationalizing a vote for Bush. For example, the chances seem high that Bush will try to align himself with some words of support for some kind of constitutional amendment to lessen the effect of Massachusetts’ decision to allow homosexual unions (aka homosexual marriage); this is a certainty if Bush remains down in the polls. Considering the justifiably intense feelings generated here by the decision, I suspect many here will go with Bush. I can recall pounding the pavement for Buchanan close to the 2000 election in a very conservative district and people telling me they would vote for Buchanan if he had a chance of winning. This is how conservatives (cautious as always) have always been lured. Also of course, the lure included the communist threat for the years 1945-1989. Now it is Islamic terrorism and maybe homosexual marriage. So here conservatives go again—fighting the enemy in front of us to preserve the United States for the enemy behind us, immigrants.

Mr. Murgos could very well be right about conservatives falling in behind Bush come November. While that remains to be seen, I like Mr. Murgos’ use of the phrase “the enemy behind us”—which I thought he was referring to the homosexual lobby (probably a coincidental sexual inuendo), as our troops are oversees and we are left vulnerable at home with these groups against us here. I see both the homosexual radicals and illegal aliens as “enemies”, and I believe if we weren’t in a controversial war overseas, the Mass. Supreme Court justices who pushed this through would be out on their keisters (sp?). The gay front groups picked the perfect time to get their friendly justices to do their dirty deed.

But I disagree with Mr. Murgos’ assumption that conservatives are so angry as to fall in behind Bush in November over the gay marriage issue. The Constitutional Amendment will take years to pass, if it does. The problem with that, as we all know, is “the civil union” clause. The RINOs and economic conservatives want the thing to pass, even if weakened. Many social conservatives won’t accept civil unions00which amounts to “a half-bad plan” with a bone being thrown to gay couples (in civil unions).

If Mr. Murgos is saying that this issue—which Bush has not been very vocal about—will “galvanize” the split base, I do not agree. The reason? Bush’s continued push—now thru a bill in Congress pushed by the absolutely awful Utah Rep., Chris Cannon—for amnesty for illegals (though it is not called “amnesty “, it has the same effect). This is “a third rail” issue, and a lot of us won’t back Bush because we know it’s coming down the pike shortly after he’s re-elected and has nothing to lose.

There are certainly other issues that have split the base, but I do not believe that enough conservatives will come back to the fold to save his skin. The anger simply goes too deep. If there truly was a huge difference between Kerry and Bush, it would be “a no brainer”. But the two parties, as as been discussed here, are really not that far apart. Both favor open borders. There is some question, however, if Kerry will grant amnesty to millions of illegals. A lot too depends on the House and if the GOP will retain control there.

That’s a very perceptive analysis by Mr. Murgos. Indeed, the White House issued a statement today on the need for a marriage amendment. Let’s not be fooled by this. This is the same White House who is planning to nominate Sandra Day O’Connor as Chief Justice - a woman who has publicly stated that she thinks our Constitution should be interpreted according to International and EU laws.

Does anyone think she and her fellow traitors on the court, Kennedy, Breyer, and Ginsberg, will uphold such an amendment in the unlikely event that Milquetoast Frist and his gang actually manange to pass it with a 2/3 majority the Senate?

Mr. Murgos writes: “So here conservatives go again—fighting the enemy in front of us to preserve the United States for the enemy behind us, immigrants.”

For an appalling illustration of the above point, check out the review by Adam Wolfson (editor of the prestigious neoconservative quarterly, The Public Interest) of Samuel Huntington’s book on national identity:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/books/24055.htm

“Yet, at points, panic clouds Huntington’s judgment. He direly warns of the ‘Hispanization’ of large parts of the country, and fears that Mexican immigration is leading to ‘the demographic reconquista’ of America. Surely, after the 9/11 attacks, we have other things to worry about than revanchist Mexicans.”

Wolfson is presumably an intelligent person. Yet he apparently thinks the above statement actually constitutes an argument. He actually believes that the fact that we’re worrying about one thing, the war, means that we don’t need to worry about something else, immigration, and that any suggestion otherwise is instantly dismissible. As Mr. Murgos would say, Wolfson is fighting the enemy in front of us, militant Islam, to preserve the United States for the enemy behind us, the Third-World immigrant invasion.

Perhaps Wolfson thinks that we should stop worrying about domestic crime, the budget deficit, the size of government, the environment, education, the welfare state and its effects, Social Security and Medicare reform, etc., etc.

Didn’t we used to try to educate school children not to think like this, and expect them to stop engaging in such fallacies by the time they finished high school?