The time has come...

[True Democrat]

Wow, I'm almost the same way.  I would be a Republican like you, except I think the Republicans are trending populist, and theres this thing:

2)  I still disapprove of Bush's job performance, strongly approve of Clinton's.  I still do not like Ronald Reagan.

3)  I still intend to vote for Bob Casey and Allyson Schwartz this fall and given the candidates most likely running in 2008, I will probably vote Democrat.

4)  I still hope the Democrats regain the House in 2006.

[A18]

The GOP is hardly "trending 'populist.'" In any event, each election is about which of the two candidates is better, not which of the parties will be better in X number of years.

Out of curiosity, what do you dislike about Reagan, and love about Clinton so much?

[J-Mann]

The GOP itself is hardly trending populist, but a large base of support for the Republicans -- Evangelical Christians -- may be turning that way.

[nini2287]

I can understand the rest, but how much do those issues count in the grand scheme of things?

With the exception of the environment, they really don't hence the avatar.

Reagan wasn't the worst President we've had, but unfortunetly his social conservative and foreign policy (the Soviet Union was collapsing anyway, his increase in military spending just bolstered the national debt) has led way to the current Populist movement.  I also disagree with the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (it raised the bottom tax rate).  Reagan's Supreme Court appointments were pretty good (much beter than Clinton's).  However, with the exception of Clinton's disasterous 1st 2 years in office, he was pretty good (especially welfare reform and foreign policy).

[Jake]

Reagan's military buildup has provided the equiptment for Desert Storm, Bosnia, Kosovo, Panama, Aghanistan, and Iraq. We'd be up sh!ts creek without a paddle without it.

[A18]

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 raised the bottom rate, but increased the personal exemption. The tax code was more progressive after the act than before.

Reagan didn't really do anything substantive on social issues.

[angus]

What other issues do you prefer Democrats on?

Gay marriage, the initial invasion of Iraq,

How can anyone possibly be with the democrats on either of those issues?  They do not have a coherent position on either of those issues, and many others in fact.  Not that I have a problem with this.  No party should form an opinion on certain issues, and leave it up to the conscience of its members (this isn't a parlimentary system, after all).  But as a matter of fact, it does not have a position on the first, and there was no consensus on the second.

[nini2287]

Reagan didn't really do anything substantive on social issues.

Good point, but he did help to inspire the social conservative movement that's unfortunetly invading government todayu.

[nini2287]

What other issues do you prefer Democrats on?

Gay marriage, the initial invasion of Iraq,

How can anyone possibly be with the democrats on either of those issues?  They do not have a coherent position on either of those issues, and many others in fact.  Not that I have a problem with this.  No party should form an opinion on certain issues, and leave it up to the conscience of its members (this isn't a parlimentary system, after all).  But as a matter of fact, it does not have a position on the first, and there was no consensus on the second.

I guess you could say that I'm "liberal" on the issues or at least I disagree with the Republican consensus.

[angus]

I'm not giving you a hard time, just pointing out that neither party has a consensus position on the first issue you named.  I'm a very outspoken advocate of gay rights, for example, and in that I include their right to marriage, with all the rights and burdens thereunto appertaining, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my decision to become a Republican, and my subsequent decision to go back to Declined-to-State (which may be called "unaffiliated" in your state).  I just wanted to point out that gay marriage, in particular, has no party. 

As for the strong opposition to the war, it is something I share with you, and is definitely an integral part of my initial decision to become a Republican, though it had nothing to do with my subsequent decision to stop being a Republican.

[nini2287]

I just wanted to point out that gay marriage, in particular, has no party.

I see your point, but generally speaking, Democrats do tend to favor gay marriage more than Republicans.

As for the strong opposition to the war, it is something I share with you, and is definitely an integral part of my initial decision to become a Republican

Why did opposing the War in Iraq help to make you a Republican?

[WalterMitty]

welcome ot the grand ol party, nini!

i also like clinton better than reagan.

[dazzleman]

Welcome nini.

[nini2287]

Thanks Walter and dazzleman.  You two are definitely my kind of Republicans.

[dazzleman]

Thanks Walter and dazzleman.  You two are definitely my kind of Republicans.

I am going to have to work on you about Reagan though.

I'm not a Reagan worshiper, but I think some people don't recognize how much courage it took for him to take the foreign policy stand that he did in 1981 with respect to the Russians, and I do believe it produced much better results than the stand that was favored by many Republicans and almost all Democrats. 

Anybody who said in 1981 that the Soviet Union would have collapsed within 10 years would have been laughed right out of the room.  Their impending collapse was well hidden at that time, trust me.  And Reagan aided in their collapse by forcing them into an arms race they couldn't win with his Strategic Defense Initiative.  Just proposing it caused them to spend billions that they didn't have trying to keep up.  Liberals in the US may have derided it, but the most important audience, the Soviets, took it very seriously, and further deteriorated their sinking economy in order to combat it.

Enough on that, nini.  Welcome.  I'm certainly glad to have you as a member of the fold, fighting for a future of stable peace, a strong economy, and a strong social structure that underpins our overall quality of life.

[opebo]

Any Democrat president will appoint judges in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It doesn't matter how "moderate" Warner is.

Ginsburg is the model of a moderate justice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because McCain is much farther to the right from then center than Hillary Clinton is to the left from the center.  Obviously.

This is terrible.  I blame people like jfern, Pym, and progress for scaring good people like you off.

Another casualty for the party.

Good riddance.  There is no point in having people who are 1) theocrats and 2) ignorant of economics in the liberal party.

[opebo]

What other issues do you prefer Democrats on?

Gay marriage, the initial invasion of Iraq,

How can anyone possibly be with the democrats on either of those issues?  They do not have a coherent position on either of those issues, and many others in fact.  Not that I have a problem with this.  No party should form an opinion on certain issues, and leave it up to the conscience of its members (this isn't a parlimentary system, after all).  But as a matter of fact, it does not have a position on the first, and there was no consensus on the second.

Most of us who support the Democrats do so because their position on such issues is less bad than the clearly atrocious ones taken by the Religious Party. 

To have no position is at least to not be virulently hateful of gays or pro aggressive warmongering.

[Keystone Phil]

You're certainly not my type of Republican (I think that's obvious though) but welcome to the party. Go Greenleaf, Go Swann! 

[nini2287]

Thanks Walter and dazzleman.  You two are definitely my kind of Republicans.

I am going to have to work on you about Reagan though.

I'm not a Reagan worshiper, but I think some people don't recognize how much courage it took for him to take the foreign policy stand that he did in 1981 with respect to the Russians, and I do believe it produced much better results than the stand that was favored by many Republicans and almost all Democrats. 

Anybody who said in 1981 that the Soviet Union would have collapsed within 10 years would have been laughed right out of the room.  Their impending collapse was well hidden at that time, trust me.  And Reagan aided in their collapse by forcing them into an arms race they couldn't win with his Strategic Defense Initiative.  Just proposing it caused them to spend billions that they didn't have trying to keep up.  Liberals in the US may have derided it, but the most important audience, the Soviets, took it very seriously, and further deteriorated their sinking economy in order to combat it.

Enough on that, nini.  Welcome.  I'm certainly glad to have you as a member of the fold, fighting for a future of stable peace, a strong economy, and a strong social structure that underpins our overall quality of life.

You certainly have more knowledge about the era than I do, but thanks for the welcome.

This is terrible.  I blame people like jfern, Pym, and progress for scaring good people like you off.

Another casualty for the party.

Good riddance.  There is no point in having people who are 1) theocrats and 2) ignorant of economics in the liberal party.

I'll give you #2, although I would have phrased it differently, but how is an agnostic like myself a theocrat?

You're certainly not my type of Republican (I think that's obvious though) but welcome to the party. Go Greenleaf, Go Swann! 

Thanks, Phil!  Greenleaf's a good guy and we'll see what Swann has to say.

[TheresNoMoney]

This is terrible.  I blame people like jfern, Pym, and progress for scaring good people like you off.

Oh, get off your high horse Virginian87. Anyone who switches parties because of posters on a message board is a frigging idiot.

 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

the initial invasion of Iraq are hardly (federal) issues (anymore).

What a joke.

[nini2287]

This is terrible.  I blame people like jfern, Pym, and progress for scaring good people like you off.

Oh, get off your high horse Virginian87. Anyone who switches parties because of posters on a message board is a frigging idiot.

 

I think his point here is that the wing of the party scared me off, which is true to an extent, not the individual posters.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is terrible.  I blame people like jfern, Pym, and progress for scaring good people like you off.

Oh, get off your high horse Virginian87. Anyone who switches parties because of posters on a message board is a frigging idiot.

 

I think his point here is that the wing of the party scared me off, which is true to an extent, not the individual posters.

And the far right-wing crazies destroying this country didn't scare you off? The party that thinks that Bush should be President and that Santorum, Coburn, and Bunning should be Senators?

[angus]

Why did opposing the War in Iraq help to make you a Republican?

I've posted about my decision to become a republican here in the past.  Let me just say I do not love the republicans, I just really can't stand the democrats.  In any case I'm not a member of any political party at the moment, and I'm not looking to join any.  I expect to remain unaffiliated for life, or unless I move to a state which makes me choose one of the two in order to vote, then I'll make a decision at that time.

I still think the war was a bad idea, but we're there now.  During the 2004 presidential primary debates, there was one and only one candidate who really shared my view exactly, and it was Carol Moseley Braun.  She said, "We Americans don't cut and run"  She was pretty adamantly against US military involvement in Iraq in the lead up to the war.  Moreover, she was one of the few politicians who put absolutely no stock in how the UN voted.  I admired and shared her position.  Our decision to go to war should be made unilaterally and absolutely.  Whether or not France, England, China, and Russia thinks it's a good idea is completely irrelevant.  My opposition to the war has nothing to do with whether or not Mssr. Chirac wants to help, for example.  I absolutely disagree with many democrats on this count also.  If I think you need your ass kicked, I will not go around and take a poll to see if it's a good think for me to kick your ass.  I will have the strength of my moral convictions to kick your ass.  While I may disagree with the GOP on the fine point of whether anyone needed a thorough ass-kicking, I at least admire their willingness to unilateralism and moral authority.  (yeah, right, okay I know its all about that country's vast natural resources, but like I said, there's something valiant about unilateralism imho.  It says you know what you think and don't need to look at polling data for every decision you make.)  Let me say also that I do not generally agree with Carol Moseley Braun, nor is she one of my heroes.  But it is true that her position on this issue is exactly the same as mine.  Why she'd eventually quit the race and endorse that asshole Howard Dean is beyond my comprehension, however.  Anyway, once begun, we have a moral and ethical, and I think legal, obligation to stay.  I now think, and have thought since the day the festivities began, that we are in Iraq for the long haul, and I'd determined to do whatever I can to see Bush re-elected, even to the point of joining and giving money to his party in 2004, because I strongly felt at the time that the result of the presidential election would determine whether we stayed in Iraq (which means we look like assholes), or cut our losses and came home (which means we look like indecisive assholes).  I can live with being a tenacious asshole.  I'm quite nationalistic.  Not as much, probably, as the average Republican, but much more so than the average Democrat, which I think makes me a swing voter.  Though I am not paranoid, I do think that right about now nationalism is in order.  Any time my country is at war I will accept a certain amount of secrecy, for example.

I also post often about Imperialism.  And I joke a bit about how at least the Romans had a choice, in the sense that in Rome, circa AD100, there were two political factions:  the Imperialists and the Republicans.  In our country we have the Imperialists Republicans and the Imperialists Pussies.  As far as Imperialism goes, neither party has a lock.  Listen to Lieberman's speeches, or Clinton's, or read some of Frodo's and TheFactor's posts.  They're all imperialists.  At least the GOP is in your face about it.  At least with them you know where you stand.

As for the so-called "social" issues, I agree with the Libertarians about a hundred percent of the time, which means about a third of the time I'm with the Republicans, a third of the time I'm with the Democrats, and a third of the time I'm with neither.  Fortunately I don't vote on these issues.  I'm still surprised to learn that anyone does, although apparently many do.

Anyway, I predict you'll find your way to DTS eventually.  And really that's
good.  I do not want to turn our system into that of say Canada or England,
whereby you have a set of issues you absolutely have to accept.  Ours is much more a-la-carte, as any observer knows, and you have as a result Republicans which are all over the map, and Democrats which are all over the map.  And that's a good way to be.  And for now at least, it's possible to be a rightist Republican or a leftist Republican, or a rightist Democrat or a leftits Democrat.  That has become pretty unique to the USA, you will not find it elsewhere.  Not that it'll be that way forever.  I see us moving in the
direction of other countries' parties already.  But I'd like to stave it off as
long as possible.  I'd like to think that each of us has his own mind and is
"independent" at least enough to recognize a naked emperor if the situation merits.

Don't let scoonie bother you, by the way.  Nothing wrong with changing your mind.  Let me tell you about a commercial that played heavily about John Kerry in California in the summer of 2004.  It showed Kerry windsurfing.  It showed him going one way, then another, then back again.  The voiceover talked of his votes on one side of an issue, then on the other.  It accused him of "flip-flopping" on issues.  It was hilarious.  Very well done.  Now, mind you, I wasn't swayed by the ad, and the point of bringing this up isn't to pick on Kerry, because I have no problem with a man that can change his mind.  In fact, I think it shows intelligence and wisdom.  (of course I'm glad Kerry lost, but I do think he has great wisdom and intelligence.  I have voted for Kerry in the past and would consider doing so again.  Although he was not the right man for the job of Commander in Chief at this time, imho.)  Clearly you will be labelled a "flip flopper" by narrowminded types, and there's no shortage of them in either of the two major parties.  But just bear in mind that changing your mind doesn't make you an idiot. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

OK, we found the one Republican who would have voted for Carol Moseley Braun.

Anyways, it sounds like you failed to look at Bush's record when considering how to vote. Bush did everything he could to take people's mind off that his sh**tty record, or to totally misrepresent it. When you have a net loss of jobs in 4 years, that's not a "booming economy".