.......Judith Weiss over at Kesher Talk has a cyber support group going for the folks out there who like myself are pro-gay-marriage, pro-choice, pro-drug-legalization, against establishment of relgion, but also pro-war.
The Superman of the blog world, Glenn Reynolds, is among these folks as well.
His quote here sums it up pretty well-
A reader emails:
Before the war in Iraq, I would imagine you were usually considered a centrist. Now, whenever I see you mentioned in the media, it's "Conservative blogger Glenn Reynolds." . . . if you are for the war, no matter how liberal your other beliefs are, you are conservative. If you are against the war, you are normal. What gives?
I've pretty much given up fighting it, because yes, that seems to be the definition. Pro-gay-marriage, pro-choice, pro-drug-legalization, but pro-war? You're a "conservative."
Most of the people who know me well would say that I'm not very conservative, and do hold many liberal views. Much like Mrs Weiss, I voted for Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 92 and 96. Despite this record, the moment I try and defend Bush for things that he didn't even do, I get branded an uber-conservative Bush lackey.
Many people won't say it, but they imply some sort of Bush hand associated with 9/11, conspiratorial wise- he knew and did nothing, he actively conspired to hide what he did know, etc.etc. This is lunacy. Not only that but it dangerously places the blame wheere it doesn't belong.
Islamic Terrorists had been planning 9/11 for almost a decade. They are the ones responsible. Period.
I have yet to make a final decision on whom I will vote for in the next election, but Kerry has shown me absolutely nothing in terms of what he will do to fight and win this war any better or differently than Bush. And as I have said before, all of the domestic stuff means NADA-ZIP-ZILCH-ZERO if these terrorists are able to pull off the size of attack they want to.
One mushroom cloud over Manhattan and gay marriage or stem cell research will be a long distant memory. So will modern life as we know it.
So far, Bush has defeated and toppled two regimes that were directly supporting, funding and arming Islamic terrorists. Iran and Syria shoud be next.
Bush wants to get rid of the Mullahs in Iran, Kerry wants to give them nuclear fuel with the "hope" they use it correctly.
You tell me who sounds more responsible.
Update: There's a liberal democrat belief running around out there that no one who voted for Gore in 2000 will be voting for Bush this year. They couldn't possibly be more ignorant. Opinion Journal has this listing of letters of these people who like myself look to be pulling the Bush lever in November.
My favorite letter that sums it up-
I wanted to e-mail the gent who claimed virtually no one who voted for Gore in 2000 will vote for Bush in '04; however, no e-mail address was available for him. Perhaps you might forward my message.
I accompanied my parents as they campaigned for John F. Kennedy; my husband and I went door-to-door for George McGovern; I've lived in major urban centers my entire adult life, haven't had a TV since '75, lived abroad during much of the '80s, speak and write Japanese, have an advanced degree but no children, and produced and hosted a feminist radio show on an NPR affiliate in the '70s, and of course voted for Gore in 2000. All very nice and leftish.
However, I believe George W. Bush is one of our greatest presidents and I will cast my vote for him in November. I can only speak for myself of course, but if a committed lefty like me can change her mind, all I can say is carry an oxygen tank, you might get buried in that landslide you're predicting.
--Kelly Colgan Azar