Republicans: Weak on security
Paul Starr provides a succinct recitation of the record of the Bush administration and its rubber stamp Republican Congress. Use this article to move the subject forward with any remaining friends who still say they side with something they call the "Republican Party" or tell you how they are something called a "conservative" who could never vote for someone from the Democratic Party.
Conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan has said that voting for Democrats in Congress this year is not something he wants to do--but he will this Tuesday. He says our nation's voters need to "intervene" to keep this White House from destroying much of America's power, with regard to domestic and foreign policies.
I see things somewhat the same from the perspective of someone who wants things Sullivan detests (union law reform to help unions grow; national health insurance; and things like that). Like Sullivan, I believe electing Democrats will likely avoid making things worse, and could make things better if for nothing else than oversight and accountability. I hope, however, that this nation with a new Democratic Party led Congress (if not Senate) will embark on policies that increase economic security for Americans and, off our shores, will help formulate a more effective policy that drops less bombs on other nations and provides more economic relief that gives poor people around the globe less reason to passively support terrorists in their midst. Undoing the far reaching damage of the Bush administration will not be accomplished overnight.
I do, however, have a continued concern that Democrats in Congress will end up taking money from corporate lobbyists and, in return for that money, govern like nice bankers--meaning, bankers who are in favor of abortion rights and against racism. But initially, let's hope our fellow citizens have had enough of the Republicans in Washington, DC and will vote the way pollsters are appearing to say they will vote.*
*One exception to that sentiment: I hope the polls are wrong in Connecticut and voters there send Ned Lamont to Washington. Just give Ned a try, folks. If Connecticut voters re-elect Lieberman, Lieberman will end up caucusing with Republican--or take Rummy's job and get replaced by a Republican due to Connecticut's governor being Republican. If the Senate ends up 50 (Dem) and 49 (Reep), and Lieberman being the "Independent", Lieberman will be the vote that that could be the difference between a Republican controlled Senate or Democratic Party controlled Senate. Oy vey.