Reply to Ted
Ted,..I agree these articles in the WSJ are pertinent to the momentous change brought about from Tuesday's General Election, but they are hardly sources of confidence for the future...with me.
Senator Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) interview reveals a very incisive selection of issues which helped moderate Democrats prevail in their contests, but it fails to evidence that Schumer is focused anywhere other than to ensure a Democrat becomes President in 2008 (IT'S ALL ABOUT POWER, STUPID! .... to coin a phrase). In the meantime, the Nation's (indeed, the WORLD'S) security becomes increasingly fragile. But with Schumer as head of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, I suppose we should not be surprised by his pragmatic purposes.
Clearly the Bush Administration has been asleep at the switch re traditional Republican values and hallmarks e.g. fiscal prudence, immigration control,..but it has been thankfully alert in addressing GWOT (albeit inflexible in execution and planning). Add in a vengeful news media, and you have the makings of a subtle bloodless coup.
Periodic elections allow a provoked public to say I am tired of this turmoil, so I like the idea of a change,..but a change to what? Nobody in a position of leadership has the answer to that, so we start down the new road like a DUI driver bumping against the guardrails.
I am typically an optimist, and I still am, but it is harder for me. Time for a third party? /s/ Roy
P.S. Mom is home after two weeks in the hospital following the fall. If she can muster the strength to get up with increasing regularity, and thereby avoid pneumonia, I think she will cheat death again. LC