Kevin,
I think you are on to something. To put things into perspective, I am now 48. I was raised in a Democratic family. My Dad was a stanch Democrat. He called it “the working mans party”. You know, at that time, it may just have been that. About nine months before Dad died, Mr. Reagan was elected. Dad said that would be the end of it all. Hell, I even voted for Carter that time. Well Dad died. I did not like Mr. Reagan in the beginning, but the world not end. I became a Reagan Democrat, and voted for him in his second term. I have been on this side of the isle since.
My Dad was a smart and hard working man. I am pretty sure that he would have voted for Mr. Reagan in 84, had he lived. (Dad voted for Nixon, McGovern made him sick) If my Dad was alive today, I am sure he would be a Republican. I am not sure who’s party the Democrats are now, but they sure are not the working mans party. My Dad had integrity, and the Democrats no longer have any of that. They are lost in far left field, and are so short sighted.
Point being, I am sure that a lot of folks are changing sides. The Democrats look like a one item party, abortion.

You have an imaginary friend who now votes for Republicans? Good for you.

Last I checked you Repubs were sitting at a healthy 36% approval rating. Time to claim victory!

Lol!

You know, I know several Republicans that don't quite support Bush, you know, with his lack of border protection, dependence on Rove, and the whole Shiavo fiasco. O yeah, you call any republican that does not agree with Bush a RINO huh...

I would like to see some numbers that prove your hypothesis that indos are going republican... besides anecdotes. Bush's numbers have been stagnant at 43% for the last four weeks, that doesn't show your massive conservative conversion.

You know, I know several Republicans that don't quite support Bush, you know, with his lack of border protection, dependence on Rove, and the whole Shiavo fiasco. O yeah, you call any republican that does not agree with Bush a RINO huh...

I would like to see some evidence that proves your hypothesis that indos are going republican... besides anecdotes. Bush's numbers have been stagnant at 43% for the last four weeks, that doesn't show your massive conservative conversion.

The whole post is a ancedote and an opinion. He's not stating that all independents are switching or that there are droves of them it's just his opinion.

In my opinion I agree that there are those who'll switch sides when confronted with how things are going down up there in Washington. This is just one more example of an event that might get someone to switch.

I was also a former Gore supporter, now Bush supporter.
I like stories like this.

BUT I'm more interested in hearing the stories of Kerry voters becoming Bush supporters. Know anyone like this?

Georgia,
I would like to see some evidence that proves your hypothesis that indos are going republican
How about an historic 64 million voters pulling the lever for President Bush. The gain of Senate seats to the Republicans. In November your progressive dem party is going to get shelled.

Keep up the campaign against President Bush. I'm sure it will help keep him from getting re-elected in 08'.

The fact you do not understand the damage inflicted by the dems over the vote on Alito is proof how smart Karl Rove is. This is going to hurt your party beyond 06' and solidify conservative support in 08' for the White House.

I totally agree with this post and with Nebraska Militia.

Clearly, the Democrats need to learn to rubberstamp Bush's decisions without question. They should know that there simply is no room in this democracy for second-guessing the Elected Leader. They need to learn that what we really need in this democracy is two parties which agree on the same issues.

If the Democrats can't learn this critical lesson, we should call them "objectively pro-death" traitors whose liberalism is just like bin Laden's. Also, we should talk about how crazy they are.

Democrats after failing to win elections, are attempting to turn our judicial branch into a political/elected body that legislate from the bench.

Our Judges boiled down to only one issue... Roe v Wade.

Supreme Court = A abortion court of pre-conceived decisions.

Last I checked you Repubs were sitting at a healthy 36% approval rating. Time to claim victory!

Last I checked (Wall Street Journal opinion poll - Nov. 2005) congressional Democrats were sitting at a no-so-healthy 25% approval rating, DAV. Time to claim victory all right.

Bush's numbers have been stagnant at 43% for the last four weeks

Frawg, during the last 3-4 months, the Congressional Democrats have gone from 31% to 25%. Stagnating at 43% looks pretty good by comparison. You guys are just soooooooo toast!

More evidence to prove the judiciary has converted voters - there was a 5% increase in American support of Judge Alito after the hearings AND the fact that their behavior in bashing of Judge Alito in the hearings was front page news (not their claims). They moved the focus away from a civilized hearing on Judge Alito and to the extreme use of party politics.

You know, I know several Republicans that don't quite support Bush, you know, with his lack of border protection, dependence on Rove, and the whole Shiavo fiasco.

You know, I know a poster here, named Frawg-arse, who, a few threads back, was claiming that he/she/it (circle one) supported Bush and wasn't a parrot liberal. That quickly changed, and here you are, back to parroting redundant talking points. Yes, he's weak on the border, and we've been on him for that. But Frawg-arse, why don'cha check and see if your donk-turd leaders have a plan for the borders. No, forget that; why don'cha check and see if they have any plans, on anything, at all. And let me clue ya, Frawg-arse, impeaching the president doesn't count as a plan. Opposing his policies doesn't count as a plan. Making total asses out of themselves during the confirmation of Justice-to-be Alito--or Alioto, if you're Teddy the Drunken Swimmer--doesn't count as a plan.

Dependence on Rove? This talking point is soooo 2003, but don'cha wish your side had someone who could get people elected? I see all your failures--Bob Bechel, Susan Estrich--on FOX all the time. Hey, maybe Shrillary can hire Bob Shrum; he's o-fer his career.

Terry Schiavo fiasco? Puh-leeze, Frawg-arse, this will get as much traction as a bald tire on an icy road.

You donk-turds keep running against Bush; we are eatin' this up...

Small government... remember that? Doesn't seem to look that way now.

Small government... remember that? Doesn't seem to look that way now.

And your problem with this is?

Heard an interview today, Fred Barnes on Laura Ingraham's show. The changing times have made the dream of small government a thing of the past.

Frawg-arse, if you'd just expand your horizons--i.e., if you'd set yourself free from the talking-point mentality--you might learn something. I doubt you will; why let something as foolish as the facts get in the way...

This is not an anecdote about a third party--this is about me.

I was a liberal. I marched in anti-war demonstrations during Viet Nam, I loved Country Joe and the Fish singing about Johnson being "waist deep in the Big Muddy", I thought Regaon was an idiot, etc. I KNEW the feds had framed Alger Hiss. I sat in on SDS meetings at their national convention in Boulder, and thought Bernadine Dohrn was cool.

When Bill Clinton came along, I just couldn't vote for him. I paid for college working as a cocktail waitress, and smarmy Bill reminded me of every lounge lizard I had ever met or seen. He creeped me out. So I voted for Perot, because I sure as hell wasn't going to vote Republican.

Then the Clinton stories started to come out, and I wondered how the party would handle the evidence that their golden boy was a serial sexual predator. Not just horny, but a criminal. And I saw the party of women's rights, of "no means no" of "even a prostitute can be raped" of not dragging a woman's sexual history into claims of rape, etc., turn into the party of personal destruction. I saw the so-called feminists taunting Paula Jones, not addressing her claims but laughing that she was "too ugly to rape" and----get this---Bill could get any woman he wanted, he didn't have to rape "trailer trash". I saw the Lewinksi debacle, where "feminists" went after Linda Tripp based on her appearance. I was so disgusted by the viciousness and the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party, it turned my stomach.

But I still wan't a Republican. God, no---I could never get THAT desperate.

Then I started to listen to talk radio, because I was driving a lot. And I noticed that liberals never answered questions. Ask a liberal a question, you either get a different question back instead of an answer, or you get a veering off into something else, that "Something else" usually being name-calling or some kind of personal attack. And, being a logical sort, I started to wonder why, if the liberals had good arguments to support their positions, they would never present them, but frantically tried to change the subject.

So I started to really pay attention, to read, to study politics and history. I have quite a library now. And I came to realize several things. I realized that, as a person, my old hero JFK was a pig---but that politically, if he was alive today, he would be a Republican. I read his old speeches, and was fascinated by his passion for tax cuts, his calls for personal responsibility, his love of his country, and his commitment to national security. (I also think he would have taken Teddy to the woodshed and would never have condoned or tolerated Teddy's descent into total depravity, first called to our attention when he callously chose politics over the life of a foolish young woman.) I realized that, to quote Ronald Regan, I had not left the Democratic Party, but it had left me. It had moved so far to the left that it had become unrecognizable.

I voted for George Bush, and was terrified at the thought of Gore becoming president. Clinton was many bad things, but he was at least intelligent. Gore was freaky. I was not a huge Bush fan when he started to move into position as a likely candiate, but I came to respect him and trust him.

I am now a Republican. I don't agree with everything Bush does, but I have faith in him as a man and as a person, and even when I think he is wrong on policy I think he doing what he thinks is right. I find that incredibly refreshing aftet 8 years of Clinton cynicism, opportunism, and poll-chasing.

And I am more distressed, and more disgusted, by the Democratic Party nearly every day. I find their decline deplorable. It is now a party that not only endorses lying, it elevates lying to a virtue. I find it shameless, and I am embarrassed by its willingess to be proven stupid, wrong,and deceptive, if it can score a point AGAINST someone.

The vileness, the viciousness, the insane accusations, the commitment to personal slurs and attacks---I find it distasteful and dishonest and am very happy to be separated from the party.

Note the first person pronoun here. I am not imaginary, I am not one of those urban myths no one can track down.

I don't base my opinions on feelings or emotions. I can point to specifics that prove, to me, the inherent defects of liberalism. A case in point is the recent hysteria at the University of California, regarding efforts to publicize the lectures of its liberal professors. The mere fact that they understand the need to hide the truth about what and how they teach from the public, but still demand the freedom to continue teaching it, says volumes about the honesty, or lack of same, on the Left.

And I note that the responses from the Left on this blog tend to fall into the attack mode rather than dealing with issues by using facts and logic.

This is not an anecdote about a third party--this is about me.

I was a liberal. I marched in anti-war demonstrations during Viet Nam, I loved Country Joe and the Fish singing about Johnson being "waist deep in the Big Muddy", I thought Regaon was an idiot, etc. I KNEW the feds had framed Alger Hiss. I sat in on SDS meetings at their national convention in Boulder, and thought Bernadine Dohrn was cool.

When Bill Clinton came along, I just couldn't vote for him. I paid for college working as a cocktail waitress, and smarmy Bill reminded me of every lounge lizard I had ever met or seen. He creeped me out. So I voted for Perot, because I sure as hell wasn't going to vote Republican.

Then the Clinton stories started to come out, and I wondered how the party would handle the evidence that their golden boy was a serial sexual predator. Not just horny, but a criminal. And I saw the party of women's rights, of "no means no" of "even a prostitute can be raped" of not dragging a woman's sexual history into claims of rape, etc., turn into the party of personal destruction. I saw the so-called feminists taunting Paula Jones, not addressing her claims but laughing that she was "too ugly to rape" and----get this---Bill could get any woman he wanted, he didn't have to rape "trailer trash". I saw the Lewinksi debacle, where "feminists" went after Linda Tripp based on her appearance. I was so disgusted by the viciousness and the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party, it turned my stomach.

But I still wan't a Republican. God, no---I could never get THAT desperate.

Then I started to listen to talk radio, because I was driving a lot. And I noticed that liberals never answered questions. Ask a liberal a question, you either get a different question back instead of an answer, or you get a veering off into something else, that "Something else" usually being name-calling or some kind of personal attack. And, being a logical sort, I started to wonder why, if the liberals had good arguments to support their positions, they would never present them, but frantically tried to change the subject.

So I started to really pay attention, to read, to study politics and history. I have quite a library now. And I came to realize several things. I realized that, as a person, my old hero JFK was a pig---but that politically, if he was alive today, he would be a Republican. I read his old speeches, and was fascinated by his passion for tax cuts, his calls for personal responsibility, his love of his country, and his commitment to national security. (I also think he would have taken Teddy to the woodshed and would never have condoned or tolerated Teddy's descent into total depravity, first called to our attention when he callously chose politics over the life of a foolish young woman.) I realized that, to quote Ronald Regan, I had not left the Democratic Party, but it had left me. It had moved so far to the left that it had become unrecognizable.

I voted for George Bush, and was terrified at the thought of Gore becoming president. Clinton was many bad things, but he was at least intelligent. Gore was freaky. I was not a huge Bush fan when he started to move into position as a likely candiate, but I came to respect him and trust him.

I am now a Republican. I don't agree with everything Bush does, but I have faith in him as a man and as a person, and even when I think he is wrong on policy I think he doing what he thinks is right. I find that incredibly refreshing aftet 8 years of Clinton cynicism, opportunism, and poll-chasing.

And I am more distressed, and more disgusted, by the Democratic Party nearly every day. I find their decline deplorable. It is now a party that not only endorses lying, it elevates lying to a virtue. I find it shameless, and I am embarrassed by its willingess to be proven stupid, wrong,and deceptive, if it can score a point AGAINST someone.

The vileness, the viciousness, the insane accusations, the commitment to personal slurs and attacks---I find it distasteful and dishonest and am very happy to be separated from the party.

Note the first person pronoun here. I am not imaginary, I am not one of those urban myths no one can track down.

I don't base my opinions on feelings or emotions. I can point to specifics that prove, to me, the inherent defects of liberalism. A case in point is the recent hysteria at the University of California, regarding efforts to publicize the lectures of its liberal professors. The mere fact that they understand the need to hide the truth about what and how they teach from the public, but still demand the freedom to continue teaching it, says volumes about the honesty, or lack of same, on the Left.

And I note that the responses from the Left on this blog tend to fall into the attack mode rather than dealing with issues by using facts and logic.

Sorry about the double post---I got a Server Error message.

Dependence on Rove? More Frankenrhodes nonsense. Didn't hear you complaining about Clinton being "dependent" on Vernon Jordan. The most powerful man in the world does need to have people he can count on to help him with the job. Since when did having a trusted advisor become a negative?

Small government? First of all, how small can a government BE when it is the geographic and population size of the United States. Second, what would YOU (singular YOU or the Left in general) be willing to give up to shrink government? How about the Department of Education? Education is not, according to the Constitution or any document of the Founding Fathers, the responsibility of the federal government. How about getting the feds out of the business of taking care of people who will not take care of themselves? That sounds like local government's job to me. Let's get the federal government out of my bathroom and let me choose my own toilet. Let's let states regulate emissions, environmental laws, etc. Let's let states decide on their own about capital punishment, abortion, and nativity scenes.

In other words, let's look at which party has dragged the feds into every aspect of life in this country, and which party screams bloody murder at every effort to get them out.

And Terry Schiavo was a civil rights case. If she had been a spotted owl, or a very old redwood, she would have had hearings for months. If she had been ill in a country with a reasonable and objective press, you would have been told that the hearings she did have, after the first one, never addressed the evidence or even looked at it, but were totally on matters of procedure. The woman was deprived of the right to have her condition evaluated by a second court, after new evidence was introduced. Civil rights, not religion. Or should we get the feds out of civil rights, too?

I too am a Recovering Democrat. Being raised in the old Solid Democrat South, voting Republican was never even considered.

Of age during Viet Nam, when my draft notice came, I went down and enlisted, rather than be drafted. Afterall, Johnson had told us for how long it was a good fight. Nixon was in office when I finally went in and I began to take notice of the Republicans. Nixon vowed to get us out with honor and I was in country as the "Vietnamization" of the war started. No, it was what sKerry claimed it was, but was a gradual equipping and turning over of the fighting to them since our own nation was clamoring for us to leave an important job undone. I say important because it was not a simple civil war, as the likes of sKerry stated.

After Viet Nam, I was sent to Germany and spent the bulk of Watergate there, hearly only a little of what was going down here. Still, it disheartened me to see the first Republican I was starting to admire be found so corrupt. Still, in the '72 election, there wa no way I could support the very left leaning Democrat and forsake my Brothers in Arms still in Viet Nam and any who had served there.

First, Agnew resigned amid scandal. Ford was appointed and Nixon ended up resigning also amid scandal. I didn't think much of Ford and didn't like what I saw upon my return to the US in '74. Inflation, gas lines and just an entirely different country than what I left 5 years earlier.

The '76 elections rolled around and I was stationed in Ft. Bragg, NC then. They cmapagined him heavily as a Southerner there, playing the old Solid Democrat South base. Sadly to say, I fell for it and was elated to see a 'down home boy' win the office. Then, his very first act in office, granting complete and total amnesty to Viet Nam era Draft Dodgers set me off. Since I was active duty still and a Veteran myself, I took this as a slap in the face to every one of us who answered the call and served.

I ended up getting out of the Army and watched as the events of the late 70's unfolded and Carter did nothing about any of it, just smiled. I watched as the rest of the Democrats pretty much followed him and started seeing all they now offered was bashing of Republicans and no real ideas that worked. I watched as the Carter Administration allowed an act of war (the Iranian Hostage Crisis)to go virtually unanswered and how terrorists pretty much started getting bolder and bolder.

I reluctantly voted for Reagan in 80 and have never regretted it. In 84, I proudly voted for him again and haven't voted Democrat since. Prior, I would be willing to split the ticket thinking the best man should be in office. I learned as I aged that once there, it's becomes party affiliation and the Democrats no longer stood for anything I believed in. No need to cover the Clinton years as they have already been convered.

Since Bush has gotten into office I have seen the Democrats slip further and further into the abyss of mudslinging politics, not offering anything but anti-Bush and sometimes, anti-American rhetoric.

While I don't totally agree with everything on the Bush agenda or the Republican ticket, I find what they stand for much closer to the values I was raised with and have matured with.

I too am not a fantasy person claiming to have switched, just a mature Recovering Democrat who is totally fed up with the Socialist takeover of America by aging Socialist left over Hippies.