T
train
Guest
proud of you dw...
D
dw51688
Guest
Actually, I do believe that the reason most come off thinking that the Red Scare was about crazy witchhunts and paranoia is because of that revisionist slop that the American left is putting out. I think we can all agree that the American left dominates the university and education circuit alike. I suppose it just really bugs me that doctoral dissertations from grad school kids are being taken as fact and that the truth is being buried in a sea of lies and exaggerations. Certainly, Joe McCarthy was a bit unorthodox in his ways, but as we stand here in 2004, we are given the gift of hindsight. Released Soviet Cables and the Diaries of top Soviet officials like Nikita Kruschev have proven that those who were allegedly 'blacklisted' by McCarthy were indeed communists. I think Kruschev praising such people as the Rosenbergs for helping the Soviet Nuclear Weapons cause is proof enough that they were perhaps.. communist spies? For the American left, actually being guilty means confessing, and I would hardly think that communist spies would confess on charges of treason. All of those named by McCarthy were proven to be spies in the public release of the VENONA project, a partial declassification of Soviet Cables during the McCarthy Era. The one thing we can conclude is that McCarthy underestimated the problem! I highly suggest reading the book, Venona or researching it, it's actually quite interesting. In any case, I'm not asking Americans to praise Joe McCarthy, I simply wish that kids and adults would realize that the Red Scare was more than 'witchhunts.' I mean, the American left was sheltering traitors to their own country, and when Joe McCarthy revealed them for the treacherous leeches they were, how would the Democrat party ever forgive the American right? Don't get me wrong, I'd be pissed off too. It's just, McCarthyism is thrown completely out of reality and it has just become a liberal rant that is being taken as the truth, which to me, is sickening.
In terms of the election, I really don't know what's going to happen next. I'm quite concerned that the Republican congress is not standing up to Bush. Some of Bush's policies are reckless and dare I say... liberal. Bush needs to get conservative, now. He was elected in 2000 because Republicans thought he would be the best conservative since Reagan and that he would not make the mistakes that his father made. He does not need to appease the liberal and moderate base because he was elected to be conservative. If the Republicans continue to abandon the core principles of the party, I will vote Democrat in '06 to curb Bush's policies (what a frightening thought, considering '06 will be the first year in which I can vote). God, Bush needs to resolve immigration now, he needs to say no to amnesty for illegal aliens and get them out of our country. He needs to think before he goes off spending like a liberal and Republican congressmen should think before they vote for aggrandizing the government again. Bush seems to be a lighter shade of a democrat rather than a Republican. In '08, if Giuliani or McCain runs, I will probably not back them, they are far too moderate. Especially Giuliani, he's a big-spending, big-government, 'Republican.' I was hoping my state governor, Mitt Romney would run, but he's announced that he will not be running in 2008, which leaves me wondering when will be the next time that Republicans have a true conservative running?? Why has the Republican party abandoned conservatives like Pat Buchanan and myself? Now that the Republican party seems to be departing from my views, I find that I support Peroutka and the Constitution Party more than the Republicans. But for now, I'll still hope that the Republican party will continue to be the best vehicle for the conservative base.
In terms of the election, I really don't know what's going to happen next. I'm quite concerned that the Republican congress is not standing up to Bush. Some of Bush's policies are reckless and dare I say... liberal. Bush needs to get conservative, now. He was elected in 2000 because Republicans thought he would be the best conservative since Reagan and that he would not make the mistakes that his father made. He does not need to appease the liberal and moderate base because he was elected to be conservative. If the Republicans continue to abandon the core principles of the party, I will vote Democrat in '06 to curb Bush's policies (what a frightening thought, considering '06 will be the first year in which I can vote). God, Bush needs to resolve immigration now, he needs to say no to amnesty for illegal aliens and get them out of our country. He needs to think before he goes off spending like a liberal and Republican congressmen should think before they vote for aggrandizing the government again. Bush seems to be a lighter shade of a democrat rather than a Republican. In '08, if Giuliani or McCain runs, I will probably not back them, they are far too moderate. Especially Giuliani, he's a big-spending, big-government, 'Republican.' I was hoping my state governor, Mitt Romney would run, but he's announced that he will not be running in 2008, which leaves me wondering when will be the next time that Republicans have a true conservative running?? Why has the Republican party abandoned conservatives like Pat Buchanan and myself? Now that the Republican party seems to be departing from my views, I find that I support Peroutka and the Constitution Party more than the Republicans. But for now, I'll still hope that the Republican party will continue to be the best vehicle for the conservative base.