Well, although I am definitely NOT a Republican, I do like the first part of the next-to-the-last qualifications on your list:

If you believe the President should be entitled to jail without recourse to Habeus Corpus, anyone he decides is a threat, you might be a Republican.

Yes, I definitely think the President should be entitled to (go to) jail without recourse to Habeus Corpus!

Jan Knaus

Do you have that much against what the British call Ordinary Decent Criminals?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I am what was once known as a Rockefeller Republican (fiscally conservative, socially moderate), which means I am now a Democrat.

Wow Mr. Johnson! You go bro!!

heh. Great list. Hope you don't mind if I take advantage and use this where it might do some good.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

That sounds like an impressive group.  I wonder why they elected so many criminals to Congress.  Could it be that all that group cares about is trying to avoid paying taxes, and wanting like minded bigots?

Incidentally, I graduated from college in '59, before the true dimensions of the Republican Party had evolved. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

Never ever ever have I registered or voted Rethuglican! I had their number way back when Ronnie ruled!

Have to exclude "major business leaders" since that category is present in both parties. So is "rednecks", so is "moderate conservatives", and no doubt plenty of "yuppies".

You know, Larry... I once considered myself a Republican as well. It was back during the early 1990s when I was in high school. I was so vociferous that when Thomas Sobol, a liberal thinker on education, came to speak to my high school, he responded to my hostile question after his talk by wondering why liberal kids weren't as dogmatic and enthusiastic as conservative kids. In fact, he didn't even answer my question (and I don't remember what it was) because he decided to talk about the need to educate and inspire young liberals the way conservatives were inspiring my type back then.

After high school, I went to a large public university. There, I learned that everyone didn't have the advantages I did and that it's insane to follow a laissex-faire philosophy in a world without equal playing grounds. Basically, in college, I learned that some of us have an easier path to life than others but that none of us are better than anybody else.

I'd always been a libertarian-Republican rather than a social or religious conservative so it was easy for me to convert. At one point, even, my conversion went so far that I started to worry that my libertarian leanings were not at all being served by mainstream Democrats. Hell, for awhile I went independent and even Green.

These days, I'm a Democrat, but wary of members of my party who are either socially conservative or who are too willing to compromise with economic right wingers. I count myself a Democrat but I still worry that the party isn't compassionate enough on economic issues, is too authoritariian on social issues and is too willing to blow with the wind on foreign policy.

I'm writing this because I'm, like you, a convert. I see the best parts of the other side but I see better stuff on the left. In this post, you point out the corruption of the current Republican regime. But the Democrats lost congress in the early 1990s because they were once as corrupt.

The "Bull Moose" claims to be a former Republican who is now independent. But he's really just a Republican who writes on the Internet under the banner of the DLC and under the safety-umbrella of self-proclaimed independence.

I don't really believe in a "center," because everything I've seen of a center these days are simply examples of people giving in to the other side under the excuse of being willing to compromise.

I do think, though, that we now have a chance for a Democratic party that won't fall to corruption -- it just has to be socially libertarian and economically compassionate -- willing to let people be themselves (even if they want to say, own guns or marry some one of the same sex) without letting them dominate commerce (like, say, Wal-Mart or Microsoft).

Sure, Republicans are now corrpupt and should be punished for it. But both parties have fallen to corruption after being in power for a long time. We need something new. McCain and Lieberman style bipartisans can't get that done because they promote the worst elements of both parties.

The DLC used to claim it had a "third way." They were wrong. Their way was more of the same. A real third way, I think, would involve a commitment to true social freedom and economic fairness. We're both refugees from the Republican party... I think that our best chance is to change the Democrats.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Are You a Republican?

OK, point taken. But what does it mean to be a Democrat?

Last I heard (not that I've been listening very hard), Democrats like Hillary were going to do exactly the same as Bush, only better, with more troops, etc. And a bunch of them even voted for the torture law a few days back. And, of course, there is, or was, Joe Lieberman. And he was a Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate, I vaguely recall. How much more Democratic can you get than that?

Maybe, as more and more old-style Republicans desert Bush's GOP, Democrats will become old-style Republicans. And maybe the Greens will become old-style Democrats.

It's almost certainly FD. He 1'd me, too. Could I beg an up-rate? (Above).

Because he disagrees with you. After all that's the reason you give them to me...

If you expose the identity of an undercover CIA officer in charge of tracking down Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, you might be a Republican.

 Ok, help me out here, I thought you said there were no Iraqi WMD. 

I was so vociferous that when Thomas Sobol, a liberal thinker on education, came to speak to my high school, he responded to my hostile question after his talk by wondering why liberal kids weren't as dogmatic and enthusiastic as conservative kids. In fact, he didn't even answer my question (and I don't remember what it was) because he decided to talk about the need to educate and inspire young liberals the way conservatives were inspiring my type back then.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

My recollection is that Plame did not come up with evidence that significant amounts of yellowcake were being procured by Iraq.

The strongest evidence for any prohibited weaponry consistently seemed to be in missile programs, where the UN inspectors found and destroyed substantial numbers. I had a friend on one of the UN teams who said that the Iraqis apparently learned from their crumbling SCUDs, as the first time they tried to crunch the new things with a bulldozer, they sort of bounced away until the 'dozer had just the right angle.

To me, one of the many theories that has been advanced, and makes a good deal of sense, is that Saddam recognized that without delivery systems, he didn't have anything of military significance. If the theory is correct, he focused on missiles, and put the payload projects into mothballs -- after all, he still had the key people. This does tend to argue against his being particularly interested in supplying portable weapons to terrorists.

I'm willing to believe that he was also bluffing in some brinksmanship. Too many generals independently said they had no chemical weapons, but they thought another division did.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Have you read "Flaming Lefty's" posts? I think you should consider any down-rating from it to be an honor (that is, until he/she/it gets banned from this site)

Jan Knaus

SFC Wallace, dude, you and I both know and BELIEVE GEORGE W. BUSH and not those nit picking CIA agents!!!

link

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
- George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
- George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
- George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And….as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
- Gen. Tommy Franks, press conference, March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

SFC,
Sarge, as a soldier and a U.S. citizen, if you fought in a war on the side of the United States and that war was lost, would you not still believe that you had fought on the right side? .

Well,...sure:  Down with Skool, G. Williams, R. Searle.  In fact, Molesworth may have been the hippy prototype.

Neoboho

I was in High School then, Hoppy. But what did it for me was that everytime I dated a girl from a right leaning family I discovered that at home all their furniture was covered in plastic, and there were plastic runners protecting the carpets. So I decided then that the differences betweern right and left were deeply cultural. or considering the meaning of plasticicity, deeply superficial.

Neoboho