You're right. The list includes some of the most powerful democrats there are and, apart from some looney proposals and special interest pandering now and then, they don't seem to be real threats to our life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

I heard a radio talk show program this morning that went down a list of 14 definitions of a fascist regime and I'll be damned if the current administration didn't fit every stinking one of them. Ted Kennedy, as much as I dislike his fat ass, isn't trying to force his Catholicism down my throat. Harry Reid isn't suggesting my phones should be tapped and my internet usage tracked without court orders. Democrats aren't buying up every media outlet in the country and aren't in bed with makers of voting machines.

If the worst you can come up with is overreaching liberals trying to save some stupid spotted owl from loggers or making too much of global warming then I'll take that any day compared with the horrific abuses of the neo-cons.

My list was just a tiny cross section of liberal leaders or media personalities. You didn't even make an attempt to tell me worst case scenario if these people gain some tiny semblence of power again and it's my guess the truth is worst case for Democrat rule is inconvenience at best.

Knowing the talking points I'm certain you'll use the old national defense scare tactic but, truth be told, the risks are there with either party in power. If someone wants to bring it to us, there's little any leader can do to prevent it. No party in power is going to risk inaction in areas like that. The political fallout is too great. Our only hope against terrorists is strong foreign intelligence based on great relationships with governments around the world. I have the feeling those entanglements work best without military bluster.

Art