I'm one of the people that Democrats would want to woo to their side. I'm not enamored with Bush, although I have supported him and do support (with only a little reservation) the war effort. I'm not happy with the leftward swing of those who call themselves conservative. I have strong feelings about social issues and care about the environment.
But I have to wonder what the Democrats are doing to attract people like me. First consider their leading presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton, based on her past baggage and association with "only the second president to be impeached in all of US history" (I'm quoting my dear husband), with her failed health care plan from the Clinton administration, and with her socialistic leanings does little to inspire trust in voters like me. She might rise to the occasion if she were elected, but she has no clue what to do with the war. Nor do the other Democratic candidates. It's complicated, but there is no "plan," as Kerry would say, on the Democrat side to end the war (nor any clear vision of the consequences of such action) outside of the "death by a thousand cuts" agenda.
Barak Obama is a man with so little experience who got lucky to be catapulted to national attention. He is more liberal than Hillary Clinton, and the church he claims to belong to has a statement of faith that appears to promote a bigoted form of reverse discrimination (everywhere you see the word "black" replace it with "white" and it could be the statement of faith of a racist white supremacist church.) Where DO the Democrats get these "leaders"? Don't they vet them first? Or maybe their leading candidates really do represent the views of the Democratic leadership. I find that possibility concerning!
Speaking of 'Death by a Thousand Cuts,' the flood of subpoenas demanded by the Democrats because of the legitimate firing of a few attorneys is this side of ridiculous. Here are some comments by Mark Davis:
What they seek to destroy is this presidency they loathe with their every breath. Mr. Gonzales has plenty to answer for, but the elevation of these attorney dismissals to a Watergate-caliber controversy is wholly without basis.
Add the irony that the voices stoking the scandal imagery are from the same congressional and journalistic outposts that have sugar-coated the Clinton years for more than a decade, and the spectacle borders on the obscene.
I've not even gotten into the shenanigans of Pelosi, (Barely had Pelosi been sworn in as Speaker of the House when the Dems began their assault on gun rights, free speech, freedom of religion, the right of bloggers to alert readers to contact Congress concerning pending legislation, and a host of other subversive legislation) Murtha and Dean, but to me they are equally disappointing for their pandering to the left wing of their party.
I'm not one of those voters who decides to skip voting in despair and disgust, but it may be that, again, I vote for the lesser of two evils in hopes that some real leadership will rise up in the next six years.