Heh. This in defense of Coulter... Calling names is all she's got.

Its not my list. But I certainly tried hard enough to get on it. Couldn't get on Nixon's list either. Hell. I can't even get excommunicated.

She's got footnotes too, and a knack for poking antilibertarian socialist sacred cows right in the udder as well as other places.

The question still stands: why does anyone still want to be a Democrat?

I think there are other and more sensible alternatives.

Okay, I can't resist: is TW Catholic and/or does he go in the woods? :p

But if you actually follow the footnotes, you find that they don't support her argument.

Merely having footnotes just makes it look good.

Time to acknowlege a classic hit-piece by UT. Coulter

And her footnotes don't hold up too well if you check them out.

edited: sorry HM, you already said that, I missed your post that time

I think looking good is what Ms. Coulter is all about. But her links are really useful. I followed one intended to support her ideas on liberals being against free trade and was able to order a pizza from Papa Johns :lol: (kidding)

Selling books and getting media gigs is what Coulter is all about. (like so many of 'em). She has her tough blonde schtick for her angry niche. eh.

Senior guerilla, why I identify as a democrat and generally vote that way:
1. Privacy issues: Pro woman's right to choose and direct her medical care, gay/human rights and equality.
Secular issues: Separation of church and state (I'd like a stonger Democratic stance on this) Pro Science, strong secular public education, stem cell research, arts and cultural support.
Economic issues: Only political party seemingly aware of the huge health care crisis- thus offering hope for small businesses. Committed to Social security. Push to raise minimum wage, pay equity. family leave. Seem to be less in the pocket of mega corporations, at least they dont sit at the table to develop energy/enviro policy.
Security issues: not afraid of intelligence. not afraid to go get 'em. At home, willing to take on the NRA when logic demands.
Environmental issues: protection of undeveloped lands, not afraid to regulate emissions. promoting Science as reality check and great potential for conservation and economic development.
General Platform: Inclusive, progressive.

Because I voted Libertarian once, thinking that the R's and D's were essentially the same, Bush got elected, and proved me wrong.

Fair enough, Warch, but on these points, I find myself better satisfied by:

1) Privacy: Libertarian. You'd find their position on this comfortable. Some go farther in that direction than you do.
2) Secular: Libertarian. Again, you'd like what they do here.
3) Economics: here the LP parts company with you, as most of the things you cite either make hiring more expensive, are socialistic, or both -- the stuff of economic illiteracy. They don't trust Social Security for anything more than a lagniappe to a properly done private retirement account, and that's if you're lucky. When it comes to money after retirement, there are better things to trust to than luck.
3) Security: in my experience, the Dems are afraid to go get 'em. Have been since Truman's first term, if the Dem Presidents' record of losing wars is to be believed.

Having studied gun rights (Stephen Halbrook, John Lott) and gun control's intimate connection with genocides (Simkin, Zelman & Rice) worldwide, I conclude that logic simply never, ever demands that a civil-rights, antigenocide organization like the NRA-ILA should be taken on. They are doing more than anybody but the GOA and JPFO to keep crime down and genocide away, due credit to the efforts of law enforcement herewith stipulated. You have to read those authors to have any understanding at all of the importance of private guns to a genuine Republic. None are turgid, and they are all quite lucid.

4) Environmental: rumor to the contrary, Libertarians need to live in the biosphere like everybody else. They reckon pollution is bad for business, if you examine the matter exhaustively. (pun not intended, I swear! It just came out.... oh jheeezze :o )
5) General Platform: as for the "inclusive" try being included with the Dem inner circle if your views are divergent from socialism and all its absurdities. That is what's wrecking the Democratic Party right now and they've been in that trainwreck for upwards of two decades. "Progressive?" That has long been a cover for the most unpleasant of running-dog leftist excess. It's primarily a program for oppression of the ordinary folks like you and me, while shielding the new aristocracy of the "New Class." A red flag. I do not trust the promises of those who say "progressive." They do not deliver benefits.

A good thing, actually: of the Big Two, Bush is the more bedrock libertarian. His predecessor very definitely was not. Of the entire Presidential-candidate field, only Badnarik was more so than Bush.

Unfortunately for us LP people, the Libertarians don't yet know how to win wars against anti-libertarian attackers.

That isn't even remotely true. All of Bush's actions are aimed at concentrating power in the exectutive branch, and most of his "big issues" at campaign time are "moral" ones, which are certainly not libertarian.

Did you hear Clinton's speeches in China UG? I was even an LPer at the time and his words ran chills down my spine.