Let's just say it Liberalism = cowardice. You see it manifested in the liberal reaction to 9/11 and again in the reaction to the disaster in New Orleans.

While I hate to sterotype them I am going to. Liberals in general seem totally unwilling to take action to defend their country, their way of life or even help their fellow man.

It get tiresome hearing these armchair quarterbacks constantly criticizing men of action. Men of action by definition make mistakes.

Jim Jeffords is a perfect example of a liberal politician without any moral compass at all. A man totally unable to represent the very people that elected him due to his selfishness and lust of personal power. Not only that but he displayed a profound lack of judgement when he decided to become an "independent". His actions reduced the quality of the represention the people of Vermont have in the Senate from one of some influence to a nutured ineffectual presence in the Senate that is not respected by either party.

The people in Vermont deserve to be represented by a Senator that believes in SOMETHING!

He and I and another charming Air Force man from a blue state (Massachusetts) talk about how insidious the liberal argument is, and how willing people seem to be to give up liberty for the illusion of safety.

Right on! I mean, what are we to make of such left-wing liberal ideas as the War on Drugs, War on Pornography, and the PATRIOT Act?

Well, it all has to do with how you define words. The word "liberal," for example, has two meanings: 1) modern-day leftist, and 2) classical liberal.

I myself fit one of those definitions--but not the other.

The word "liberal," for example, has two meanings: 1) modern-day leftist, and 2) classical liberal.

Indeed so. Allow me to drop the snark tone for a moment to comment on the point without using either version of the l-wod, lest my point be confused.

The point of the excerpt that I originally quoted seemed to be saying that leftists are ready to trade off any kind of liberty in exchange for security. I have a hard time fitting that statement with even the rightist stereotype of a leftist, let alone the reality as I see it. I thought that leftists were touchy-feely "Oh, no, don't restrict any right whatsoever even if it gets us all killed!" types?

Most of the really bad-idea tradeoffs between liberty and security that I've seen post-9/11 have been signature causes of the right. It seems that the civil rights agenda on the right, at the moment, can be summarized as, "If you are a law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to fear from the government." If that isn't the most anti-libertarian idea imaginable, I do not know what is.

I thought that leftists were touchy-feely "Oh, no, don't restrict any right whatsoever even if it gets us all killed!" types?

Sure see "Amendment." As in, "Second."

Well, even I am not crazy enough to kick the Second Amendment tar baby. I will note, however, that the left has no monopoly on wanting to expand government power to give people a warm fuzzy idea that something is Being Done.

Fair enough. See "Homeland Security, Department of."

Or, you know--nearly any piece of domestic legislation with Richard Nixon's signature on it.