Mary wrote:

> Yes, I tried to speak to those by my inclusion of "some libertarians, and
others."  I do not consider libertarians' >concerns to be necessarily
financial or religious:  I see them as fundamentally different in origin.
I'd be happy if you >wished to articulate more specific reasons that you
know of for identifying with the Republican party.

Libertarians are changing - there are a number who could be considered more
left at this point than right.  I think in many cases people vote Republican
not because they identify with a particular philosophy or ideology, (as I
perceive is more a motivation for Democrats) but just out of practical
concerns involving national defense, taxation, crime, etc. It can be just
one issue that sways them to vote one side vs. the other.  We read a lot
about the independent, moderate, swing voters in the middle.  They are not
apparently firmly committed to either political pole - but vote
independently based on issues.  Sometimes a Republican candidate will come
along who has a good reputation with all political sides and who defies the
usual characterizations, such as Richard Riordan.  Riordan is a Republican,
but in his actions is a consistent classic liberal, in the best sense.  He
appealed to huge numbers of people from all parties in California.  A
multi-millionaire who not only gave away millions to the immigrant poor in
L.A. but actively and consistently worked to help them. At the same time, he
did wonders to fix the city's infrastructure and put redevelopment on the
fast track.  As mayor of L.A. he only took $1.00 a year as salary.  What I
have been most amazed by in the past few years is the number of my friends
who were previously staunchly left who have done complete turnarounds
politically.  They did not start voting Republican because of any of the
usual reasons, but simply because they were completely turned off by the
actions and rhetoric of some of the representatives on the left in recent
years.  Another example of how extreme rhetoric may stir up and energize
some of the party faithful, but also can be very risky when it so decisively
alienates them and causes them to leave the party.  Just to give both sides,
I was also turned off by Republican rhetoric for years and they lost me on a
number of votes.

As for the Estate tax, I am not well read on the issue, but think Brenda has
made some critically good points about it.  I have heard of farm families in
California who would be put out of business by it.  A $1 or $2 million
estate is California where property values are through the roof,  is
probably comparable in some instances to a $150,000 "estate" in Wisconsin.
Farm families in Wisconsin may never be affected by it, but in California it
is all relative - their farm would effectively be confiscated and they would
end up with nothing.  On the philosophical side, it is fair or equitable to
tax an asset that was acquired with money that had already been taxed
before?

Kakki

Reply via email to