In the Chris Matthews-immoderated Florida gubernatorial debate between Republican Charlie Crist and Democrat Jim Davis, Matthews asked Davis if he is a liberal.  Davis dodged.  Matthews pointed out that Davis' congressional voting record is 90 percent liberal.  Davis weaved.  After a failed third attempt, Matthews snapped that he would take the answer as yes.

It is intriguing to note that only liberal politicians and criminals make a steadfast habit of denying who they are.

Criminals asserting innocence are traditionally found in courtrooms, orderly, contained places with rules and processes designed specifically to separate fact from fiction.

Liberals asserting their desire to govern are found accosting innocent citizens (and their children) just about everywhere.  Just about everywhere, particularly when cluster bombed by politics, is not an orderly place where citizens get much help at all in separating fact from fiction.

Here's some help.  After you vote for liberals, they will vote to raise your taxes.  If not this one, then that one, local, state and federal.  If not openly, then by stealth.

You may be drawn to voting for a liberal because of some other issue that you care about.  Fine, you may get that; it's not impossible.  The cost will be in having your taxes raised.

Liberals will vote to provide amnesty for illegal aliens.  Those already in Congress already have.  Were it not for a steadfast group of conservatives in the House, amnesty, along with staggering costs of entitlements, would already be a reality.  If those conservative numbers are diminished, that reality will be among the first of liberal goals.

Most liberals are not against their country's national security, and it is only hyperbole to suggest otherwise.  Their view of national security is simply rooted in a past that does not exist and will not exist in our lifetimes, is complicated by misplaced priorities and is so driven by a desire to avoid and appease as to be dangerous in the extreme.  In addition, our national security debate has been so degraded by short-term partisan political considerations as to add its own considerable element of danger.  Any increase in liberal political power can only increase the dissonance that is distracting us from the harsh but necessary national security progress we must make.

Earlier this week, The New York Times published an article headlined "In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right."  The article began, "In their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party."  The article goes on to say that "the views of these candidates...are far out of step with the prevailing views of the Democrats who control the party."

Well, that's good, isn't it, many conservatives ask.  Theoretically, absolutely.  Long term, without question.  But the key concern is locked in one word – control.  Liberals do now control the party, with an iron grip and willfulness for achieving power that are daunting.

Sometimes questions provide more guidance than statements.  What is the risk if liberals control the Congress?  What is the risk of not knowing until it is too late?