If not Bush, then who?

12-28-2003 | agitate

[Agitate]

I am supporting W. in all possible ways in the coming election, and here's why: Though he has disappointed me with some stances, and though I know there are yet more disappointments in his pipeline, I believe there is really only ONE issue of our time: Domestic security--aka WOT.

He has the spine, the will, and the religious faith to take on what is our current Holy War. I cannot imagine anyone else at this particular helm.

All the arguments about too much spending, how harshly we should treat illegals, etc.--all of it!--pale to me when I realize that our country could become Israel writ large, if the Islamofascists have their way. I don't want that for my children. Do I want them to grow into adulthood just to bitch about the cost of social security and medical care? If the alternative is them lying in graves, murdered at the hands of extremists on a suicide mission--convert us or kill us--then I say: Bring it.

Great post, I can't say it better. National security and the Islamist agenda are my main voting points, along with abortiono and the gay agenda. To me these are the most important issues in the culture war and the WoT. If we don't have national security, what good is social security? The fact that Bush put Daniel Pipes in the Institute of Peace tells me he understands the Wot and has the guts not to bend to "world" opinion.

[Miss Marple]

Have you tried writing him a letter?

[freedumb2003]

That is sooooo wierd. I was just reading a thread with an anti-Busher who was listing exaclty the points you listed. Whereas I agree with the criticism, I started thinking THE EXACT WORDS YOU USED for this post.

What, I vote for one of the dwarves and usher in the beginning of the end of the US as a sovereign nation? There are no repubs on the horizon except Jeb. We need a Perot-type without the major personality flaws.

[Defender2]

#19. Comments from yet another Divider Crybaby WAAAAAAAAA Loser!!!!

[Miss Marple]

And once again, someone who doesn't support President Bush resorts to name-calling.

[Thinkin' Gal]

If not Bush, then who?

Ooops, I thought this was going to be an antichrist thread. :-/

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" All the arguments about too much spending, how harshly we should treat illegals, etc.--all of it!--pale to me..."

Abslolutely.I am sure the last thing on the minds of those leaping from the Trade Towers,was the federal budget or Medicare. The Boston Globe reported today that Dean is getting tutored in foreign policy by Madeline Albright and Bill Clinton. How revolting is that ? Staying home and pouting, is as good as voting for Dean.

[Miss Marple]

Your comment is not as subtle as you think.

[fish hawk]

I agree. Sometimes I think it is like being in the dentist's chair. He is coming with the needle but that little bit of hurt is better than 4 years of outright (Democratic) pain.

[cake_crumb]

Ignore them. Most are third party nutballs. Bush is the only chance we have. Without him, this country is screwed.

[Qwinn]

"I want the party to stick to the platform, smaller gov (forget it), less entitlement (forget it), less taxes (forget it)"

Uh, I'm with you on the first two, but you've lost me on that third one. Bush's record on taxes is impeccable.

Please don't say that his increased spending means taxes will HAVE to be raised in the future. I don't want to have to get into the Laffer Curve yet again. 10 times a week explaining what should be taught in 8th grade Social Studies and -should- be the Economic First Commandment on the tip of any conservative's lips is getting to be too much for me.

Qwinn

[tbpiper]

Agreed. Politics seems to have elements of both idealism and practicality. Idealism can have some nasty results (ala Perot) if not tempered with practicality. There's a lot of stuff the Bush administratin has done that I'm not happy with. But on balance I'm pleased with the way it has opperated.

[Theresawithanh]

I am with you, too! No president can make anybody, even his supporters, happy all of the time. I see President Bush as an honest and sincere man, in stark contrast to the occupiers of the WH the past 8 years.

That, and the fact that if I ever voted for a Dem, my head would explode!

[dcwusmc]

Then you really need to convince BUSH to change his ways. Tell him to start reading the Constitution and shrinking FedGov to fit it. If he even made a START at it, he'd lock up my vote. But FedGov has grown more under Bush than under ANY president, with the possible exception of socialist FDR. I cannot vote for ANYONE with that sort of track record. Whether his name is Bush or Dean.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I'm just going to copy-paste most of a post I made on a similar thread yesterday.

Willingness to defend the country is a prerequisite for being President, IMO, because relative safety is necessary for the free exercise of our other rights. I don't mean this is a moral or philosophical way -- I mean it in a practical, real-world way.

Among the Democratic candidates, the only two who I think meet this prerequisite are Lieberman and maybe Gephardt. Lieberman has a bad record on civil liberties, IMO; he is too given to censorship and the nanny-state. While I have problems with Gephardt's economic and trade policies, some of his socially liberal views appeal to my libertarian streak. I probably wouldn't vote for him, but I'd give him serious consideration.

The Libertarian Party leadership has basically joined the Deanite left on Iraq. They're out for this election. It's unclear where the Constitution Party stands on it -- whether they're objection is a matter of procedure or of the actual action (I haven't had the chance to check the radio interviews). But the social conservatism doesn't appeal to me in any case.

In short, I don't see any serious choice for President, except Bush.

However, I may give consideration to non-GOP candidates in the Senate and House of Representative races. My Congressman, Cliff Stearns, is pretty much a shoo-in for reelection. The Florida Senate race, though, is open. While I don't see myself voting for a Democrat, I may consider third party.

However, I see an opportunity coming to knock those on the left who don't believe in defending America out of the mainstream political conversation. If Dean is nominated, he will likely lose in a landslide and may take much of the Democratic Party -- or at least their left-wing -- with it.

I don't think defending the country should be a subject of debate; I think it should be a given, with any debate being how it is best achieved. When we have two major parties that believe in that, then it will be far easier for me to find candidates who support rolling back the government in both our financial and personal lives.

But until the Democratic Party either comes to its senses or is replaced as a major party, the GOP pretty much has my automatic vote at the federal level. I wish that were not the case -- I wish there was a real and realistic choice -- but I don't see any serious alternative at this time.

[Thinkin' Gal]

Ack! You're no Johnny Carson!

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Chill.

[Defender2]

No thanks, I will continue to live a long and blessed life. Very Best FReegards, Defender2 D2