Maybe Bush is Right On

Intellectual Conservative ^ | 30 January 2004 | Raymond Green

[softengine]

Sounds sound to me.

[softengine]

Ping.

Thought of our conversation the other day when I saw this.

[MJY1288]

Prepare for the 12 Pack of Perpetual Pouting Pitchforkers to slither in here and solicit the Constitution Party as an alternative

[Austin Willard Wright]

When conservatives unquestioningly endorsed Dubya's war, they joined themselves at the hip with him. They are stuck. Some of us, however, never made that devil's bargain and are free to vote our consciences in November.

[inquest]

we desperately need a national energy policy

Why?

[woofie]

bump for later

[windchime]

"......he may just be assuming we’re smart enough to figure out what is going on."

Experience here would indicate many are not.

[Redleg Duke]

Excellent analysis...but watch the conservative purists flame!

[Redleg Duke]

Ahhh, Austin! I see you have slithered out from under your rock again!

[motzman]

Some of us, however, never made that devil's bargain and are free to vote our consciences in November.

Damn, only if we were as smart, moral, and pure as you, we'd all be able to vote for Simon McCorkinderry-Quixote (Curds-n-Whey Party) and save the world.

Alas, our collective shame!

[chicagolady]

The Lesser of 2 Evils is Evil Still.

[Pubbie]

"Some of us, however, never made that devil's bargain and are free to vote our consciences in November."

I don't think the Devil is pleased to see someone who tried to assasinate a former US President, and who was behind the original 1993 WTC bombing fall from power.

Though it is interesting to see that you think this is a bad thing.

[the invisib1e hand]

Maybe Bush is Right On

He is.

[spetznaz]

Sounds sound to me.

Ok .....something about this smacks of a subtle concotion of one-part hypocritism and two-parts feigned ignorance. Let's imagine that it was Clinton who instituted the amnesty program, or the patriot act, or even the (in my opinion rightly deserved) war in Iraq. Were it Clinton people would automatically have circled in for the kill ....an instantaneous reflex action. The amnesty prog (under Klintoon) would have been a tactic to garner more questionable votes, the patriot act would have been one mroe DemoCrap way of increasing govt size and establishing control over everyone, and the war on Iraq would have been some 'wag the dog' crap.

However if it is 'one of our guys' there is some questioning, usually followed by 'it is a smart plan by him that we will all realize after some time.'

Now, i support GW in a myriad of ways. For example the Iraq war in my opinion was a good thing. And who knows .....maybe even the amnesty prog is some terribly cerebral master-stratagem that will bear fruit some time in the future, and that will astonish us all in its intricacy and intelligence. However what bothers me is when people automatically support something just because 'one of ours' said it ......support it (and most of all do not have stupid in-fights) .....but i seriously think it would be prudent to investigate whatever topic it is before jumping on it.

Asbestos underwear on!

[the invisib1e hand]

When conservatives unquestioningly endorsed Dubya's war, they joined themselves at the hip with him. They are stuck. Some of us, however, never made that devil's bargain and are free to vote our consciences in November.

this ditty is loaded with inuendo. With all due respect, on the face of it, this is one of the most asinine things I've seen in long time.

[JZoback]

we desperately need a national energy policy

Why?

It gives Liberals something to bitch and moan about!!!

we desperately need a national energy policy

Why?

[Monti Cello]

This is a great article.

Gov't spending can be controlled, and if the deficit negatively impacts the economy, it will suddenly become a prime political issue as it did in the early 90s.

The class warfare arguments are wearing thin, and tax hikes will not be the automatic answer to deficits, as the libs currently assume.

Entitlement reform will be the movement of the next decade. It is certain. The FDR libs are dying, the new generation is more conservative and not enamored of the 1960s. The Gen Xers will simply refuse to mortgage their lives for a bunch of retirees who got theirs, legislated themselves massive entitlements, and are now demanding more. It ain't gonna happen -- they are going to be cut off.

[JZoback]

The easiest to fix is (a) excessive government spending and (b) illegal immigration – if, and only if, Republicans are in office.

I used to believe that at one time, now it's more like the Republicans take a nickel out of both pockets instead of the democrats taking a dime out of one pocket

[hawk1]

Bush should not have gone left on those issues mentioned in the article. Is the gain worth it for him? He probably will win in a tight race whether he supported these positions or not. Agitating many of your base seems to be very risky.

[swilhelm73]

Well I see that under Bush the Republicans have finally figured out how the heck far leftist Democrats keep getting elected by people who agree with them on little. Namely, the Democrats talk a good game about being a moderate and then govern as far left as possible.

Clinton, was a master at this obviously. He campaigned on reforming government to eliminate waste and cutting taxes. His first few initiatives were increasing wasteful government spending and raising taxes.

The Republican equivalent of this is Bush's "compassionate conservatism". Now the problem here is that the Republicans haven't figured out exactly how to pull off the bait and switch the way the leftists do. Having a pliant press to cover for you helps of course, but it will be a long time still before the Republicans can get even a balanced press, let alone one that favors them.

So the Republicans continue to give up the store on many issues in a depressing fashion. I certainly understand what the goal is, but they need better execution, IMO.

All this being said, there are two issues of singularly prime import in deciding who to vote for in the upcoming presidential election. Who will nominate conservative judges and who will continue to take the war on terror to our enemies when need be?

The answer to that is obviously Bush. Whoever the Democrats field against him will obviously try to appoint hordes of leftist power mongers to the bench. And outside of Lieberman, all of them would gladly trade away American security, and lives, to maintain leftist delusions about the Middle East.