Skip to comments.The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush
Posted on 09/22/2004 5:32:31 AM PDT by Dazedcat
Theodore Roosevelt, that most virile of presidents, insisted that, "To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people."...........
(Excerpt) Read more at nypress.com ...
because the alternative is john kerry.
Early in the morning Zot.
You have a binary choice: Bush or Jean Claude Kerry`
Welcome to relality.
Because John Kerry will get us killed by the thousands if elected.
Expanding on that, because Bush recognizes that we are in a war with Islamofascists who seek to destroy us. The paleo-conservative right and the Democratic party do not recognize this fact. The former, instead, chooses to scapegoat Israel, and the latter chooses to blame America.
The author's equation of Padilla with a simple thief is utterly laughable. Padilla was meeting with Khalid Mohammed and other Al Qaeda bigwigs in an effort to plot a dirty bomb attack. If the author thinks Padilla should be ignored or set free, all I can say is that I hope Padilla moves in next door to the author so he can see firsthand what sort of monster we're detaining.
"because the alternative is john kerry."
So be it. When you vote for the lesser of two evils, all you get is evil. Let the people get a taste of undiluted (as opposed to diluted) socialism. The taste will be so unpleasant that they will reject it for all time.
"No doubt I'll get flamed out of existence for posting this particular story.......but I found it compelling.....and truthful for the most part. If someone can counter this author and tell me why I should vote again for GWB, feel free."
The mere fact that you on this particular date in time need to ask the question for reasons you should vote for President Bush is not a pretty picture.
I doubt that there is anything, anyone could say to you to make you vote for President Bush, so why bother to waste time and space.
Please, stop reading The Weekly Standard. I'll bet you say "homicide bomber" too!
"When you vote for the lesser of two evils, all you get is evil."
What do you get if you vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning anyway?
Don't feel bad for not being a hero worshipper. So many people have such boring lives they try to dream or hope for salvation outside themselves.
Rugged individualism is dead in America.
I wouldn't worry about being flamed. I respect your courage for taking on the masses.
I do it myself on occassions.
If I have to splain it to you, you wouldn't understand.
I found nothing compelling in the article; perhaps you could site a specific point you that sways you from voting for America?
"So be it. When you vote for the lesser of two evils, all you get is evil. Let the people get a taste of undiluted (as opposed to diluted) socialism. The taste will be so unpleasant that they will reject it for all time."
Really. Then you are no better than those who seek socialism if you plan to hand it to them with your vote.
Please, stop reading The Weekly Standard. I'll bet you say "homicide bomber" too!
Well, as someone said after Reagan's "evil empire" speech, let's break down the phrase.
"Islamo". Are you suggesting that Al Qaeda and so forth are not tied to an Islamist philosophy?
"Fascist". Are you suggesting that their philosophy is not totalitarian?
"Homicide bomber". Well, they bomb in order to murder people. Are you suggesting that they don't bomb and/or that they don't murder people?
Like it or not, this is about whether or not we choose to win or lose this war. The Lew Rockwell crowd would like to avoid that choice and pretend that the majority of Americans can be convinced to think along the lines of John Galt's speech from Atlas Shrugged.
They are divorced from reality. There is a war on. That's reality.
Be Seeing You,
The story is compellingly stupid!
Ill give you another Theodore Roosevelt quote....maybe you can identify which candidate embodies who he is talking about and which candidate is the one we dont want to be...
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at best knows achievement and who at the worst if he fails at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt; US President
If we REALLY need to answer that question for you, than you are truly living up to your screen name.
The majority of Americans seem to think they have an affinity for socialism. Let's give them 4 years of it in full strength and let's see if they still like it. People tend not to know how bad fire is until they've been burned. Bush's agenda is not really conservative either. Expansionism, empire building, fighting wars far from our shores, giving away our sovereignty (political and economic) in the name of "Free trade" and "globalism". That sure as heck isn't conservatism.
This is 2004, a general election, and is Bush v Kerry.
The Republican primary is 2008.
Pat, izzat you??
Conn, sonar, new troll contact bearing 190. Can't say for sure, but it looks like we hit a paleo from Buchananville...
Could be a paleocon.
Flood the forward tubes, weapons free. Authentication JULIET LIMA HOTEL INDIA SIERRA CHARLIE UNIFORM TANGO ECHO
Once again we have an obvious liberal complaining that GWB isn't conservative enough. "truthful for the most part?" give me a break, this article has every half truth available to the liberal elite. If you've been around here since 2001 and can't see through the smoke, there's not much anyone can do for you.
Regardless, It amazes me that a nation that was built on criticism of the staus quo is so upset over being criticized. Heck, criticism has helped make me a better man. More people ought to accept a little criticism.
You won't get flamed over the story because nobody will bother to read it. Nobody will bother to read it because the premise is stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
The next President of the United States will be George W. Bush or John F. Kerry. If any conservative says that it would be better for John F. Kerry to be President, they are being stupi. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
LOL. Currently there is one "evil" to be concerned with and that is the islamofascists. The question is who will best deal with that evil and the unambigous answer is President Bush.
And it doesn't matter who you vote for because even those blindly trudging on the inexorable march toward bigger government and less freedom recognize what you fail to. Freedom and liberty only apply on this planet to the living.
"CONN, SONAR, CRAZY PATRICK!"
"All stop, quick quiet."
The Soviet Union really was an EVIL empire. That was self evident. Al-qaeda et al. are not fascist in the traditional 1930s sense. The "islamo" part is true. The are Muslims, plain and simple, and they are simply exercising the teachings of their faith to the fullest. What Neocons call "islamofascism" is nothing more than orthodox islam.
As for "homicide bombers", that is a redundant statement. Was Billy the Kid a "homicide shooter" or OJ a "homicide stabber". Suicide bomber is the preferred term when the bomber intends to blow himself up along with his victims.
A better question is, why should you vote FOR John Kerry?
Sorry. The fifth "stupid" should have been "stupid", not "stupi".
In 2004, the Vietnam War issue has become the focal point of this campaign for two reasons: 1) there's nothing else for these two candidates to talk about, and 2) the effective, hard-hitting Swiftboat Vets' ads are the kind of thing EVERY campaign advertisement should be.
I'm in complete agreement with this author, but then September 11, 2001 changed everything and changed the Bush Administration. W ran as an isolationist in 2000, which I liked. It's funny how the murder of 3,000 Americans can change your perspective.
2. Yes, the President is not a conservative in the old GOP tradition, I wish that he were. I would like nothing better than to see the US return to the Monroe/T Roosevelt doctine and begin over the coming years to extricate ourselves from the rest of the world and concentrate on the western hemisphere. No matter who we elect in the next 50 years that will not happen.
3. The one and only choice for anyone with a drop of consevative blood is Bush. Kerry is weak, spineless, and will have this country groveling before the UN if he is allowed to come to power. I genuinely fear that, God forbid, a two term Kerry presidency will leave this country as somthing we would all be horrified to see. That alone is the reason to vote for Bush. Yes he is the lesser of evils you might say, but he is much much ... much lesser than the alternative.
I to have reservation of GWB, but when compared to Frenchy he is a Godsend. I wish both parties would have put up better candidates.
Fascist: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
I am not sure they are really fascists according to the definition. It is really just Islam at its most extreme. To me Islamists is enough and is less of a mouthful. They add the fascist part so as not to seem to condemn Islam - which is perfectly allowed (if not required) here at FR.
The whole homicide versus suicide bomber is just silly semantics. We used to call them kamikazees, but since these guys are not Japanese and apparently the Arab word is not catchy enough . . .
Ironically, it was NON-isolationism which, in part, led to 9-11.
But can we at least agree that we have no Conservative candidate to vote for in November?
candidates for the two major parties have gradually converged to the point where they are almost identical in their outlook and political philosophy. If nothing else, this makes for dull, boring campaigns over inconsequential issues.
DO WHAT? How can you say that the Democratic Party and the Republican party have the same views? Do you believe that abortion is an inconsequential issue? How about protecting this country?
Well, you just described the Islamist worldview to a fare-thee-well...
How about this? Bush is fighting a war on which the very survival of this country rests. This is not some banana republic police action, this war, if lost could doom this country. Imagine a nuclear bomb in New York city. Under the circumstance, practically every other issue becomes secondary, and Bush trades in all kinds of political chits to move the country forward on that issue alone. He can compromise anything else just about in order to keep everyone together for the battle. Kerry's response to 9/11 would have been a few more cruise missles, some protests at the UN, and then threats to chase down the terrorists. Bush did was we should have done the first time the WTC was attacked, he took it to them. I don't need to know anymore than that.
This is not a flame, just something I think people who want a perfect conservative in the White House ought to consider.
Unfortunately, "undiluted socialism" will make certain that the sheeple get to choose only once... To get rid of it you'd need a civil war.
"I would like nothing better than to see the US return to the Monroe/T Roosevelt doctine and begin over the coming years to extricate ourselves from the rest of the world and concentrate on the western hemisphere. No matter who we elect in the next 50 years that will not happen."
It's negative thinking like that which will ensure it won't happen. Buck up!
"Yes he is the lesser of evils you might say, but he is much much ... much lesser than the alternative"
Conservatism has a dialectic of its own. A people cannot become truly conservative unless they have an oppresive liberalism (i.e. socialism) to react against. Change comes through this contradiciton. I believe Hegel called it "heightening the contradictions". Or as that great philosopher Steve Miller put it" "you have to go through hell before you get to Heaven."
If possible both Teddy and FDR would be rolling over in their graves if they are seeing the gradualism that has taken place in American politics.
This thread perpetuates a self indulgent bent from the few percent of Republicans who did not get the memo.
It Does Not Have To Be All About You.
Why would you want to condemn your family and neighbors and friends to life under the opposition? Why? Don't obfuscate and talk about who failed what. Just decide if you want your kids to grow up under the opposition.
Well, that's true to some extent, but wouldn't a true "suicide bomber" be someone who straps a body to himself and goes out and stands alone in a field and says, "If you don't do what I want, I'll blow myself up"?
"To get rid of it you'd need a civil war"
And that's a problem because ...
Seriously it's all part of the dialectic. Since the libs don't believe in guns, the "civl war" you fear would be mercifully short and in our favor. Maybe we can stop that pendulum from swinging left once and for all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.