Bush abandoned small government the day he took office.
I just want to go back to the way it was BB, before Bush.
Have we changed, has the party changed, or has President Bush changed it all?
You know you are in trouble when the only way you can force yourself to accept someone or something is by convincing yourself that it better than the alternative. We're in big trouble. Anytime someone posts a reply that questions President Bush the immediate response is to receive multiple messages pointing out how much better he is than Gore or Kerry would have been. I have come to learn that that is the nature of life and politics. But damn it, for once I would like to have someone in the office whom I support because of their beliefs and the stands they take, not because they're better than the alternative. Sad thing is, I think Dubya could be that person, but so far I'm seeing way too much compromise for my liking.
Occasionally, I'll mention that I have a position that does not dovetail nicely with the more "Christian-Right" elements that reside within our big tent, and while I love and respect them, I don't always agree with them. I am immediately and vociferously labeled a "RINO" in a way that allows you to almost see the venom dripping from the word as you read it.
So I've been ruminating over the last few months as to whether or not I am actually a RINO. But as I read the above quoted paragraph, I realize that my original instincts were right - I am not a RINO.
When was a litmus test attached to calling oneself a Republican, anyway? Who defined this test? And why are there only 2 or 3 "key" issues that determine it's outcome?
I believe in small government and low taxes. I believe in the right to bear arms. I believe in state's rights. I believe Roe is a hideous example of rule by judicial fiat, and that the question should be thrown back to the individual states legislatures - where elected officials will create laws based on the will of the people that they govern. I wanted Michael Luttig nominated for the Supreme Court, and I wanted to shove him right down the throats of our liberal friends. I believe that Kennedy, Pelosi, Reed and other vocal Democrats are actually traitorous and should be prosecuted.
But I confess that I hold views that are not strictly planks in the Republican platform. So my question is this: does one have to agree with every position the party officially takes? And how many are you allowed to disagree with before you become a RINO?
Big government borrow and spenders are not now and have never been conservative. They are neocons. Neocons are generally socially conservative, but are only fiscally conservative when it comes to tax cuts.
Note to Christians who voted for Bush: This is the end result of voting PRAGMATICALLY. Pragmatism is a secular-humanist methodology, not a Christian one. It is an attempt to manipulate the future (if we vote for Bush, this will happen, or this other thing will not happen, etc.) - to play god, if you will. But God and only God can control the future.
In a Republic such as ours, wherein God gave us the privilege of choosing our leaders, the blame for bad leadership falls squarely on the people who elected them. Will people learn from this? I am not optimistic.
Bush has as much to do with small government conservatism as the Moon has to do with cheese.