I DESPISE the foul species known as the Open Border Liberal Democrat!

I will vote against them every time.

I despise them SO MUCH, I will not vote for them for WHATEVER REASON, even when they have a (R) after their name on the ballot.

ELECTION 2008 UPDATE (27 December 2007)

I do not want to be called a flip-flopper, a rationalizer, a GOP-bot or a hypocrite. I will not be vigorously opposed to any GOP RINO or Open Border candidates in 2008 in the Republican Primaries, only to then rationalize, equivocate and change my tune on FR, coming out in support of one of them if he should become the GOP Nominee--as the so-called "lesser of two evils" and just because he has a (R) after his name.

So on December 26, 2007 here on FR, I made four open pledges on four separate threads about four of these top 2008 GOP Presidential Primary Candidates. [It now appears the pledge regarding John McCain will be the most applicable one.]

These threads were about the following candidates:

Giuliani

My Pledge

Huckabee (ESPECIALLY HIM!)

My Pledge

McCain

My Pledge

Romney

My Pledge

I stated in each case that I will not support any of these four men if they receive the nomination, if there is a viable Independent Conservative Alternative running, who has gotten ballot-qualified in enough U.S. states to signify enough electoral votes which could theoretically give him the presidency. I will stick to that pledge, in the spirt of unwavering Conservatism, and before all of my Fellow Freepers. For me as a CONSERVATIVE, each of these above four men are not suited to be my next President, doctrinally speaking--in my opinion--and nope, I won't rationalize it later--regardless which demon from the pit goes on to win the Democrat nomination.

--AmericaninTokyo (and now back to our regular programming....)

***************************************

Two key issues with me (not to mention, AMNESTY and ILLEGAL ALIENS!).

1) IRAQ

It is not unpatriotic--nor are we "DU plants on FR"--to call a spade a spade, to read the handwriting on the wall, and say this has been one big massive four-year FUBAR both in planning and execution as well as overall general assumptions (total victory trajectory vs. "nation building" for example)--until we finally got our act straight and did things the way they should have been done from the start (SURGE/MASSIVE MERCILESS PRESENCE). You would think we would have learned a few things in this country from the 1960s and 1970s about NO-WIN WARS in far off places most Americans cannot find on a map, run by stupid Ivy League bureaucrats who don't know what troops want and can do, and who often can't even park their own bicycles straight in Foggy Bottom. Our troops never deserved this morass, as great as they are. Nor did the country. It is a shame we returned to our vomit and did not learn some important lessons. Hopefully we will learn this in the future, as we cannot afford to fight wars only as the US Military, but not as the Country At Large.

Americans nowadays are only rallying around a clear "winner", otherwise they are demoralized very easily. We need to strike quickly and massively so that the enemy has no way to drag and draw things out. We have to fight wars not only pitched against our enemies on the one hand, but also fighting off brutal liberal traitors on the other who eat away at our resolve. Therefore, if going a) declare a war officially by Congress, and 2) resolve to WIN immediately. The American People will in return follow.

2) NORTH KOREA

The same goes for the shameless appeasement of North Korea through buying them off (reprehensible funneling of ill-gotten DPRK crime money from Hong Kong through Wachovia Bank) by the appeasing Bush State Department. Kim Jong il WON...and by his behavior we will continue to see that he precisely is aware of his own victory.

I can only think of one approach that is worse than the Bush approach on North Korea, and that is what Bill Clinton did. John Bolton is completely correct on this issue, and the Bush Administration, completely wrong in this new, yet failed Carterite/Clintonist-Type Approach of Appeasment. The George W. Bush late 2006-2007 State Department-prompted shift from "Regime Change" and "Strangulation of the DPRK", to one of open embracing of Pyongyang, bribery, phony deals in Beijing, rapproachment/detente, carrots but no sticks, and possible normalization of relations, is bound to fail.

Freepers did not accept this under Clinton.

No way should we accept it under George W. Bush, either.

But that's just ME. I never did like koolaid too much...