Why conservatives must not vote for Bush

[bountyhunter]

A Reaganite argues that Bush is a dangerous, profligate, moralizing radical -- and that his reelection would be catastrophic both for the right and for America.

This proves what I always suspected: there are some working brains among the republican faithful. I suspect that events of recent years have just made most of them afraid to speak up.

Rather, Bush routinely puts power before principle.

But, the frightening part is that he is putting PERSONAL power ahead of principle.... not to mention constitutional law. He is convinced he has the legal right to wage war, suspend freedoms, and do anything he chooses in the name of "security". In that regard, he is philisophically aligned with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, The Shah of Iran, and every other tyrant who ever lived.

Even Bush's conservative sycophants have trouble finding policies to praise. Certainly it cannot be federal spending.

But you can't hang that on Bush alone. The last four republican admins have spent money like it was free and exploded the size of the federal government. The old "Republicans stand for small government and balanced budgets" is the biggest lie ever foisted off on the sheeple.... yet, amazingly enough, they still chant that mantrah.

The Bush administration is pushing military proposals that may understate defense costs by $500 billion over the coming decade. The administration lied about the likely cost of the Medicare drug benefit, which added $8 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Moreover, it declined to include in budget proposals any numbers for maintaining the occupation of Iraq or underwriting the war on terrorism.

Nor would a second Bush term likely be different. Nothing in his convention speech suggested a new willingness by Bush to make tough choices.

It's all in the timing. Bush will be leaving office in 2008 just about when all the misery from this spending binge starts to hit home. There will be another democratic sucker to dump the blame on.....

Serious conservatives should deny their votes to Bush.

Substitute "any person with a living brain cell" for "serious conservatives" and I believe we can achieve universal harmony.

 

[2nd Amendment]

*yawn*

 

[Cosmoline]

Mark my words. If Kerry gets into office expect DHS to cooperate with the BATFE and put moles on all the gun boards. Expect to start seeing arrests for conspiracy to overthrow the government. Kerry will keep the worst aspects of GW's Fatherland Security program AND USE IT AGAINST US. His goal is plain to see from his extreme anti-gun voting record. I for one do not want to go to federal prison.

KEEP KERRY OUT OF OFFICE!!!! Now is not the time to try to launch a third party.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

That article wasted hundreds of words stating something that's been common knowledge from the beginning: Bush is a moderate, a centrist. He is NOT, and never has been, and doesn't really claim to be, a true conservative. This shouldn't come as a surprse to anyone today.

If you wanted a real conservative, you shoulda voted for Alan Keyes in the 2000 primaries.



Your only choices in the 2004 elections, like it or not, are:
1) An avowed socialist
2) A moderate with right-leaning economic and foreign policies
3) A wasted vote on one of several no-name third party candidates

Enjoy!

 

[ctdonath]

The article is a lot of words explaining the problem. We know the problem. We are keenly aware of the problem.

The author seems unaware that the only viable alternative - Kerry - has the same problems x10.

The article gives no solution. What are we to do?
- Vote for Kerry? and get far more of what the author complains of?
- Vote 3rd party? and leave a pro-Kerry vote stand uncountered?
- Not vote? and leave all opponents unchallenged and all positives unsupported?

Bush certainly has his problems. Unfortunately, there is no better alternative, as every Kerry vote must be countered and neutralized by a Bush vote.

 

[Ian]

Might I suggest the late Mark Penman's World's Most Direct Political Quiz ?

Question:

An armed individual who just wishes to be left the hell alone will last longest under which system?

Select One:

* Communism

* A corrupt Democracy that is racing to embrace Fascism

* Anarchy

ctdonath - Of course there are solutions, and I'm sure you don't need a columnist to feed them to you. You could cast no vote for President, in the hopes that a Kerry will become President and the Congress will remain Republican, thus gridlocking the Fed to some degree. You could vote for the Libertarian or Constitution (they still promise to stomp on potheads for you, y'know) parties, to make a statement to the Republicans that their candidate is unacceptable to you (with the aforementioned gridlock as your practical plan). You could not vote at all, knowing that when enough people follow that path, the whole political machine will lose its credibility and authority. You could vote a straight Democrat ticket, hoping that if things get bad enough fast enough the Democratic party will lose its credibility amongst the population at large.

Heck, you could get REALLY crazy, and ignore voting and politicians, and concentrate on making your life as free from the Federales as possible without Washington's dubious help.

 

[MP5]

The article is a lot of words explaining the problem. We know the problem. We are keenly aware of the problem.

You'd be surprised how many aren't aware. I understand it when voters say "Yeah, I know Bush isn't really a conservative, but he's not as bad as Kerry, so I'll vote for Bush." What I don't understand is how anyone who supposedly holds "a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility" can profess to actively like or genuinely support Bush. Those folks would do well to consider the author's points. I've seen some people who are so busy running from Kerry that they aren't watching what they're running towards.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Maybe if we saw the Libertarian Party more than once every four years when they show up to implore us to cast their vote for them as President, the LP would have more than a high-water mark of 1.1% of the vote to show for their 30 years of work?

Unfortunately, that isn't the case. The LP isn't doing the groundwork to let them run a serious Presidential campaign. They never have and that is why they routinely finish with a percentage of the vote measured with a 0 and a decimal point.

Yet like a four-year version of the swallows to Capistrano, we have the same sudden influx of posters regurgitating the same tired cliches like some kind of Ayn Rand bot.

My reasoning is this:

The Libertarian Party is highly unlikely to win. They have never achieved more than 1.1% of the vote in any Presidential election and their cumulative vote over 30 years would amount to just over 3% of the vote in this election. In the last two elections the LP garnered 0.36% and 0.5% respectively.

No third party has any chance of winning; but the Green Party is the largest vote-getter in recent history. They garned 2.8 million votes compared to the 384,431 votes for the LP in 2000.

So my choices are:
1) Vote for Kerry
2) Vote for Bush
3) Vote for third-party (LP)
4) Don't vote

1) I do not vote for socialists, especially the committed leftist, gun-grabbing type from Massachusetts.

2) I dislike Kerry enough that I would vote for Bush simply to assure that Kerry loses; but I also like Bush. His actions have been consistently pro-Second, even when his words have not.

3) I am not impressed with the Libertarian candidate to put it mildly. I could use my vote to "send a message" but would the Republicans figure out what that message was? Considering the Green party pulled in a vast amount more of votes wouldn't the Republicans just look at the numbers and move left? This also this denies a vote to Kerry's strongest challenger and helps Kerry whose policies are by far worse than those of Bush.

4) An absolutely unacceptable option. Not only have I not helped defeat Kerry, I also haven't even sent a message (even a cloudy, vague message) to the Republicans about what they need to do to get my vote.

 

[bountyhunter]

The author seems unaware that the only viable alternative - Kerry - has the same problems x10.

The author is fully aware, he just does not share your asessment that kerry would be 10X worse. I don't either. I don't like Kerry, but he would be better than Bush in many ways.

 

[bountyhunter]

Mark my words. If Kerry gets into office expect DHS to cooperate with the BATFE and put moles on all the gun boards. Expect to start seeing arrests for conspiracy to overthrow the government.

Crap... got a 12 pound turkey to cook and I'm out of tinfoil.

Can you hook me up with your hat? I'll give it back in four hours when it's done.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I don't like Kerry, but he would be better than Bush in many ways.

Kerry voted to ban .30-30 ammo by name just this March.

Kerry co-sponsored a bill to extend the semi-auto ban to practically every semi-auto ever made.

Kerry has voted to kill CMP twice. If he won't trust you with a 1903 Springfield, exactly what does he trust you with?

Kerry has voted 100% in accordance with the Brady Campaign since he was elected as a Senator.

Kerry supports the Patriot Act and voted for it.

Kerry supports Campaign Finance Reform and voted for it.

Kerry supported the creation of Homeland Security.

Exactly which way do you think Kerry is better than Bush on any issue involving liberty?

 

[MrAcheson]

Yes the problem with the anybody but Bush sentiment is that while Bush is wrong in a lot of ways, Kerry is never any better. Kerry is for even bigger government. Kerry is for even fewer freedoms. Now if your worried about separation of church and state issues maybe you could give Kerry that one, but thats about it.

 

[bountyhunter]

Exactly which way do you think Kerry is better than Bush on any issue involving liberty?

Don't misquote me or try the pigeonhole maneuver. I said:

he would be better than Bush in many ways.

That statement is 100% correct. FYI, guns are not the only things on earth of value.


As example:

1) Kerry is not in the pocket of big oil, will not blindly grab his ankles for Saudi Arabia.

2) Kerry is not hell bent on starting wars with the wrong counties.

3) Kerry MIGHT be able to salvage some relationships with allies we need to win the true WOT.

4) Kerry is not fixated on the ridiculous and disproven notion that giving $100 BILLION in tax cuts to the top 2% of wage earners is the way to stimulate the econemy. Anybody with a brain cell knows money given back to lower income brackets gets spent immediately, money given to the wealthy goes on the pile with the rest of their excess wealth.

5) Kerry does not operate on the premise that "I am right and anybody who disagrees is a terror lover who must be destroyed".

6) Kerry appears to be able to grasp reality or at least recognize it when it knocks on the front door.... Bush and Cheney still believe Hussein was in bed with Bin laden and the WMD's all got smuggled out on camel back.

I am tired of typing. Somebody else can finish the list.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

That's quite a list, boutyhunter.

1) Kerry is not in the pocket of big oil, will not blindly grab his ankles for Saudi Arabia.

Are you trying to imply that Bush is? I've seen no credible evedince to suggest that Bush is, with the possible exception of Michael Moore. Oh wait...

2) Kerry is not hell bent on starting wars with the wrong counties.

Again, you imply that Bush is? I assume you refer to Iraq, here, which I believe was a prety good idea. But that's a whole nuther discussion.

3) Kerry MIGHT be able to salvage some relationships with allies we need to win the true WOT.

Allies we need to win the WOT, eh? As in Pakistan? The Phillipines? Places where the terrorists actualy live and operate? We now have rock solid alliances in the heart of the middle east that we didn't have a few years ago. Iraq and Afghanistan are chief among those.

Or were you referring to such nations as France, Germany, and Russia? These are nations that have nothing to offer us in terms of terrorism-reduction, and were quite possibly on the take for Saddam.

4) Kerry is not fixated on the ridiculous and disproven notion that giving $100 BILLION in tax cuts to the top 2% of wage earners is the way to stimulate the econemy. Anybody with a brain cell knows money given back to lower income brackets gets spent immediately, money given to the wealthy goes on the pile with the rest of their excess wealth.

I got a tax cut, and I'm certainly not one of the richest 2%. I like my tax cut! Keep your hands off of it!



I'm tired of typing too, so I'll follow your lead and let someone else finish this list. Incidentally, it is baseless and stupid assertions such as you've made that have so disgusted me with recent politics. That, and the fact that nobody seems to be refuting them.

 

[bogie]

Okay. Go ahead. The Democrats can't field a decent candidate, so they're reduced to trying to convince folks to vote against the incumbent.

I'm not voting for Bush. I'm voting against Kerry. And the most likely way to ensure that Kerry doesn't get into office is a Bush vote. Anything else supports the Kerry campaign.

I don't think we can afford the supreme court appointees, etc...

Campers - lots of you _know_ me, some face to face. There's been a lot of trolls on conservative message forums lately, most of them with the message of "Bush isn't conservative enough, or liberal enough, or pro-2nd enough, or hawklike enough, or dovelike enough, or whatever." But the message always revolves around "You should vote for anyone but Bush. That anyone, folks, in real world terms, is Kerry. And Kennedy, Feinstein, Schumer, etc.

One of two people will win this election. The "third" parties don't have a chance in the presidential race. Vote for 'em in local and state elections, but for chrissake, in the national election, remember that you've got the choice of Kerry or Bush.

Conservatives, and gun people in particular, are very fragmented. They're easily led, and they're easily led to extremes. Step back, take a look at yourself, and consider the consequences of your actions on election day.

By voting against Bush, you'll guarantee Kerry.

 

[moa]

Some of the conservative radio talk show hosts like Laura Ingraham predict there will be a conservative rebellion in the Republican Party. Maybe a new conservative party will evolve pulling in conservative Democrats too, as well as others.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

4) Kerry is not fixated on the ridiculous and disproven notion that giving $100 BILLION in tax cuts to the top 2% of wage earners is the way to stimulate the econemy. Anybody with a brain cell knows money given back to lower income brackets gets spent immediately, money given to the wealthy goes on the pile with the rest of their excess wealth.

Ya know, the more I think about this, the more it disturbs me. I hear this kind of guff all the time lately. I'm tired of not seeing anybody stand up and refute this tripe.

First, the lower income brackets pay little to no taxes. Therefore IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO REDUCE THEIR TAXES by any appreciable amount. They simpy don't pay enough taxes for there to be anything to reduce.

Second, nobody is "giving money to the wealthy". The question is how much or how little money is TAKEN AWAY FROM the wealthy. Resent the rich all you want, but the fact remains that their "excess wealth" is theirs. IT BELONGS TO THEM, NOT YOU, and they have every right to keep it.

Third, the wealthy are in a better position to spur economic growth than are the lower classes. It's the wealthy that hire new employees. It's the wealthy that develop and market new products that improve our lives, generate increased production, and earn taxable profits. It's the wealthy that invest in the stock market, new business ventures, and real estate. In short, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO CREATE WEALTH IN OUR COUNTRY. The wealthy do a lot more for our economy than some poor slob who'll squander his tax rebates on another six pack.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the rich have as much right to receive a tax cut as the poor. There's nothing magical that happens to a person who makes more than XX dollars a year that suddenly casues him to lose all rights to the products of his labors. If poor people deserve a tx cut, then so do rich people. Resentment, jealousy, and hatred of the rich doesn't justify taxing them excessively.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, bountyhunter, I disagree with your interpretations of Bush's position on practically every item you listed. So little wonder we disagree.

Others have already addressed many of those arguments more eloquently than I could and I don't doubt others will join them, so I will just let them argue those points since we both agree that Kerry is worse on liberty than Bush (or at least I assume we do since you agree that Kerry supports all of the commonly cited issues that Bush does plus many more that Bush does not).

 

[FeebMaster]

Headless Thompson Gunner:
First, the lower income brackets pay little to no taxes. Therefore IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO REDUCE THEIR TAXES by any appreciable amount. They simpy don't pay enough taxes for there to be anything to reduce.

Well there you go. I guess it shoudn't hurt the government too badly if those little to no taxes the lower income brackets pay are reduced even further.

 

[CZ52GUY]

I just had too...

...then I remembered a wise proverb...something to the effect:

If you argue with a fool to the passerby, it will be difficult to distinguish between the fool or the fool who argues with him.

Congrats Bountyhunter, you made my ignore list.

Safe shooting anyway,

CZ52'

 

[tyme]

A VOTE AGAINST BUSH IS A VOTE FOR KERRY.

Wrong.

A vote for Bush:
Bush: +1
Kerry: +0

A vote for Kerry:
Bush: +0
Kerry: +1

A vote for someone else:
Bush: +0
Kerry: +0

Changing a vote from Bush to Kerry boosts Kerry by two votes relative to Bush.
Changing a vote from Bush to someone else boosts Kerry by one vote relative to Bush.

Voting for a third party is only half as "bad" as voting for Kerry.

 

[GLOCKME]

The ONLY 2 people in the race are Bush and Skerry..

A vote for Skerry is a vote AGAINST our gun rights...

End of story..

 

[SAG0282]

<---------Is conservative and is supporting Bush.

 

[tyme]

Glockme, that's not true.

A third-party vote is, at worst, no vote at all. Not voting (or voting third party) has only half the impact of changing votes from Bush to Kerry; it is not a vote against anyone or anything.

 

[Nick_90]

Just the perspective of 8 years of Kerry, with Ted Kennedy as back seat driver followed by 8 years of a John Edwards presidency should make anybody in their right mind vote for the lesser of two evils: President Bush.
Last time conservatives followed the same line of thought as the author of the article, America was landed with 8 years of Clinton!
That should be enough to make any doubter think twice!