Bush Discredits Conservatism

[William Joyce]

From The American Conservative:

Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is
supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of
conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country
that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions
to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the
deficit to be passed on to the nation's children, the ceaseless drive to cut
taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush
sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory
imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his
nation-breaking immigration proposal - Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import
immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can't be
found to do it - and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and
open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.

 

[theim]

hasn't this been discussed before?

Bush isn't the perfect conservative, but I'd rather have an imperfect conservative than a perfect liberal. It really isn't that hard to understand.

 

[William Joyce]

It bears repeating. Bush isn't merely an imperfect conservative, HE ISN'T ONE TO BEGIN WITH. He's an idiot. He must be punished for betraying conservative principles. I could deal with an imperfect conservative. McConnell is right: Another Bush term will make Republicans a laughingstock for generations to come. I don't hope Kerry wins but I sorely hope Bush loses.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

It bears repeating. Bush isn't merely an imperfect conservative, HE ISN'T ONE TO BEGIN WITH. He's an idiot. He must be punished for betraying conservative principles. I could deal with an imperfect conservative. McConnell is right: Another Bush term will make Republicans a laughingstock for generations to come. I don't hope Kerry wins but I sorely hope Bush loses.

You don't hope Kerry wins but you hope Bush loses? That makes no sense. Would you rather have a President that has a few stances that aren't considered "true Conservative", or a President that tries with all his might to seem like a Conservative in the name of pandering?

 

[Merlin1047]

Getting low on bullshit William? Looks like you're having to trot out the same stuff for an encore presentation.

Repetition does not improve the quality of stupidity.

 

[Mainframe]

You don't hope Kerry wins but you hope Bush loses? That makes no sense. Would you rather have a President that has a few stances that aren't considered "true Conservative", or a President that tries with all his might to seem like a Conservative in the name of pandering?

Last I checked, there's more than 2 candidates. So, it makes perfect sense.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Last I checked, there's more than 2 candidates. So, it makes perfect sense.

Uh...I am well aware that there are other candidates, but last I checked only two had a chance in hell of winning.

 

[nakedemperor]

Uh...I am well aware that there are other candidates, but last I checked only two had a chance in hell of winning.

Doesn't mean you should abandon your principles merely to vote for someone who "has a chance in hell of winning".

 

[Flying Duck]

Doesn't mean you should abandon your principles merely to vote for someone who "has a chance in hell of winning".

The concept is "pragmatism." Look it up.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Doesn't mean you should abandon your principles merely to vote for someone who "has a chance in hell of winning".

I didn't say anybody should abandon their principles either. I said saying you don't hope Kerry wins but that you hope Bush loses doesn't make much sense.

 

[William Joyce]

You don't hope Kerry wins but you hope Bush loses? That makes no sense.

Neither do our choices for president. My point is that YES, pragmatism is important, and can require sacrificing SOME principle. But Bush presents us with a sacrifice so steep that it cancels whatever pragmatic advantage would come with a vote for Bush.

 

[Flying Duck]

Neither do our choices for president. My point is that YES, pragmatism is important, and can require sacrificing SOME principle. But Bush presents us with a sacrifice so steep that it cancels whatever pragmatic advantage would come with a vote for Bush.

What sacrifice?

The only feasible alternative to Bush is Kerry <-FACT

Kerry certainly won't reduce spending or stimulate the economy more than Bush would.

Kerry won't be harder on immigration.

Kerry does not have the backbone to agressively defend America against terrorism and Islamo-facism. IMO, the most serious issue of thius campaign.

Kerry will not nominate the next SC justices that Bush would. He'll nominate ACLU-type justices to rewrite The Constitution from the bench.

And, we're not electing Bush for life, just four more years so there's a chance for another, more conservative (by my definition) Rep on the ticket in 08.

Do you think Deaniacs will vote for Bush or some indy candidate because they don't like Kerry? NOT! Go see how many you can convert to Bush voters because to them Kerry is a sellout to the center - have fun!

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Getting low on bullshit William? Looks like you're having to trot out the same stuff for an encore presentation.

Repetition does not improve the quality of stupidity.

funny how the liberals all tell us that we are stupid, and uneducated, etc., now they proceed to tell us what a TRUE conservative IS and what we believe....

 

[sagegirl]

From The American Conservative:

Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is
supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of
conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country
that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions
to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the
deficit to be passed on to the nation's children, the ceaseless drive to cut
taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush
sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory
imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his
nation-breaking immigration proposal - Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import
immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can't be
found to do it - and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and
open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.

Being on what side of what issues make you a consevative or a liberal? Cant a person be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Is there really a purist on either side? I'd actually prefer someone with a variety of stances on issues and not beholding to any label. And by the way I think of bush as more of a fiscal liberal and a social conservative.

 

[Flying Duck]

Cant a person be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

Social programs cost money. To a large extent, the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[no1tovote4]

You don't hope Kerry wins but you hope Bush loses? That makes no sense. Would you rather have a President that has a few stances that aren't considered "true Conservative", or a President that tries with all his might to seem like a Conservative in the name of pandering?

It makes perfect sense to me, I don't want Bush to win but I do want Kerry to lose, in fact I want Kerry to lose so badly that I will be pragmatic this election and vote for the other major candidate.

I therefore will hold my nose and cast a vote in favor of Bush even though it is a vote against Kerry more than it is a vote "for" Bush.

 

[Avatar4321]

It makes perfect sense to me, I don't want Bush to win but I do want Kerry to lose, in fact I want Kerry to lose so badly that I will be pragmatic this election and vote for the other major candidate.

I therefore will hold my nose and cast a vote in favor of Bush even though it is a vote against Kerry more than it is a vote "for" Bush.

Works for me. I dont really care why you vote for the President. as long as i dont have to look at Theresa for the next four years or hear the words President Kerry again (If you are wondering about that they had a political debate at school and the Democrats kept refering to him as President Kerry. idiots really they didnt intend to but they are thinking its in the bag)

 

[theim]

Works for me. I dont really care why you vote for the President. as long as i dont have to look at Theresa for the next four years or hear the words President Kerry again (If you are wondering about that they had a political debate at school and the Democrats kept refering to him as President Kerry. idiots really they didnt intend to but they are thinking its in the bag)

I can see the headlines:

WAR IN KOREA
First Lady Teresa Heinz visits North Korea to Spread Peace, tells Kim Jong to Shove it, Incites Regional War

 

[William Joyce]

Kerry certainly won't reduce spending or stimulate the economy more than Bush would.

Kerry won't be harder on immigration.

Kerry does not have the backbone to agressively defend America against terrorism and Islamo-facism. IMO, the most serious issue of thius campaign.

You're probably right about all this, but the difference is this: Kerry won't claim to be a "conservative" while he does all this!

 

[Flying Duck]

You're probably right about all this, but the difference is this: Kerry won't claim to be a "conservative" while he does all this!

So what? I vote for the candidate who is closest to my views.