The American Conservative

[Bullypulpit]

<blockquote>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...

...George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support.</blockquote>

This is the voice of the true conservative...Thoughtful...measured...Wholly lacking the strident braying of the the neo-conservatives...And thoroughly disgusted with the antics of the Bush administration.

Mr. McConnell is correct in his assessment of the Administration, and I believe him to be correct in his assessment of the situation should Bush go down to defeat or be elected, and equally correct about Dubbyuh's unworthiness to hold the office of POTUS. For the full text, go <a href=http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html><b>HERE</b></a>.

 

[nakedemperor]

Good article, Bully.

I posted an article for Slate by a Republican conservative last week about George Bush and conservatism-- you should check it out.

 

[Avatar4321]

Come on you guys. You really think any real Conservative could possibly vote for John Kerry? You think any real conservative would possibly give the most liberal senator in the Senate a chance to nominate liberal activist judges to the Supreme Court? That alone would set Conservatism back a century.

Tell me why the heck i should believe one word this guy is saying. I mean the guy wont even acknowledge our allies assisting us in Iraq.

Once again its amazing that you guys are trying to tell us what a real conservative us. I think we know what conservatism is better than you guys do.

 

[theim]

Whatever. For every Republican who likes Kerry, I can name a Dem who likes Bush.

 

[wolvie20m]

theim I love you avatar, I agree with you also it seems in this election sides are a changin'.

 

[Avatar4321]

theim I love you avatar, I agree with you also it seems in this election sides are a changin'.

911 was a major event. its bound to cause some party realignments.

 

[007]

How much of his party does Koch speak for? We won't know for sure until Election Day, when exit polls help gauge how many Democrats crossed party lines to support Bush. But Koch knows he's not the only Democrat to regard the war against militant Islam as the most critical issue of the campaign. And he doesn't think he was the only one dismayed by what he saw at the Democratic convention in July.

From Michael Moore's seat of honor next to Jimmy Carter, to the thunderous applause that greeted Howard Dean, to the 9 out of 10 delegates who want to pull the plug on Iraq, the convention exposed the radical antiwar mindset that dominates the Democratic Party leadership.

But hasn't Kerry pledged to stay in Iraq and to go after the terrorists? "That's what he says to appeal to moderates and conservatives during the campaign," Koch replies. But the party activists who nominated him would compel him to back down once he was in office. The people now running the Democratic Party want no part of the war, and "when the chips are down, Kerry will do what they want."

It bears repeating: This is a faithful Democrat talking. And it is as a faithful Democrat that Koch so sharply resists his party's left wing. ("The radicals don't like me," he once wrote. "And they have good reason, because I despise them.") Though he calls himself a "liberal with sanity," he governed the largest city in America as a decided centrist. Twice he was reelected in massive landslides. New Yorkers came to trust Koch's instincts and judgment because they resonated so closely with their own.

http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/2004/08/more-jewish-liberals-for-bush.html

 

[Bullypulpit]

Come on you guys. You really think any real Conservative could possibly vote for John Kerry? You think any real conservative would possibly give the most liberal senator in the Senate a chance to nominate liberal activist judges to the Supreme Court? That alone would set Conservatism back a century.

Tell me why the heck i should believe one word this guy is saying. I mean the guy wont even acknowledge our allies assisting us in Iraq.

Once again its amazing that you guys are trying to tell us what a real conservative us. I think we know what conservatism is better than you guys do.

If you read the article, you would have noted that the author AND the magazine would stand in opposition to a Kerry administration.

 

[Bullypulpit]

How much of his party does Koch speak for? We won't know for sure until Election Day, when exit polls help gauge how many Democrats crossed party lines to support Bush. But Koch knows he's not the only Democrat to regard the war against militant Islam as the most critical issue of the campaign. And he doesn't think he was the only one dismayed by what he saw at the Democratic convention in July.

From Michael Moore's seat of honor next to Jimmy Carter, to the thunderous applause that greeted Howard Dean, to the 9 out of 10 delegates who want to pull the plug on Iraq, the convention exposed the radical antiwar mindset that dominates the Democratic Party leadership.

But hasn't Kerry pledged to stay in Iraq and to go after the terrorists? "That's what he says to appeal to moderates and conservatives during the campaign," Koch replies. But the party activists who nominated him would compel him to back down once he was in office. The people now running the Democratic Party want no part of the war, and "when the chips are down, Kerry will do what they want."

It bears repeating: This is a faithful Democrat talking. And it is as a faithful Democrat that Koch so sharply resists his party's left wing. ("The radicals don't like me," he once wrote. "And they have good reason, because I despise them.") Though he calls himself a "liberal with sanity," he governed the largest city in America as a decided centrist. Twice he was reelected in massive landslides. New Yorkers came to trust Koch's instincts and judgment because they resonated so closely with their own.

http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/2004/08/more-jewish-liberals-for-bush.html

He obviously doesn't speak for right-wingnuts such as yourself.

 

[Merlin1047]

He obviously doesn't speak for right-wingnuts such as yourself.

You just can't stand it, can you? You get a polite and thoughtful response and the best you can come up with in rebuttal is a dismissive, smart-ass, juvenile one-liner. You accomplish nothing with your arrogance other than to reveal yourself as a close-minded fanatic.

Any true conservative can criticize Pres. Bush for pursuing policies which are anything but conservative. Republicans have strayed from their core philosophy because they know they cannot retain power if they run on the policies of true conservatism. That may be distasteful to many of us, but that is pragmatism. Rather a president less conservative than the ideal than a president who will make Clinton look conservative.

Anyone who suggests that Bush's lack of conservatism is a reason to vote for kerry is so grossly lacking in judgement that they must be related to you.

 

[Shattered]

You just can't stand it, can you? You get a polite and thoughtful response and the best you can come up with in rebuttal is a dismissive, smart-ass, juvenile one-liner. You accomplish nothing with your arrogance other than to reveal yourself as a close-minded fanatic.

**SIGH**

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Merlin1047 again.

You simply MUST stop making so much sense.

 

[William Joyce]

Editorials like McConnell's are one of just a couple of things keeping me from slashing my wrists. Thank God, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Odin and Moses for The American Conservative. I LOVE that magazine. Real conservatism is tough for the neocons to hack, because they never believed in conservatism to begin with --- they believed in globalism for us and localism for Israel. They believed in a strong Israel and a weak America. And pretended to be "patriots" about it. Assholes like David Frum (a Canadian Jew, btw) ran around calling REAL patriots like Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis "unpatriotic" because they didn't support war for Israel. Frum is a bum. He don't care about America --- he just likes its doggy style.

Folks, the truth is that neocons took over conservatism for one reason and one reason only: that is currently the side of the political spectrum that can be convinced to use military force. THAT'S ALL THEY WANTED. They do not care about values, about heritage, about folkways, about blood or soil (unless that soil is just off the Mediterranean).

Thank God people are waking up to who they really are.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Editorials like McConnell's are one of just a couple of things keeping me from slashing my wrists. Thank God, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Odin and Moses for The American Conservative. I LOVE that magazine. Real conservatism is tough for the neocons to hack, because they never believed in conservatism to begin with --- they believed in globalism for us and localism for Israel. They believed in a strong Israel and a weak America. And pretended to be "patriots" about it. Assholes like David Frum (a Canadian Jew, btw) ran around calling REAL patriots like Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis "unpatriotic" because they didn't support war for Israel. Frum is a bum. He don't care about America --- he just likes its doggy style.

Folks, the truth is that neocons took over conservatism for one reason and one reason only: that is currently the side of the political spectrum that can be convinced to use military force. THAT'S ALL THEY WANTED. They do not care about values, about heritage, about folkways, about blood or soil (unless that soil is just off the Mediterranean).

Thank God people are waking up to who they really are.

You're so full of it, William. We cannot be isolationists anymore. Globalism is the future, like it or not, it's either us or the U.N. take your pick. Being left alone is not an option.

 

[William Joyce]

That depends on what you mean by "isolationist." The word has been turned into a pejorative by the Zionistas, usually because it means 1) not fighting Hitler, even when he doesn't threaten America, 2) not fighting Arabs, even when they don't threaten America. In other words, an "isolationist" is someone who thinks America's interests, not the Jews', should come first. You might also call that "common sense" or "patriotism" or "non-stupidity" or "savvy" or "wisdom."

If you mean, America must maintain its political and economic relationships in such a way as to secure our peace and prosperity, of course I agree with you.

Crikes, if you want "isolationism," try fighting a war on Iraq that NOBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD THOUGHT WAS A GOOD IDEA. That's "isolating" yourself, for fuck's sake. The neocons can decry "isolationism" but advocate unilateral pre-emptive wars at the same time without blinking. They want the U.S. to unilaterally pull out of the U.N. (I do too), but don't you think THAT could be considered "isolationist"?

There is a way to arrange our political and economic affairs with the rest of the world in a wise and prudent way. We should do that.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That depends on what you mean by "isolationist." The word has been turned into a pejorative by the Zionistas, usually because it means 1) not fighting Hitler, even when he doesn't threaten America, 2) not fighting Arabs, even when they don't threaten America. In other words, an "isolationist" is someone who thinks America's interests, not the Jews', should come first. You might also call that "common sense" or "patriotism" or "non-stupidity" or "savvy" or "wisdom."

If you mean, America must maintain its political and economic relationships in such a way as to secure our peace and prosperity, of course I agree with you.

Crikes, if you want "isolationism," try fighting a war on Iraq that NOBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD THOUGHT WAS A GOOD IDEA. That's "isolating" yourself, for fuck's sake. The neocons can decry "isolationism" but advocate unilateral pre-emptive wars at the same time without blinking. They want the U.S. to unilaterally pull out of the U.N. (I do too), but don't you think THAT could be considered "isolationist"?

There is a way to arrange our political and economic affairs with the rest of the world in a wise and prudent way. We should do that.

You've lost it man. I believe Hitler was a threat to us. I believe terrorism a threat to us. And I believe Saddam had deep connections to terrorism. The war is a valid U.S. interest. You just hate jews so much you've lost all objectivity.

 

[William Joyce]

I think it's more accurate to say that you're so blind to their influence that you are not capable of a rational assessment of the situation. How was Hitler a threat to the U.S.? How was Iraq a threat to the U.S.? William F. Buckley, Jr., father of mainstream conservatism, said they were no threat. Tucker Carlson said it. Every day, another mainstream conservo says it. God, even Paul Wolfowitz, your big hero, said "WMD's were just a pretext." For frick's sake, man, what's it gonna take? You're like those liberals who, at the end of the Clinton administration, continued to stick by Clinton and deny that he was an unprincipled liar. EVERYONE ELSE WAS FORCED TO ADMIT IT. Because it was true.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think it's more accurate to say that you're so blind to their influence that you are not capable of a rational assessment of the situation. How was Hitler a threat to the U.S.? How was Iraq a threat to the U.S.? William F. Buckley, Jr., father of mainstream conservatism, said they were no threat. Tucker Carlson said it. Every day, another mainstream conservo says it. God, even Paul Wolfowitz, your big hero, said "WMD's were just a pretext." For frick's sake, man, what's it gonna take? You're like those liberals who, at the end of the Clinton administration, continued to stick by Clinton and deny that he was an unprincipled liar. EVERYONE ELSE WAS FORCED TO ADMIT IT. Because it was true.

Hitler was in an alliance with Japan, who had attacked us. germany was already taking over half the world.

WMD was never the only reason given, you just sound like another irrational lib, joyce. Sad.

 

[William Joyce]

No? WMD was the exact reason given by Bush.

Here's some of the REAL deal on Pearl Harbor:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p431_Lutton.html

 

[Bullypulpit]

You just can't stand it, can you? You get a polite and thoughtful response and the best you can come up with in rebuttal is a dismissive, smart-ass, juvenile one-liner. You accomplish nothing with your arrogance other than to reveal yourself as a close-minded fanatic.

Any true conservative can criticize Pres. Bush for pursuing policies which are anything but conservative. Republicans have strayed from their core philosophy because they know they cannot retain power if they run on the policies of true conservatism. That may be distasteful to many of us, but that is pragmatism. Rather a president less conservative than the ideal than a president who will make Clinton look conservative.

Anyone who suggests that Bush's lack of conservatism is a reason to vote for kerry is so grossly lacking in judgement that they must be related to you.

Sorry, It's just my diminished expectations again.

 

[007]

Sorry, It's just my diminished expectations again.

And you continue with another adolesant, "I know you are but what am I" one liner.

It's evident to me by now pulit, that you like to drop your liberal diatribe articles in here and then sit back and watch how big of a ripple they make. But as soon as someone makes a legitimate arguement against one of your liberal turds you drop, you have nothing more to say other than some tepid little smartass, bull shit, comment. It speaks volumes about what and who you are. Number one, you have no debate skills at all. All you can do is search the web for liberal crap, post it here, and then sit back and watch. As soon as it's picked apart, you start with your crap. You are as shallow as a two hour old puddle of dog piss.

Get a life.