Replies

What's an ultrapurist?

Someone who doesn't want a president who will refuse to shake out the Clintonista filth in the DoD, CIA, and FBI in time to prevent 9/11?

Someone who doesn't want to have a president pardoning 10 million criminal invaders and destroying the nation and rule of law?

Someone who wants a president that might actually side with Scalia and challenge the emergence of "comparativism" in the Federal courts?

Someone who might actually understand why the ICC must be resisted, as opposed to just making sure nothing stood in the way of transforming the ME?

Someone who wants a president that won't refuse to wage war on the only real threat from the Axis of Evil -- North Korea, because China resists action. While his uncle and brother are making too much money from the bloody butcher of Beijing and his son -- in a semiconductor equipment initiative that the CRS and DoD have declared to be a national security threat? The Dems and Commerce were penetrated by Ziang Zemin's spies (he was, and still is, head of the Chinese Military Commission -- chief warlord after all), so now Neil Bush gets to peddle influence and get, like Prescott, unusual wavers from Commerce for sensitive technologies previously embargoed?

Someone who wants a White House that won't hesitate to seal off Tora Bora and end the war?

Someone who wants a White House that won't side with bellicose tyrants in Beijing against the right of a free nation (Taiwan) to express its desire to defend itself? -- and thus go down in infamy alongside his treacherous father who offered the infamous "Chicken Kiev" speech castigating "suicidal nationalism" -- at the very moment of the greatest triumph of nationalism and republican ideals in the history of mankind (after our glorious revolution, of course)!

Someone who doesn't want a White House foreign policy run by a foreign policy Tsar, Condoleeza Rice, who openly proclaimed her support for wiping out Western Civilization reading from the core curriculum at Stanford, and challenges Sam Huntington's thesis about a "Clash of Civilizations" to promote what she calls "global culture," embracing her fantasy of "Islam," and globalist revolution abroad ("spreading democracy in the ME").

Someone who wants anyone, PLEASE, who won't throw $87B into the blowing sands of Iraq (UTTERLY WASTED)?

Someone who wants a White House that will actually support semiconductor research subsidies, instead of cutting them (see above for the likely reason behind the very unusual move), in an era when spending like drunken sailors is the norm?

Someone who wants a White House that might have a sense of balance on domestic spending (threat of a real conservative challenging them in a future election on spending and taxing policies)?

Someone who wants a WH that won't kiss up to Teddy Kennedy, like Bush did when advancing the education plan?

Someone who wants a White House that won't advocate $5K GRANTS to minorities (HOUSING SOCIALISM) to help them buy houses and then pull back quickly, and quietly -- hoping no one would notice (few did), to propose a vague no-go targeted tax cut.

Someone who doesn't want a White House that will declare war and then fight police actions? War, as Clausewitz pointed out, is about targeting the "will" of the enemy -- here the institutions that foment new recruits faster than our global cops can pick them off. We are not fighting a real war. A real war would see regional campaigns to redraw the maps of the world and the utter annihilation of the institutions advancing radical Islam (not just picking off the MINOR axis powers).

Someone who wants a WH willing to wage war on the institutions backing radical Islam (Saudi and Pakistan) -- insteading of embracing "Islam"? Yes, maybe GHWB and brother Neil might no longer get $300K payoffs for speeches in Saudi, but hey, sacrifices have to be made.

Someone who doesn't want the White House to compromise to get "fast-track" authority to ram through an expansion of NAFTA and get what promises to be a massive new SOCIALIST entitlement for wage stabilization/subsidies called "wage insurance?"

The panty-waisters are in the White House..."Compassionate conservatism" is Christian Socialism, pandering to warlords in China, and global democratic revolution at the tip of multi-cultural bayonets (an American Liberal version of the Brezhnev Doctrine).

Real leaders would not hesitate to deal with the North Korean crisis NOW!

Real leaders would not scheme to see James Otis, John Adams, and all of the patriots of old roll over in their graves to give up the 4th Amendment simply because they don't have the guts to enforce VISA law!

The White House is putting real Americans in a very difficult spot -- by design. They seem to think we would never vote for a Democrat. Of course, NEVER for a "Liberal" of the Clintonista mold. Kerry, never. Dean, never. Lieberman, never. However, there is still one outcome the WH seems to have failed to factor in -- massive numbers of Republicans (even in that 49% support column) can still vote -- none of the above. Indeed, that is my prediction: for every one Hispanic vote he gets with his amnesty gimmick, 2 Republicans will stay away from the polls or vote for a third-party candidate. The surprise of this election might be the rise of a third-party candidate from the sub-basement to the basement (marginal, but still enough to make a difference with the popular vote spread so narrow these days).

The White House is putting real Americans in a very difficult spot -- by design. They seem to think we would never vote for a Democrat. Of course, NEVER for a "Liberal" of the Clintonista mold. Kerry, never. Dean, never. Lieberman, never. However, there is still one outcome the WH seems to have failed to factor in -- massive numbers of Republicans (even in that 49% support column) can still vote -- none of the above.

Exactly.

I agree with 80-90% of your assessment. Probably, I fit your definition of "ultrapurist" more than any other...

Ironic- up until the 1992 election, I would have been arguing the same things as the other Bush-supporters, using the same rationales...

But the problem is that the system is rigged, and relies on people thinking only to the level of such arguments, and never further... Realistically, there are no fundamental differences in the candidates to be the next dope to sit in the White House. In every way that matters, there are no real differences. Actions do speak louder than words. Bush may have an "R" behind his name, but it's a little "r." And judging by his actions as of late, I'm reminded of two quotes:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."
--Theodore Roosevelt

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."
--Marcus Tullius Cicero 42B.C.

What Bush proposes, is by definition, nothing less than treason.