Posted on 03/18/2004 8:41:52 PM PST by Sabertooth
I'm having trouble understanding quite why some people feel that Bush has "let them down".
My disappointment lies more in the legislature than with President Bush.
I also can't see how voting for anyone else will accomplish any conservative goals..
I don't see how voting for Bush will accomplish any conservative goals. Let them lose an election by a margin smaller than the conservative vote for once.
To change the subject from national to CA, we have no idea if a conservative candidate can win as the GOP consistently puts up a moderate. Even when we had a real conservative in McClintock, I seem to recall the mantra on FR was to vote for Schwarzenegger because he's better than Bustamante. Now it's vote for Bush because he's better than Kerry. When does it stop? When conservatives compromise, the left ALWAYS wins. Maybe in a smaller chunk, but it's always a loss.
As for the war on terror, as soon as 9/11 happened, I was instantly more worried about the measures the feds would take domestically to clamp down than I was about another attack. From where I sit, my worries were completely on-the-mark.
I hope you don't think *I* was "ganging up" on you. I was explaining my position and asking for clarification on yours.
I certainly wasn't trying to sound "intimidating".
You're right, Bush hasn't really let me down -- I didn't expect the world. But he has ended up even further away from protecting my liberties than I expected, and it's a real disappointment.
Yet you feel a need to "punish" Congress by voting against the president? Now I'm really confused!
I don't see how voting for Bush will accomplish any conservative goals.
What do you consider conservative goals?
Again, I certainly don't think Bush has been 100% conservative, but certainly his actions related to taxes, abortion, Kyoto, and the U.N. have advanced conservative positions that wouldn't have been accomplished under a Democrat.
To change the subject from national to CA, we have no idea if a conservative candidate can win as the GOP consistently puts up a moderate.
I'm in Georgia; I don't have a dog in that fight. I'd like to see Herman Cain win Zell Miller's seat, but I expect Johnny Isaakson will because he has better name recognition (even though I think I just misspelled his name).
Now it's vote for Bush because he's better than Kerry. When does it stop? When conservatives compromise, the left ALWAYS wins.
Do you think so? Bush was a moderate, and he just barely won. I think if he'd been much to the right, he'd have lost.
Maybe you should try looking at it from the "glass half full" position rather than the "glass half empty" one: We won, we just didn't win by the margin you'd have liked.
WE STILL WON, but it was a squeaker!
As for the war on terror, as soon as 9/11 happened, I was instantly more worried about the measures the feds would take domestically to clamp down than I was about another attack.
What do you think they should have done, and why do you think they didn't?
I thought they should have closed the borders completely. I think the reasons they didn't were partly economic (lots of Americans doing business abroad & vice versa), perhaps partly political (including people visiting families in other countries, etc.), and partly a matter of practicality - it would be hard to protect every inch of our border. It would have been interesting to see the reaction if they'd tried, however.
Daughter will tell you that I'm the very least of the flame warriors. I could show you the post where she said I wasn't very intimidating, but the thread was pulled. ;-P
As for "only your opinion", if you have the courage of your convictions, are you not willing to convince others of why you're right?
I agree with the points made above that we're probably not going to convince anyone on these boards, but I have friends, neighbors, and coworkers who are moderates and undecided - if honing my arguments on the forum can help me get the facts I need to convince a couple of them in later face-to-face discussions, it's been worthwhile I think.
I have learned that I'm not likely to convince any of them by telling them they are stupid idiots to believe as they do, so I try not to do that. Unfortunately, tone of voice and facial expressions don't come across real well on the forum. ;-)
But he has ended up even further away from protecting my liberties than I expected....
I don't suppose there's a point to asking you specifically what he did to disappoint you so?
Yet you feel a need to "punish" Congress by voting against the president? Now I'm really confused!
It is as you said, he ran as a moderate. Hard to be disappointed by his acting like one. It's not about "punishing" anyone. It's about moving the GOP to the right. Doesn't matter if it's a race for president, senate, house, state, local, or whatever.
Either a candidate who promises to ground his decisions in the bedrock of American Liberty and, for federal officers, the federal Constitution can win, or he can't. I'd like to find out once and for all.
I don't see a lot left to "conserve."
What do you think they should have done, and why do you think they didn't?
They SHOULD have prevented it in the first place. Billions of dollars in intellegence? For what? It's not so much what I think they should have done, it's what they shouldn't. The Department of Homeland Security is a joke, with their Rainbow threat level. Moving BATF from Treasury to Justice? If Clinton had tried that.... More restrictions on banks when opening new accounts? What does a taxpayer identification number on a personal checking account have to do with the War on Terrorism? A background check to get on a plane? Who cares what the person's name is if you strip him of every bit of dignity, and his shoes, before he gets on the plane?
If the next terrorist attack is conducted using private automobiles, I shudder to think what Bush's answer would be. ID checkpoints? Random auto searches?
Forgive me... Hypotheticals get us nowhere.
I want freedom. I want privacy. I want to simply be left alone - especially by government. Perhaps I'm in the wrong country.
Alan Keyes ran as such a candidate in the 2000 primary, but he didn't get very far. If such a candidate can't even come close to winning the GOP nomination, I'd postulate that he won't do well in a general election either.
Please understand that I'm not saying I like the situation, just stating the facts as I see them.
They SHOULD have prevented it in the first place. Billions of dollars in intellegence? For what?....I want freedom. I want privacy. I want to simply be left alone - especially by government.
These statements seem somewhat contradictory to me. What sort of information should they have gathered to have been able to prevent the attacks - and would gathering that information have inconvenienced you or compromised your privacy?
I agree that some of the "anti-terrorism" measures seem rather ridiculous. ON the other hand, I've noticed that Mossad is supposed to have the best intelligence gathering in the world, but even the Israelis find it notoriously difficult to predict and/or prevent suicide attacks.
I want freedom. I want privacy. I want to simply be left alone - especially by government. Perhaps I'm in the wrong country.
Do you not see the contradiction in those two statements? A part of the reason "they" did not prevent 911 was that for the most part you and everyone else was left alone by the government. You would be more intellectually honest asserting that a 911 every now and then is worth the price of you being "left alone".
As long as the intelligence gathered cannot be used as evidence in a case against an American Citizen for anything other than bonafide terrorism, I don't necessarily have a problem with the intelligence agencies doing what intelligence agencies do. The powers shouldn't be abused, of course. There is a difference between intelligence gathering for national defensive purposes and "domestic law enforcement."
Oh, Alan Keyes would have been a step in the right direction but the GOP didn't want to take that chance. Note that when I say GOP, I mean the entire GOP, down to its membership. Keyes' message rang true with many in my circle. Too bad Bush got the nod.
I think a criminal prosecution being thrown out of court due to an unreasonable search is a small price to pay to retain the freedom from such unreasonable searches. Even if the criminal ate little children.
I suppose that can be extrapolated to include your scenario, but I covered that in 250.
I see. Well to each his own.
Well, now, there's the rub. It just all depends on who might be in power at the time, doesn't it?
I think part of the problem with 9/11 is that powers had been reduced because of previous abuses.
Note that when I say GOP, I mean the entire GOP, down to its membership.
That has to be the case, given the primary system.
I'll tell you one thing I'd change if I were in charge, however: I'd have all the primaries on the same day, so that a couple of small, non-representative states combined with the media wouldn't bias the entire process. By the time we get to vote, the media has already pretty well "selected" the candidate for us.
If the criminal ate little children, and the case got thrown out of court, I'm afraid I'd be hoping for a little "frontier justice".
Then, they busted him!
I can always tell myself"Hey,It's better than in 96 when they trotted out Bob Dole."
I really get tired of hearing the oldshut the h&ll up, get in line , and vote Dole!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.