What is the Facination with George W. Bush? (ZOT!!! Let's be more creative, shall we?)

[Mind_of_Adam_Smith]

As a long-time conservative, a Viet Nam veteran, lifetime Christian, and as someone with an inquisitive mind, I need to understand why George Bush was chosen to carry the banner of Conservatism?

[Mind_of_Adam_Smith]

I am sure this is blasphemy to some, and to others it marks me as a 'troll'. Either way, I am looking for a lucid discussion about this subject. As a long-time conservative, a Viet Nam veteran, lifetime Christian, and as someone with an inquisitive mind, I need to understand why George Bush was chosen to carry the banner of Conservatism?

Let me state my case, and then limit my question to two parts.

My case is this: While I voted for Reagan and GHW Bush, I did not vote for George W. in either election; thank goodness in California there is the Libertarian Party! My first choice was the decorated war veteran Sen. John McCain, but George W's smear campaign against him eliminated that option. Then, in the last four years, he has run up a national debt that is both scandalous and ruinous. Finally, he once again disingeniously participated in smearing a decorated war veteran. My medals are far less valorous than either McCain's or Kerry's, but even their modest accomplishment was tarnished- as were those of all Viet Nam vets- when the President participated in the defamation- all this from a man who, as was discovered in the last election, specifically requested NOT to serve in the war zone.

For me, conservatism has focused on two primary goals: fiscal responsibility and limited federal involvement in our lives.

When the President took office the federal government's books were balanced- and, I might add, they had been balanced by a Democrat. While 9/11 certainly had an incredible financial impact on our nation, the President borrowed huge amounts of money for tax cuts. Borrowing the money for prosecution of the Afghanistan War and for the new expenses in shoring up homeland security were ominous enough.

My second concern is the encroachment of state's rights through advocacy of banned abortions and gay marriage. My first introduction to this site was through this question, and my family and I were villified as drug-abusing homosexuals given to beastiality, and that all of California would soon look like Ground Zero. To me, this is not a religious argument- it asks the secular question about infringing on the rights of the state and, by induction, the rights of the individual. My position, as stated by Barry Goldwater in 1960, and one that I have carried as my mantra since then, is that any power given up by the state to the federal government reduces my personal freedom.

I would appreciate meaningful secular answers to these questions.

[denydenydeny]

[NeoCaveman]

When the President took office the federal government's books were balanced- and, I might add, they had been balanced by a Democrat. While 9/11 certainly had an incredible financial impact on our nation, the President borrowed huge amounts of money for tax cuts. Borrowing the money for prosecution of the Afghanistan War and for the new expenses in shoring up homeland security were ominous enough.

OK you voted for Reagan twice and don't like tax cuts but rather the balanced budget at all costs of Hoover?

My second concern is the encroachment of state's rights through advocacy of banned abortions and gay marriage. My first introduction to this site was through this question, and my family and I were villified as drug-abusing homosexuals given to beastiality, and that all of California would soon look like Ground Zero. To me, this is not a religious argument- it asks the secular question about infringing on the rights of the state and, by induction, the rights of the individual. My position, as stated by Barry Goldwater in 1960, and one that I have carried as my mantra since then, is that any power given up by the state to the federal government reduces my personal freedom.

You are right in that you are a libertarian. Feel free to keep voting for those liberteens.

[bondserv]

You live in a world in which I am not familiar with.

[Poser]

Could this be a Troll?

[trussell]

Pinging a few people who might be able to answer your questions.

[NeoCaveman]

How does a libertarian support Mr. CFR, Keating 5, Global warming believing, Gun banning, infringing on all our rights McCain. If he was the Republican candidate I'd consider third parties and maybe (as last resort) even vote Democrat.

[EggsAckley]

Saw this a while ago. Not enough time to reply.

Better things to do....like..........JUMP AND SHOUT.....THE NINERS FINALLY WON ONE !!!

[trussell]

LOL...is this you?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

My second concern is the encroachment of state's rights through advocacy of banned abortions...

So you support Roe v. Wade?

But how? For that surely was a major encroachment of state's rights by removing their ability to ban abortion if they wished.

[denydenydeny]

My second concern is the encroachment of state's rights through advocacy of banned abortions and gay marriage

This is exactly like objecting to the Thirteenth Amendment because it interfered with interstate commerce.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

My first choice was the decorated war veteran Sen. John McCain,

So you like people who smear their fellow vets as John McCain did?

How interesting.

[Viking2002]

Your post is such a target-rich environment, I don't know where to begin.......

[bad company]

I need to understand why George Bush was chosen to carry the banner of Conservatism?

WTF are you talking about?

[brad76]

How do you feel about the libertarian party wasting taxpayer's money on a recount in Ohio.

[tet68]

You might want to rethink your position on George W.Bush
"smearing" Kerry, he never did and continually said he
respected Kerry's service.

[MEG33]

You are misinformed.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

My medals are far less valorous than either McCain's or Kerry's, but even their modest accomplishment was tarnished- as were those of all Viet Nam vets- when the President participated in the defamation-

How curious. Because George W. Bush did no such thing. You are not building a very good case for yourself so far.

Perhaps you should do a little fact checking and get back to us once you are back on planet reality.

[OSHA]

When the President took office the federal government's books were balanced- and, I might add, they had been balanced by a Democrat. While 9/11 certainly had an incredible financial impact on our nation, the President borrowed huge amounts of money for tax cuts. Borrowing the money for prosecution of the Afghanistan War and for the new expenses in shoring up homeland security were ominous enough.

Sounds more like the Mind_of_Dan_Rather. Where do you get your news/information?

[stands2reason]

Finally, he once again disingeniously participated in smearing a decorated war veteran. My medals are far less valorous than either McCain's or Kerry's, but even their modest accomplishment was tarnished- as were those of all Viet Nam vets- when the President participated in the defamation- all this from a man who, as was discovered in the last election, specifically requested NOT to serve in the war zone.

Awww, jeez....This is BS..

You might want to try getting your news from other sources than the NYT.