How does indirectly electing John F. Kerry to the office of President of the United States advance the cause of conservatism?
And no, this conservative is NOT happy at the turn of events. This conservative SUPPORTS Bush on immigration policy. Government spending isn't a big deal to me.
You asked Poohbah if he'd run into either unappeasables or had a history with "unfriendly conservatives" in the past. Well, I can't speak for him, although I do remember he has recounted some past experiences on this forum.
For me, it was John Warner backstabbing Ollie North that has me questioning ANYONE who would take action that would directly or indirectly elect a liberal. I will note that Senator Warner has NOT received my vote in the past two elections for Senate - I wrote Ollie in both times. Should Warner run for re-election, I will do the same.
That's my experience. And I see no reason why I should hold those who profess to be conservative to any less of a standard than I am holding Senator Warner to. If that causes you difficulty, so be it.
I'm not going to let people act childish and indirectly elect liberals. Particularly when you read what their national security positions are (the link is from Hugh Hewitt's Weekly Standard article):
http://64.177.207.201/pages/8_470.html
How does indirectly electing John F. Kerry to the office of President of the United States advance the cause of conservatism?That depends on which cause of conservatism you're referring to. If it's spending, immigration, and entitlements that you're referring to there's little doubt that a Republican Congress would be far more likely to block liberal policies when they're proposed by a Democrat than they are when a Republican such as Bush proposes them.
In terms of national security and social issues, I would imagine that it would not advance the cause of conservatism (to be exact, neoconservatism in the former case).