[Lando Lincoln]

Lando

[cateizgr8]

ping

[mrustow]

Sorry, but this guy is preaching to the choir; he has little to say that will impress anyone not already in the choir.

Moreover, the hue and cry over the deficit is only logical if the deficit grows as a percentage of GDP over a period of years.

I heard the same voodoo from Lawrence Kudlow a couple of years ago. Using the GDP instead of the budget as your basis for measuring the deficit (while ignoring the national debt) only makes sense if you are talking about a totalitarian country, in which there is no private property.

Economic recovery can shrink the deficit in a relatively short time -- provided there is no new spending.

Is that an argument for Bush or for Kerry?

A Democrat will give us the worst of both worlds -- higher taxes and higher spending.

He makes two assumptions: a Democrat rather than a Republican will break the economy, and higher taxes and higher spending are the worst of all fiscal worlds. I once would have gone along with him on the first count, however, Bill Clinton was the most niggardly president since Ike. But I never would have fallen for his second claim. Lower taxes and higher spending are the worst of all fiscal worlds, and that's what Bush has given us. (The best of all fiscal worlds is low taxes and low spending).

This guy is hack city.

[Lando Lincoln]

Well, lot’s of stuff here. Not surprisingly, this seems to have fractured into two general camps. That is, those who will vote for GWB and those who won’t. Sure, there are shades of these positions, but this is generally so.

Because people have a desire to argue over who is the real conservative, or who has so-called principles, or who won’t accept others “telling them how to think”, or who first insulted who, I will attempt to refrain from all of that (I hope). I will earnestly try to state what I believe to be true, what my core principles are, and why I will vote for GWB in November. Those who disagree with me can tell me why if they so choose and it is certainly everyone’s right to vote however they wish as Americans.

Those who think I am being “highbrow” or egotistical because of my preamble, I say tough. I have tired of the discourse here and will move on.

I believe that we live in the most perilous times ever. More so than the cold war and more so than the 30’s and 40’s. The reason I believe that is because our nation’s avowed enemies are more unknown, more insidious and more evil than anything we have ever confronted.

More unknown because at least half of our population aren’t even engaged enough to acknowledge that the War on Terror is still real. At best, 9/11 is a distant memory and they now worry about Ben and JLo. Some who are engaged are in denial because of what the left says, of how Kerry and Dean are stumping and because of what our traditional allies are doing to undermine the US on the world stage.

Our enemies are more insidious because, in the finite context, we largely don’t know who they are, where they are, what their next move is or will be, where their next move will happen or what their chosen weapons will be. One individual can kill many – instantly or over time depending upon the chosen weapon. And, to them it does not matter if they are killing babies or even some of their own. The people who are willing to do this are in the shadows – always.

I believe the enemy is more evil than anything we have faced because they want nothing less than our apocalyptic destruction. To them, this is the most holy, most sacred thing they can accomplish. Our, I’ll say it again, apocalyptic destruction is ordained by their god. As long as any of them breathe, their sole purpose is to take the oxygen from our lungs – every last one of us. I believe and instinctively know this. So, my most compelling, overreaching principle is I want a leader at the helm who also knows this. For me, George W. Bush has been unwavering in his commitment on the WOT – immigration proposals or government spending notwithstanding. If you think that makes me a shill for GWB so be it. But let’s remember this, for his presidency to survive, for the republican party to survive, he must make inroads into the traditional groups that vote overwhelmingly democratic. If this presidency doesn’t survive the available alternatives send a chill up my spine.

GWB has taken political risk that only a precious few presidents have ever contemplated. He has done so to confront the evil I referenced earlier. Does anyone think that a Kerry, or a Dean, or a Hillary would do so? Hell, Kerry wants to cede control of our military to the UN! GWB thumbed Uncle Sam’s nose at the UN and made it better in doing so. Our military actions, along with the coalition we put in place startled the UN beyond words. Almost like Libya, Iran, North Korea and others. Democracy WILL spring up in Iraq – at the epicenter of the Middle East cesspool. Why? Because of GWB and his willingness to confront evil (and let’s not forget Tony Blair! – God Save the Queen!).

There are other compelling reasons why I will vote for GWB. I have not forgotten the Clinton administration with its lies and deceit – it’s sell out to China, its focus groups to establish policy, its pandering and fear mongering, its sleaziness. The cultural war is real and poses a huge threat – also very insidiously. Think about your civics lessons and the balance of power in our government (ok, I know they don’t do that anymore). But do we want an expansion of activist judges on the Supreme Court or other federal benches? It will happen if GWB loses this election.

Now, let me risk it all and get corny for a second. I saw the movie Secondhand Lions recently with my family. Great family flick. Anyway, at a certain point, Uncle Tug played by Robert Duvall gives Walter a lecture on what it means to be a man. Uncle Tug said every good man has four qualities. Honor. Courage. Virtue. And the ability to love. Corny, "touchy-feely"? Absolutely. And, this has been far too long already. But I ask you to honestly assess those qualities to Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Dean, Clark or even Edwards. For me, it is no contest.

I will vote for GWB. I owe it to me and my family.

I’ve spent more time writing this than I can afford. To those who say, “what a preachy bastard”, I say sorry. For those who will not vote for GWB on some self-perceived principle, I ask you reconsider. For those who find this “essay” valuable, I will only say…it was my pleasure.

Lando

[kuma]

Let's have a serious discussion.

I'm a registered Independent but I consider myself to be conservative idealogically. I am also a Christian and could most definately be accused of being "fringe". I also voted for Bush in 2000 because he advertised himself to conservative Christian voters.

Most of the posts on this thread from both sides is hyperbole but I do have my suspicions that there are many Republicans and(Karl Rove? is the one I hear most about) that would like to dump the conservative Christian voters into the ocean and watch them drown.

One of the key reasons I have considered for voting for Bush again is the military. I was in the Army (I got out in `95) during the Clinton years and it was Horrible. I would hate to think of what it would be like to be one of those soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan to hear the announcement that Kerry won the election.

Now here is my question. If they don't want my vote why should I give it to them? I guess what I want is someone to explain why the Bush administration is wanting to dump conservative Christian voters. Anyone care to explain?

[Tamzee]

Found the following at this site: http://www.ronleon.com/bush/bush.html

Pray for Peace. Pray for Guidance.

[Hank Rearden]

Bush obviously has no interest whatsoever in limited, much-less-intrusive government. I won't vote for Big Stupid Government professional politicians of any stripe.

[Cacique]

btt

[Cacique]

btt

[Little Ray]

I think you have a bad case of battered Conservative syndrome.

President Bush has spent like a drunken sailor (with apologies to sailors) and otherwise abandoned his conservative constituency with things like the "not quite an amnesty amnesty" and promising to sign the AWB if it gets to his desk.

Like his father, he DESERVES to lose.

When I touch the screen for Bush, it won't be because he earned my vote, but because I'm voting against Kerry or whoever. I won't be happy, but I'll do it.

[FreeInWV]

Now see what you caused.

All of this talk would be immensely valuable to a DNC operative or powerful liberal bent on molding our society. The DNC operative will look at this thread and enumerate the topics that will cause some republicans to stay home on election day. Now they can manipulate Bush into signing left leaning legislation (like the AW ban) and alienating these "principled republicans".

Karl Rove might be reading this thread right now, creating strategy on how to pick up more liberal independents without alienating the base. If so, he knows that he can move the center of the political spectrum to the left without any grief from the bushbots. Posters have created a long list of topics that Bushbots could care less about. Ol' Karl could suggest any immigration amnesty, gun control, tax increase, welfare increase, social spending increase or trade law, knowing that the bushbots will fully support him no matter what. Any "principled republicans" that stay home should be offset by left leaning independents and new Hispanic citizens won over by the entitlement programs. Karl can keep on suggesting more rights infringement and domestic surveillance until the Patriot Act has more numbers after it than a Freddy Kreuger movie (e.g., Patriot Act XIV).

Any way you slice it, the Republican Party is drifting to the left. Someone needs to decide either to anchor it in place, or let it go.

[Bella_Bru]

Ping-a-ling

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

Good post. Unfortunately, the liberals have their act together, and the conservatives...so called conservatives...come off looking like a bunch of dumbasses, if you pardon my french. It's all about power, folks, and if y'all were as smart as you'd like to think you are, I wouldn't have to explain it. What do you get when conservatives bash each other over the heads about their 1 or 2 pet issues while the liberals stay cohesive?

It's called Canada.

And you idiots, it won't make a damn bit of differance what you think because the people you want to vote for A) dont exist and B) the closest imitator has no chance in hell of winning. Therefore, vote for your hearts content knowing you will make no difference whatsoever except to keep liberals in power.

And yeah, Clinton was NO different than GHWB lol...dumbasses. What else do you call people who stomp their feet and demand to get 100% of what they want from a candidate who has 0% chance of winning over someone they can get 33% from who has 75% chance of winning.

[ableChair]

I know I'm going to get flamed for this but here goes...

I've been thinking about these very issues for many years now. I believe the problem lies with culture, not government per se. But having written that, it is precisely the weakness of a democratic republic that culture can be willfully bent and shaped by the power-hungry. I think that is exactly what has happened to this country. Many moons ago, the Royal Family of England made comments to this effect; that is, that the very nature of a democratic republic is it's weakness. Once people realize how much influence they can collectively have on policy, and after generations and generations of cultural bending in the right (or, wrong!) direction, the citizens become more and more selfish. Indeed, the culture to which we are evolving is most powerfully characterized with the trait of selfishness. No longer does anyone believe in anything greater than themselves; in duty, honor and country. It's all about me, me, me. Liberalism is two sides of a counterfeit coin. On the one side you have those opportunists that use it to seize and hold power (and it can lead to LOTS of power; read the USSR) and those that buy into the nonsense because they are selfish. Though they may empathize with other selfish people, at bottom they are only self-interested brats. That's really all you need to know about liberalism because that's all it is.

In light of that, I'm coming to the sad conclusion that a democratic republic won't last long: Given enough time for sociopathic power freaks to bend the culture, you will always end up with a broken, dysfunctional society and ultimate collapse of a nation. My solution would be to keep the Fundamental Law we already have and add one more Article to it; an article creating a national Church with apostolic Bishops (because they'll stick to scripture - as they've pretty much done for 2'000 years - note that the pope still rejects homosexuality) who name their own successors. The Church would be legally independent of the government and the Constitution would remain the supreme law of the land, but the caveat is that you must be a member of the church in good standing to vote in any election. This would put an end to the culture bending that has politicians cow-towing to a constituency that sounds like a bunch of spoiled brats begging for a hand out or special treatment. It is also similar to the arrangement that was set up in the original 13 colonies; to wit, the colony of Massachusetts by the Puritans. If you want to vote, go to church. If you're a homosexual, murderer or espouse deviant or destructive lifestyles, rest assured the Bishops will ex-communicate you and the politicians will not bother trying to cow-tow to you. The culture may bend, but the constituency will remain 'pure'. Indeed, it would eliminate the incentive of special interests, hollywood and other destructive interests to try to change the culture in the first place. If your conscience dictates some other church or no church at all, fine, you can do that, but you still better work with your priest to remain a member of the National Church in good standing and PROVE that you're not a deviant. If you're ex-communicated you're no longer a politicians constitutent. If politicians don't care what you think - since you don't vote - then your ideas have little influence on government policy. Problem solved.

I think if I were a devout Baptist this would be a small price to pay for my country and it's posterity. Ironically, it is precisely due to culture bending that most people are aghast when you suggest anything that even hints of theocracy. Too sad. But if anyone has a better idea of how to at least slow down culture bending I would love to hear, that's just the best idea I've come up with so far. In short, Bush's hands are tied because the culture has changed out from under him. THAT's the real problem.

[nutmeg]

ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

[nutmeg]

ping!