Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush
New York Press ^ | September 22-28, 2004 | William Bryk

Posted on 09/22/2004 5:32:31 AM PDT by Dazedcat

Theodore Roosevelt, that most virile of presidents, insisted that, "To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people."...........

(Excerpt) Read more at nypress.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bush43; dramaqueen; moby; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-156 next last
To: hchutch; Poohbah; section9; mhking; BlueLancer; Dazedcat; All
No doubt I'll get flamed out of existence for posting this particular story ... If someone can counter this author and tell me why I should vote again for GWB, feel free.
.

A waste of breath on one whose profile states, "A Republican and a Conservative are two mutually exclusive things....."

101 posted on 09/22/2004 6:49:25 AM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Guard Dog

"She is smart, tough on forgien policy"

She's not even a true conservative on foreign policy. She basically follows the Project for a New American Century line on nation-building, interventionism etc. If I recall correctly she even supported Clinton's idiotic involvement in the former Yugoslavia including "Kosovo".


102 posted on 09/22/2004 6:50:16 AM PDT by Stop_Neocons (Only a fool sticks his hand in a hornet's nest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Polyxene

this is just a moby effort to throw conservatives off balance.

Republicans can survive a Bush loss,

Democrats can not survive a kerry loss.

Imagine how much better the conservatives will be with the grand debates being between conservative majorities.


103 posted on 09/22/2004 6:52:38 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! NOV 2, 2004 is VETERANS DAY! VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: dighton
Well, if nothing else, it at least served to bring our little paleo-LewRockwellian Stop_Neocons out of the woodwork ...

I was going to say "paleo-Buchananite", but even Pat Buchanan has indicated that a Bush administration is better than a Kerry one, so Stop_Neocons falls into a category even lower than a Brigadier.

104 posted on 09/22/2004 6:53:16 AM PDT by BlueLancer (Der Elite Møøsënspåånkængrüppen ØberKømmändø (EMØØK))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Stop_Neocons
I'll bet you say "homicide bomber" too!

You have a problem with the truth?

105 posted on 09/22/2004 7:08:08 AM PDT by mhking ("Honey, WHERE...IS...MY....SUPER SUIT?" --Samuel L. Jackson, "The Incredibles")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BlueLancer; Poohbah
The UberKonservativ purists like to trumpet the dialectical materialism of Josef Stalin when they advocate immediate defeat in order to gain a future victory:
106 posted on 09/22/2004 7:10:28 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
LOL ... thanks for the quote and picture ...

I thought that quoting Hegel was a little strange, but .. hey, who am I to trash someone's heroes?

107 posted on 09/22/2004 7:12:05 AM PDT by BlueLancer (Der Elite Møøsënspåånkængrüppen ØberKømmändø (EMØØK))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: hallertauer99
I'm in complete agreement with this author, but then September 11, 2001 changed everything and changed the Bush Administration.

I hate to say this, but that's really not true at all. The Defense Department under the Bush administration was dominated by a civilian leadership that had been advocating a U.S. invasion of Iraq long before 9/11 -- long before Bush was even elected, in fact.

108 posted on 09/22/2004 7:12:08 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I made enough money to buy Miami -- but I pissed it away on the Alternative Minimum Tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dazedcat
If someone can counter this author and tell me why I should vote again for GWB, feel free.

Bush's faults aside (no, I don't worship at the Crawford altar), a second Bush Administration is the ONLY opportunity that we have this election cycle to make certain that we even have a shot at making positive change.

That possibility will not exist with a Kerry Administration. We will have no voice, nor opportunity to create change. On the contrary, all those things that we have issue with, from immigration/border issues to tax and spend policy will be tossed to the four winds under Kerry.

Of course, that's provided Ketchup Boy doesn't get us all killed first.

109 posted on 09/22/2004 7:12:21 AM PDT by mhking ("Honey, WHERE...IS...MY....SUPER SUIT?" --Samuel L. Jackson, "The Incredibles")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stop_Neocons
Let's give them 4 years of it

So are you saying that you SUPPORT a Kerry presidency?

110 posted on 09/22/2004 7:13:18 AM PDT by mhking ("Honey, WHERE...IS...MY....SUPER SUIT?" --Samuel L. Jackson, "The Incredibles")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dazedcat

"tell me why I should vote again for GWB, feel free."

The choice this election is between Bush and Kerry. There are other minor candidates on some state ballots that are surefire losers. And, yes, you could write in a candidate. Both of these options are tantamount to throwing your vote away at best, and allowing Kerry to win at worst.

Bush may not be your ideal candidate. Candidates never are. Even Reagan had problems. But when you run in a pluralistic and diverse nation that happens to be the leader of the free world you can't run purely on ideology. Pragmatism has to rule the day. Their are unholy alliances that will be made and Hobson's choices to be decided on. As the Rolling Stone's sing "you can't always get what you want, but you get what you need."

Let's look back to 9/11. Imagine if Al Gore was president. He'd get up on his pulpit. Rant and rave. But would he actually do anything other than issue a few subpoena to Al Qaida? Maybe start up a few union based agencies. Saddam would still be in power, paying of homicide bombers in the West Bank, and trying to steal nukes from some Soviet breakaway state, or maybe even China. Do you honestly think Kerry would act differently? They have the same exact mindset that terrorism is a legal matter.

You can vote for whom you like, but only one candidate, George W. Bush, has the record of taking the fight to the terrorists. One one candidate has the record of supporting the troops. Only one candidate has the record of consistently supporting Israel against the terrorists who seek to destroy her. One only candidate has a record of fighting for tax cuts for ALL taxpayers.

In addition to this record, Bush has nominated suburb judges; ones that Kerry has vote to prevent from being seated. By not voting for Bush, you must have great confidence that Kerry will nominate such judges that believe in the text of the Constitution as its written rather than as they want it to be written. If you like the decisions of Ginsburg and Breyer, then vote for Kerry, but don't call yourself a conservative if you do so.

In the end, this election is not about conservatism though. Its about America. One candidate want to preserve our freedoms and way of life, the other thinks we should delegate it to the UN.

The choice is clear. It may not be perfect, but it is clear. If you need to be reminded or educated about this you just are not paying enough attention to events.


111 posted on 09/22/2004 7:13:34 AM PDT by The Hound Passer (Sitting home in protest this Nov is a vote for Kerry and Co.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dazedcat

If your that confused, then I say vote for kerry.
Your either with us or against us!


112 posted on 09/22/2004 7:16:10 AM PDT by JFC (Hate, no, that is what makes us different than them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stop_Neocons

And you think they have learned nothing since then? Dream on.

The West Point classes had been taught that the US was a union of sovereign states. That is not taught anymore.
And keep in mind that the this class SPLIT on the issue. The current classes would probably not split.

Not going to argue it any more. When I was younger and single, it wouldn't have bothered me much. Nowadays, I have MUCH higher priorities that worrying about the Republican candidate not being a real conservative.


113 posted on 09/22/2004 7:17:10 AM PDT by Little Ray (John Ffing sKerry: Just a gigolo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Been there. Conservative or not, troops tend to obey their orders. If ordered to suppress an insurrection or rebellion, they WILL supress it to best of their ability. The first Civil War was bad enough. A civil war with modern weaponry does NOT bear thinking about.

________________

Remember the Bonus Army that marched on Washington during the Depression was fired on by troops led by General MacArthur.


114 posted on 09/22/2004 7:22:02 AM PDT by snakeoil (A+Bert)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Stop_Neocons

Post #106 was meant for any ideologue who says: "Embrace defeat in order to gain victory! Let's all do the Dialectical Materialist Leap!"


115 posted on 09/22/2004 7:24:36 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

Comment #116 Removed by Moderator

To: garbanzo
Why is there a section of the GOP/conservative moment that enjoys being out of power?

That's an excellent point. When you belong to a political party that supports principles that are well-founded in logic, reason, and Constitutional law, it is much easier to function in an opposition role than in a governing one -- because these principles are self-evident and easily defended. There wasn't a more "conservative" era in modern GOP history than the two-year period from 1993-94 when the Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.

117 posted on 09/22/2004 7:27:29 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I made enough money to buy Miami -- but I pissed it away on the Alternative Minimum Tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

Comment #118 Removed by Moderator

To: sittnick

Great post. I've been advocating the "reverse packing" concept ever since the Democrat stonewalling process in judicial nominations began.


119 posted on 09/22/2004 7:28:56 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I made enough money to buy Miami -- but I pissed it away on the Alternative Minimum Tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Dazedcat

Mark Steyn put it much better than I ever could in two articles recently. Search Mark Steyn and you will find the two. first, he lays out the fact that most of the rest of the world really doesn't "get it' about fanatical Islam. They just don't see it for the threat it really is.
In the second, he compares the future (if they are not stopped) with what has happened with Yassar Arafat and the Palestinians.

In the early fifties, I read my first article on Arafat. He was a terrorist/militant leader in Palestine. Over the years, through negotitions, he became a "statesman", finally given place at negotiations with the highest world leaders, being feted in our WH. I believe he spent more nights in the Lincoln bedroom during Clinton's years than any other world leader. While he negotiated, Palestinian terrorism kept going apace, under his aegis. He never kept his word on any of the negotiations.

If the world leaders, as Kerry wants to do, keep negotiating with terrorists, instead of wiping them out in a combined world effort, in 15 or 20 years, maybe sooner, most of Europe is going to have a 20% plus Muslim population demanding and getting a place in govts. While they negotiate, negotiate, negotiate, terrorism will continue apace. The world of John Kerry and the American and European left will keep treating each incident as a criminal one and just keep talking.

Vote for Bush--he gets it! No, he isn't perfect, but he is a good leader for our times. Evil will not go away just because people refuse to fight it and WANT peace. You cannot talk peace into existance.

vaudine


120 posted on 09/22/2004 7:29:15 AM PDT by vaudine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-156 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson