A Few Questions For Die-Hard Bush Supporters

Toogood Reports ^ | June 5, 2002 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[rebelsoldier]

The problem with stupid people blinded by party labels or cults of personality is that in their idiocy by defending, excusing, and apologizing for a SELF-INFLICTED and utterly UNNECESSARY list of concessions, appeasements, surrenders, cave-ins, and betrayals; they simultaneously destroy their own credibility as conservatives along with any hopes of advancing the conservative agenda. In fact, with the list of handovers to the left and Democrats, the conservative agenda has been set so far back that it may never be recoverable for the rest of the century if ever. If Bush, Rove, etc had recorded SOME limited selected concessions in order to achieve the greater goal of advancing the conservative agenda and bringing amenable liberals and Democrats over to OUR side, that would be understandable.

However, this is not at all whatsoever what has been done. Taking a hit or two for the team is political reality, but when we slaughter the team for nothing, then we have utter failure and complete capitulation. When "defeating" one's enemies equals becoming them to do so, that's called political suicide. By party hacks insisting on such hopelessly low standards for success, the conservative cause and its support base becomes thoroughly demoralized and apathetic and results in a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom. It has become clear that the conservative cause was never the objective of this administration. Unless ideology is involved, and conservative ideology at that, I could care less who wins or loses elections.

[afuturegovernor]

I always hope the president of the United States executes his office well. I always hope that the president does the right thing and mades the right decisions. I make no apology for hoping the president does the right thing.

I guess you think that is a vice; I disagree.

As for you choice for president, Ron Paul and Bob Smith have both ran for president before. Paul in 1996 and Smith in 2000. Neither got more than 2% of the vote. Neither could be considered serious presidential candidates to win.

I find your choices of Paul and Smith to be odd. Nearly 25 points seperates their ACU voting records. Both are clearly birds of the different feather and disagree on a great number of issues (see voting record).

That brings me back to my first question: is their anybody who would be a serious presidential candidate that you would support?