If not Bush, then who?

12-28-2003 | agitate

[Agitate]

I've noticed several threads where people say they will not vote for Bush if he supports certain causes. Some include:

Memogate:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1045476/posts

Broad Amnesty in immigration:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1046165/posts

(Please don't see this as an attack on those threads or any comments in them, it's not.)

While I agree with the conservative position on both of these threads, I don't understand how a person could not vote for Bush even if he does some things that are inexplicable from a conservative point of view.

My belief is nothing could be worse than a democrat in office in 2004. I know that is the lesser of two evils vote, but it is true.

Even if Bush gave amnesty to immigrants to pander to hispanics, which would be disgusting, is that reason enough to allow a democrat a greater chance to get in office? Wouldn't the dems likely do worse?

[Agitate]

Please tell me why you think I'm right or wrong, without hostilities. I'm sincerely concerned about our nation and believe the pro-gayagenda, pro-abortion democrats will appease islamists and sell us our sovereignty out to the EU and the UN. To me that's worse than anything Bush has done so far.

[Tijeras_Slim]

I'm with you. GWB has done some things I don't like, but far more that I have. In politics nobody gets everything they want, the founders set it up that way.

[Texagirl4W]

My vote is that you are absolutely, 100% right. He will have my vote.

[foreverfree]

bump

[WayneM]

President Bush and other current Republican office holders are wrong on illegal immigration. They are pandering to the Hispanic population and employers who depend on cheap labor.

But really - what choice do we have?

[Defender2]

Good Post. The President has my Vote!!!!:-)

[John Robertson]

I am supporting W. in all possible ways in the coming election, and here's why: Though he has disappointed me with some stances, and though I know there are yet more disappointments in his pipeline, I believe there is really only ONE issue of our time: Domestic security--aka WOT.

He has the spine, the will, and the religious faith to take on what is our current Holy War. I cannot imagine anyone else at this particular helm.

All the arguments about too much spending, how harshly we should treat illegals, etc.--all of it!--pale to me when I realize that our country could become Israel writ large, if the Islamofascists have their way. I don't want that for my children. Do I want them to grow into adulthood just to bitch about the cost of social security and medical care? If the alternative is them lying in graves, murdered at the hands of extremists on a suicide mission--convert us or kill us--then I say: Bring it.

[SamAdams76]

Well I think President Bush is a decent guy and all but if he doesn't start rooting for my New England Patriots instead of those damned Dallas Cowboys, why I'm voting for Dean. In fact, Dean was in my state not too long ago with a Patriots cap. At least one presidential candidate doesn't misunderestimate Tom Brady.

[rdb3]

Bush in '04. Period.

Personally, I'm not into changing minds. If one wishes not to support Bush in '04 for whatever reason, then don't. It's your business to do with your vote as you see fit (not you, Agitate; this is rhetorical).

Just shut up about it already because you gain no brownie points for being the best "conservative" in your own mind.

[Az Joe]

Bush is not running things the way I would were I the president.

And I'm not running next time, (although I am open to a draft movement).

So Bush has my vote.

[Agitate]

Tijeras_Slim: Amen to your tagline!

Texagirl4W: Thanks, glad to hear it!

WayneM: But really - what choice do we have?
My Thoughts exactly, to me the dems are not a choice.

[rbessenger]

I am by no means prepared to vote agains the president- but- how do we register our disappointment with the way spending has soared and the size of gov't has grown, without voting against him???

If a nut like Dean or Sharpton (or any of them) gets the Dem position and a Regan-esque landslide is inevitable, I would rather cast a vote for a conservative third party candidate as a protest and a means of letting the Pres know how I feel. I would never do anything to hurt his chances of winning but I would rather get a message to the Whitehouse then be one of a zillion votes that- in a landslide- are just icing on an already well frosted cake.

I wish there was a ballot line that reads "Against the Democrat but not necessarily in support of the President's policies thus far".

[DLfromthedesert]

I will vote for President Bush, but as a member of a Republican Women club, plus as a precinct committeeman, I don't know how hard I will be motivated to work for his re-election if he grants amnesty to illegals.

In Tucson, we had to close a trauma center. I see so many people not speaking English in the hospital where I work. The fact that we treat so many non-citizens for FREE drives up costs for everyone. PLUS as citizens we are treated with something less than dignity at the airports, while our borders are wide open.

This is too crucial an issue to be treated as "oh well, we can't get everything we want". When the next building blows up, who do we blame?

[sam_paine]

You get what you pay for, or something like that.

A true conservative knows that the primary concern of the FedGov should be defense. Nobody can rightly complain that Bush is soft on defense, and there's certainly not anyone on the Dem side that is even remotely competent on that subject.

Clearly Bush is pandering to the populist whim on Medicare, Education etc, but if that is the price to keep the broad support of the unwashed masses behind a president whose #1 priority is defense, (until they can be properly informed and enlightened,) then it's the price that must be paid.

To paraphrase the last conservative democrat:

"Let every voter know, whether he wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge?and more.

[Defender2]

WAAAAAAA!!!! You Also come across as a Divider, LOSER!!!!

[rbessenger]

I'm sort of new to posting- is there an ignorance filter that will save me from the trouble of having to read these high brow responses.

[Defender2]

I hate to bust your bubble but you come across as a WAAAAAA!!!!! CRyBaby LOSER!!!!

[LandofLincoln]

He is now becoming what we all tried to rid ourselves of. A party title should not cloud ones few of the fact that we may have jumped from the pan into the fire.

I have posted before ...

During the fight between right and left, the right has become the left.

That has happened at the party level first. And in a very Reaganist way, it is TRICKLING down through the ranks. Most of us (do not include me in this)are following the parties move to the left.

I want the party to stick to the platform, smaller gov (forget it), less entitlement (forget it), less taxes (forget it).

[arete]

I'm sort of new to posting- is there an ignorance filter that will save me from the trouble of having to read these high brow responses.

The bots will never be confused witha group of higher thinkers. Pretty much schoolyard stuff for most of them.

Richard W.

[Ditter]

There's a few on here who would cast another vote for Perot or Buchanan if given the chance. They seem oblivious to the true consequences of that vote. If they haven't figured it out after 8 years of clinton there is no hope for them.