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?

[Luis Gonzalez]

No, you don't see at all.

But only because you don't want to.

[Leatherneck_MT]

I'm willing to listen to any and all alternatives. Especially regarding getting the party I have supported all of my adult life to listen to me.

Thank you

[Leatherneck_MT]

Let me tell you something you conceited ass.

I am a Retired Marine. I have fought in one war and been involved in several smaller police actions.

You'd better know more about the person you are talking to before you go shooting off your suck. Fighting Enemies? I doubt you'd know one.

You are correct, I don't like you.

and if you and your bloated vision of your self importance is what the Republican Party has become, then you can have the God Damn thing.

[Leatherneck_MT]

oh, one more thing Junior

I could give a rats ass how long you've been here.

Common Courtesy is not dependant on longevity either for or against.

[A2J]

To me that's worse than anything Bush has done so far.

It's the "so far" that scares me about Bush.

While Bush has been more conservative than most Democrats so far, he has not been nearly as conservative as Reagan or other Republicans have been or may be. And now that he is showing his arrogance by trotting out his illegal immigrant plans well before the 2004 elections, it tells me that he knows well-meaning conservatives, for fear of having a Democrat in the White House, are already in his pocket. He is taking for granted the vote of conservatives.

Maybe it's not so good that the Republicans control congress and the presidency. Perhaps a Democrat in the White House would keep the GOP honest and more accountable to the conservative base.

While I will never vote for a liberal, neither will I vote for Bush's reelection if he maintains his present course.

[Agitate]

This will be my first time to sit out an election, and my first time not to vote Republican, I don't personally know anyone who is going to vote in 2004 and I have asked around. Not voting is the only way I can figgure to send a message. Besides, if Bush gets his amnesty through congress this conversation will be moot anyway. Conservatives will never have a reason to return to the voters booth.

I sincerely hope you do not sit out the election. If many people do this, and Dean is elected, We will be in the worse of all possible worlds. Try to imagine what President Dean, UN rule and terrorist appeasment will do to our lives. Bush isn't perfect but he is better than acquiescence to the dems.

[Agitate]

Why should I waste a vote on someone who doesn't want it or think he needs it?

Because a vote for Bush is a vote against Dean and the Dems.

I can't imagine how anyone could think life would not be worse under the dems than anything Bush has done or not done.

The Dems will sell out our entire country and culture and put more liberal judges in power. No one should want to let that happen under any circumstances.

[Badray]

"I cannot help but believe you and your ilk would prefer a Dean or Hillary! presidency so you could wrap yourselves in a self pitying righteousness and howl at all of us about your purity."

I couldn't care less about what you think I think. I will not vote for a man who says that he is a conservative republican (compassionate or otherwise) and then tramples on the Constitution.

Is the alternative worse? Absolutely. In the short term. Do you think that the next GOP candidate for President will be more or less true to the Constitution as a result of this one being bounced? If he is, good. He got the message. If he doesn't, then so what. At least we then know where we all stand. Then YOU and YOUR ILK can decide whether you have what it takes to do anything about it. I hope that your chains rest lightly upon you.

[RJCogburn]

Ooooohhh....

A personal insult presumably because you had no better answer to the question.

Bye.

[StoneColdGOP]

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?

Yes. And if the Democrats DO in fact commit worse offenses, the greater the backlash from the electorate, at least.

Witness California. A all-Democrat state government gave illegal aliens drivers licenses. When the wrath of the electorate told them they had gone too far, they repealed their own law rather than face the public humiliation at the polls of having their law repealed by the voters at better than 60%.

Now, a Republican governor is pledging to give consideration to law which still gives illegals licenses, unchanged from it's doomed predecesor save for a few adornments for "safety concerns".

Will Republicans speak out against their own governor at this time as they did against the fool Gumby Davis?

Those who stand on principle will. Those committed to kissing the feet of whomever is the Party's highest official will not.

And there you have the problem of our national scene. Too many have become partners in the cult of Bush worship, there is no sin to eggregious, no offense to the Constitution or good sense or to the American sovereignty too great to warrant not voting for their god.

Not to say I I wish for a Democrat to take his place, but for myself, I cannot support him if he abandons those things which were the basis for my supporting him, and indeed those things which are at the very heart of the Republican Party many of us purport to hold dear to us.

Already he has made me apathetic and indifferent to his re-election. Should he sign the so-called "Assault Weapons" Ban Reauthorization, he will make an outright hostile political opponent of me, and I will certainly cast my vote for someone else and encourage others to do the same.

I live in California, and so do not expect my state or vote to deny Bush re-election, which I predict will happen anyways. But if it did, at least I have the luxury of looking my opponent in the eye and knowing who he is, and what he stands for. With Bush, I know little who he is, and certainly have no assurance of what he stands for.

[Agitate]

I agree with you, Agitate. I also believe that in a second term, Bush will be 'freer' to do some of the things that we would like to see done.

That's what I hope too. I also hope he gets his judges on the bench, which is crucial. These people (judges) serve for life and aren't accountable to anyone. We must have more conservative judges.

Dean/dems=liberaljudges=gaymarriage, pedophilia, gun control, euorpean/canadian law, etc. What a nightmare!

[Agitate]

Check out THIS thread. One more nail in the coffin of a second term for Bush: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1047908/posts

And this is one Bigger nail in the coffin of the USA:

[Agitate]

arasina:"I understand that our president has to "be a politician" in order to reverse so many years of a socialistic trend in our country. What the leftists accomplished with incrementalism and scare tactics can't be defeated overnight."

Badray:With every bit of respect that is due, wake up and smell the coffee. He's not reversing anything. He's accelerating it. He's not giving in to it, he's promoting it.

How so? (I'm not being antagonistic, I want to know 'cause I don't see it.)

[RJCogburn]

With every bit of respect that is due, wake up and smell the coffee. He's not reversing anything. He's accelerating it. He's not giving in to it, he's promoting it.

>How so? (I'm not being antagonistic, I want to know 'cause I don't see it.)

Expanding the government at a rate greater than anybody since LBJ ought to be quite visible.

[x]

The Prohibition Party has a good platform. If it wasn't for their absurd demand for a ban on liquor, I'd consider voting for them. It would pretty clearly be a protest, "none of the above" vote that couldn't be reinterpreted as deeper support for an ideology. Prohibitionists wear their lunacy on their sleeves and there's little danger of taking it seriously. It's not the monster raving loony parties, but the serious and the slightly silly ones that make the most trouble. Of course, if everyone votes Prohibition, we'll be in real trouble.

Tactical voting is probably the way to go. If your state is clearly going to go for one major party candidate or another, it might make sense to vote for a third party protest candidate. But if you're in a state which could go either way, your vote counts, and it would be best to vote for President Bush in spite of everything.

Voting is bargaining, even gambling. You shouldn't give up your vote too easily and too unconditionally. Make them work for it and pay the price. But if you're not willing to make compromises sometimes, you'll lose out in the end.

[af_vet_rr]

It's time to bring out the guidelines again. Until the Democrats are diminished as a serious threat, then:

What if you have a hard time telling democrats and Republicans apart? Sounds like I'm joking, I know, but unfortunately I'm not.

I will cast (or not cast) my vote for the person(s) who will do the least harm to this country. If that means not voting or voting for a democrat or a 3rd party, then I will gladly do so.

[Agitate]

Question back at you: At what point would you say enough is enough and not vote for him? Can he do anything or is there some line that you will not let be crossed?

That's a good question.

Maybe if he, in order of worse to best:

1. Converted to Islam
2. Married Michael Moore
3. Joined the KKK
4. Became a canibal

Number 1 being the worse. Seriously, those are the only things I can think of now that are worse than selling our troops and our sovereignty to the UN and the EU, abortion, a socialist agenda, and more far left judges. I believe that these things will contribute to the destruction of our nation, and not much is worse than that.

[Agitate]

There is a thread in the smokey backroom that has a title which reminds me of this debate: "Man Chops Off Own Testicle in Dispute With Wife"

LOL...I just read it...that'll learn her!

[Badray]

"How so? "

Spending like a Democrat, for one. He pushed through the expansion of the Education Department. He signed CFR. He pushed for and signed the prescription drug benefit. He has promised to sign a renewed AWB. Since he hasn't vetoed anything, and everyone here tells me that he is a man of his word, I have to believe that he will sign it. And believe me, it will get to his desk and he will sign it.

If you can't see that, it's only because you do not want to see it and you do not want to admit that you got snookered too. I got snookered. I bought the argument that we 'had' to elect "W" because algore was so much worse. In many ways, I'm sure that he would have been. But I also believe that Congress and many here would be fighting harder to stop algore and we wouldn't have half of the BS that "W" has inflicted on us.

I told someone that "W" still had a 5% chance of getting my vote. I think that I over estimated his chances.

[mercy]

I'm not following this thread but think on this you conservatives and libertines who are thinking of throwing away your vote come 2004.

Bush pisses me off too but who do you want as the Commander In Chief if the terrorists pull of some really big ones and, as no less thanb Tommy Franks warns, we have to suspend civil government and declare martial law?

Far fetched? Franks thinks not. We will have to remove the power of our own judiciary in order to protect ourselves.