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?

[gatorbait]

The condescending attitudes are not appreciated, nor tolerated for very long

You're right ,so stop doing it.

[FairOpinion]

Of course it's your choice.

But don't run around claiming to be a conservative, when your actions only serve to put the Democrats in power.

[af_vet_rr]

That's the problem;you've "heard". C'mon, don't you remember the old rumor mills when you were in?

It would be one thing if I "heard" it through some anonymous administration official through a drudge story lacking quite a bit of detail.

The problem is, you, I, and everybody else "heard" it from Ridge in a speech he gave at a town hall meeting a few weeks ago down in Florida. I'm pretty sure we all "heard" him say that in regards to illegal aliens, we should "afford them some kind of legal status some way".

There is no point in rehashing that debate though, there are several threads already discussing it (search for illegal immigrants, ridge, etc., it was about a week or two before Christmas).

[af_vet_rr]

If you still think that both parties are the same, then the guidelines will get rid of half of the problem...the Democrat half. That's a good start, but it won't work if a bunch of disgruntled maverick wannabes screw it up.

I don't think both parties are the same (although both are veering to the middle to try to attract more votes, at the cost of their bases). I just think that some in the GOP are willing to compromise Conservative beliefs in an effort to gain more votes.

I have a line drawn, it's composed of various beliefs I have. There hasn't ever been a democrat that didn't cross it. The President and his administration are standing on that line in regards to a couple of important issues (important to me).

You can call me hard-headed, but I won't move my line for somebody simply because they belong to the same party as I do. They cross it, my support goes elsewhere or stays at home. It's a variation of tough love I suppose.

[cinFLA]

I wish there was a filter for taking out Bush-Bashing Libertarians.

[Consort]

It's a variation of tough love I suppose.

No, it's more of a "do-it-my-my-way-or-I'll-screw-it-up-for-everybody" attitude typical of many so-called conservatives. You are not being unique; you are being a stereotype.

[RinaseaofDs]

Here's a little different question:

Where's the line, that when crossed, most conservatives will wake up and understand that something has to be done?

Everyone has that line, I think.

I said this on another post: I feel, literally, like I have a gun to my head this year going into the polling booth. If I vote for ANYONE other than Bush I'm putting my family in jeopardy.

You can't be unhappy as a liberally, looking back at the last three years. You can't. As a Democrat, you may be crying in your beer, because helping America isn't why you are in office, retaining power is.

As a liberal though, look at all the presents under the tree this year:

1. No conservative appointments to the federal bench that matter.
2. The first amendment is toast.
3. Gay marriage is a done deal (so is beastiality, incest, and any other thing you do in the privacy of your own bedroom)
4. Prescription drug benefit
5. Federal spending at record levels
6. Amnesty for illegal immigrants imminent (say that five times fast!)
7. Free Trade allowing migration of jobs from heavily regulated US to nearly unregulated China, Russia, and India.

I could go on, but what's the point? It's been a BANNER year for liberals.

For conservatives: we haven't had a major terrorist incident since 9/11 and we got half a loaf on tax relief.

So,

Where is the line, that if crossed, would get even the Bush-bots scratching their heads?

[gatorbait]

Well, then, what exactly has been done or not done following Ridge's statement,besides a lot of hysteria?

[af_vet_rr]

No, it's more of a "do-it-my-my-way-or-I'll-screw-it-up-for-everybody" attitude typical of many so-called conservatives.

I don't compromise my principles for anybody. I vote and support candidates based on how closely they support my beliefs, not because they happen to belong to the same political party as I do. If I blindly support somebody that does not share my beliefs simply because of party affiliation, then I'm no better than a democrat.

I will evaluate President Bush and his actions over the next ten months or so; if he and his administration stray further to the center(left) then I'm sure I won't be the only Conservative and Republican who stays home or votes 3rd party.

If he loses in 2004 because myself and others stayed home or voted for others (I highly doubt he will lose, the democrats are working very hard to insure they lose well before the elections), then maybe the GOP will evaluate where it came from and where its going, and why it has lost people along the way.

[af_vet_rr]

Well, then, what exactly has been done or not done following Ridge's statement,besides a lot of hysteria?

You should read the other threads for a better understanding, but basically Ridge, speaking in an official capacity, gave a bit of legitimacy to the whole "legalize the illegals" movement. It wasn't some off-the-cuff remark he made; nor was it a random location; he's been in politics too long for that. His statements were calculated. This is just one issue though, out of several that have irritated me in regards to the administration.

[LandofLincoln]

The line has been crossed, you are just to NUMB to know where it is. If it has to be pointed out to you, you would not recognize it if it WAS pointed out to you. If you say that the liberals have things to be happy about, then REAL conservatives have things to be sad about. Truth being, that since Bush has taken office he has been a better friend to the liberals.

[RinaseaofDs]

Of course its been crossed. It has for me, but it hasn't for everyone, and I think every conservative has their own line.

For me, I am still voting for Bush. He's a horrible conservative, but D's offer no alternatives, and frankly if any of them are elected it could actually hurt me or my family.

Other conservatives are mad enough that they are still voting for someone else. Still others think he is doing fine.

Where is the line where people say, "I don't care if it may hurt me or my country, I'm voting for someone else.

[Leatherneck_MT]

lol we could go on like this forever, but I'll take the first step and leave you to your superior high mindedness.

Adios Muchacho

[LandofLincoln]

Of course its been crossed. It has for me, but it hasn't for everyone, and I think every conservative has their own line.

There is no line for the rest of the conservatives. They have all but forgotten the line. In fact, they are now IN line.

I mentioned on this site that I am a Reagan-Democrat. Brought over to the Republican Party by the great communicator. What is a Reagan-Democrat? A Conservative with Democratic roots. Born and raised in a Democratic household, it took only a couple of checks from an employer to realize that I was fiscally conservative. So, I headed off to the Republican Party. What do I find when I get here? A bunch of Jesse Jackson-Republicans, those are Republicans who are now believing that big government is good, as long as they are in the food chain.

You have become what you feared.

[cc2k]

Qwinn wrote:

---

Please don't say that his increased spending means taxes will HAVE to be raised in the future. I don't want to have to get into the Laffer Curve yet again.

---

Your point is exactly on target. But it also shows the fundamental sameness between Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats want to expand the federal government and pay for it by raising taxes on "the rich."

Republicans want to expand the federal government and pay for it by cutting taxes and stimulating economic growth, resulting in higher government revenues. Since they want to expand the government immediately, even before the tax cuts have their big effect on the economy, they also like to borrow to finance the expansion of the fedgov.

Now, I want to see the federal government reduced in scope and total tax revenues reduced. Neither party wants to do that.

Truth be told, except for defense issues, I would probalby get less government growth from Democrats, because their punative taxation won't be as successful at generating revenue as the Republican tax cuts.

[gatorbait]

Adios Muchacho


So long, loser

[gatorbait]

This is just one issue though, out of several that have irritated me in regards to the administration. Well,guess you and I have a couple choices with him then.

[gatorbait]

I'll take the first step and leave you to your superior high mindedness. Spoken like the career PFC you are ..

[dcwusmc]

I suppose the "conservative" thing to do is to vote for someone with a proven track record, right? A record which would include higher spending and deficits than ANY of his immediate predecessors and a good many NOT so immediate. A record which includes KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY signing legislation acknowledged to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL, signing ANY spending bill passed by Congress without even a WHISPER of the word, "veto." A record which includes signing TWO bills which effectively negate several specific articles of the Bill of Rights and whatever sunset clauses there are apply ONLY to the parts of the bill which directly relate to terrorists. The parts which affect the REST of us DO NOT SUNSET. Is this the record YOU'D be willing to run for office on, as a Conservative?

If scare-mongering and arguments such as "but the RATS are worse" or "He's better than __(fill-in-the-blank)__" are all you have, your guy is toast and you KNOW it. As I said in an earlier post, if Bush would make any perceptible movement toward restoring the Constitution, he would lock up my vote and many others, but as it is, he isn't so he won't lock up those votes. And I assure you, they may well be the difference for him. If we do nothing but sit home, he can easily lose. If we vote third party, he can easily lose. Look what happened to his daddy... daddy stabbed gun owners in the back, on TOP OF his "read my lips, no new taxes" lie and, despite having such a glorious victory in Gulf Fracas One, lost handily. When he COULD have won just as handily had he not been such a duplicitous backstabber. And he really didn't do HALF the evil stuff his son has done, IMO.

So you keep on preaching that wishy-washy spiel of yours. Maybe those kindergartners I mentioned will buy it.

[dcwusmc]

See post 419.