[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[freedumb2003]

That is sooooo wierd. I was just reading a thread with an anti-Busher who was listing exaclty the points you listed. Whereas I agree with the criticism, I started thinking THE EXACT WORDS YOU USED for this post.

What, I vote for one of the dwarves and usher in the beginning of the end of the US as a sovereign nation? There are no repubs on the horizon except Jeb. We need a Perot-type without the major personality flaws.

[Thinkin' Gal]

If not Bush, then who?

Ooops, I thought this was going to be an antichrist thread. :-/

[fish hawk]

I agree. Sometimes I think it is like being in the dentist's chair. He is coming with the needle but that little bit of hurt is better than 4 years of outright (Democratic) pain.

[cake_crumb]

Ignore them. Most are third party nutballs. Bush is the only chance we have. Without him, this country is screwed.

[Theresawithanh]

I am with you, too! No president can make anybody, even his supporters, happy all of the time. I see President Bush as an honest and sincere man, in stark contrast to the occupiers of the WH the past 8 years.

That, and the fact that if I ever voted for a Dem, my head would explode!

[dcwusmc]

Then you really need to convince BUSH to change his ways. Tell him to start reading the Constitution and shrinking FedGov to fit it. If he even made a START at it, he'd lock up my vote. But FedGov has grown more under Bush than under ANY president, with the possible exception of socialist FDR. I cannot vote for ANYONE with that sort of track record. Whether his name is Bush or Dean.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I'm just going to copy-paste most of a post I made on a similar thread yesterday.

Willingness to defend the country is a prerequisite for being President, IMO, because relative safety is necessary for the free exercise of our other rights. I don't mean this is a moral or philosophical way -- I mean it in a practical, real-world way.

Among the Democratic candidates, the only two who I think meet this prerequisite are Lieberman and maybe Gephardt. Lieberman has a bad record on civil liberties, IMO; he is too given to censorship and the nanny-state. While I have problems with Gephardt's economic and trade policies, some of his socially liberal views appeal to my libertarian streak. I probably wouldn't vote for him, but I'd give him serious consideration.

The Libertarian Party leadership has basically joined the Deanite left on Iraq. They're out for this election. It's unclear where the Constitution Party stands on it -- whether they're objection is a matter of procedure or of the actual action (I haven't had the chance to check the radio interviews). But the social conservatism doesn't appeal to me in any case.

In short, I don't see any serious choice for President, except Bush.

However, I may give consideration to non-GOP candidates in the Senate and House of Representative races. My Congressman, Cliff Stearns, is pretty much a shoo-in for reelection. The Florida Senate race, though, is open. While I don't see myself voting for a Democrat, I may consider third party.

However, I see an opportunity coming to knock those on the left who don't believe in defending America out of the mainstream political conversation. If Dean is nominated, he will likely lose in a landslide and may take much of the Democratic Party -- or at least their left-wing -- with it.

I don't think defending the country should be a subject of debate; I think it should be a given, with any debate being how it is best achieved. When we have two major parties that believe in that, then it will be far easier for me to find candidates who support rolling back the government in both our financial and personal lives.

But until the Democratic Party either comes to its senses or is replaced as a major party, the GOP pretty much has my automatic vote at the federal level. I wish that were not the case -- I wish there was a real and realistic choice -- but I don't see any serious alternative at this time.