"Your hyberbole-laced righteous indignation against political parties in general and Republicans in particular is noted. I'm sure you're a rugged individualist of the first order but near-hysterical rants such as the one quoted above don't really cut it.
One man's read as hysteria is another man's read as tongue in cheek sarcasm. Dark sarcastic humor is more my forte; read: "Thanks for taking me in hand and calming me down".
"Being angry at and distrustful of politicians is fine but constant ranting with no solutions and no apparent understanding how politics 'works' is useless.
Listing the betrayals to conservative principles as evidence of why I won't be voting for Bush again, is ranting? You have yet to list his accomplishments, and as far as offering a solution, I have determined mine, writing in my candidate.
"That Bush is doing a fine job in a very, very tough position seems to elude most who just see what he didn't do to please them and fill out their personal agenda this week.
You all talk about the fine job Bush is doing, I must have blinked and missed it. Please I'm hungry for the details of the marvels of conservatism he has accomplished. My personal agenda this week? ROFL... Spin, thy home is found in both Republican and Demoncrat houses.;o)
"Calm down with the wild attacks and sneering asides to anyone who doesn't believe you have all the answers or that our President is a monster"
Attacks? Sneering asides? Let me check again, but I think it is rather my pants cuffs that are frayed here. But that's ok. I didn't say Bush is a monster, I said he is a soverignty assassin, one of many in both parties, if you're refering to all the betrayals of conservative principles he has preformed that I have listed, well I'm just sorry, he did them and will have to stand on his on disgraceful merits.
I think compromised principles has us where we are today, for me it is an unhappy place to be. Things may be just hunky dory as far as you are concerned, you may be delighted that immigrants are back on welfare, who knows. You know who Fox News says has both parties worried? The independent's like me, no one ever knows which way they will jump, I don't either, independents run the spectrum. It's critical for each party which way we vote and my vote is not going to come cheap.
Sure my principles and ideals are called outdated, not compatible with the new way. But I look at it this way, if that is the case, and I can no longer expect the basic right to secure borders, even at a time when terrorists are breathing down our necks, sane immigration, if I can no longer expect not to be illegally invaded or legally invaded by the hordes from the south, north, east and west neither party can offer me a just compensation. If a candidate can no longer be elected on conservative principles and has to sneak, debase himself, fool the masses, take ten steps in socialist policies to make a half step in conservative policies, isn't it pretty much all over anyway?
So that leaves people like me to be the itch that can't be scratched, the fly in the ointment, because we stubbornly believe that with the right conservative candidate, all those people out there who don't vote, will dash off their registration forms and hit the voters booth. Tell me the truth, do you think, if a Presidential candidate, who is not extreme in any direction stood up tomorrow and said, "America needs a break from immigration, America needs to deal with it's illegal immigrant situation, American needs solid and secure borders." that people would not have car wrecks getting to the polls?
No.
He (or she) would be instantly demonized as racist and every pro-immigrant special-interest group would be on him like fleas on a dog - and you should know that. The liberal media would destroy him. Look at the 'Bush Knew' crapola coming out of the newspapers and TV shows. A lie and a smear but it's had an effect on his popularity. Think what a screaming media blitz backed by liberal Democrats would do to an 'anti-immigration' would-be candidate. Not pretty.
It's a fantasy that if only some heroic person would stand up and claim all the principles you subscribe to and vow to implement every policy you believe America needs he would be instantly adored by the masses and carried into office by a grateful nation - and you'll have put him there.
Fantasies are fun but what you propose is not realistic in the slightest and your desire to see yourself and like-minded individuals as the key to saving the Republic from statism is familiar but will ultimately leave you disappointed and probably bitter. This is how 'third-party' fakers get on the ballot. They know they have no chance of winning more than a tiny percentage of votes so they can proclaim whatever truth you subscribe to and have you sending money and working hard to elect them, only to see them remain a blip on the political radar at election time. This happens every Presidential election cycle. Folks like you come on here and post endlessly about the President's failures and how only Fill-in-thge-blank' can save us; the debates rage on and on, with nothing to show but the bitterness I often see from those who wish to return to 1800 and politics to be a fair game again, if it ever was.
The grim truth of politics in America in the twenty-first century is that, like it or not, we are a nation of very diverse interests and a nation of people that look to government to solve ordinary problems. We like our tax breaks on mortgage interest and our student loans. We like Social Security and Unemployment benefits being available. We like government grants.
I could say goodbye to these types of things and I know you would too, but remember, hardly 50% of the (eligible) population even bothers to vote and a total of 80% of those are solid Democrat or Republican. Your precious 20% is crucial but that rugged independence you treasure also is held by independent voters who want more government goodies and don't see the losses of freedoms they often trade them for. Don't get too smug about the 'Independent' voter group. Not all are conservatives.
When I voted for GW Bush - as I told another FReeper in this thread - I didn't expect Buchanan, Browne or even Robert Taft. I expected a President that could lead, compromise where he had to and that was moral and held some conservative values. President Bush meets that critria and in a diverse nation where the Democrats run the Senate and have lots of power in the House, a nation with a powerful media that loathes Bush the way Clinton loathed the military and academia that serves as a training ground for ultra-liberalism, President Bush does very well, indeed, even if some here love to pile on him and find him as lacking as his other enemies, the Democrat party does.
Aside from his leadership in the War on terrorism, the Bush accomplishments over the past 18 months are well known here - but ignored.
From a 1.35 trillion dollar tax cut (always derided as too little by the Bush-bashers) to the scrapping of the ABM treaty and the insane Koyoto Accords to his strengthing of the military (planned before 9/11 - redoubled since) President Bush has accomplished much considering the fierce Democrat opposition in Congress (how quickly we forget that when it's Bush-bashing time at FR) and the openly, hostile, lying media that loathes the man.
Yes, the education bill was a waste of money for the most part, CFR is partly unconstitutional and I have doubts about his immigration policies but this does not make Bush a liberal or anti-conservative in any way. He's dealing with a weakened economy and has to spend billions on defense and Homeland Security and this changes things. Social Security reform won't go anywhere now and frankly, the President has a war to think about and will not spend political capital on things like CFR. For this you may complain (that he should) but President Bush is a politician, not a conservative icon like Pat Buchanan (for one) that will throw away his Presidency to appease one section of the electorate. You may vote for someone else and feel good about it, even powerful, but it won't change the political landscape and if you simply wish to vindicate your principles and abandon Bush, fine. No one will really notice and he will not be swept out of office by some mythic conservative hero.
I understand the criticism of Bush in some quarters but the vilification and sheer hatred of the man that I often see from the anti-Bush posters is depressing. Too many demand the impossible and I think they liked it better when Clinton was President and they had a more legitimate outlet for their anger. Now, they have to paint Bush as the anti-Christ in order to contiue to spew bile at him, when in fact, I think it's often the very political system that angers these folks. In any case, Bush will survive them all and America will not dissolve or become the hell-hole some foresee.
I'm just weary of the 'Bush is a traitor to conservatives' mantra I see here day after day, week after week, month after month. President Bush did not run as a 'conservative'. he wouldn't have been elected if he had. He ran as a moderate-conservative, at best. That's what wins elections in America. Not liberalism, not hard-core conservativism, either. Bush governs as a moderate. He isn't 'right' on every issue.
The constant harping that the President somehow 'failed' conservatives is absurd. He's an excellent leader and while he takes a ton of heat from both sides, I support the man and see American politics for what they are, not some idealistic fantasy where all our constitutionalist dreams come true - in 90 days - if only some hero would stand up and 'save' us. Please, lets be realistic, shall we?
GW Bush is the closest we're going to get to a conservative President in this day and age. He's not a dictator or all-powerful, like some Ceasar of old. The President has to deal with Congress and both parties as well as a politically apathetic public who respond to symbols and slogans (Bill Clinton understood this). Our President works hard and with a Republican election victory in Congress this fall, he'll be able to do a lot more but he'll never satidy a pure conservative agenda. Never. That is simply fact and all the posts on FR won't change it, nor will angry vows to vote for 'Anybody but Bush' in 2004. That's foot-shooting of the first order and I hope you'll see the folly of it, eventually.