Conservative Columnist Argues Against Bush

[Infohawk]

The Opinion Piece

... Serious conservatives should deny their votes to Bush. "When it comes to choosing a president, results matter," the president says. So true. A Kerry victory would likely be bad for the cause of individual liberty and limited government. But based on the results of his presidency, a Bush victory would be catastrophic. Conservatives should choose principle over power.

 

[Moonbeam]

Not very likely that the party of character would chose principle.

 

[cwjerome]

Just today in some other topic I had the pleasure of reading people wax eloquently about how the Dems weren't as shored-up behind Kerry as the Repugs were, because those intelligent Dems are able to think critically on their own, and they don't all just fall lock-step with the leader and swallow the propaganda completely, and they are an open party with independent thinkers.

It sounded good, until I remembered seeing several posts a day -like this one- from these people trying to show conservatives splitting with Bush. Once again, things only work one way when you're a one-note ideologue

You gotta love politics.

 

[conjur]

If you're a true Republican, you'll vote for Kerry
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld...ws/opinion/9627228.htm

Although I'm a lifelong Republican, I will vote for John Kerry on Nov. 2. The choice seems simple under traditional principles of the Republican Party.

I first met John Kerry in the spring of 1971. Each of us was just back from Vietnam -- he as a Navy officer and I as a member of Congress -- and were appalled by what we had seen there. I found Kerry to be idealistic, courageous and, above all else, truthful to a fault. He demonstrated courage in Vietnam, but as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said, the courage to speak against prevailing opinion in civil strife is often greater than that demanded on the battlefield.

During Kerry's public career after his election to the Senate, he has clearly grown and matured. I believe he is incapable of deliberate deceit or dissembling. This alone represents a refreshing hope for a return of public faith in our government.

That Kerry has attained the solid support of former Secretary of Defense William Perry, with whom he has worked for years on issues of nuclear proliferation, confirms his ability to study, listen and reach sound judgments.

The primary issue in November will be who can best lead us in the bitter struggle against the Islamic fundamentalists who perpetrated 9/11 and are willing to die to kill Americans throughout the world. The Iraq occupation has caused thousands of new suicide bombers to join the jihad against us; with Kerry as president, the nation will properly refocus the battle away from Iraq and against the true enemy, Al-Qaida.

As Kerry has stated, we desperately need the cooperation of every country in the world, friend and enemy, where terrorist cells can germinate and operate.

We need to be more humble in asking for this assistance. A return to the ``speak softly but carry a big stick'' philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt should be far more effective than the bluster, bravado and ``shock and awe'' firepower of the neocon advisers who have commandeered White House foreign policy.

There are many other reasons to support John Kerry.

The incredible budget deficits projected to be $2.3 trillion or more in the next decade, disrespect for the United Nations, international law and Geneva Conventions, secrecy in government -- all of these are positions Kerry would certainly reverse.

As a Catholic, Kerry is sure to maintain the constitutional separation between church and state, recognizing that while we are indeed a nation under God, everyone is free to choose his or her own faith in God.

He will also end the inordinate secrecy that has characterized this administration. It seems incredible that a matter as important as our national energy policy could be decided in secret by Vice President **** Cheney's energy task force -- individuals whose very names have been withheld from the public.

Kerry's record on environmental issues is superb, an area where the Bush administration has been a disaster.

Finally, there's the matter of John Ashcroft and prospective judicial appointees who could undo Roe vs. Wade, a woman's right of choice and many of the civil liberties we have earned over 225 years.

Each of the foregoing reasons for supporting Kerry is based on traditional Republican values of fiscal responsibility, limited governmental intrusion and the accountability of individuals.

In truth, John Kerry and John Edwards come far closer to the Republicanism of Teddy Roosevelt, Earl Warren, Barry Goldwater, George Bush the elder and, yes, even Richard Nixon, than does the present incumbent.

Ending secrecy and bringing truth and honesty back to the White House are reasons enough to elect Kerry and Edwards.

PETE MCCLOSKEY represented the San Francisco Peninsula in Congress from 1967 to 1983. He earned a Navy Cross, Silver Star and two Purple Hearts as a Marine rifle platoon leader during the Korean War. He wrote this column for the Mercury News.

 

[cwjerome]

Well I for one am not a true Republican.

:Q

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Just today in some other topic I had the pleasure of reading people wax eloquently about how the Dems weren't as shored-up behind Kerry as the Repugs were, because those intelligent Dems are able to think critically on their own, and they don't all just fall lock-step with the leader and swallow the propaganda completely, and they are an open party with independent thinkers.

It sounded good, until I remembered seeing several posts a day -like this one- from these people trying to show conservatives splitting with Bush. Once again, things only work one way when you're a one-note ideologue

You gotta love politics.

I guess I don't see your point. President Bush is the least conservative Republican president in history, in terms of his vision of the role of the federal government, and his fiscal policies. It seems to me both Democrats and Republicans have any number of reasons to object to his platform (since, as that article correctly observes, the Bush White House combines conservative moral/religious values with a very large, intrusive federal government).

I don't, for what it's worth, consider Republicans to be a faceless, thoughtless voting monolith; I know plenty of Republicans who are bright, free-thinking, and sincere, and count them among my friends. I must say, though, I have no neoconservative friends, and have never met anyone who could convince me of the merits of neoconservatism, which I regard as the most destructive American political philosophy since Joe McCarthy (a Democrat, as it happens!).

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Well I for one am not a true Republican.

:Q

That much is obvious.

 

[cwjerome]

Is Bush more or less "conservative" (as if that means one thing) or more or less Republican? I don't know, and I haven't given it much thought. I do know that Bush has the strong support of his party an evidenced by polls. I do know that people switch and complain every election- you can't please everyone. What I do know is that the Left has jumped on this as a tactic to help split the Right up. It's not a battle of ideas, it's a cheap political battle, and I just call it how I see it.

What I was saying above was how when Dems sway back and forth and don't show total support for their man, it's a sign that they are independent, critical thinkers and it's spun as a positive. When the Reps sway, it's spun by the same people as a crisis within the party that demonstrates the Rep's man is an evildoer. Disengenuous... just playing the political game to get whatever advantage they can.

I just think it's fun to watch.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Is Bush more or less "conservative" (as if that means one thing) or more or less Republican? I don't know, and I haven't given it much thought. I do know that Bush has the strong support of his party an evidenced by polls. I do know that people switch and complain every election- you can't please everyone. What I do know is that the Left has jumped on this as a tactic to help split the Right up. It's not a battle of ideas, it's a cheap political battle, and I just call it how I see it.

What I was saying above was how when Dems sway back and forth and don't show total support for their man, it's a sign that they are independent, critical thinkers and it's spun as a positive. When the Reps sway, it's spun by the same people as a crisis within the party that demonstrates the Rep's man is an evildoer. Disengenuous... just playing the political game to get whatever advantage they can.

I just think it's fun play too.

Corrected that for you!

 

[cwjerome]

Well, I admit a play a little, but just for fun

Seriously, I'm not a partisan... and you all can vote however you want!

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Well, I admit a play a little, but just for fun

Seriously, I'm not a partisan... and you all can vote however you want!

uh... thanks!

 

[Ferocious]

One thing for sure, Bush is completely acting as an anti-Libertarian....who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

To much religious influence and a Republican dominated government who just loves to spend.

 

[arsbanned]

It's not a battle of ideas, it's a cheap political battle, and I just call it how I see it.

Not according to Pete McCloskey.

Each of the foregoing reasons for supporting Kerry is based on traditional Republican values of fiscal responsibility, limited governmental intrusion and the accountability of individuals.

In truth, John Kerry and John Edwards come far closer to the Republicanism of Teddy Roosevelt, Earl Warren, Barry Goldwater, George Bush the elder and, yes, even Richard Nixon, than does the present incumbent.

Ending secrecy and bringing truth and honesty back to the White House are reasons enough to elect Kerry and Edwards.

PETE MCCLOSKEY represented the San Francisco Peninsula in Congress from 1967 to 1983. He earned a Navy Cross, Silver Star and two Purple Hearts as a Marine rifle platoon leader during the Korean War. He wrote this column for the Mercury News.

 

[nick1985]

"If you're a true Republican, you'll vote for Kerry"

thats your opinion. and are you even a true republican conjur? i find it hard to believe that a social liberal can be a "true republican"...

 

[arsbanned]

i find it hard to believe that a social liberal can be a "true republican"...

Both of the Senators from Maine are women, relatively Liberal and true Republicans. You may be confusing being Republican with being a radical- right- winger. There's a difference.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: nick1985
"If you're a true Republican, you'll vote for Kerry"

thats your opinion. and are you even a true republican conjur? i find it hard to believe that a social liberal can be a "true republican"...

Not all Republicans are bigots, like yourself.

 

[joshw10]

Bush isn't a conservative. He just happens to have the same religious beliefs as many conservatives.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: nick1985
"If you're a true Republican, you'll vote for Kerry"

thats your opinion. and are you even a true republican conjur? i find it hard to believe that a social liberal can be a "true republican"...

Not all Republicans are bigots, like yourself.

nice personal attack :roll: i wonder if these mods will enforce the P&N rule of no personal flames...::sigh...::

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: nick1985
"If you're a true Republican, you'll vote for Kerry"

thats your opinion. and are you even a true republican conjur? i find it hard to believe that a social liberal can be a "true republican"...

Not all Republicans are bigots, like yourself.

nice personal attack :roll: i wonder if these mods will enforce the P&N rule of no personal flames...::sigh...::

Not a personal attack in the least. Merely calling a spade a spade.

 

[Zebo]

The only thing about Bush that is conservative is his tax policy. And even then he's not *that* conservative since he fails to cut taxes like, excise, SS and medicare which hit poor most.

His globe trotting to "bring democracy" to the rest of the world is very Clintonian/Wilsonian, amnesty program for illegal aliens, support of No Child Left Behind, defacto support of abortion by not bringing it to the table with total governemnt control, and his rabid spending policies all around prove liberal.

 

[rickn]

I found this article rather interesting. A lot of what he outlines is one of the reasons I became a registered republican. Unfortunately, just like he points out in his article, the Republican party of today is unfamiliar to me.

Good Read

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: rickn

I found this article rather interesting. A lot of what he outlines is one of the reasons I became a registered republican. Unfortunately, just like he points out in his article, the Republican party of today is unfamiliar to me.

Good Read

Yes very good from one of my favorite republicans, Ike's, offspring. :thumbsup: