NationStates Jolt Archive

Reasons why no true conservative should vote for Bush:

Has Bush reduced the scale of government spending? No, he’s increased it, more dramatically than anyone since LBJ.

Has Bush done anything to further social conservatism? Hardly. Practically all he’s done is to nominate some neocon federal judges, and sign into law a ban on partial birth abortion, that’ll likely be overturned in the long run anyway. And he practically had to be forced into giving his tepid support for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Probably after his neocon advisors commissioned enough opinion polls that confirmed a majority of Americans are opposed to it. Some conviction there, George.

Has Bush done anything to stem the flow of legal and illegal immigration? No, he’s done all he can to encourage it.

Has Bush acted in the interests of the country, as opposed to the interests of his corporate friends? Not really. Encouraging mass, unskilled, immigration on a scale unprecedented since the early 1900’s does not help blue collar workers, the unskilled etc. It only drives down wages for them. Which the corporations approve of, of course. Outsourcing jobs is something else his friends approve of, too. More profits for the shareholders. There’s no morality there at all, just the profit motive.

Was the invasion of Iraq in our interests? No. Absolutely not. We all know that Saddam was no threat to us. It was to satisfy the ambitions of the neocons in his administration - the ones who are more concerned about helping Israel than keeping America safe. Billions of dollars spent and more to come, hundreds of American lives wasted - to make Israel feel more secure. And if Bush wins again, the next target will likely be Iran. For the same reason. And the net result is more and more hostility towards us, more recruits for Bin Laden.

Bush is no real patriot, and he’s certainly no conservative. He’s a neocon for sure, but that’s not true conservatism. He must rank as the worst president since Warren Harding. He should be a one-term president and consigned to history as a complete, abject failure.

That's why there's the Constitution Party!

That's why there's the Constitution Party!

I don't know much about them. Info, please.

The best thing that could happen for the Republican party would be for Bush to lose - and lose very badly. It might be a wake-up call. It might end up with the vested interests that control the party - the corporations and their supporters, basically, being ostracized and removed.

The GOP establishment has complete contempt for true conservatives. They throw them a few bones now and again, but wish they'd go away. Or at least continue to vote for the party without raising difficult questions about policy. Come the election, the neocon contempt for conservatives is going to come back to haunt them. Because many of them just won't bother voting. Kerry has a base of liberal support that is fanatical about removing Bush, but Bush doesn't inspire that kind of commitment among conservatives. I say good riddance to the idiot.

I'm a Republican / Conservative, and I'm voting for Bush in November.

The Constitution Party is what the Republicans should be. They are committed to following the ideals layed out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and believe the ever-expanding federal mammoth be brought down to size. They recognize that the main parties have been hijacked by corporate and special interests and the Republicans are only kidding themselves when it comes to preaching their brand of "conservativism".

Well enough of the commercial. See for yourself.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Reasons why no true conservative should vote for Bush:

Has Bush reduced the scale of government spending? No, he’s increased it, more dramatically than anyone since LBJ.

Has Bush done anything to further social conservatism? Hardly. Practically all he’s done is to nominate some neocon federal judges, and sign into law a ban on partial birth abortion, that’ll likely be overturned in the long run anyway. And he practically had to be forced into giving his tepid support for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Probably after his neocon advisors commissioned enough opinion polls that confirmed a majority of Americans are opposed to it. Some conviction there, George.

Has Bush done anything to stem the flow of legal and illegal immigration? No, he’s done all he can to encourage it.

Has Bush acted in the interests of the country, as opposed to the interests of his corporate friends? Not really. Encouraging mass, unskilled, immigration on a scale unprecedented since the early 1900’s does not help blue collar workers, the unskilled etc. It only drives down wages for them. Which the corporations approve of, of course. Outsourcing jobs is something else his friends approve of, too. More profits for the shareholders. There’s no morality there at all, just the profit motive.

Was the invasion of Iraq in our interests? No. Absolutely not. We all know that Saddam was no threat to us. It was to satisfy the ambitions of the neocons in his administration - the ones who are more concerned about helping Israel than keeping America safe. Billions of dollars spent and more to come, hundreds of American lives wasted - to make Israel feel more secure. And if Bush wins again, the next target will likely be Iran. For the same reason. And the net result is more and more hostility towards us, more recruits for Bin Laden.

Bush is no real patriot, and he’s certainly no conservative. He’s a neocon for sure, but that’s not true conservatism. He must rank as the worst president since Warren Harding. He should be a one-term president and consigned to history as a complete, abject failure.

Wow, you are SO right. I never thought of it this way. Maybe I should vote for Kerry... Or maybe I should throw my vote away on some 3rd party with zero chance of winning to "send a message"...

Sorry. This kind of silly post may get emotional Dems to vote for Nader, but most true conservatives are far too logical to take this kind of arguement seriously.

And BTW, how can anyone who claims to be for world human rights (as most liberals are) oppose the removal of one of the most brutal, abusive dictators ever? It boggles my mind.

I'm no conservative, and haven't been for some time, but I respect true conservatives--people like George Voinevich and Lincoln Chaffee and Olympia Snowe. I might disagree with them in terms of how to attack the problems we face as a nation, but it's generally over solutions and not over ideologies.

The people in charge now--the Bush administration and the leadership in both houses of Congress--are not conservatives. They are radicals and extremists who are a danger to the United States. And they have to go.

I have the feeling--the hope--that the Republican party will have a schism of sorts after this election. There will be a divide between the classic conservatives and the social conservatives that have slowly taken over the party since the days of Nixon's southern strategy. There will be a war for the soul of the Republican party, and I hope that the traditional conservatives win. There's a place for the Tom DeLays and Rick Santorums in the world of politics--it's called the sidelines, reduced to ranting and screaming about things that don't matter while the adults go about the work of making the country and the world better and safer.

And BTW, how can anyone who claims to be for world human rights (as most liberals are) oppose the removal of one of the most brutal, abusive dictators ever? It boggles my mind.

No, you misunderstand. He wants Bush out of office. He is promoting the removal of this brutal, abusive dictator.

The Constitution Party is what the Republicans should be. They are committed to following the ideals layed out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and believe the ever-expanding federal mammoth be brought down to size. They recognize that the main parties have been hijacked by corporate and special interests and the Republicans are only kidding themselves when it comes to preaching their brand of "conservativism".

Well enough of the commercial. See for yourself.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

To quote your website:

"Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundation."

They get my stamp of dumbassery ;)

I'm no conservative, and haven't been for some time, but I respect true conservatives--people like George Voinevich and Lincoln Chaffee and Olympia Snowe. I might disagree with them in terms of how to attack the problems we face as a nation, but it's generally over solutions and not over ideologies.

The people in charge now--the Bush administration and the leadership in both houses of Congress--are not conservatives. They are radicals and extremists who are a danger to the United States. And they have to go.

I have the feeling--the hope--that the Republican party will have a schism of sorts after this election. There will be a divide between the classic conservatives and the social conservatives that have slowly taken over the party since the days of Nixon's southern strategy. There will be a war for the soul of the Republican party, and I hope that the traditional conservatives win. There's a place for the Tom DeLays and Rick Santorums in the world of politics--it's called the sidelines, reduced to ranting and screaming about things that don't matter while the adults go about the work of making the country and the world better and safer.

This is one of the strangest posts I ever read in here. It really does show a back-to-front understanding of the modern GOP. Quite how Chaffee and Snowe and Voinevich could ever be construed as conservatives is beyond me. The author of this post obviously doesn't have a clue about conservative political nuance. Those three are fiscal and social liberals which the core, the base, of the GOP - the ones the neoncons who control the party despise so much btw, have little respect for. What you are suggesting is that the Republican party become a liberal party.

And BTW, how can anyone who claims to be for world human rights (as most liberals are) oppose the removal of one of the most brutal, abusive dictators ever? It boggles my mind.I wonder the same thing. How CAN Republicans claim to be for world human rights but support the dictators of Chile (Reagan), Nicaragua (Reagan), Iraq (Reagan and Bush 1), Iran (Reagan and Bush 1), Sudan (Congress of the 1990's and Bush 2), Colombia (Bush 1 and Bush 2), Uzbekistan (Bush 2), and Afghanistan (Bush 2 for about a month)? By supporting only two brutal dictators (Haiti and Colombia), Clinton was the least of the previous four evils

I have the feeling--the hope--that the Republican party will have a schism of sorts after this election. There will be a divide between the classic conservatives and the social conservatives that have slowly taken over the party since the days of Nixon's southern strategy. There will be a war for the soul of the Republican party, and I hope that the traditional conservatives win. There's a place for the Tom DeLays and Rick Santorums in the world of politics--it's called the sidelines, reduced to ranting and screaming about things that don't matter while the adults go about the work of making the country and the world better and safer.

Social conservatives don’t control the modern GOP. The corporations do and the neocons do. Corporations don’t care about people, they care about profit. Robert Taft foresaw this more than 50 years ago. And the neocons don’t care about social issues either, they care about profit, and helping Israel. John Ashcroft was the only truly visible one-time paleo-conservative in the administration, and he sold out long ago to bigger government, to internationalism, to big business. He’s another cipher for the Bush regime.

This is one of the strangest posts I ever read in here. It really does show a back-to-front understanding of the modern GOP. Quite how Chaffee and Snowe and Voinevich could ever be construed as conservatives is beyond me. The author of this post obviously doesn't have a clue about conservative political nuance. Those three are fiscal and social liberals which the core, the base, of the GOP - the ones the neoncons who control the party despise so much btw, have little respect for. What you are suggesting is that the Republican party become a liberal party.No--what I'm suggesting is that the Republican party return to its roots, namely, fiscal conservatism and social libertarianism. I recommend a move far, far away from social conservatism of the last 30 years, most recently embodied in the evangelical movement that helped get Bush where he is today.

I understand a lot about conservative political nuance--enough to realize that there's a major divide in the party right now between the classic conservatives and what calls itself conservatism today. I hope that divide widens after the November elections and the social conservatives are dragged into the 21st century, because if they aren't--and this may or may not be hyperbole--they could end up being the "christian" equivalent of the radical Islamists. There is potential for violence already--Eric Rudolph is only one of many examples.

Social conservatives don’t control the modern GOP. The corporations do and the neocons do. Corporations don’t care about people, they care about profit. Robert Taft foresaw this more than 50 years ago. And the neocons don’t care about social issues either, they care about profit, and helping Israel. John Ashcroft was the only truly visible one-time paleo-conservative in the administration, and he sold out long ago to bigger government, to internationalism, to big business. He’s another cipher for the Bush regime.I think you underestimate the power of the social conservatives. Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum--all powerful in the congressional leadership, all social conservatives--and they wield very real power in the House of Representatives, as well as in the Senate.

I think you underestimate the power of the social conservatives. Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum--all powerful in the congressional leadership, all social conservatives--and they wield very real power in the House of Representatives, as well as in the Senate.Speaking of which, here's an article from tomorrow's NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/politics/campaign/31platform.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=) that's titled "Social Conservatives Wield Influence on Platform." Spooky, huh?

Republicans approved a platform yesterday that puts the party firmly on the record against legalized abortion, gay marriage and other forms of legal recognition for same-sex couples, reflecting the political clout of social conservatives and setting up a stark contrast with the Democrats for the fall campaign.

<snip>

The current platform shows the major role that social conservatives are playing in the Republican Party as it heads into an extremely competitive race in which each party must turn out its core supporters.

On abortion, the Republican Party restates its longstanding commitment to a "human life amendment'' to the Constitution, declaring that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.'' Chances of passing such an amendment in Congress have been considered slim for many years. The platform also hails Mr. Bush for signing and defending the Partial Birth Abortion Act, a ban on a type of second and third trimester abortions. That law was recently held unconstitutional by two federal courts.

Social conservatives, who pushed Mr. Bush to endorse a federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage earlier this year, pushed for even stronger language in the platform, and succeeded. Mr. Bush has indicated that he embraced a constitutional amendment opposing same-sex marriage only as a last resort to prevent courts from deciding the issue and said that states should be free to recognize same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships. But the platform, as amended by the conservatives on the platform committee, condemns not only gay marriage but also state recognition of other same-sex unions as well.I'd say the social conservatives are flashing a bit more power than you give them credit for.

No--what I'm suggesting is that the Republican party return to its roots, namely, fiscal conservatism and social libertarianism. I recommend a move far, far away from social conservatism of the last 30 years, most recently embodied in the evangelical movement that helped get Bush where he is today.

I understand a lot about conservative political nuance--enough to realize that there's a major divide in the party right now between the classic conservatives and what calls itself conservatism today. I hope that divide widens after the November elections and the social conservatives are dragged into the 21st century, because if they aren't--and this may or may not be hyperbole--they could end up being the "christian" equivalent of the radical Islamists. There is potential for violence already--Eric Rudolph is only one of many examples.

The GOP only wins elections because it presents an image of social conservatism to the electorate. It portrays itself as a genuinely conservative party, as an alternative to the Democrats who are now socially so far to the left. That draws the Southern religious vote to the GOP. That was to a large degree the work of Reagan, (or his advisors) who managed to appeal to the South but also managed to to appeal to blue collar workers who might be fiscally liberal but who were social conservatives (working class Catholics for example).

My point was that the Republicans masquerade as a socially conservative party. That the people who run the party are socially not conservative. That they portray themselves to the electorate in that way to win power but when in power do practically nothing to further a conservative social agenda, or do it kicking and screaming, under pressure from the conservative base.

The party for a long time has been controlled by corporate interests who care little for anyone but the rich and the upper-middle class. And now also by neocons whose real loyalty is to Israel. It's the genious of successive GOP administrations that they have managed to hide this. Bush convinces many Americans that mass immigration and downsizing and outsourcing and the Iraq war etc are in our best interests. One day social conservatives will wake up and will abstain from voting in such large numbers that the party will change, but it'll take at least one catastrophic election defeat.