NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't agree with this guy on everything, but it is an interesting article.

http://www.nypress.com/17/31/news&columns/WilliamBryk.cfm?page=3&last=2

See, I thought you were referring to this article (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scheer21sep21,1,2629816.column) by Robert Scheer. Who knew?

See, I thought you were referring to this article (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scheer21sep21,1,2629816.column) by Robert Scheer. Who knew?

Can't get there since I don't have a subscription. Is it similar? Or good?

I agree with his conclusion:
To sum up: Anything beyond the limited powers expressly delegated by the people under the Constitution to their government for certain limited purposes creates the danger of tyranny. We stand there now. For an American conservative, better one lost election than the continued empowerment of cynical men who abuse conservatism through an exercise of power unrestrained by principle through the compromise of conservative beliefs. George W. Bush claims to be conservative. But based upon the unwholesome intrusion into domestic life and personal liberty of his administration and the local governments who imitate it, George W. Bush is no conservative, no friend of limited, constitutional government—and no friend of freedom. The Republic would be better served by his defeat in November.

Can't get there since I don't have a subscription. Is it similar? Or good?
Not really--Scheer is pretty left, and his argument is similar to the one I've made here in the past, namely that Bush is no conservative. Bush is a radical, and his policies prove it, and any true conservative should be scared shitless of the havoc a second term, unaccountable Bush could wreak upon this country.

And I'd recommend registering for the LA Times. It doesn't cost anything, and they do good investigative work.

Yep.

I do not support Bush because I am conservative, not in spite of it.

Can't get there since I don't have a subscription.

user id: crimethinc
password: crimethinc

works there. and most other places. remember to thank your friendly neighborhood info-anarchist.

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia admits that he does not understand exactly how voting for someone who is further from being a True Conservative than Bush will aid the cause of the True Conservatives. He supposes that it is possible that fewer laws will be passed if the President and Congress disagree with each other... but the disadvantages of having a True Liberal as President outweigh this advantage.

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia admits that he does not understand exactly how voting for someone who is further from being a True Conservative than Bush will aid the cause of the True Conservatives. He supposes that it is possible that fewer laws will be passed if the President and Congress disagree with each other... but the disadvantages of having a True Liberal as President outweigh this advantage.
Here's the simple answer--Kerry's not what most of the world would call a liberal. He's a moderate. Bush, however, is a radical. Kerry is therefore closer to true conservatism than Bush is.

See, I thought you were referring to this article (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scheer21sep21,1,2629816.column) by Robert Scheer. Who knew?
That's odd! I thought he meant this article:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/09/10/conservatives/index_np.html

Or perhaps even this site:
http://conservativesforkerry.com/conspeakout.html

All this reminds me of The Economist's leader back in the Feb 26th 2004 issue on the


The case for gay marriage

SO AT last it is official: George Bush is in favour of unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than devolution to the states.

Bush is no conservative. No way, no how.