NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

George W. Bush, has broken from what have been traditional Republican conservative values. While Bush has voiced support for the traditional social/religious values of the right – opposition to abortion and homosexuals, government support of religious charities and schools, censorship of “immoral” material over the airwaves – he has not adhered to the traditional GOP position of smaller government and balanced budget.

During the Bush administration the Clinton surplus has become a deficit approaching $500 billion. The current government debt is over $7 trillion. His tax cuts, aimed mainly at the wealthiest 1%, are straight from the traditional GOP playbook but, combined with the out-of-control spending of the GOP Congress, are bankrupting the U.S. treasury. George W. Bush’s growing government is also a more intrusive government. The woefully misnamed “Patriot Act” interjects an unchecked government into the lives of Americans in ways no true conservative would have accepted in the past.

The president’s biggest break with traditional Republican values, however, has been in the area of foreign policy, adopting what has been called a “Neo-Conservative” philosophy. The Neo-Con foreign policy supports preemptive strikes and unilateral action. The overarching goal is to promote the development of an American Empire, which the neo-cons say is the greatest hope for world peace – a Pax-Americana. The result has been an unnecessary war costing $200 billion, 1000+ American lives, and no end in sight.

The combination of an all-powerful, ever expanding government at home and a near messianic belief in American Empire abroad makes this administration the most dangerous in American history and this election the most important in our lifetime.

Well, Buchanan endorsed Bush, which is depressing, because Buchanan, while he is generally many distasteful things, isn't usually a bullshit artist, and yet he repeated many of the right-wing talking points against Kerry. I'll give him this much--he didn't make a pro-active case for Bush. Instead, he made the case that Bush is not Kerry, a bit of a switch on the common accusation made against Kerry supporters.

I also counted an endorsement for Nader, one for Badnarik, a couple for Peroutka and one for no vote on the page.

Ouch

I also counted an endorsement for Nader

that's because justin raimondo has been really pushing for unity between the anti-war libertarian left and right. he's even been hanging out with the guys from counterpunch.

that's because justin raimondo has been really pushing for unity between the anti-war libertarian left and right. he's even been hanging out with the guys from counterpunch.
Ah--that would explain it. I didn't even check to see who had written the endorsement.

I'm not a conservative, but I agree that Bush's foreign policy is pretty scary. My main reason for voting against Bush is The Project For The New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html).
It only stands to reason that Europe was anti-imperial last century. They were recovering from their own empires. America really needs to remember that we're not the first nation to try liberating the middle east. We're not the first nation to be attacked by terrorists. We're not the first nation to fight wars to control valuable foreign resources. If Bush would even bother to watch "Lawrence of Arabia" he would know more than he does now. Different philosophies can be discussed, deliberate stupidity ends all discussion.

As well it should. I'd expand upon this, but they lay out the reasons why more than well enough themselves in the article. The only reason for a conservative to endorse Bush is either the phenomenon of single-issue voting or simple partisan idiocy, at this point.

As well it should. I'd expand upon this, but they lay out the reasons why more than well enough themselves in the article. The only reason for a conservative to endorse Bush is either the phenomenon of single-issue voting or simple partisan idiocy, at this point.
There are a couple of other options--one is that they actually benefitted from Bush's policies. That's a small number, but they do exist. Then there's the group that think they did, but don't realize that they got shafted. That's most of them.

The other issue is this Christian heresy that believes in dominion. When we have a secretary of the interior that believes we should destroy the planet because armegeddon is coming soon, too soon to worry about the enviroment, combined with corporate polluters who have the money to back this political movement, we have Bush's policy.

Bush did his first unilateral preemptive strike against the traditional fiscally responsible wing of his own party. They (we) have a right to be mad.

P.S.- Remember when you used to hear the term "Republican moderate"? No more.

George W. Bush, has broken from what have been traditional Republican conservative values. While Bush has voiced support for the traditional social/religious values of the right – opposition to abortion and homosexuals, government support of religious charities and schools, censorship of “immoral” material over the airwaves – he has not adhered to the traditional GOP position of smaller government and balanced budget.

During the Bush administration the Clinton surplus has become a deficit approaching $500 billion. The current government debt is over $7 trillion. His tax cuts, aimed mainly at the wealthiest 1%, are straight from the traditional GOP playbook but, combined with the out-of-control spending of the GOP Congress, are bankrupting the U.S. treasury. George W. Bush’s growing government is also a more intrusive government. The woefully misnamed “Patriot Act” interjects an unchecked government into the lives of Americans in ways no true conservative would have accepted in the past.

The president’s biggest break with traditional Republican values, however, has been in the area of foreign policy, adopting what has been called a “Neo-Conservative” philosophy. The Neo-Con foreign policy supports preemptive strikes and unilateral action. The overarching goal is to promote the development of an American Empire, which the neo-cons say is the greatest hope for world peace – a Pax-Americana. The result has been an unnecessary war costing $200 billion, 1000+ American lives, and no end in sight.

The combination of an all-powerful, ever expanding government at home and a near messianic belief in American Empire abroad makes this administration the most dangerous in American history and this election the most important in our lifetime.

Brilliant article

As a libertarian (except when it comes to Health and Education, in which areas most conservatives would consider me to be a "goddamed New-England liberal!"), Bush represents one of the most painful eras of US political history.

As the article points out nicely: he has missed most of the best bits of both conservatism (with his blithely pissing away of billions of dollars on pointless programs: especially on defence- wtf is with that anyway?) and liberalism ("Government knows Best Act", whom some call the "Patriot Act", gay marriage ban proposal, pissing away yet more money on relgious-interest programs), taken the worst of both, added a simply frightening foreign policy.

It's not about Kerry, who I doubt will be anything particularly special, it's about how truly shithouse Bush is. I agree in particular about how absolutely necessary it is for true conservatives in the Republican party (John McCain I like quite a bit, despite his inane support for Bush- wise up John!) to be proven right with an electoral defeat for those insane neo-con twits.

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html
Excellent article and hopefully people will take the time to read it? :cool:

Brilliant article

As a libertarian (except when it comes to Health and Education, in which areas most conservatives would consider me to be a "goddamed New-England liberal!"), Bush represents one of the most painful eras of US political history.

As the article points out nicely: he has missed most of the best bits of both conservatism (with his blithely pissing away of billions of dollars on pointless programs: especially on defence- wtf is with that anyway?) and liberalism ("Government knows Best Act", whom some call the "Patriot Act", gay marriage ban proposal, pissing away yet more money on relgious-interest programs), taken the worst of both, added a simply frightening foreign policy.

It's not about Kerry, who I doubt will be anything particularly special, it's about how truly shithouse Bush is. I agree in particular about how absolutely necessary it is for true conservatives in the Republican party (John McCain I like quite a bit, despite his inane support for Bush- wise up John!) to be proven right with an electoral defeat for those insane neo-con twits.

McCain is no true conservative. If he was, he would never have supported Bush in the unjustified war against Iraq, would never have endorsed him in the way he did for re-election.

Bush is no conservative either. Quite how the biggest expansion of the federal government since the 60's, massive trade deficits, support for basically unlimited immigration, outsourcing, the Patriot Act, taxcuts for the rich, are conservative is beyond me.

Traditional conservatives believe in limited government. Economically, they despise corporations as much as the left does. American corporations are now multi-national entities with no loyalty to any country. Profit is the only goal. This is not Jeffersonian economic conservatism.

I don't know how any conservative can vote for Bush, except that they think Kerry will be worse. But true conservatives would better off voting for Kerry, or abstaining. If Bush loses, the neocons who have taken over the Republicans will be out of power, and there will be a major policy change in the party. The neocons will be discredited. As they should be.

After all, the war against Iraq was for two purposes: for oil and to help Israel. The neocons have an affection and allegiance to Israel that is scary. If Bush wins, how long before we invade Syria, or bomb Iran? The neocons will manufacture more fake evidence, like they did with Saddam, that suggests Syria/Iran are a threat to us.

I agree with Buchanan at least to the extent that he writes that America is a Republic, not an Empire. Time to bring the troops home. And no more supporting Israel. If you want to find one thing that truly makes muslims hate us, it is our unconditional support for Israel.

I totally agree with that article. Bush is not conservative, he's just out there radical. Kerry is closer to being a conservative than Bush is. Tax cuts during a war! How do you do that and keep a straight face while calling yourself a conservative? :headbang:

Gee, where are the comments from the people on this site who hail Bush as their savior from God? Surely they must have something to say about this...unless they know that they're in over their heads when it comes to discussing what Conservativism means outside of threads about homosexuality, abortion, and Christianity. Hmm...

Bush is spending more money than we as a country can handle, long term. If he is re-elected, I believe we will be almost broke and dropping to near third world status by the year 2020. Do you think gas prices are going to somehow decrease as we continue to fight this "War on Terra" Bush is a fool and history will show that he and his camp will be one of our most regrettful mistakes. Do you feel safe as hundreds of tons of explosives are now in circulation, possibly arounf the world now? Be smart and get GWB out of the driver's seat.