SOCIAL: Bush and the conservative movement.

I am sure that many of you saw this thread and thought, "Wow, Thomas Crowne actually does still own a computer. He's a member of the conservative team but he hasn't thrown in a thread until now!" Well, there's good reason for that.

Many of you have been around long enough to know that I do not pledge allegiance to any political party, but will cast my ballot in the direction of the candidate that seems to be the closest to the intentions of the Founding Fathers. Understanding what those intentions were is not all that difficult if one reads not the editorial views of their favorite politically biased pundit has to say they were, but actually reads them, straight as the Fathers said them. Sure, it is a lot of reading, and laborous reading as their syntax was not as ours is today, but as you read more, you'll soon fall in love with their way of speaking and writing. I'm straying, allow me back on track.

I've had a problem this year in regard to the presidential election. True enough, my ballot will not be cast for Kerry, but still, my ballot will be cast for Bush because he is the lesser of the two undesirables. He is by far not my idea of presidential material, yet when I discuss politics with liberals, I have to defend Bush, or really, argue against liberal trash, to the point where I am appearing to be a Bush supporter. It is very different, though, when I am with Republicans, I assure you.

This article I found at the Washington Times is an example of my frustration with Bush and his lack of desire to stand strong in the beliefs he professes to have, the beliefs that seem to take a back seat to his bid for reelection. This article by no means addresses all of my grievances with this man's political moves, but it does illustrate how I am not alone in this frustration.

www.washingtontimes.com...

To my fellow conservative members here, I apologize if I seem to be working against the conservative team here, but please, understand that I am not the one working against our position, but it is the president that seems to have abandoned our position.

Speaking as a Texan who suffered under the Bush "administration," what you are seeing is pretty much the Real Bush.

The Real Bush is a man who demands you sign a loyalty oath before getting in to see him at a rally.

The Real Bush only speaks to people who are "approved" to attend his speeches. Reporters who ask questions he doesn't like aren't invited to speak or ask questions at his "conferences." Perhaps this is in tune with your conservative values -- I think the Founding Fathers would be very disgusted at Mr. Bush.

If you hope to see much of a return to "Constitutional values," then perhaps you should consider someone else. Bush has signed more Presidential orders amending the Constitution than any other President.

So let me ask you this (respectfully): Does this man REALLY stand for the values that YOU stand for? Or does he just wear a label that he has no right to wear?

Are you asking me this, or is this a question thrown out for all?

I've been trying to tell people for quite some time that this guy is no more a conservative than LBJ was and not to fall for the lines of crap. I kept getting poo-pooed, with the explanation that Bush is just playing politics so that he can get a second term, where he'll really do all those conservative things. I don't believe that. I believe he's just playing politics.

But, the problem is, there is nobody else out there. Voting for the most liberal senator certainly would do no good. Not unless we want to put the country back on the fast track to destruction.

We survived two terms of Clinton, we can survive one more term of Bush. In the meantime, I suggest people stop reading their favorite political pundit of their party of choice and pick up some really good documents - the constitution, for starters. And for God's sake, turn off that infernal TV!

Honestly Thomas, I would recommend you look deeper into the Libertarian Party.

Being much of the same mind as you, politically at least, I can say that Badnarik is better than Kerry and Bush.

It's not my hopes to get into the "I want my vote to count" battle, because that is a invalid arguement because if (and when) he loses, the vote still counted.

Bush is indeed a politician and the GOP, as a party does need to appeal to those outside its base and will of course stray from conservative ideas. It's only pragmatic for me to vote for Bush as he's closer to the values that appeal to me. The Whitehouse has done some conservative things and some that aren't. Tax cuts are good, but the spending has been bad. Borders aren't any tighter, obvious political move, and the government has expanded (medicare, for example). Social security reform has been put on the back burner as well. I think the conservative movement has great ideas but is w/out strong leadership at the moment and therefore those ideas aren't being communicated.



[edit on 29-8-2004 by Bob88]

I agree with Bob88 in regards to leadership. The revolution that was started by Reagan needs a strong leader which is something neither party has right now. I come from the middle of the party so I am not as big of a fan of the neo cons as some of my team mates.

That being said, Reagan often talked like a conservative, but was more pragmatic when decisons needed to be made, Reagan like Bush has/had to please his core group (read into that the pople who give money). Neither man wanted to bite the hands that feed them.

A strong leader is what is needed. McCain could be that man.

despite the GOP majority in the house and senate Bush is basically setting the GOP tempo. He's trying to appeal to more than the base, so is the rest of the GOP. Now, think back about 10 years when Clinton was democrat and how well some conservative ideas did. Look at the 'Contract with America' for example.

Originally posted by Byrd
The Real Bush is a man who demands you sign a loyalty oath before getting in to see him at a rally.

The Real Bush only speaks to people who are "approved" to attend his speeches. Reporters who ask questions he doesn't like aren't invited to speak or ask questions at his "conferences." Perhaps this is in tune with your conservative values -- I think the Founding Fathers would be very disgusted at Mr. Bush.

And I�m supposing you�re implying that democrats don't demand loyalty in order to attend rallies....my personal experience was from the Gore / Lieberman campaign which had some very large teamsters showing the non "approved" to the door. I would be willing to bet that during current campaign stops for the democrats, the same behavior is being perpetrated.

As for the founding fathers�.with the great society, taxation and the vacillation between positions for Mr. Kerry I�m sure they would be less than thrilled. So maybe you would like to vote for M. Badnarik in the next election�.I�m sure that he won�t be utilizing teamsters or loyalty oaths at his campaign stops.

Some interesting thoughts are abounding here, no doubt.

Jethro, the Libertarian party is enticing, except for the fact that they forget that, yes indeed, this country was supposed to be a Judeo/Christian nation, and they stand firmly on secular concepts being a "freedom"; that is to say, people are free to pursue immorality with impunity. I do not subscribe to that idea. Other than that, I could get along nicely with that party. I also agree with your notion that it is better to vote your position than to vote for one of the two major parties. To ensure that your vote is not "wasted" is to ensure the two major parties keeps their stranglehold on American politics. Wasn't it George Washington who warned not to fall into a two party system?

Bob, Dubya sold himself as the great conservative leader before being elected but has done nothing other than cut taxes and conduct a just war in defense of this nation; at least, those are the only two things that amount to any substance. That is what I voted for, a conservative leader. Other than those two things, he has failed the conservative movement, not only by not defining it and communicating it to the rest of the nation, but also by not carrying it through. The communication part can be forgiven as he is not a Ronald Reagan-like communicator, but not conducting business as a conservative cannot be forgiven. This is the problem that faces the nation. While it is true that Kerry is so far from being what the country needs to get back on the right path, Bush is only marginally better. It alsmost seems to me that maybe what we should be focusing on is not the 2004 election but the 2008 election. Furthermore, even if a good leader rises to the top by then, will the American people be any more educated and able to recognize what the country needs?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Some interesting thoughts are abounding here, no doubt.

Jethro, the Libertarian party is enticing, except for the fact that they forget that, yes indeed, this country was supposed to be a Judeo/Christian nation, and they stand firmly on secular concepts being a "freedom"; that is to say, people are free to pursue immorality with impunity.

Agreed, and this was the problem I ran into as well. But the truth of it is, is that America does allow for a good amount of personal responcibility and a more limited government. We would hope that wouldn't mean rampant and unchecked immorality, but with any nation as large as ours, that will occur regardless. That is more of a societal problem than a legislative one though.

Also, I know that you would like to see an instrument of change elected rather than more of the same old politcs. Removing the two party system by voting third party is the ONLY way to make lasting and positive change in this country.

I was going to reply to this but KJ pretty much covered it. I would like to add that think God the big two have been in charge all this time and the country has no unwed moters, no drug problem, no rapes or murders, oh wait they havent done nothing about the problem either.......

The Libertarians will run a government MUCH MORE conservitive than the Republicans. We will give the people what the Republicans only SAY they will

[edit on 29-8-2004 by Amuk]

You know, I am inclined to agree with the both of you that the Libertarian party would be a much more conservative party than what the Republican party has actually been (All their rhetoric aside, they are very much like the democratic party in many ways).

You are very right that there will always be human weakness and evil desires of men, but there are some planks in the Libertarian platform that give some the stamp of approval, if my memory serves me (It doesn't more times than does, I guess age and head injuries are catching up to me!).
I don't think that allowing wrongs because they can't be stopped in any practical manner is a proper option. Even if an immoral act cannot be properly addressed, it should not be condoned as then the law is no longer there to convict the wrong-doer's own conscience. In examining all evidence of all the parties, however, I might need to ponder on this obstacle a little harder as I do not see eiother of the major parties ever righting themselves.

George Washington stringently warned us of the ills of falling into a two party system, and like so many other things the Founders warned us about, we chose to ignore this warning, too. Again, we are paying for our ignorance.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to read up on the Libertarian party and to see if there are any congressional candidates of that party in Alabama. Congress would be the first thing to recover, not the White House.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Libertarian party is enticing, except for the fact that they forget that, yes indeed, this country was supposed to be a Judeo/Christian nation, and they stand firmly on secular concepts being a "freedom"; that is to say, people are free to pursue immorality with impunity.

You know this was one of the same issues I had. This is what I came up with (in short form to not start a theological debate!): We were granted free will by God to choose our morality, not for the laws of men to choose it for us. Again that's a short answer.

Here's some Christian/libertarian topics and links if anyone wants to check it out: www.self-gov.org...

Have any of you ever heard of this group? It's a bunch of liberty minded Republicans, most libertarians (small 'l'), working to get pro-liberty candidates like Ron Paul elected to office. Here's the RLC's webpage. Definitely a group worth looking into. In my opinion this group and the LP should work together a little bit more, we're working for the same cause.

I also agree that trying to get Libertarian's elected to congress first is the way to go, however Presidential Election's get the word out nationally, and on top of that there's always a chance for that 5% and federal funding in the next election. I also would like to see a strong push to get a Governor elected in a state like Nevada. Jesse Ventura did it.

Thanks, Pete! More good reading, and one can never have too much of that!

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
We survived two terms of Clinton, we can survive one more term of Bush.

No, we can't. We as a nation did not survive two terms under Clinton, we prospered. All that has been reversed with this president. It continues to be the most baffling thing I hear in debating the worth of this administration; that it is the lesser of two evils!?!?!
The disenchantment Republican Conservatives feel over Bush is common sense kicking in & warning you; much like when you knew not to jump in that car with those drunk kids when you were a teen...if not then, something bad was sure to happen soon.
There has been a non-stop political campaign by this president, regardless of circumstances in the country or world....he's never been in the office long enough to do the job and there has been nothing but lies to the nation to cover it.
We know his active base is the religous Right, and has flavored his "decision" on everything he's given a perspective on. As alluded to before, he has catered to them to such a degree that he's , on a regular basis, promoted amending the Constitution to champion their causes. Yet, because of the realization that America does not support the Religious Right's version of what are American values, the Republican National Convention is giving the key speaking roles to George Pataki, Rudy Giulliani, Mike Bloomberg, John McCain, Das Arnold and a Democrat...all of which support Pro-choice, Stem cell research unbridled, and Gay unions. Those positions have zero chance of being supported by Bush, as stated earlier, he's wanted Constitutional restrictions placed on all.

I also think Conservative Movement is a misnomer - it's a reactionary stance to maintain in the face of change. Maintenance is not a movement, it's simply status quo.

Kerry is far from being the most Liberal Senator in office; we all know that to be a boogeyman scare tactic utilizing the co-opted word 'Liberal'.
We all know that Bush has been stage managed & void, due to his intellectually uncurious nature, of considering gray areas or nuance to the myriad of problems that face the country & the world. Being Decisive if you're Decisively Wrong is not a Leadership worthy trait; that's why you've seen the General Custer analogies to Bush.

As you'll start to see a high number of mia culpas in the former ranks of Bush voters, here's an endorsement editorial from a conservative newspaper that recommended Bush in 2000, and now outlines eloquently why they are endorsing Kerry for President in 2004

Seeing the assessment of Bush's economic plan and why Nobel Laureate Economists support Kerry for President, will also help you to rethink the Lesser Evil vote.

Finally, I can't ever see the Libertarian party support anything that would Legislate Morality; that's the type of necessary rhetoric that secures the RR vote and at a polar opposite to their social laizze faire philosophy.

[edit on 30-8-2004 by Bout Time]

Thomas Crowne, I do respect the fact that you do think, and have read into the history of our Founding Fathers, and what THEY wrote, not someone else's interpretation. I myself have also read into it, and not just the documents, but the lives and times of the Founding Fathers, and here is my account.

You must remeber, we live in an entirely different era. The Founding Fathers were not perfect by todays standards. After all, they considered slaves to be only 2/3 of a human being. Women were second class and not allowed to vote, and many were slave owners themselves. So we must update the world from thier time, while trying to keep thier core persons and beliefs, and adapt them to todays society.

I disagree that this society and nation were built on traditional Judeo/Christian values. It was built on Grecco/Roman ones. During the period they lived in, the revival of classical Greek and Roman literature, thought, and philosophy was the mark of a learned man. One look at the govornments of Europe, which were truly ruled by the church and Christian values, will show you an extreme opposite of what was formed here. Since the Bible, the basis of Christianity, is open to interpretation, so are its values. But the system set down by the Founding Fathers was very clear. It was not cryptic, like the Bible or any other holy book. These values can be debated, but the language was very clear.

Thus said, if one reads the very last thing stated in the Bill of Rights, it states clearly that anything not covered by previous amendments shall be left up to individual states to decide. So long as the states themselves adhered to the basic precepts of human rights laid out in the first nine amendments, the states could decide amongst themselves, other issues.

Thus said, I show you why I do not believe that george Bush and his brand of conservatism are any better for this country than Senator Kerry. The fact that Bush wishes to use the constitution to regulate personal morality and things they have no business doing, shows, at least, as I see it, he has no desire to stick to the bare bones. To me, conservatism has always been that: conserving. Preserving. The current state of conservatism is not doing that. They unravel.

George Bush is a far cry from his father and The Great Communicater, both of whom I had admired and supported in the past.

Originally posted by Bout Time

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
We survived two terms of Clinton, we can survive one more term of Bush.

No, we can't. We as a nation did not survive two terms under Clinton, we prospered. All that has been reversed with this president.

So if you�re a hooker then you�re living the good life, as most hookers prosper?

Originally posted by Bout Time
There has been a non-stop political campaign by this president, regardless of circumstances in the country or world....he's never been in the office long enough to do the job and there has been nothing but lies to the nation to cover it.

more of the smear campaign.

Originally posted by Bout Time
the Republican National Convention is giving the key speaking roles to George Pataki, Rudy Giulliani, Mike Bloomberg, John McCain, Das Arnold and a Democrat...all of which support Pro-choice, Stem cell research unbridled, and Gay unions.

Yea isn�t that a line up�unlike the democrats who appear to be very intolerant of any divergence of opinion, maybe it comes from the fact they are enlighten and they know the other guy is wrong?

Originally posted by Bout Time
Kerry is far from being the most Liberal Senator in office; we all know that to be a boogeyman scare tactic utilizing the co-opted word 'Liberal'.

how far? 2�.3 and how do we all know�.is that just the enlightened?

Originally posted by Bout Time
As you'll start to see a high number of mia culpas in the former ranks of Bush voters, here's an endorsement editorial from a conservative newspaper that recommended Bush in 2000, and now outlines eloquently why they are endorsing Kerry for President in 2004

you are calling the seattle times conservative�.is that disingenuous or disinformation?

Originally posted by Bout Time
Finally, I can't ever see the Libertarian party support anything that would Legislate Morality; that's the type of necessary rhetoric that secures the RR vote and at a polar opposite to their social laizze faire philosophy.

I would rather see morality, than immorality.

Maybe you can put the efforts to discredit my post towards presenting the Green view?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Bob, Dubya sold himself as the great conservative leader before being elected but has done nothing other than cut taxes and conduct a just war in defense of this nation; at least, those are the only two things that amount to any substance.

I am truly flabbergasted! How is the war in Iraq a just war in defense of this
nation? As I lifelong resident of the US, I can say that I never felt any imminent threat from Iraq. I think that history will show this to beone of the worst foreign policy blunders of all time. Far worse than Viet Nam!

As for taxes, well, we'll all be paying for this "just war" in the forseeable future.


Bush is everything a president shouldn't be. I think he has failed true conservatives, along with most of the rest of the populace. When Bush finally took office, The Onion's headline read something like this: "Our Long Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over". It was very funny then...