Help a Conservative choose a candidate...

[Kopefire]

Ok guys .. I'm a conservative .. and i really don't think I can vote for Bush again . . .

So . . . who do i vote for? I really don't have a clue .. maybe libertarian.

For those who are curious .. here's why I can't vote for Bush again.

The last time I voted for Bush I voted for him based on several issues:

1) Promise of fiscal conservancy -- shrink the budget and shrink government. The reality is that we have the largest increase in discretionary spending in this nation's history -- while the Republican's control house, senate and white house!! Bush lied to me about his fiscal plan, and I don't particularly like that.

offering up the "war on terror" doesn't win points here, btw, I'm not oppossed to the war spending. I'm oppossed to the largets increase in discretionary spending EVER!

2) I voted for Bush on the promise of decreasing the size of government. Instead we get the Department of Homeland Securtiy. Aside from my revulsion of the term "homeland" here (does it strike anyone else but me as earily reminiscent of the Soviet "Motherland" or the Nazi "Fatherland?") we have a massive increase in the size and scope of government.

Again, I know Bush supporters will whine about the "war on terror." But I don't buy it. Bush told us we didn't need to have a big government. Now he's giving us an even bigger government. He either lied the first time or is lying now, which way do you want it? Personally, I think any time you authorize a large government beaurocracy to collect information on US citizens you are NOT acting with conservative principles.

3) I voted for Bush on the promise of no more nation building. This was a cornerstone issue of his campaign against Gore -- we weren't going to engage in the kind of nation building excercises that Clinton had us doing in places like Haiti. Well, he's right .. we're now doing nation building on a MUCH grander scale. Unfortunately, it's in direct opposition to what he claimed he'd do.

Uh.. and no, the "war on terror" doesn't fly here either. See, the guy who attacked us is hanging out in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I have no problem if we tear those countries to the ground, and then do the right thing and rebuild them. But that's not what we're doing. Instead we're trying to rebuild a country that wasn't involved in any way in the attacks of 9/11, and using 9/11 as an excuse for the actions.

Sorry, but as someone who believes in the conservative ideals of respecting national soveriegnties, I don't get it. More to the point, as a voter who voted for Bush on this specific issue, I'm pissed at being lied to.

4) National Defense. Ok .. I'm a former SF guy .. and I know a lot about what's going on in Afghanistan and I'm PISSED!

We have people dying there because we have utterly failed to devote sufficient troop strength to that operation. The president, as commander-in-chief is directly resposnible for not adequately supporting the operation he started.

Do folks realize there were more security forces employed in NYC to provide security to the republican convention than we have combat troops in Afghanistan to go after the man who killed 3,000 Americans on American soil?!

Color me pissed off at this one.

What "War on Terror?" The most dangerous terrorist in the world is not being made our number one national defense priority because of a misguided assault on a nation that posed no immediate threat to us.

That's it .. those were my four issues .. and Bush blew it on every one of them.

So who's out there as a candidate who would actually act as a fiscal conservative instead of just talking like fiscal conservative?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The GOP does not believe in small government. During the Clinton years, the GOP-led Congress passed larger budgets than proposed by the Democratic President. We also know that the Democrats want big government.

Don't get stuck in the same old tax and spend rut - vote Libertarian (http://www.lp.org)

Now, you may have to accept some non "conservative" issues, like ending the war on drugs, not opposing gay marriage, not opposing abortion. On the other hand, you'll be voting for a platform that more supports the 2nd Amendment than the GOP *and* really believes in ending the personal income tax.

[Jimbo]

The problem is you are not a conservative but for some odd reason that is the label you placed on this post. I really guffawed at the part where you blame President Bush for establishing the Dept of Homeland Security. Didn't 911 have a little something to do with that necessity?

And you wrote "Sorry, but as someone who believes in the conservative ideals of respecting national soveriegnties (sic), I don't get it." What conservative ideals are composed of this little thought. I am a conservative and feel we should invade, bomb and overthrow any country on the the planet that threatens Americans.

Don't be ashamed, discard that fake conservative label you are using as a shield and admit you are a liberal. Feel better now? Now go out and vote your conscience, that is a conservative ideal as well.

Jimbo

[Neil Stevens]

Do you hate tariffs and like the Bush Doctrine? Vote Bush.

Do you hate tariffs and hate the Bush Doctrine? Vote Badnarik (Libertarian Party).

Do you like tariffs and hate the Bush Doctrine? Vote Peroutka (Constitution Party).

[Bez]

Iraq posed no threat to America.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq posed no threat to America.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know this for a fact how? Oh, you are a Brit, nevermind, facts aren't important to you.

Jimbo

[ACPlayer]

.. a conservative. You are no conservative.

[Bez]

What threat did Iraq pose? You need to show evidence that Saddam posed a threat. You can't just attack a country because it could theoretically pose a threat. What do you mean by facts not being important to Brits?

[ACPlayer]

Excellent post.

One additional point I would add:

As a conservative one should be against the compromise on civil liberties imposed on us by the Patriot acts.

In addition to the Iraq misadventure this issue has convinced me to vote Democrat for the first time as the lesser of the two evils. A vote for the Libertarians or others is a cop out, IMO, as a protest vote. If you are for the Libertarian agenda, then that is a different story.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
.. a conservative. You are no conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oddly enough I am, however your opinion or definition is irrelevant but thanks for popping in.

Jimbo

[Kopefire]

[ QUOTE ]

The problem is you are not a conservative but for some odd reason that is the label you placed on this post. I really guffawed at the part where you blame President Bush for establishing the Dept of Homeland Security. Didn't 911 have a little something to do with that necessity?


[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly, I have a hard time seeing how anyone calling themselves a conservative and using that term with it's historical meaning of being for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and civil liberties can NOT be oppossed to the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security.

Conservatives who unabashadly support the war in Iraq are a mistery to me, but conservatives who are not outraged at the lack of focus on finishing the job in Afghanistan suggest to me that national defense is not nearly as important to them as blind republican loyalty.

Does the creation of DHS uphold a strict respect for the 10th ammendment, long a bastion point of conservative thought? No. It does not. Does the passage of the patriot act stem from fundamental principles that government power should be used sparingly and judiciously? No, it does not.

The policies advocated by this administration are more in line with FDR or Wilson than with Goldwater or Reagan. This is not a conservative president, except in rhetoric.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't have a clue .. maybe libertarian.

[/ QUOTE ]Bingo.

[Nepa]

Great post! The thing that gets me is that most of the real conservatives don't have the balls to response to a post like this. You know who you are, just keep starting new threads posting stories.

[Kopefire]

Assuming that this is in response to me, AC Player, I'll respond a bit.

Economically, I believe in pre-Keynesian economics. As did Ronald Reagan. I believe in smaller, leaner, less obtrusive Government, as did Reagan. I believe that government spending must be cut along with tax cuts in order to have effective, long term economic growth . . . a theme that was a cornerstone of Reagan's 1st innaugral address.

I believe there is next to no role in the federal government for social programs. However, if we are to have a welfare program, then "Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence"

I bevieve that most criminal and social laws are properly left to the state.

I believe in giving significant credence to the 10th ammendment.

I believe that the having 32 different federal beaurocracies with armed agents empowered to arrest citizens is a real and rpesent threat to ever American's civil liberties.

I am decidedly conservative. The problem with most republicans is that they've forgotten what it means to be a fiscal conservative . . . and have focused almost exclussively on social conservancy as the standard by which one gains admission to the Republican party.

Sadly, the result is a party that has all the vices of the democrats, with none of the virtues.

We have gone from a Reagan, who vetoed a record number of spending bills trying to teach the democrat controlled congress that "We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much," to a Bush who has signed for a record number of discretionary spending dollars asked for by his own party!without ever vetoing one of them.

Does anyone believe that Reagan would be for the patriot act or the the department of homeland security? I don't. Indeed, I think his own words decidedly answer that question: " You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path."

[bisonbison]

I really don't have a clue .. maybe libertarian.-->Bingo.

ahaha, I saw the same thing.

[Kopefire]

Do the libertarians even have a fiscal stance beyond we should legalize and tax pot?

Maybe it's just the libertarians in my area .. but I'm not sure I'm all that interested in a party who's average member is too stoned to remember to go to the polls.

[MMMMMM]

Why don't you check out www.lp.org (http://www.lp.org) before jumping to such ridiculous conclusions--although I do think some publicly stress the legalization issue too much at the expense of other issues.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you check out www.lp.org (http://www.lp.org) before jumping to such ridiculous conclusions--although I do think some publicly stress the legalization issue too much at the expense of other issues.

[/ QUOTE ]


I took their test. The results are below.
You preferred the Democratic stance for 1 issue. Democratic Platform

You preferred the Green stance for 1 issue. Green Platform

You preferred the Libertarian stance for 5 issues. Libertarian Platform.

You preferred the Republican stance for 0 issues. Republican Platform.

I would vote Libertarian but I do live in a swing state so I don't believe I will.

[Kopefire]

It's not a particularly ridiculous conclussion ... I've known a few libertarians in my lifetime. Heck I even happened to be close enough to a rally once or twice while on campus in the late '70s and early '80s. Maybe they've changed . . but then they were a bunch of burn-outs trying to legalize pot.

[Cyrus]

I'll just sit back and enjoy the frantic efforts by the Bush faithful around here who will try to make the sun rise out of the west, for ya!

Goes without saying, of course, that you are right: Bush is the last of the big time spenders, an interventionist of the first order, and wants an iron-strong central government in tandem with total state intrusion into private lives. The rest is chaff. (But it will be fun!)

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
. . . a theme that was a cornerstone of Reagan's 1st innaugral address.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was not alive when he said these words, but I once made a song that sampled the closing lines of Reagan's address: "Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem."

Which, taken out of context, works surpising well as an anarchist rallying cry.

NT

[Kopefire]

What surprises me is how quickly the republican party has abandoned fiscal conservancy as a point of substance, and more worrisome, how little the average republican seems to care.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing that gets me is that most of the real conservatives don't have the balls to response to a post like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's a "real conservative?" The original poster seems to put himself in some sort of box that he claims everyone else will have to pass a litmus test of being "conservative" to be in that same box. I don't think I'd even call myself a conservative.

I've commented so many times about the budget deficit that I'm tired of it. The current budget deficit isn't even close to being the biggest of all time as a percentage of GDP. Second of all if one really wants to trim the budget deficit one has to focus on entitlements. Discretionary spending is a minor issue when compared to entitlements, just look at the growth of medicare and medicaid costs the past 3 or 4 years. During the Clinton administration defense spending as a percentage of GDP was at a post WWII low. More defense spending is certainly understandable in light of that.

As far as nation building, what about post WWII Japan and Germany? The fact of the matter is that the Middle East has major econmic and political problems. Read the 9/11 Commission Report for a good discussion regarding the roots of Islamic terrorism and what they want to do to the Americans.

The rationale for a Homeland Security department seems perfectly legitimate. There are probably less necessary Executive branch cabinets. When people talk about wanting a smaller government what they really mean is slowing the rate of growth of government. It would be silly to state that the size of government wouldn't grow as the population grows for instance. Are you stating that the size of government should be what is was 50 years ago?

Everyone's entitled to their opinion about Afghanistan as I don't share his.

The crap about sovereignty wa ridiculous and I've commented on that before many times. I wasted about 10 minutes on this post. I thought the original post was dumb. Did I get my balls back?

[Kopefire]

[ QUOTE ]


What's a "real conservative?" The original poster seems to put himself in some sort of box that he claims everyone else will have to pass a litmus test of being "conservative" to be in that same box.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd suggest that for the term to have meaning, it must in some way relate to the way it's been used historically within the context of the American political spectrum. Ergo, looking to the writtings of people like George Will, Ronald Reagan, Goldwater, etc., would be a good place to start. If one doesn't at least share some of those views on policies, then it is hard to say that one is a conservative and have it retain any meaning for the sake of a public discussion; for, in disavowing it's historical contextual meaning and supplementing your own, you have framed the debate in your own private language to which only you have access.


[ QUOTE ]

Second of all if one really wants to trim the budget deficit one has to focus on entitlements. Discretionary spending is a minor issue when compared to entitlements, just look at the growth of medicare and medicaid costs the past 3 or 4 years.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have no argument from me. The republicans have stated that as a goal for decades. They control the house and the senate and the white house . . . what of substance have they done about it in the last 4 years?

But you miss the point of being upset about discretionary spending. Discretionary spending, being discretionary, is the easy spending to control. The only excuse for the rash of discretionary spending we've seen under this administration is a total failure to understand that fiscal responsibility should be a first principle of sound government.


[ QUOTE ]

More defense spending is certainly understandable in light of that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with increased defense spending when it is justified by needed new weapons systems, increased training, or operational expenditures.

[ QUOTE ]

As far as nation building, what about post WWII Japan and Germany?


[/ QUOTE ]

What about them? As far as I can tell they're doing fine.

The point about nation building is that THIS president made it a plank of his campaign that he would refrain from it. He has failed in that pledge. And yet, in an amusing display of temerity, he accuses others of being "flip-floppers."

[ QUOTE ]

The fact of the matter is that the Middle East has major econmic and political problems.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they do. The biggest problem they have is that the various world powers, USA, France, Russia, and Britain chiefly, won't stay the hell out and let them establish boarders that are in some way harmonious to the natural ethnic and religous segregation of the populations.


[ QUOTE ]

Read the 9/11 Commission Report for a good discussion regarding the roots of Islamic terrorism and what they want to do to the Americans.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've read the 9/11 commission. Frankly, I think they fail to grasp a number of things.

[ QUOTE ]

The rationale for a Homeland Security department seems perfectly legitimate.


[/ QUOTE ]

To be successfull at dragging us into totalitarianism, one must always appear legitimate.

[ QUOTE ]

There are probably less necessary Executive branch cabinets. When people talk about wanting a smaller government what they really mean is slowing the rate of growth of government.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. Many mean making the government smaller. It is unnecessarily large and beaurocratic.

[ QUOTE ]

It would be silly to state that the size of government wouldn't grow as the population grows for instance.


[/ QUOTE ]

There should be no need for it to grow at the same rate as the population. It may need to grow, but it need not expand.

[ QUOTE ]

Are you stating that the size of government should be what is was 50 years ago?


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no reason why government spending as a percentage of per-capita real income should be any greater today than it was 50 years ago. Indeed, given the efficiencies offered by computer systems, it could arguably be lower than that.

[ QUOTE ]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion about Afghanistan as I don't share his.


[/ QUOTE ]

Some opinions are more informed than others, though I agree that this is a point on which people may disagree in good faith.

[ QUOTE ]

I wasted about 10 minutes on this post. I thought the original post was dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

*shrug*

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:


What's a "real conservative?" The original poster seems to put himself in some sort of box that he claims everyone else will have to pass a litmus test of being "conservative" to be in that same box.




I'd suggest that for the term to have meaning, it must in some way relate to the way it's been used historically within the context of the American political spectrum. Ergo, looking to the writtings of people like George Will, Ronald Reagan, Goldwater, etc., would be a good place to start. If one doesn't at least share some of those views on policies, then it is hard to say that one is a conservative and have it retain any meaning for the sake of a public discussion; for, in disavowing it's historical contextual meaning and supplementing your own, you have framed the debate in your own private language to which only you have access.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an example of mental masturbation. I don't want to be placed in any box, I'm not an idealogue.


[ QUOTE ]
You have no argument from me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except you didn't mention it. It's by far the biggest component spending and entitlements, from my understanding an anathama, to conservative ideas. The fact that you don't mention this when proclaiming yourself a coservative tells me your either don't share these ideals yourself, you have your priorities screwed up, or you don't understand very much about government spending.

[ QUOTE ]
The republicans have stated that as a goal for decades.

[/ QUOTE ]

They got control of both the Senate and House for the first time in over 40 years in 1994 and the budget deficit shrunk and a surpluss resulted.

[ QUOTE ]
They control the house and the senate and the white house . . . what of substance have they done about it in the last 4 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

A few things but not enough in fighting fraud. The legislative branch is more or less "handcuffed" due to the razor thin majority in the Senate. The health savings accounts idea is a good one to start weaning people from this entitlement. Tort reform has been blocked by the Democrats.

[ QUOTE ]
But you miss the point of being upset about discretionary spending. Discretionary spending, being discretionary, is the easy spending to control. The only excuse for the rash of discretionary spending we've seen under this administration is a total failure to understand that fiscal responsibility should be a first principle of sound government.

[/ QUOTE ]

You miss my point. Increases is discretionary spending is insignificant when compared to entitlements. The operative word is insignificant.



[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

As far as nation building, what about post WWII Japan and Germany?




What about them? As far as I can tell they're doing fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a result of nation building post WWII.

[ QUOTE ]
The point about nation building is that THIS president made it a plank of his campaign that he would refrain from it. He has failed in that pledge. And yet, in an amusing display of temerity, he accuses others of being "flip-floppers."

[/ QUOTE ]

Post 9/11 a lot of people rightfully changed their outlook. What should have been Bush's response to 9/11?

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Read the 9/11 Commission Report for a good discussion regarding the roots of Islamic terrorism and what they want to do to the Americans.




I've read the 9/11 commission. Frankly, I think they fail to grasp a number of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like what as far as their assessment of the middle east?


[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Are you stating that the size of government should be what is was 50 years ago?




There is no reason why government spending as a percentage of per-capita real income should be any greater today than it was 50 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say otherwise. You're the one who talked about shrinking government not shrinking government per capita. In order to do that significantly in the long run the growth in entitlement spending will have to decrease significantly. Something apparently you feel is less important than increases in discretionary spending.

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed, given the efficiencies offered by computer systems, it could arguably be lower than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Effeciencies of computer systems has little to do with it.


[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

The fact of the matter is that the Middle East has major econmic and political problems.




Yes, they do. The biggest problem they have is that the various world powers, USA, France, Russia, and Britain chiefly, won't stay the hell out and let them establish boarders that are in some way harmonious to the natural ethnic and religous segregation of the populations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like what Saddam was doing for Iraq i.e. establishing borders that were harmoniuous to the natural ethnic and religious segregation of the Iraqi population?

[ QUOTE ]
There are probably less necessary Executive branch cabinets. When people talk about wanting a smaller government what they really mean is slowing the rate of growth of government.




No. Many mean making the government smaller. It is unnecessarily large and beaurocratic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again are stating that government should be the same size as it was 50 years ago?

[ QUOTE ]
There should be no need for it to grow at the same rate as the population. It may need to grow, but it need not expand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I'm glad I got you to clear that up.

[ QUOTE ]
The rationale for a Homeland Security department seems perfectly legitimate.




To be successfull at dragging us into totalitarianism, one must always appear legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way is this happening?

[ACPlayer]

Popping in....
You are delusional or ignorant.
...popping out.

[ACPlayer]

My point was that Jimbo is not a conservative.

I agreed totally with your first post and we are both on similar wavelength based on your present post.

The Republican party has given up its true conservative roots and has been taken over by a bunch of self serving thugs disguised as religious zealots and corporate snake oil salesmen. We have lost all semblance of fiscal and monetary discipline. We have gone from giving handouts to our people to giving hand outs and nation building across the planet. Oddly enough Gore did a better job of cutting government then Bush has even tried to do. We have sacrificed our basic principles of liberty and individual freedoms in the bogeyman of the terrorist.

So, given your posts, I tend to agree with a lot you say. I am planning to vote for (remind me who is the democrat this year) Kerry, mostly to let the republicans know that they must shape up again.

We now have two parties that are [self censored].

[MMMMMM]

Any conclusion based on a minuscule sample size is a ridiculous conclusion. Read the website and get a clue, unless your purpose is merely to trash Bush rather than seeking fiscal solutions which may be more in keeping with your philosophy than are the current Republican efforts.

[MMMMMM]

"The Republican party has given up its true conservative roots..."

In a lot of ways that is true, ACPlayer.

Also, as someone said before:

The Republicans have become Democrats, and the Democrats have become Socialists.

More truth to that than one might think.

[MMMMMM]

"The biggest problem they have is that the various world powers, USA, France, Russia, and Britain chiefly, won't stay the hell out and let them establish boarders that are in some way harmonious to the natural ethnic and religous segregation of the populations."

Not even close to their biggest problem.

Their biggest problem is that they are all dictatorships and theocracies and as such unfree societies, are unable to compete economically with the rest of the world or to develop vibrant, growing economies. One reason they remain mired in such backwards ways is the traditions they carry with them (politico-religious).

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you check out www.lp.org (http://www.lp.org) before jumping to such ridiculous conclusions--although I do think some publicly stress the legalization issue too much at the expense of other issues.

[/ QUOTE ]


I took their test. The results are below.
You preferred the Democratic stance for 1 issue. Democratic Platform

You preferred the Green stance for 1 issue. Green Platform

You preferred the Libertarian stance for 5 issues. Libertarian Platform.

You preferred the Republican stance for 0 issues. Republican Platform.

I would vote Libertarian but I do live in a swing state so I don't believe I will.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a very good reason to do so. If you vote libertarian, then you are giving them more support for the next election. For instance, it's much harder for an organization to raise funds that only gets 1% of the votes and fails vs an organization that gets 30% and fails.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
"The Republican party has given up its true conservative roots..."

In a lot of ways that is true, ACPlayer.

Also, as someone said before:

The Republicans have become Democrats, and the Democrats have become Socialists.

More truth to that than one might think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I can't stand what the Democrats are doing now adays. They are about as unliberal (dictionary term) as you can get, and I don't agree with alot of what the republicans are doing either. The Libertarian party is looking better and better every time I look at it. I like how their stances of issues are based on lessons of history, no matter how counter intuitive it is. I would never of thought the stuff they are saying about foreign aid is true, but the more I read, the more I can't help but agree. It doesn't sound right, in fact it even sounds wrong, but it makes sense.