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

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

[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

[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]

.. a conservative. You are no conservative.

[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

[ACPlayer]

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

[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."