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?