Why Conservatives Should Vote for Kerry

(FranklinJefferson) wrote in message . com...
A Contrarian View: Why conservatives should not support Bush.

One reason that conservatives have had for supporting the candidacy of
George W. Bush is not that they favor Mr. Bush (many of us have grave
reservations about his policies) but that they worry about a Democrat
victory presaging a sharp turn of the country to the left. But this
is an unfounded fear: it's simply not going to occur. The Reagan
revolution happened, and, regardless of who is elected in November,
it's not about to be undone.
[...]
The heart and soul of the conservative thinking is fiscal
conservatism

How strange that you should say *that* after speaking of the Reagan
Revolution as a major conservative achievement!
Tbe Reagan Revolution did away with fiscal conservatism as a primary
conservative principle. Reaganism consists, in part and at some times,
in running up huge deficits in order to (1) accelerate economic growth
and (2) prevent future Democratic congresses from excessive
social spending, from creating massive dependency on government;
and therefore (3) prevent a new cycle
of spend-and-elect FDR-style liberal politics.

To a Reaganite, deficits are not in themselves
bad - but taxes *are*. *Growth* is the name
of the economic game, and growth is achieved through *tax
cutting* and *deregulation*. These are Bush's policies, too.

If *he* is not conservative, then neither was *Reagan*.
And that makes little sense - since most of today's
conservatives are avowed Reaganites, while
fiscal conservatives are rare relics of
a pre-Reagan past.

Another, even older feature of prehistoric paleoconservatism
was *isolationism*. That one was mostly dead before Reagan, but he
put paid to its vestiges. In his active foreign and defense
policy, as well as in his tax reduction and deregulation
policies, Bush is a *pure Reaganite* - and in that modern sense,
is thoroughly conservative.

You are missing the point.

The first point is the Bush is NOT A CONSERVATIVE. The Wall Street
Journal (hardly a liberal newspaper) called him a "big-government
conservative", but this is really an oxymoron-- you can't be a
conservative and yet still in favor of deficit spending and increasing
the size and reach of the government.

From the Wall Street Journal (10/27)
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1...5,00.html?mod=
opinion%5Fmain%5Fcommentaries

"The massive growth in the state during this presidency (faster than
under Bill Clinton, even if you exclude the spending on the war on
terror) owes a fair amount to opportunism -- to Mr. Bush's willingness
to pay off friends in the business world or a refusal to pick a fight
with allies in GOP-controlled Congress (he has not wielded his veto
pen once).... he laced his acceptance speech at the GOP convention
with promises to use government to improve people's lives."

Sheldon Richman calls him an "anti-freedom conservative" (another
oxymoron)
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0312b.asp

Clearly, conservatives don't like Bush-- the only real argument is
that he is marginally better than Kerry.

But the real point is, if Kerry is elected, he will be powerless-- he
won't be able to go on a spending spree, since he won't have control
of congress. He won't be able to implement much of anything from his
agenda. A president and an administration that are from opposing
parties is a VERY GOOD IDEA-- and in fact, historically, this is the
ONLY thing that has ever kept congressional spending in check

Bush seems to be on a spending spree, and if Kerry can keep the
Republican congressional pork-barrel in check, that sounds good to me.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:
::
:: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
:: ...
::
:: That defeat created the modern terrorist movement. I have still yet
to see
:: any spoils of that "victory".
::
:: How do you define "modern terrorist movement"?
:
:Former countries from the USSR that are Muslim,

In other words, you have adopted a circular (mis)definition and then
proclaimed it as truth.

:aligned with other
:anti-western Muslim countries to the point where they produce enough of a
:force that is willing to die at our expense.

I don't know how to break it to you, but those "former countries from
the USSR that are Muslim" pretty much have zero to do with Western
terrorism. Mostly they're too busy blowing up Russian school
children.

:What is so bad that these people are willing to commit suicide to kill
:us? They obviously are missing something...

And obviously so are you.


Don't mix apples with sour pickles here. All of the central Asian
Republics that were part of the former Soviet Union have either been neutral
and friendly to us so far or have aided us directly (even having provided
use of their bases for us to work from upon occasion as needed). And none of
them have been either directly or indirectly involved in the terrorist acts
within Russia. Just the opposite, all of them east of the Caspian at least
seem to have good diplomatic and trade relations with their former master,
Russia, as well as with us. Having so recently broken away from totalitarian
Communism it seems the last thing they want to do is to hook up with an
equally totalitarian Islamism. Not all Muslim nations are involved in this
holy jihad, or even want to be involved. These are some of the toughest
peoples still left on the face of the Earth and even Chechnya in revolution,
al-Qaeda, and Iran too, all of them apparently, realize it is healthy
practice to leave these people alone and ignore their apparent friendliness
to Russia and the United States--at least for now that is. This is the way I
read their place and attitude in the scheme of things, so far, from all I've
seen, heard and read.

Brad

"glbrad01" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
: :Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:
: ::
: :: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: :: ...
: ::
: :: That defeat created the modern terrorist movement. I have still yet
: to see
: :: any spoils of that "victory".
: ::
: :: How do you define "modern terrorist movement"?
: :
: :Former countries from the USSR that are Muslim,
:
: In other words, you have adopted a circular (mis)definition and then
: proclaimed it as truth.
:
: :aligned with other
: :anti-western Muslim countries to the point where they produce enough of a
: :force that is willing to die at our expense.
:
: I don't know how to break it to you, but those "former countries from
: the USSR that are Muslim" pretty much have zero to do with Western
: terrorism. Mostly they're too busy blowing up Russian school
: children.
:
: :What is so bad that these people are willing to commit suicide to kill
: :us? They obviously are missing something...
:
: And obviously so are you.
:
: Don't mix apples with sour pickles here. All of the central Asian
:Republics that were part of the former Soviet Union have either been neutral
:and friendly to us so far or have aided us directly (even having provided
:use of their bases for us to work from upon occasion as needed). And none of
:them have been either directly or indirectly involved in the terrorist acts
:within Russia. Just the opposite, all of them east of the Caspian at least
:seem to have good diplomatic and trade relations with their former master,
:Russia, as well as with us. Having so recently broken away from totalitarian
:Communism it seems the last thing they want to do is to hook up with an
:equally totalitarian Islamism. Not all Muslim nations are involved in this
:holy jihad, or even want to be involved. These are some of the toughest
eoples still left on the face of the Earth and even Chechnya in revolution,
:al-Qaeda, and Iran too, all of them apparently, realize it is healthy
ractice to leave these people alone and ignore their apparent friendliness
:to Russia and the United States--at least for now that is. This is the way I
:read their place and attitude in the scheme of things, so far, from all I've
:seen, heard and read.

This is just one of the many things that El Chimpo is missing, Brad.
It's just that, given the level of his general cluelessness, I didn't
think it was useful to enumerate all of them.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

C.J.W. ) wrote:


: Eric Chomko wrote:

: Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: : (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
: : :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: : :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: : :
: : :: :Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:
: : :: :
: : :: :: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: : :: :: ...
: : :: ::
: : :: :: : The US national parks predate modern liberalism.
: : :: ::
: : :: :: So?
: : :: :
: : :: :: So they are not a product of liberalism as it is understood today.
: : :: :
: : :: :They are a product of socialism.
: : ::
: : :: Wrong.
: : :
: : :Can you own property in a national park? Can you carry a firearm? Can you
: : :set up a kiosk without government approval? Can you take artifacts?
:
: : Is any of this relevant to socialism? Same answer to all preceding
: : questions.
:
: : :Hey idiot, ALL indications are that national parks ARE socialistic in
: : :nature.
:
: : Hey idiot, you don't appear to know what socialism is (either).
:
: Okay tell me what socialism is and then tell me why national parks don't
: fit.snip

: Because socialism is about controlling people's interactions and property. The mere
: fact that the State owns some property is certainly not it.

: It looks more like this:
: "The system of myriad business and trade associations organized
: during the Republic was maintained by the Nazis, though under
: the basic law of February 27, 1934, they were reorganized on
: the streamlined leadership principle and put under the control
: of the State. All businesses were forced to become members.
: At the head of an incredibly complex structure was the Reich
: Economic chamber, whose leader was appointed by the State,
: and which controlled seven national economic groups, twenty-three
: economic chambers, one hundred chambers of industry and
: commerce and the seventy chambers of handicrafts. Amidst
: this labyrinthine organization and all the multitude of offices
: and agencies of the Ministry of Economics and the Four-Year
: Plan and the Niagara of thousands of special decrees and
: laws even the most astute businessman was often lost, and
: special lawyers had to be employed to enable a firm to function.
: The graft involved in finding one’s way to key officials who
: could make decisions on which orders depended or in
: circumventing the endless rules and regulations of the
: government and the trade associations became in the late
: Thirties astronomical. “An economic necessity,” one
: businessman termed it to this writer."
: (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany.
: William L. Shirer. (Simon and Schuster) 1990 :262)

: It's like the American Republic's tax code. It is made more complicated, quite on
: purpose. That way a lot of people can hide their corruption in it. This sort of thing
: is socialism. It is evil.

: So it seeks paths to destroy the good:
: ".... the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy
: Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute
: the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods
: and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.

The Nazis wanted to return to paganism? Yeah, right...

: As Bormann, one of the men closest to Hitler,
: said publicly in 1941, “National Socialism and Christianity are
: irreconcilable.”
: What the Hitler government envisioned for Germany was clearly
: set out in a thirty-point program for the “National Reich Church”
: drawn up during the war by Rosenberg, an outspoken pagan, who
: among his other offices held that of “the Fuehrer’s Delegate for the
: Entire Intellectual and Philosophical Education and Instruction for
: the National Socialist Party.” A few of its thirty articles convey the
: essentials:

The Nazis were more fascist than socialist.

: 1. The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the
: exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within
: the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be
: national churches of the German Reich.
: 5. The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably
: the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the
: ill-omened year 800.

Charlemagne? Why pick on him?

: 7. The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests,
: but National Reich orators are to speak in them.
: 13. The National Church demands immediate cessation of the
: publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany .
: 14. The National Church declares that to it, and therefore to the
: German nation, it has been decided that the Fuehrer’s Mein Kampi is
: the greatest of all documents. It . . . not only contains the greatest but
: it embodies the purest and truest ethics for the present
: and future life of our nation.
: 18. The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes,
: Bibles and pictures of saints.
: 19. On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampi (to the
: German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and
: to the left of the altar a sword.
: 30. On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be
: removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels . . . and it must
: be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika."
: (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany.
: William L. Shirer. (Simon and Schuster) 1990 :238-40)

: The MTVeee generation seems to be following along....
: http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/10/eminem.html#comments
: --
: --W
: http://mynym.blogspot.com/

Man this the wildest rant of seen on USENET in awhile.

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On 29 Oct 2004 11:43:01 -0700, in a place far, far away,
: (Geoffrey A. Landis) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: The Clinton administration is a perfect example of the "vote for
: gridlock" strategy. Examine the federal budget trends:
:
: (Clinton elected)
: --Democrat administration, Democrat congress: HIGH deficit
: --Democrat administration, Republican congress: Deficit changes
: tosurplus
: (GW. elected)
: --Republican administration, Republican congress: Surplus changes to
: Deficit
:
: The signal to noise ratio is pretty low:
:
: Administration and congress same party, *high* deficit
: Administration and congress opposite parties, *low* deficit or
: surplus.
:
: In fact, having a president from the opposite party seems to be the
: ONLY thing that keeps the congress from going wild at the public
: feeding trough.

: No, that only works when it's a Republican Congress and a Democrat
: president.

: It's why I'd vote for Kerry if we weren't at war, and he weren't such
: a lying empty suit.

The irony here of course is that the war Bush started on false pretense
has made Bush a lying, empty suit.

Yes, we are at war, but you're voting for the wrong guy because of it!!

Eric

Man this the wildest rant of seen on USENET in awhile.

Eric

It wasn't a rant. It was a quote.

Fred J. McCall wrote in message . ..
:"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
:[discussing the argument that electing Kerry would result in a
emocrat for president, but a Republican congress]:
: : Kerry offers a presidency that a Republican congress won't roll over
: : for. It's not that Kerry has any better ideas (almost all of them are
: : worse), but with a Republican congress, he won't be able to implement
: : them....
: :
:The Clinton administration is a perfect example of the "vote for
:gridlock" strategy. Examine the federal budget trends:
:
Clinton elected)
:--Democrat administration, Democrat congress: HIGH deficit
:--Democrat administration, Republican congress: Deficit changes to surplus
GW. elected)
:--Republican administration, Republican congress: Surplus changes to Deficit
:
:The signal to noise ratio is pretty low:
:
:Administration and congress same party, *high* deficit
:Administration and congress opposite parties, *low* deficit or
:surplus.
:
:In fact, having a president from the opposite party seems to be the
:ONLY thing that keeps the congress from going wild at the public
:feeding trough.

Coincidence does not equal causality, particularly when your data set
is limited to a big 3 points.

But the data isn't limited to three points-- that's just the most
RECENT data. It has been true certainly as far back as the end of
World War II-- look at the Eisenhauer administration, for example:
fiscal restraint occurred when the presidency (Republican) and
congress (Democrat) were from opposite parties. It's been a trend
through the entire post-war era.

Look at the deficit trends, as well-- the data is on the web; check it
by administration (keeping in mind that the president elected in 1980
takes office in 1981, and the first budget is 1982.)

The ONLY time that government spending is restrained is when the
administration is from a different party as the congress.

"Jon" wrote in message
om...
(FranklinJefferson) wrote:

We are not at war merely with Al Qaeda. The problem is, and always
has been, much larger than that.

We most certainly are at war with Al Qaeda.

How on earth can a nation state go to war with a committee?

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:38:37 GMT, in a place far, far away, "David
Lentz" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


If you listen all of Usama bin Laden's latest tape, you will find out that
al Qaeda is not doing well. Bin Laden complains of hurting George W. Bush
is putting on him.

Yup. One reasonable interpretation of that tape is that he's on the
run, and asking for a time out.