Oppose the Bush Personality Cult? Then You're a Leftist!

This is what I meant when I said I have not seen anything objective come from those who disagree with Bush.

 

I am loyal to the Republican Party because it is the only thing standing between us and Socialism or defeat by a foreign power. Bush just happens to be the President at this time.

I figure a conservative with a brain has sense enough to know that there is not going to be a third party in this country and therefore should support the party that can stand against the democrat/Socialist/wimp party.

Just imagine where this country would be if people like Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern, both of whom believed in unilateral disarmament, had their way. The hammer and sickle would be flying over Arkansas.

Imagine where the country would be if Carter had been re-elected instead of Reagan. Imagine where this country would be if Roaring-Tree-Huggin Gore or Swiftboat Purple Heart Kerry had been elected. The only reason we survived that misogynist Clinton is because we got a Republican Congress in 94.

 

Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are taking us towards Socialism! They are both working to destroy our Constitutional Republic and are both driving off the same cliff, one may be driving faster than the other in some areas, but they are both heading in the same direction. You can pretend the GOP leadership is conservative and working against Socialism if you want to, but you are only fooling yourself.

 

A quote from the blog

Can anyone honestly doubt the veracity of that statement?

 

I may be accused of having a liberal viewpoint on a certain issue, such as when I critisize GWB's immigration and border control issues.

But to (be a liberal) one adopts a life viewpoint embracing a wide range of social, political, and world viewpoints, that are an anathema to a conservative. I won't list them here, but you know who you are. And in case some of you forget, I'll be sure to remind you.

 

Can anyone honestly doubt the veracity of that statement? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. I don't consider you, or J Grubbs, or several others here any sort of liberal.

 

The blog referred to in Rockwell's article is ridiculous. Most the people whose "conservatism" were questioned are people whose conservative credentials were questioned long before Bush even thought about running for office. It is disingenuous at best. And then the author goes on to attack their critics as authoritarian cultists. Given Ken's own propensity to attack some here as "Bush bootlickers", the attachment of labels seems to have as much importance on that side as is alleged on "this" side as to the war in Iraq, FISA, etc.

For myself, yes, I have labeled some here as liberals but when I have been shown otherwise I have gone out of my way to publicly apologize and confess my error, usually in embarrassment, but open and willing nonetheless.

I'm also curious, Ken. You referred to the Republican Party as "your party". Didn't you at one time identify yourself as a Republican, or am I mistaken? Do you now disavow the GOP or can we count on you to claim to be Republican when it suits you?


C4K,

Can anyone honestly doubt the veracity of that statement?

Absolutely. It is a ridiculous statement, just as it is ridiculous to call Bush a conservative. I agree with Bro. Curtis. I also don't consider Ken a liberal. Just misguided.

That said, it is simply blind to not recognize that much of the opposition to the war comes from certified liberals. That does not make one liberal for opposing the war or opposing the NSA wiretapping. Just means one is in agreement with the "bad guys" on the Left on this issue.

 

Possibly in polite society, but I have been called a liberal and much worse in this forum for disagreeing with President Bush's policies.

I must admit though, the more logical and rational members here are able to disagree with me without labeling me as some sort of "enemy of the state" when I disagree with the president.

[ February 15, 2006, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Cool. I obviously missed the disavowal. I apologize for the snide comment. For myself, though there are great disappointments in the GOP, its platform still offers me enough encouragement, along with (2) the fact that there are still a great many conservatives there whom I greatly admire and (3) the fact I would still pick most Republican candidates over almost any Democrat. In short, it still seems enough "Reagan's party" to me.

 

I agree that the Republican is still Reagan's Party! thumbs:

However, Ken's assertion that a third party made up of libertarians and conservatives can emerge from a failed Republican Party is nonsense. If the Republican party fails the country will have already gone down the drain. We have to remember that the world is totally different than it was 160 years ago when the Whig Party failed. The dempcrat party of that day was not the Liberal/Socialist/wimp party it is today. :

 

"I am loyal to the Republican Party because it is the only thing standing between us and Socialism or defeat by a foreign power."

You don't trust God?

Socialism is already here.

Bush is run by our internationalists owners. He crosses them and another hunting accident.

 

"You don't trust God?"

 

The only sensible statement above is your quote of me. The remainder is nonsense and not worthy of response. When you ask if I trust God you have lost me. Also I believe that is a violation of the Forum rules.

 

"That "conservatism" has come to mean "loyalty to George Bush" is particularly ironic given how truly un-conservative the Administration is.

But he's a Republican. For some, it's like backing the winning NFL team.

Mencken was right.

 

I would encourage you to get a copy of the GOP platfrom from the Reagan years and compare it to the current GOP platform, you don't even have to go that far back, get a copy of the 1996 GOP platform and compare it to the 2000 GOP platform. Every four years they manage to remove more and more of the conservative planks and when they do so they move the party more and more to the left/socialism on those issues.

Imagine if you will an election where the GOP doesn't nominate a conservative candidate, but instead you have a choose of two liberal/socialist from the two major parties. The conservative voters will have four options:

1. Vote for the liberal/socialist Republican Party candidate. Maybe we won’t end up with the liberal/socialist Democrat - or maybe we will. Either way, the Republican Party will learn once again that they have the conservative vote no matter what they do.

By continuing to vote Republican just means hoping that instead of heading toward a cliff with the accelerator to the floor, the Republicans will drive toward that cliff and stay within the posted speed limit.

2. Vote for the liberal/socialist Democratic candidate. Some on the far edges of conservatism have suggested this as a way to hurry along what they see as the inevitable collapse of America, and see a rebuilding as freedom’s opportunity.

I disagree, I think option #2 should be dismissed without a second thought.

3. Don’t vote at all. Millions of conservative voters did this in 1992, 1996 and 2000.

Not voting at all simply means that the political strategists ignore you. Being ignored should not be our intent. When you choose not to vote you have no right to debate or complain about the results.

4. Vote for a third party candidate.

I believe this to be the best choice at this point. There are two possible outcomes - both of which work toward greater liberty:

A. Third party candidate wins. Although it is highly unlikely, circumstances could evolve resulting in the third party candidate actually winning. Again, highly unlikely, but still possible under the right conditions.

B. Third party candidate loses, but garners a significant percentage of the votes. The objective here is to show that there are votes available that the Republican Party will not get until they change their ways. The objective is not based on finding and supporting a third party candidate who can win an election. For the foreseeable future, the chances of that happening are remote. Instead, the objective is to demonstrate to the Republican Party that voters will leave the party if they are not represented by that party. The working assumption by the Republican Party has always been that conservatives have no where else to turn, and that they are pragmatic enough to not “waste their vote” by voting for a third party. Our objective is to show that assumption to be false.

Either outcome results in a net gain toward restoring the Republic.

Source: When 'The Lesser Of Two Evils' Is No Longer An Option - PDF format

While I don't agree 100% with the author of this document, I do believe he gives a very honest and fair explination of possible voting strategies.

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
--John Quincy Adams

"Duty is ours; results are God's"
--John Quincy Adams

[ February 17, 2006, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: JGrubbs ]