A special thanks, and perhaps apology- to Dayton Rocker on a comment he made some time back that has stuck with me- "How can anyone consider themselves conservative and back GW" or some such.

When you talk to folks who believe Clinton was a generally "good" President- they will usually acknowledge his failures, and perhaps even thier dislike of him personally, and even acknowledge a definate feeling that he was corrupt.

Not so with the GW supporters- they talk glowingly about his "character" and will usually defend each and every thing his administration does.

Clinton is usually supported more for his competance than anything else- he got the job done- not always perfectly, not a hero-worship of a president- but, like with FEMA- it is acknowledged that he generally was pragmatic in is desire to make things run better in regards to the goverment.

With GW, there is an ideology to follow- conservatism mostly- but, his presidency, in reality, is probably the least "old guard" conservative we have ever had- big goverment, big spending, big deficits, big brother- no movement at all towards "traditional" conservatism.

In reality- some old style republican conservatives should be outraged at this president- the continuous Clinton style scandals, the Nixon type witch hunts, the Lyndon Johnson type spending- he has the worst of practically every president in modern history.

So- questions for debate:

1) If you are a conservative- do you believe GW to be conservative by your ideals? If yes, why, if no, why?

2) Is the modern republican party conservative?

3) If they have not followed some of the most basic tenents of your core beliefs (that is, if you are not a "one issue" type voter- say abortion or guns) - why do you continue to support the republican party? Are you trying to change it from within, voting "lesser of two evils" or see no substitute at this time?

4) Has conservative America abandoned thier core ideals in order to maintain power?

1. Yes. Bush is conservative because he believes in several core principles that define that school of thought including (1) the power of the individual, (2) peace through strength not pacifism, (3) the power of free markets and capitalism vs. socialism, (4) a believe that their is a right vs. wrong instead of situational ethics and moral relativism, (5) a deep-seated realization that appeasement when faced with a serious threat to our long-term survival like the radical Islamist Jihad, is a disaster.

2. Yes, the modern republican party is conservative AND progressive I may add. The modern democrat party has become the reactionary party by comparison. It's the democrats who cling to outdated notions such as affirmative action, union dominance of the workplace, public school monopolies, an obsolete social security system, and 1960's vintage views of morality, personal accountability, and the rule of law.

3. I support the republican party because they are more closely aligned to my personal ideals. They are the party of business, not a (failed) ideal of a strong centralized government with central planning powers. They are the party of a strong military, not the pacifism of a Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, or a wide variety of far left democrat gadflies. They are the party that believe in a rule of law. You don't see republicans holding candle-light vigils for brutal convicted mass murderers who are about to be executed. The republicans are the party that believes that no society can last if the fundamental institutions such as family, society, and the rule of law break down. The democrats, in contrast, are fully willing to destroy fundamental institutions in their zeal to pursue the cause-of-the-month which, most recently, has been "gay marriage". The republicans believe in the power of the individual and believe that the individual should be admired more than "groups". The democrats, in contrast, cling to outdated concepts such as "racial identity" and prefer to group people into convenient pigeonholes of "race", gender, and "sexual orientation". That collectivist mind-set sickens me personally since it is the first cousin to the mind-sets that resulted in the genocides of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot.

4. Your premise is false. All philosophies evolve over time to fit the times. What you're stating is that "orthodox conservatism" has been abandoned by the republican party. That's nonsense. Bush has always been a "moderate" conservative who displayed some liberal tendencies. That's fine. Nobody who is far from the political center can be elected in our society given the close split between republican and democrat voters. Given the choice, I'd rather have a moderate republican than moderate democrat. We've already seen what happens during 8 years of a moderate democrat; the stage is set for a war due to massive incompetence and inaction on the national security front. I'd rather support someone with a SPINE like Bush who makes his decision on war and peace based on the facts presented to him and then who doesn't cut and run when the going gets tough in a way that would make the situation even worse. We don't see that sort of backbone in the democrats these days. Kerry? He was for the war before he was against it. Edwards? Same thing. Russert made him look like a two-faced liar on Sunday when he played his clips standing up for his pro-war vote and had him stating essentially that "he was running for office when he said that". Yes, we know. Polls, not principles are what motivates the current crops of democrats.

And you refer to "Clinton-era scandals"? Please. The democrats, via their mass rationalization of their support of the corrupt Clinton, have been trying to manufacturer a "scandal" to stick to Bush since day one. Actually, BEFORE day one (the drunk driving October Surprise that they unleashed the weekend before the 2000 election). None have stuck. Clinton was corrupt both personally and professionally. He DID get impeached. He DID lie under oath. He DID pardon convicted felons on the way out the door in exchange for a variety of gifts and favors. Bush has been a stand-up and honest character in contrast. No question.

OK, since I am only post 2 here, I am going to ignore the blatant fictions about Clinton and assorted jibes about how Michael Moore = the left, and just focuis on the issues. I might humbly request that those who respond do the same, issues as opposed to rhetiric, otherise this thread will be closed mightly quickly.



If I may, I'm not sure what you mean by the 'power' of the individual, but if you mean rights, then I would point out there has never been such an attack on individual and civil rights as has gone on under Bush Jr. The Patriot act, domerstic surveillance, arrest without charge, legal or in the case of foreign nationals, consular representation, and so on. Now you may choose to believe these are NECESSARY attacks on personal freedom given the climate (I don't believe they are, but lets leave that to one side for this debate) but necessary or not, one cannot deny the enormous amount more power the government now weilds over the individual since Bush jr took office.




'Peace' through strength? I agree he believes in strength not pacisfism, but hardly peace through. The nation has invaded two countries, both of which will likely be open sores long after he leaves office. I need not repeat again the toll of US deaths and casualties, and the limited tangible returns brought to date. I do not know what Bush Jr's motives were for Iraq, they have been endlessly debated here and elsewhere, but one can hardly claim peace was on his mind.



Bush Jr has inacted some of the more anti-capitalist laws and policies seen in some time during his tenure. His bailout of airlines, tarriffs to keep the uncompetitive steel industry alive, ignoring repeated rulings by the NAFTA and WTO, maintaining protectionist policies on cotton, lumber, cars and other products, and so on. Clinton left a surplus to his sucessor to reform social security before it fails, but he has taken no action on that. Let us say his 'capitalist' politics could be considered neutral, rather than fervently pro-...



If that were true, why has Bush Jr steadfastly refused to take any action against the single largest supporter of terrorism in the middle east, and source of Al Qaida, the Taliban, Bin Laden and most of the 9/11 bombers; Saudi Arabia? Why has he waged wars against SOME tyrants (Iraq) but made smiling happy deals with others? (Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Algeria, Saudi Arabia)? Those coices seem to be the epitome of situational ethics and moral relativism. Why did the horrendously evil Taliban ONLY become evil to Bush Jr. after 9/11?

Again, there are reasons for some of these coices to be sure, and ALL of those reasons come down to pragmatism and situational ethics. In the case of extremes like Saudi and Belarus, one would have to say Bush Jr is the master of situational ethics.



So far, Bush has invaded only one country in the Middle East, and that country was the most solid and fervent opponent of radical Islamicism that existed in the Arab world. Now that the Bathists are gone and the state of Iraq is in turmoil, both Saudi and Iran are pushing to have an Islamicist state (in their respective religions) set up in its place. Apart from the invasion (and subsequent abandonment) of Afghanistan I am hard pressed to think of a foreign policy decision Bush Jr has made which hs affected negatively in any way the growing threat of Islamic Funamentalism. However the creation of the breeding and arming ground of Iraq, as well as the deprioritisation of the war on terror, have allowed the chief organisations of international terror, once under threat, ro restrengthen and regrow, and according to current estimates, are stronger than they were before 9/11.




There has never been as dramitic in such a short term increase in both the size and power of the US federal government in the entire history of the United States as there has been under Bush jr. They are not a failed ideal of of a strong centralized government with central planning powers, they are a very sucessful one.



I don't think I even need to address this one. The rule of law has taken quite a beating in the last 6 years...




Actually, you do. Most of the candlelight vigils are helf by Christian groups, many of which self-identify as republican. Besides, the entire point of your statement is that, once again you are equating the far-left lunatic fringe with the moderate democratic party. I can do the same, and call Republicans all Klan members if you like, but instead, why don't we BOTH stick to reality as opposed to silly and unrealistic steriotypes?



That is, of course, a direct contradiction, Gay marriage is entirely about the power of the individual. Opponents of gay marriage say the rights of those 'individuals' are less important than the general concept of marriage which might somehow be damaged.

And Democrats are not all wanting to tear down traditions, they claim that gay marriage will no more destroy the institution of marriage than interracial marriage did (legalisation which republicans as a whole opposed, by the way)



Stop right there.

Up until now your anti-left rant has been full of absurd steriotypes, unreasonable generalisations and insults towards the left supported by no facts, but I have tried to respond reasonably and factually. However when you compare the democratic party of the United States to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, you have officially gone over the edge. Retract or apologise.


As the rest of your post is just inaccurate attacks on the personalities of major democrats combined with near-deification of ther republican counterparts, I shall not bother to reply and leave off there.

Actually- as even conservatives here have pointed out- LH's response is hardly a suprise eh? Pretty much a Zombie of this "new right"-

It is not the mindless parroting of GWs talking point type LH's that I am addressing- it is the well thought out and intelligent self described conservatives whose postings most respect- Amlord, DR as mentioned, etc.

I am no fan of many "liberal" policies- but I do respect the fact that, when the "liberal" politician does not adhere to the ideology of the left- they eat them alive.

Instead- you have folks, like LH, that, had Clinton done all the <ahem> "wonderful" things GW said- they probably would be taking pot-shots at the white house on a daily basis.

It is this "moral relativism" of the right that I address- that didn't even exist as I remember the 70s politics of the day.

A classic example to me was Bob Packwood. A moderate republican with a very good voting record on "women's issues". He got caught up in drinking and harrasing women. It was wrong. The "liberal feminist" hated like the dickens, and even drug thier feet pretty hard, from removing him from office, basically. The man had been a real ally on some very important women's issues- but this harrasment of women was anti-womens rights if anything. In his personal life at that- so eventually- they had to face the fact they had to fight thier own guy, in a party that normally did not support these issues, because he betrayed some of thier core ideals.

Now- we got this bozo in office now. He is, pretty much recognized nationally and internationally as a bumbling incompetent joke. 39% job approval rating etc- and that is being generous.

But, many on the right, with (recently, like Buckley) kind of supporting him no matter what.

Now- I recognize that the LHs of the world will NEVER see NCLB as a BAD program that doesn't work, never has worked, and was based on a lie in the first place -MASSIVE goverment program, boondoggle- that would make a tax and spend dem from the early 70s cringe!

The "texas miracle" was based on bad science and faulty numbers http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...3_08/001902.php

But folks like LH are okay with this lie- because HIS liar said it

Medicaid drug bill- MASSIVE goverment program, boondoggle- that would make a tax and spend dem from the early 70s cringe!

so why are massive goverment programs, (homeland security anyone?) OKAY when GW does it- but so bad when Lyndon Johnson did it?

Once again- LH's response was typical and predictable rant with no basis in reality- as usual as well- but where are the Amlords and such when the "rubber hit the road" after years of massive goverment waste spending?

Why is it "socialism" when we spend money on universal health care here, infrastructure development, welfare, food programs, rebuilding schools and training teachers- but suddenly "conservative thought" when we do it for poeple in Iraq instead- actually spending billions more on the foriegn country as opposed to our own?

Have folks like LH been so eager to reverse the years and years of republican marginalism in goverment- really, no good republican leaders, no effective ones that had ACTUAL causal effect on the world and the country as a whole- since Eisenhour- who would be a liberal by todays standards? that they will convince themselves that every thing this president does is a good thing- because, they want to stay in power?

When you look at the main "old" tenents of republican/conservatives- like Barry Goldwater- you see a few things right away that this regime could not be identified-

1) Deficit reduction (Clinton was an arch conservative fiscally in this one)

2) Fiscal conservatism
A) No spending on programs without adding revenue, or not spending at all and dropping revenue- in other words- A BALANCED BUDGET
Wasteful spending- medicaid drug bill, NCLB as pointed out
C) Large scale federal growth in inefficient bloated goverment beaurocracy- DHS anyone?


3) Goverment stay away from private individuals, stay out of thier lives, privacy is paramount, goverment checked from infringing on those rights- this goverment is the most anti-freedom against the constitution and individual rights this country has EVER seen. From Wire tapping to anti-sodomy- this goverment has it all.

Normally, #3 is were Libertarians and Republicans meet head to head and agree- or, it was, prior to GW accension to power. EVen big spender Reagan was against these kinds of behaivors!

Please explain EXACTLY how YOUR personal rights are being abridged by the Bush administration.

The Patriot act was passed with BI-PARTISAN support. Democrats were on board too in large numbers.

One does not have the "right" to plan and then execute terrorist acts whether this work is done in "private" or not.

One does not have the right to break the law. Period.

Law enforcement already uses this type of surveillance to convict organized criminals, drug traffickers, etc. Do you think that those efforts should cease also? Should we just go the way of anarchy and reject the rule of law because some criminal's so-called (and bogus) "rights to privacy" might be violated? Do people have the right to conspire to commit crimes and then commit crimes if these actions are done in "private"??

We have a rule of law and a bill of rights that limits the government. Nothing that Bush is doing or has done has violated the constitution. If you believe it has, then press the issue to the US Supreme Court. Several groups have tried and failed.

That's how our system works. When one makes such broad claims without ANY evidence to back up these hysterical allegations, it destroys any credibility that the rest of the post may have. Therefore, the snipping.

Cruisingram, do people have the "right" to break the law if it's done in "private"? Yes or no?

Does a person have the "right" to download pedophile porn if done in private? Yes or no?

Abuse drugs in private? Abuse a child or a spouse or an animal in private??

The "right to privacy" is bogus. Privacy is not a "right", its a "state" or a "condition".

One doesn't have a right to "privacy" any more than one has a "right" to be warm or cold.

That cuts both ways. It also means that President has not right to break the law as well. Judging by the stinging rebuke from his fellow Republicans (such as Sen. Specter or Sen. Graham) over the illegal wiretapping issue, playing fast and loose with the law doesn't sit well even with President's own party base.

How my personal rights were abridged? How can I know that my own personal calls overseas are not being wiretapped? I remember when I was a kid and my parents in Russia would get a call from overseas they would never talk about anything but the most banal matters over the phone; as soon as the dialog would turn somewhere more private, they would say "that's not a phone conversation" (this phrase became a proverb in Russia, it was used so often.) Never in my life could I imagine that I'll use this phrase here in United States.

Ah- then to clarify- you are all for more govermental control of the private individual- sidestepping the whole "rule of law" rant-

an old gaurd conservative- regardless of what the law said- would rail against "big goverment" intruding into private individuals lives- THIS is a very admirable conservative ideology IMHO-

regardless of what the law said- a conservative would say " those dirty so and so liberals made a law that is very intrusive and goverment has no business intruding into our private lives" ( I am picking no issue here- to keep us on tangent)

Yes- an old gaurd conservative would be very, very concerned and even outraged that there is ABSOLUTELY NO CHECK AND BALANCE, NO OVERSITE of domestic spying.

You can't see that a goverment agency with no oversite and lot's of power is a problem? And you are okay with big goverment programs as well?

You are okay with some of the largest bloated goverment in US history- Homeland security, NCLB and medicaid drug bill- you have no problem with that as a conservative- and consider it "hysterical allegations"- quite a reversal for the old "smaller less intrusive goverment" paleo-conservative dont ya think?

Is there anything you won't defend from this admin?

And EH- when GW does it "we are safer"- when Russia did it "it was communism" LOL