Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I haven't gone looking for prominent names, but I'm more interested in logic than names anyway.
A friend of mine who describes himself as conservative and who was a staunch Romney backer in the last gubernatorial election here phrased it pretty succinctly recently when he said that he would rather elect someone he disagrees with who is competant than someone he agrees with who is incompetant. His view was that when someone fails a 4 year job interview, you take your chance on the next acceptable candidate even if they graduated from the wrong school. He's one of the people who has convinced me that George Bush is no conservative.
Take it for what it is worth.
|
A. I completely agree that Bush fails as a conservative, and that on many fronts;
B. I sorta agree with your friend, which is one of the reasons I would be willing to take my conservative lumps and vote for Dean if he were running. I think he would have stayed true to a cause which, while harmful to me in my pocketbook, would likely lead to a peace at the expense of oppressed people everywhere. Ty, while being not_nice, pretty succintly sums up my opposition to Kerry. I simply do not believe he has the intestinal fortitude to either prosecute a war aggressively or to basically withdraw and leave the world to the dogs.
The world has changed for me, and we cannot go back to the passive responses of Carter, Reagan, Bush I or Clinton. Either we need to pull back from the world in a way that pacifies our enemies (Dean) or we need to aggressively prosecute the war competently, and without regard to whether allies who are increasingly self-absorbed each year for the past 20-50, until we win the war by palatable means and with palatable results. My military quibble with Bush is the "competently" part, but I simply cannot stomach the idea of waiting to respond to further attacks (except, in the case of North Korea, where our only realistic option is to hit back hard --e.g., perhaps nuclear-- the first time they so much as lob a shell at Seoul).
Due to mine (and numerous other people on the Right) here's economic quibbles with Bush, I'd be willing to suffer a Dean... even for the long term so long as we lowered our international profile and let the rest of the world take care of itself (I have to wonder if he'd really let it come to that). But I simply cannot stomach even a significant chance of going back to a reactive policy (and that's not a singular attack on Carter or Clinton... they and Reagan and Bush I lived under a different set of parameters pre-9/11... even though in retrospect it looks like we dropped the ball as a nation). ETA: Which is why I am choosing Bush over Kerry, and not just voting against one or the other without regard to the characteristics and attributes of the other or the one.
Hello
