On Apr 26, 7:07 pm, can_o_worms <can_o_wo...@bogus.com> wrote:

On 26 Apr 2007 14:16:54 -0700, Goldstein <enki...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Apr 26, 8:19 am, can_o_worms <can_o_wo...@bogus.com> wrote:

The War Party

Support for George W. Bush's foreign policy now
defines the GOP.

from the best site on the right: the American Conservative

http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_04_23/cover.html

by W. James Antle III April 23, 2007

except from article:

Litmus tests must go. That is the rallying cry of
those who believe Republicans should drop their
insistence that the party's 2008 presidential
candidate toe the line on taxes, abortion, guns, or
immigration. Wartime, the argument goes, is no time
for conservatives to demand ideological purity. Or,
as Noemie Emery put it in an emblematic essay for
The Weekly Standard, "in a time of national peril,
the test is a luxury [conservatives] cannot afford."

Judging from presidential preference polls, many
Republicans appear to be listening. The current
2008 frontrunner, former New York Mayor Rudolph
Giuliani, is pro-choice and supports civil unions
for gays, gun control, and a fairly permissive
immigration policy. Until recently, he favored
taxpayer funding of abortion and opposed the
partial-birth abortion ban. In second place is Sen.
John McCain, who voted against the Bush tax cuts,
sponsored amnesty for illegal immigrants, championed
a campaign-finance law that put restrictions on
conservative groups ranging from the National Rifle
Association to the National Right to Life Committee,
and believes the federal government should referee
professional boxing.

And you can also say that there is not much excitement in the party
for any one running. This is the worst crop of candidates I have ever
seen in the Republican party. If no conservatives are willing to run,
we have little chance of winning. We have tree people running all
from liberal states. You might not like Republicans so you don't know
the animosity the party has for McCain in his opposition to many
important republican efforts namely sabotaging judges and pushing of
the campaign censorship law. He has done other things as well.

Actually I used to be a straight Republican voter but quit
the party in '96 when I saw them going in directions that
I didn't like as regards illegal immigration and foreign policy
when neoconservatives began pushing for a more pro-active
role that my older fashioned Republican roots didn't agree
with. I'm from a rare Southern Republican background
since before the big Southern Democrat crossover during
the '60s and '70s and don't have much in common with
the religious right.

Bush Senior was the last Republican that I liked
and he was hardly any fiscal conservative. I just
thought he had the more responsible foreign
policy.....even more so than Reagan.

I found lots of Libertarians on the ballot here in the
Pacific northwest (except the last election) and have
been voting mostly that way as a fiscal conservative.
Of course I've yet to actually back a winner at that.

Giuliani is from a Liberal City and has good leadership qualities but
would do much better as a conservative democrat. The other guy still
from a liberal area and has flipped flopped around on some issues and
is trying to be a social conservative.

I cannot figure where Giuliani's support comes from unless
people just don't know his outlook yet. I used to like Pete
Wilson but he got no traction whatsoever from the religious
right and Wilson was a lot less East/West coast than Giuliani
is.

I think it comes from the shock of defeat, if we can't beat them join
them. He does have leadership. That is definably true because the
party sorely lacks leadership. I will admit that Bush has done a
terrible job of political leadership. Kerry was the Dole of 2004.

I am reading Delays book. I think he would make a great leader in the
future. I don't agree with all he says but he is aggressive and won't
try to get along to be liked.

There is really no choice. We have only liberal republicans to choose
from. See what is offered I see no reason to support the Republican
party. I am waiting for hearing how much the budget will be cut or
what programs will be ended. It is still early but the Republican
field is so weak that it is possible that the Democrats could win.

We have seen that the Democrats won because the Republicans
surrendered all congressional leadership.

I find that to be a fault of congress in general......Especially when
it comes time to take responsibility for their constitutionally
mandated tasks of deciding our wars. Democrats have been
the phonies in that regard by helping to make Bush Junior the
"decider".

I have a problem with the left in General on the war. Again most of
what I write is based on people I know who where there.

Basically we
are up against the most brutal people who are hostile to all of our
values. Bush is the C in C. Congress just pays for it. Errors were
made in the war, find war that there were no errors. I can find
errors in wars that were far costlier than what we deal with. When we
run from terrorists they cause more terror. Carter and Reagan after
not standing up to Iran made terror worse in the 80s. Clinton hard to
say. Probably didn't take the issue very seriously. but after 9/11
there were major changes in how we respond and collect on
terrorists.

Republicans are through
when the Democrats are seen as more fiscally responsible. Unless the
Republicans start showing leadership in the issues we in the party
care about we will be decimated. That is if we will go left let the
Democrats take us there. I might sit home and many others might as
well if we nominate a liberal. It might happen by default because of
the lack of leadership in the Republican party and the Dems have a
good shot at winning.

Yeah the GOP likes to run up the bills and leave it to the
Democrats to pay it off (even Bush Senior did so). I miss
Reagan's many vetos and his devolution of Federal power.

I have to do some research but are you being serious or sarcastic?

I think Gore would run away with an election if he just got
in the race and I might even vote for him if I were assured
he might be more fiscally responsible than Junior (not a hard
task) and more prudent in foreign policy than insane McCain.

Gore has quite a bit of support. He annoyed me in 2000 always felt
like he was talking to a six year old. Still no one I get excited
about. Except for the war a defending the country I agree with
libertarians.

For the GOP primary, I'll probably register Republican and
vote for Ron Paul but realize that it is a vote of conscience
since much of the GOP is at odds with his foreign policy veiws.

I don't agree with your out look completely, but I do respect your
coherent and intelligent analysis. I don't see much leadership out
there I can get excited about. It is still early. I haven't been
paying to much to the various candidates none of them peek my
interest. Just from impression I am not happy. I guess the people
that are doing well just have name recognition and people equate
hearing about someone as support.

I am bold because I think that Bush has done some good and substantive
things and things he has come up short. I also think he has been
unfairly deionized. The tax cuts were good, the Court is on a much
better direction. I just don't get that worked up on the war. It is
a tough situation but looking back I don't buy all the conspiracy
stuff. Errors were made find a war where they weren't. The intel was
three that indicated a threat from Iraq, those indications may not
have been accurate.

I also think we can't take a passive attitude
toward terrorism and growing threats in the region. For better worse
we are there and leaving would be far more dangerous than staying.
When I look at the threat and their tactics I am amazed that these
people can be excused. It the facts of the enemy and what they do is
ignored or rationalized away makes many of those who have some points
of view loose credibility with me. Most of what I say is based on
what people who were there tell me and that is why I am firm in
opinion.