Republicans vs. Neoconservatives

Good post. I hear the same from several Republicans I know, that they can't see voting for this guy. That doesn't mean they will all vote for Kerry, but most of the ones I know who are upset say they will. Some will just sit it out.

I have some seriously conservative, "Ronald Reagan is a god", type of Republican relatives who have been that way, well, since former President Reagan was elected in '80, who are really ticked off with Bush and swear up and down that they won't vote for him. They feel betrayed. They liked him as governor but despise him as President. They don't think he's the same guy at all. I tried to explain that Governor of Texas is really not a demanding job, not compared to most governors of large states, and that most of the power here is in the Legislature and the Lt. Governor, but that doesn't interest them. They look at what he's done as President and are appalled.

It's kinda weird. Spooky. I keep thinking they're possessed or something.

 

it may surprise you to know i'm not actually a republican, and i'll post more on this tomorrow, but basically it's a big tent. if you spend anytime reading the editorial page of the journal, you'll see that they're extremely critical of bush on certain issues, mostly economic. NRO tends to be the most socially conservative, and many of them feel bush hasn't gone far enough in areas that appeal to more religious conservatives. the weekly standard often feels bush strays from the strict neocon line on foreign affairs, and they're adamant that this admin often isn't the best advocate for its own policies. there are two things that unite almost everybody, however: the efficacy of tax cuts to stimulate the economy, and the WOT, including Iraq. no democratic candidate stands a chance with republicans, no matter how disenchanted with bush they may be on peripheral issues, until they get serious about these two core issues.

 

The people I've been talking to would say it's not their tent. That it used to be, but a different circus has taken over with a show they don't like at all. The Republican Party used to be far more diverse in the leanings of it's adherents. No longer... not in positions of meaningful power. The party has been cooped by the far right/religious right/ "neocon's" who are not traditional Republicans. And they are not the majority. They are highly organized, motivated and financed. Here in Texas it's been going on for years. The results have been a disaster for the state. And what we're seeing now is a disaster for the country.

 

You should convince the Republicans you know who feel that way that a vote for Kerry isn't the same thing as handing a blank check to him.

See my post about voting for divided government. It is very unlikely that Congress will go back to the Dems. anytime soon, redistricting and retirement of Dems in Southern states almost guarentees that. What will happen is that balance will be returned to the Fed between Executive and legislature and right and left. Part of the dissatisfaction from Repubs is that this Admin. rather than acting like a limited and open gov admin. has instead been obsessed with building up the military industrial complex through speculative military ventures and back room dealings. Also this admin. has shown a penchant for flip flopping on key conservative issues like trade and immigration for the sake of trying to make inroads into Dem. voting blocks.

As long as Congress though is run by the same party Repub legislators will go along. Voting for Kerry doesn't mean giving the country over to Dems because the Repub Congress will keep his Admin in check unlike the GW Bush Admin..

 

Not at all-- we are lockstep dittoheads, remember?

 

Not true at all. I think MadMax is a Republican who disagrees with many of the policies of this administration. He seems to have the ability to analyze information logically, unlike some in the GOP.

 

In the first place, I was being sarcastic. Please don't tell me that you are questioning my ability to analyze information logically if you missed that!

I can analyze information logically, but before you rush to politically expedient conclusions, you have to make sure that you have all the information, you need to know that the information that you have is true and accurate, and you have to double check the political nature of your own motivations.

Some of you who execute Bush for his "lies" may be making some of the very same mistakes that you "accuse" him of... making decisions and pronouncements based on incomplete information.

I know that MadMax voted for Clinton in '92-- not sure about the re-election nor do I know about previous elections. Come to think of it, 1992 might have been the first election for which he was eligible to vote.

 

actually, while the religious right and neocons may occassionally overlap, they arrive at their positions by disparate routes. read Irving Kristol's, often described as the founded of neocon, excellent primer on neoconservativism:

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp

 

haven't voted for a democrat for president since...and can't really think of any position other than appellate and district court judges where i've voted for a democrat since.

yes, 92 was the first election i was able to vote in. had a serious backlash against the democratic party within the first year of clinton's term. and it got worse from there, frankly.

 

Your defensiveness shows that I hit a nerve. Despite the fact that I quoted you, I was not singling you out specifically as a "dittohead" as I prefer to let the dittos speak for themselves.

As far as "incomplete information" goes, it would have been nice if the current administration had waited for complete information before rushing to judgement on Iraq.

 

'92 was also the last time I voted for a Democrat, which belies the claim by some in this forum that I am simply a Democrat who claims he is an independent.

 

My defensiveness points to the fact that I was defending myself. You replied to my post, I didn't feel as much "singled out" as I did included. I don't consider myself to be a dittohead, thank you.

Twelve years and then three months of warning isn't that much of a rush is it?

 

Um, hasn't it been proven that Saddam did not have any of the weapons that were prohibited? (rhetorical question, no need to answer)

The same thing could have been proven with the UN weapons inspectors OR by taking Iraq up on the offer to put 2000 FBI and CIA agents in Iraq to perform an even more exhaustive search.

 

Who is going to look through Syria? You might want to send in some miners to because there is a lot of digging that might need to be done-- both in Iraq and in Syria.

Has it occured to you that Saddam stonewalled until he about had everything sufficiently hidden? Afterall, it was a dozen years of obfuscation.

 

So now y'all are going to try to use the WMD argument to implicate Syria?!?

One definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.

Of course, the chemical and biological agents (since it has been proven that the nuclear claims were total fabrications) will not even be viable after a fairly short time. BTW, if Saddam DID hide his WMDs better than he hid himself, why haven't those that know about them come forward, now that Saddam is safely in custody?

BTW, I thought it was a dozen years of weapons inspections interrupted by a couple of years without, then followed by an ultimatum, 3 months of Saddam following the UN protocols to the letter, after which the US KICKED THE INSPECTORS OUT in preparation for the invasion. Not exactly 12 years of obfuscation.

Please explain again how you analyze information.

 

You voted for Orlando.

 

you're right!! i voted for bill white....and i voted for sylvester turner the first time he ran against lanier (though, they were both dems, weren't they??) i guess i didn't consider municpal elections, which are SUPPOSED to be non-partisan, anyway.

 

Since you don't vote on specific issues, it's quite possible to vote for a party even if you strongly disagree with some of their policies, or past actions.

I guess it comes down to whether you vote for the party you agree with most, or against the party you agree with least.