Sunday, August 29, 2004

Hiding The Real Bush Views--At the Convention, And On The Blog

It is no surprise that the Republican National Convention will feature whatever moderates they can dig up and hide those with views more representative of the Bush Administration. The same principle just might explain why they don't allow comments on their blog.

The most common assumption is that they are afraid of liberal dissent, but in reality they have far more to fear what their own supporters would write about. This might spill the beans, and let the general public know how extreme the current Republican Party has become under George Bush.

Presumably, if Bush supporter were allowed to comment on the campaign's blog, we would see the same type of discussion as is present on other conservative boards, and what we often see from trolls on liberal blogs.

When discussing foreign policy, we would see Bush supporters excited about the prospect of a more interventionist foreign policy, with Bush supporters excited about going into countries such as Iran, and maybe even Saudi Arabia, in a second term. So much for pretending their foreign policy is based upon fighting terrorism.

Getting to domestic policy, we would see the excitement from Bush supporters over how Bush's proposals for Social Security and Medicare would finally kill off these programs as we know them. So much for compassionate conservatism.

Undoubtedly we would also see the argument going around in conservative circles that separation of church and state is a myth. Even some traditionalist conservatives, who respect the principles this country was founded upon, might become a bit nervous over some of the views which are commonplace among Bush's supporters, and key advisors.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, we conservatives are not hiding at all. We just don't bother trying to address every ludicrous idea you communists have. Some of us may be extreme but so are the liberals.

"Interventionist foreign policy?" Nice term.

You say that because we might be *excited* about going into Iran and even Saudi Arabia that must mean it's about something other than terrorism. Are you naive enough to think there are no terrorists in Iran and Saudi Arabia? And, I don't think any conservative is *excited* to go into another country. Another one of those ludicrous ideas! Just because we support the war, we must want blood, right? What are you thinking?

Social Security and Medicare are in the need for a serious overhaul. On one hand, we do need to find an EFFECTIVE way to support the elderly who need it. On the other we need to quit giving handouts to people who 1) should have worked when they were younger and saved for the future (ever read that story about the grasshopper and the ant?) and 2) don't really need them and 3) are using the system. I work my butt off, I don't make a whole lot of money, and I'm tired of working until June 1st to pay my taxes! I want to keep more of my money and quit having the government steal it from me to give it to someone else!

Where in the world do you come up with your ideas? We believe the separation of church and state is "a myth?" We don't believe it's "a myth," we just don't believe in taking God out of the government. A myth? Come on now.

I'm not at all nervous about my beliefs. If you knew the true history of our nation, you would understand what that term really means. It DOES NOT mean that we should never mention God in the government. It DOES mean that the government has no right to dictate to us how we worship. Remember the way England determined that everyone MUST belong to the Church of England? We didn't like that. That's where that statement came from. We didn't want government controlling our beliefs. But to say we can't share our beliefs in the government is simply hogwash.

If you read any historical documents from our founding fathers you would realize that God was an integral part of the formation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. They meant to have Godly men run our country. Now that we're taking God out of the equation (some of us), the moral decay of our country is at hand.

I pray Kerry is not elected President...ever! He is a hero to the communists. They hang his picture in a museum as one of their heros. He isn't my hero. And someone who uses his military service as a basis for being able to run this country and yet he did not truly "serve" his country--instead he protested--is a liar and disgrace to our country.

Reasons Kerry shouldn't be president:

(1) He doesn't thing our nation's defense is a priority. Example:

Just hours before attending an all-star celebrity fundraising concert in New York, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry revealed how he has been too busy for a real-time national security briefing.

"I just haven't had time," Kerry explained in an interview. Kerry made the startling comments on CNN's LARRY KING LIVE Thursday night.

KING: News of the day, Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States. Didn't increase the -- you see any politics in this? What's your reaction?

KERRY: Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me. I just haven't had time.

No time to attend a security briefing, but plenty of time to attend a fundraising concert. He doesn't care much about national security in all, in fact, based on his voting record on defense issues:

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry has opposed some of the most effective — and publicly popular — military weapons in the U.S. arsenal during the past 15 years.

The Massachusetts senator voted against defense appropriations bills that included money for weapons such as the Patriot missile, the Tomahawk cruise missile and the B-2 stealth bomber — all of which military leaders say have become integral to the U.S. force and were crucial to winning the 1991 Gulf war and last year's war in Iraq.

According to voting records, Mr. Kerry also favored cutting or canceling spending on the Apache helicopter, the M-1 Abrams tank and a wide range of fighter jets.

(2) Of all the liberal Senators, Kerry is the MOST liberal. Example:


NATIONAL JOURNAL on Friday claimed Democrat frontrunner John Kerry has the "most liberal" voting record in the Senate.

The results of Senate vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5 -- far ahead of such Democrat stalwarts as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.

NATIONAL JOURNAL's scores, which have been compiled each year since 1981, are based on lawmakers' votes in three areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy.

"To be sure, Kerry's ranking as the No. 1 Senate liberal in 2003 -- and his earning of similar honors three times during his first term, from 1985 to 1990 -- will probably have opposition researchers licking their chops," NATIONAL JOURNAL reports.

This is not a good thing, unless you're a Socialist. It's not just last year, either. Here's a brief thumbnail sketch of Kerry's votes on a couple key issues:

At the end of the Cold War, Kerry advocated scaling back the CIA, but after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, he complained about a lack of intelligence capability.

In the 1980s, he opposed the death penalty for terrorists who killed Americans abroad, but he now supports the death penalty for terrorist acts.

In 1997, he voted to require elderly people with higher incomes to pay a larger share of Medicare premiums.

(3) Thankfully, however, he's rarely in the Senate chambers to vote!

According to an analysis by Congressional Quarterly Kerry has missed 89 percent of the Senate's votes this year (118 of 132), and 64 percent last year. This included several votes on veterans' health care issues. Not to mention the one key vote a month or so ago where his single vote would have made the difference on an issue regarding extention of unemployment benefits.

Apparently, campaigning is more important than representing his constituency. And he wants a promotion to President with THAT record?

(4) And worst of all, the man never takes a stand and sticks to it. How can a man lead when he doesn't know where he's been or where he's going? The examples are too numerous to type out here, so I'll just refer you to this link:

God help us all if Kerry is elected.

1:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent comments above! I agree completely. If John Kerry were to be elected President, it would be the worst thing to happen to America since 9/11.

6:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home