George Bush isn't a Republican

[dpbrown]

It was once considered conservative to believe in a balanced budget, fiscal discipline, measured use of our armed forces, and a restricted government keeping its nose out of peoples' bedrooms.

The failed crony capitalism pirates in illegitimate charge of our nation's government, however, took a surplus and turned it into our nation's largest deficit, they talked about using our armed forces to project our strength humbly and then misused our force to attack a nation that posed no threat inflaming the loathing of future terrorists the world over, they hijacked a nation's fear over terror to erode civil liberties specifically attacking protections written into our Bill of Rights, and they lashed out at anyone who disagreed with their wildly off-base tax cuts for the rich coupled with unchecked spending on bald military aggression throughout the globe as "unpatriotic."

The failed crony capitalism pirates in illegitimate charge of our nation's government stand for nothing more than three things:

1. Tax cuts for the rich no matter what.
2. Unchecked corporate handouts no matter what.
3. Neverending war.

The positions espoused by the failed crony capitalism pirates in illegitimate charge of our nation's government should offend all traditional conservatives, and they should band together to themselves throw these PNAC nutballs, oil addicts, and corporate pirates out of our nation's government, and out of the Republican Party.

The truth is that the Democrats are the Republicans in this race.

The Democrat, compared to the Republican candidate for President is more fiscally disciplined.

The Democrat brought down the BCCI terrorist bank that funded Osama bin Laden and other terrorists. The Republican took loans from that bank.

The Democrat, compared to the Republican candidate for President, is more likely to act to protect the civil liberties upon which this nation was founded. The Republican is more likely to further restrict our Constitutional protections upon the next flimsy excuse in the made-up "war on terror" or because some "finger in the wind" redneck decides the Constitution is the best place to discriminate against gays.

A Republican who votes for Bush in this election is rejecting fiscal discipline in favor of bloated military spending with funding shifted to future generations - true financial irresponsibility.

A Republican who votes for Bush in this election is rejecting a sane tax policy that asks of those who most benefit from a stable society in which they make money a tiny bit more to ensure the continuation of that society.

A Republican who votes for Bush in this election is rejecting a limited federal government restricted in its ability to spy on its citizenry, arbitrarily impose draconian sanctions on its citizens, and keep its work on behalf of the electorate a complete secret.

A Republican who votes for Bush in this election is voting, in short, against Republican values.

Cheers,

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[forgethell]

1. Still,

don't you think that it is up to the Republicans to define themselves? Every other group gets to do so. Do you think that telling Republicans that they are not what you think a Republican is is going to cause them to think about voting for a Democrat? Isn't it more likely that they will simply get offended, jsut like, say, a black man would if you told him he wasn't a true black man because he didn't think, act, speak a certain way? Is insulting and offending people the way to change their minds and get them to vote for our candidate?

[HootieMcBoob]

5. They define Democrats all the fucking time

and who's in charge of every branch of the government?

The old rules no longer apply.

[forgethell]

11. True, they do

still, does it do us any good to play that silly game? Or do we keep losing elections because we would rather indulge our anger than think how to win?

[dpbrown]

10. Republicans who Bush doesn't represent should vote him out

That's the point, isn't it?

If Republicans decide that Bush fails the litmus test, then the Republicans should reject him.

They get to define themselves, so they can decide that the Bush/PNAC/Iran-Contra/Perma-War definition doesn't suit them.

[forgethell]

12. So they should, but

they will do it to the right, not the left. How does it help them if, to get rid of *, they elect a Democrat. Bush may be only a half-a-loaf, conservatively speaking, but that's better than no bread.

Republicans don't eat their own like Democrats tend to do.

[Sub Atomic]

13. Then don't try to get them to vote for a Democrat.

However, you can convince them to not vote for Bush.

Slight nuance, but very effective.

When you encounter a real Republican or conservative, all you have to do is point out *'s failings.

If they have a brain in their head (I know, that's hard to imagine) they can be convinced to not pull the lever for anyone.

Don't try to get them to vote for Kerry. Try to get them to not vote for *.

[forgethell]

18. Well, I know a few people like that, but

most of my acquaintances are smart enough to realize that no vote is a vote for Kerry, if they were Republican or conservative. Whaat I don't know if a lot of people on this board realize is that many conservatives dislike Kerry as much as we dislike Bush.

[w4rma]

2. Oh Bush IS a Republican. But he's not conservative. Not by a long shot. nt

[Ready4Change]

6. He's a member of the Republican PARTY

But his values aren't republican values, nor are those of the Party itself, I'm afraid.

[priller]

8. You're right, he's not *conservative*...

but he is representative of what the Repukes have become. The people in charge of the GOP have abandoned the conservative principles the party was based on and embraced a radical ideology.

[Liberal Gramma]

3. I completely agree

and this is why some of the more honest, old-fashioned Republicans aren't voting for Bush. There was an article in a conservative magazine a few weeks ago that said pretty much the same thing, and advised Republicans to vote away from the party this time in order to limit further damage to the country, and then regroup and get back on message for 2008. Good advice, I thought, though it won't reach the non-thinking wing of the Republican party.

[ArkDem]

4. WOW, you really know your stuff!

[orpupilofnature57]

7. * looks more like bonito, than ABE or TEDDY or even tricky DICK.

Like 9/11 the plague and obesity,* just slipped in while everybody was looking somewhere else.Like other peoples sex lives or foreign affairs,we have no solution to or business in.Intrigue for certain information,without regard for culpability for results,let * slip in the back door.

[wadestock]

9. The Republicans have lost their party....and they're just beginning.....

to notice it. If (God help us) W gets in another term....you may actually see a dramatic shift in the party. Hopefully this will at least translate into the Dems getting back the Congress.

If you research this...the neocons came in around 1980, rode the Reagan "wealth machine"....liked it....and figured they found a nurturing home to do their dirty work.

Now this was bad enough and then all the worst elements of politics started oozing through, bad business, the Christian reconstructionists, etc etc.

Right now there is NO excuse for the party. Big business doesn't need any more help in becoming more corrupt. Rich people don't need any more help in holding middle class America down. The American people don't need anymore bold experiments in spreading capitalism through Thomas Barnett inspired military strategy games.

They are completely, utterly, unequivicably.....NOT NEEDED.
They form no redeeming function whatsoever.

Thus if you look at it in this context...we're not talking about a difference in idiologies...we're talking about a distinct difference between function and lack of function.

America is a sick patient. The dems offer penicillin, somewhat bitter to the taste. The repukes offer an Ice Tea mix consisting of several shots of hard liquor, sweet tasting, mixed with poison.

[forgethell]

14. I keep asking myself, why,

if * is not conservative enough for the republicans, they would vote for a "liberal", or whatever we're calling ourselves nowadays?

It jusst doesn't make any sense to me. Can you explain it.

[wadestock]

17. They will tend to hang on to what they have now....

because they are NOT opened minded or idealistic as we are.

They like big business and they tend to think that big business WILL save us. They have also been carefully brainwashed by Limbaugh et al to believe that LIBS are mettlesome selfish "non-teamplayers" that go off on obscure, unrealistic, unworkable tangents with a net total negative effect on government and society at large.

The core republican (and a growing number of average unsuspecting people) have been led to believe that government is bad in the sense that it can't devise workable social programs. As we can see, they are not necessarily opposed to BIG government, even if it leads to big deficits. They are more concerned about their individual net worth, and tax breaks for the upper 1%, including future elimination of the death tax, is highly attractive to these ever inspiring entrepreneurs.

Where we fundamentally differ is that the Dems believe that government serves 3 vital roles. #1 it must collect taxes and ensure that wealth is fairly distributed, not as some class warfare ploy, but in order to maintain a vital middle class. In order for this to occur, we can historically see that an upper rate somewhere between 40 and 50% is probably about right. The only way democracy and capitalism survives and thrives is through a vibrant middle class, and during the Clinton years when the rate hovered around 40%, the middle class began to make some gains. #2 is the potential to implement successful social programs. #3 is that government has to maintain a constant check on bad business, and ensure that the average person is not screwed.

The parties should be debating exactly how to implement SUCCESSFUL social programs, and the reason we are failing as a society and as an example of what capitalism is capable of to the rest of the world...is because we aren't having that debate. The parties should be discussing how to fix social security as part of an intelligent debate which leads to a successful fix. Right now social security is NOT a successful social program. It served a vital purpose at the time, but it's now in dire need of reinvention.

We have yet to succeed as a country in terms of providing (on the average) highly successful social programs....and a means to sit back and say...yes here's the proof of that.

This is why this election is so important. We are at a time in which Kerry/Edwards could implement a first step preventative health care plan which could be successful. Although we have to do 100 times this....the fact that it stands a chance of working and might lead to a general perception by the public that government CAN do something right...well that's a huge step in the right direction.

[forgethell]

27. In your reply,

I noted nothing about maintaining the defense of the United States against the bad guys out there. Nothing to say against what you said, but a) it didn't answer my question, which was, if George Bush is conservative enough to suit them, why would they vote for a liberal?, and b) shows why the Dems keep getting defeated in general elections. Hopefully, this time, with a genuine war hero as our candidate, the American people will realize that Democrats will defend the country, too, because they won't figure it out based on our rhetoric about social programs.

[MsTryska]

15. I agree.

here's a little something from the conservatives for kerry:

http://conservativesforkerry.com/conspeakout.html

Dan, May i have your permission to copy this and paste it elsewhere?

[dpbrown]

21. Absolutely, distribute it as widely as you'd like

I showed it to a few people as well, who thought it rang true.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[giant_robot]

16. I just saw Peter Peterson interviewed

on NOW last night. His point was pretty much the same: "I thought my party was the party of fiscal responsibility". He slammed both the democrats and republicans and painted a pretty gloomy picture of this nation's economy. He didn't say who he was voting for, but he is definately not happy with the Bushies. The transcript isn't online yet. Here's a link to an earlier interview:

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_peterson.html

[chiburb]

19. Well written, and spot on. Thank you! n/t

[rullery]

20. As a former Republican myself,

I certainly agree that the wackos who have taken over the party now are not anything like the fiscal conservatives who once represented the party. I first saw this happening at the 1964 convention, when Goldwater fanatics shouted down Nelson Rockefeller. Today there is little left of the Republican party of my youth.

My family goes way back too; great-great-grandfather was a founding member, an early supporter of Abraham Lincoln. So it hurts to see what has become of the party today. While I have voted for some Democrats in earlier years, beginning with LBJ in 1964, it was not until 2000 that I actually registered as a Democrat. Then when Gore was robbed of our election in Florida, I joined the ACLU too.

Today I am proud to be a Democrat, and I would never go back. I admire Sen. Jim Jeffords for having the courage to leave the party too, and wish that we could get Sen. Lincoln Chaffee to join him. When Kerry wins this year, and we begin to uncover all the dirt that the Bushitstas have been up to, it could be the beginning of the end for the Republican party. They could go the way of the Whigs.

[dpbrown]

22. The people who've taken over are real whackos

I find it ironic that whatever ultra-conservatives are calling Democrats, that that's what the PNAC nutballs are probably doing.

[Vincardog]

23. The Rabid Radical Right Wing nuts are FASCIST not Republican:spank:

[dpbrown]

24. And the BFEE has hijacked even that party

The Republicans would be doing themselves and the world a favor by dumping him and his PNAC goons this time around.

[ezekiel333]

25. Correct, they are FASCIST. eom

[cyr330]

26. Not just Bush

You'd have to say that the Republican Party is no longer Republican. NOt that I would have voted Republican way back when, but today, we ALL know what they're like-- Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Asscroft, etc. They're all one and the same. . .

[dpbrown]

28. Seymour Hersh (sp?) was on The Daily Show last night

He said that it's essentially about a half dozen of the "neocons" who have hijacked the nation - and he lamented that our democracy might be so fragile that it could be taken over so easily like that.

If Bush wins the election, then those neocons will be made "legitimate" and then all hell will break loose.