Confused Republicans
 

Anyone else in the same boat as me?

I'm feeling torn on certain issues. The main reason I'm still in favor of Bush is the fact of his suppert for Israel but I feel that is stsrting to waver now.

My biggest gripe is the expansion of the government and spending. It is driving me insane coming up with ways to back up his policies. Second to that is how I feel free speech is being limited and Howard Stern is the perfect example of that.

At the same time I don't care much for foolish Democrats.

-Rudey
--I think Buckley should run for President

The parties really seem to be polarizing, alienating the leaning moderates (i.e. 90% of voters)

Having said that, I want a president who will get the bulk of the US Armed Forces out of Iraq and the UN in (for purely selfish reasons, I have a lot of friends in Iraq and Saudi Arabia), so I may actually vote Democratic.

'The worst part about being a liberal is all the other liberals.'
- Bono

Rudey,

There was a good article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution about Bob Barr and how he's feeling pretty much the same way as you. He's still a Republican on some key issues, but he thinks that the party is getting away from its core mission.

It was just published a day or so ago, so if you go to http://www.ajc.com and do a search for 'bob barr', you should be able to find the story.

What kills me about Bush is look at the alternative.

Does anyone think that getting a Democrat (and a very liberal one at that) for President is going to actually slow down spending?

Hell naw.

Say what you want about Clinton but for all of his faults, he was a fairly conservative Democrat. He shrunk government spending and cut the deficit.

To Bush's credit, much of what he's done has been necessary for the war on terrorism.

Other stuff... well.. it just doesn't add up.

I'll say it again... It's a choice between Karl Marx or the Christian Taliban.

i dont care much for foolish republicans.

I am tired of republicans sticking their nose in my business and everyone elses. I say good riddance Bush.

You were never a Republican to begin with so please, this isn't a Republican or Bush bashing thread :)

-Rudey

true.

I spent some time on a libertarian site, mostly after reading one of ktsnake's previous posts and i really liked what i read.

I won't vote libertarian though, its a wasted vote. If the Libs could get someone with face value to run, it would be interesting though.

I agree with Bush's foriegn policy, but i'm having a hard time supporting the guy when he comes up with outlandish things like a marriage ammendment. For a party that is supposed to believe in less government intervention on our lives, they certainly don't legislate(or attempt to) that way.

I would rather sign on for 4 more years of Bush than have someone like John Kerry in office though. At least with Bush, you know where he stands. Kerry changes positions more often than Jenna Jameson. Hopefully if Nader does run he'll weed out the extreme hippie liberal vote and Bush will get re-elected.

Kitso
KS 361

Easily agreed. I don't believe in much of the Libertarian/Ayn Rand stuff. Academically, it's considered...well that doesn't matter :)

I would really like to be able to vote another Republican onto the ballot like John M.

-Rudey

Objectivism is the biggity bomb.

You can disect it all you want. The message, however, is excellent. People need to learn to be dependant on themselves. Achievment shouldn't be looked down upon, etc.

I know Ayn Rand doesn't give a perfect argument and a real laissez-faire type economy would be very detrimental to the middle class, but her basic messages were pretty dead on in my opinion.

Label me confused as hell!

Ummm this isn't a Libertarian thread and I have no desire to get into it. Ayn Rand is read by a selective few and ridiculed. If you want to start a thread on Libertarianism and I'm bored, I'll post on it.

-Rudey
--Stop ruining my thread Kevin! :)

I'm a registered republican because I voted for McCain in the first ever primary I could vote in.
I'm glad I'm not the only one freaked out by our lack of choices in this election. The Christian Right scares me, so I'm voting for any one except them. Politics makes my head hurt. From now, I'm a Federalist. Pure and simple. No other issues, just that I support Federalism in America and throughout the world.

Peace.

The thing that scares me is the amount of money that President Bush is able to raise. I watched the news this morning and they said that he raised $3 million in one day. :eek: He has over $100 million in his campaign chest. How can anyone compete with that? What ever happened to campaign finance reform?

And no, I'm not a Republican, but for almost a year I actually really liked Pres. Bush.

But Ayn Rand had one freaky deaky sex life...doesn't that score her some points in your book? :p

Seriously Rudey, I totally know where you're coming from. I have a huge issue with the Republican party's endorsement of school vouchers and I think it would kill the American education system as we know it. But party leadership thinks it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I'm seriously considering changing to Independent, if I didn't think my mom would roll over in her grave...although if she was alive today I don't know that she would still support Republican politics to the degree that she did. It's changed so much.

Is this a joke??? And you Dem's want to tell me what doctor to go to, what drink my kids can have, whether I can smoke, whether I can wear my crucifix on my neck in public, etc. etc. etc...

Actually the Democrats might be able to respond better to why Campaign finance reform failed and their "gray area" ties - Specially Kerry.

Again, I don't want to take this thread off track.

-Rudey

Do you feel it's the party in general or Bush that has gone slightly off-kilter? I think he has the right general idea, but is misguided in a lot of the finer details of issues. I don't usually pay much attention to politics--meaning I hear the big stuff but that's about it--unless it's to yell at our idiotic Gov. (I hate that man). I am a registered Republican and most of my views align with that.

No, I think it's the party in general (or should I say party leadership) that has gone farther and farther to the right.

I personally think that he's trying to shoot at too many different issues at once. And it's not just a Bush thing - I think there is just so much pressure from different groups on him.

For example, my views on the economy all of a sudden have become tied to a whole load of other issues. All of a sudden I find myself dealing with a religious agenda that I don't want to deal with.

I think I'm not the only one to feel this. There was an article on the Gay membership of the Republican party. 25% of homosexuals voted Republican in the last election. Funding and membership in the Log Cabin Republicans increased as soon as Bush proposed an agenda limiting gay marriages. The group will now try and exert more influence and pressure in the party.

How do you balance all these different issues?

Historically issues started getting combined over anti-slavery and it was actually the precursor to the Republican party to do this.

-Rudey
--I wish I could vote on separate issues as opposed to one unified agenda.

Haha.

The problem is that people tend to think Republican = small government and fiscally conservative, but clearly with the Bush administration this is not true. So anybody who considers themselves a Republican based on those factors (which is a lot of the conservatives I know) is not getting what they counted on when they voted for the GOP. Ditto the Democrats and any sort of social progressivism -- there are very few truly progressive Democrats left out there. So those of us who vote Democratic for social reasons and those who vote Republican because of the small government/financial conservatism -- which from what I've noticed basically covers most of Americans -- are really getting screwed.

While I agree with 33girl that the country has shifted to the right in recent years (and will probably start shifting back to the left in a little while), I disagree that the country has polarized to the extremes. In fact, if anything I'd say the opposite is true. I don't consider my political views radical at ALL but most of the Democratic presidential candidates were too moderate for me. Of course that's not really surprising -- all of the candidates, Bush included, have been catering to the middle to try and get votes, and that's not exactly a revolutionary political strategy. But -- although I'm not old enough to have really studied this phenomenon in depth yet -- it seems to me like it gets worse with every passing election.

On a complete tangent, there has been talk of a Kerry/McCain ticket and although I think it has about a snowball's chance in hell of happening, it would be really interesting and a great move on Kerry's part for attracting more moderates without isolating too many liberals (who, for whatever reasons, seem to like McCain quite a bit . . . "you know, for a Republican").

I didn't say the country had shifted right, I said the leadership of the Republican party had.

I like the vote on each issue individually idea...then tally them all up and whoever wins on the most gets to be Prez. With our luck we would end up with LaRouche. :)

I also agree with that to an extent ;) although I think that's been facilitated by the country's shift to the right. Bush and friends know they can openly support more conservative policies if the country's more conservative.

Given the results of our last Presidential election and the polls I've seen "if the election were held today", it looks to me like we're split just about 50/50. Perhaps some areas of the country have shifted right, but I don't see it in my geographic area. I tend to agree that we are polarizing. As the Republican party shifts further right, it makes them Dems go further left to balance it out.

I would love a Kerry/McCain ticket. I would have voted for McCain in 2000.

Dee

Actually I was a confused Republican growing up but then I saw the light:)

1) The current leading prospect for the Democratic party has stated that he would, indeed, choose spending programs over tax initiatives.

2) Clinton only cut the deficit on paper. It has actually been increasing steadily. And, he certainly didn't shrink government spending!!!

No vote is a wasted vote! I can't believe you even said that!!!

Let's get back on track on who else feels confused. The reason that there are only two people to choose from lend to the confusion. And at the end of the day, the people running aren't running to get elected - they run to bring issues to the table.

-Rudey

1) How is he "against" tax initiatives when he's stated he wants to raise taxes (removing the Bush administration sponsored tax cuts)? Your statement is contrary to one of his strongest positions. This is my problem with Kerry. He's two-faced. He'll say whatever the polls tell him to and then turn around and do something different.

2) No vote is wasted? Tell that to Nader's supporters in Florida during the last election cycle. Or the conservatives that voted for Perot in '92.

Ugh listen go argue about extraneous topics in another thread. Talking about 2 faced? I consider a president who says he supports AIDS funding and doesn't deliver, a president who says we have 60 stem cell lines to research with when we have 10, a president who passes temporary tax cuts to be just as 2-faced.

And again, no vote is wasted since it's not about who gets elected. There are 40 year cycles where certain parties maintain power and concentrate on certain issues.

-Rudey

At least he's consistant and predictable. Always goes the way that Jesus tells him to:rolleyes:

I don't find it nearly so bad if someone's motivated by religious convictions (which he has to know has cost him support in many areas) as one who is seemingly says anything in order to gain power.

The temporary tax cuts were supposed to be a stimulus for the economy. It's debatable that they were one of the contributing factors to the recovery, but here we are in a recovering economy.

You can talk yourself blue in the face about 'no vote is wasted'. It's not going to change the fact that voting for an extreme right or left 3rd party candidate will only be contributing to the center-opposite candidate's campaign by removing a potential vote from whoever your 2nd choice would have probably been.

The only real place we can make a difference is in the primary election. Unfortunately, American voters are too quick to jump on the bandwagon of the annointed one.

Right so why do people like Nader and Sharpton run? Why is it that people who don't have a shot and know they don't have a shot run? Nader might not get elected, but when those issues are out there and the 2 large parties want to win those votes, they will adopt those issues.

-Rudey

By tax initiatives, I'm referring to tax cuts and other code changes to stimulate growth. I KNOW he wants to raise taxes! He's raising taxes to increase revenue so he can fund spending programs. Thus spending programs over tax initiatives.

Anyway, regarding confused Republicans, Bush has adopted certain Democratic issues to make himself more attractive to Democratic voters. It looks fair to me in the world of politics!

I might have been a confused Republican PRIOR to the Kerry "nomination". No longer. Kerry is more liberal than Ted Kennedy. After the cold war, the defense budget was cut 1 Billion.
HE wanted to cut 1 Billion more for the next 5 years. Even Ted voted against that. In the congressional records, Hannity was ready quotes from within his own party that stated it was too dangerous. He is STILL of that mindset-well today anyway.
So though I did have concerns over many issues, considering the alternative, there is no choice for me.

As far as Bush swinging farther and farther right-
I think many are underestimating the pulse of the nation. There is a "lost" feeling this year. Many conservatives are struggling with issues as are the Dems. Just reading the paper and listening to ANY news will tell you very few in mainstream America are happy
with either of these two men.

I think JAM should run for Pres. Or at least be given the title of Mom of America. ;)

You've got my vote JAM!

I'm in. Bound to be better than our other choices.

Semi related to what we're discussing:

http://www.pghcitypaper.com/

Pennsylvania Senatorial primary coming up - Specter vs. Toomey. Specter's on the left, Toomey's on the right.

since when is kerry liberal? at the least he is a very conservative domocrat- essentially we have two republicans running for office- talk about lack of choice... its bs to me... however. when it comes down to it- i'd rather vote democrat (even if its conservative:rolleyes: ) then republican any day- especially since its bush.... i think his obnoxious defense spending has put is into some terrible economic times... (look at the unemployment rate its 9.7% the rate was lowest in february which of course has been taken as THE rate- when it is not- this gives off the facade that he is creating jobs and helping the economy.. when in fact he is not... )

not to mention the fact that he is proposing a completely rediculous AMENDMENT to outlaw gay marraige.... is he really serious? when homosexuals are becoming more and more integrated into our society (thank god) i dont think i could vote for someone that is going to take someones right to love who ever they want away from them... i think its downright mean and a complete infringement on the constitution....

and then there is the war... i can understand that he is trying to keep things under control before they come onto our shores... but the defense spending is out of control and honestly...one of my best friends is in iraq right now- he was only supposed to be in afghanistan... but his stay was extended to go to iraq- he's been shot twice and has two purple hearts... they are sending him on another mission before he can come home and i'm afraid he'll never make it home... it makes me sick...

i think that he had a plan to go to iraq way before he was even elected.. i dont think its a coincidence the connections with haliburton and the other oil countries.. despite the fact that on september 11 he had the entire bin laden family flown to america to keep them safe- because the bush's have been partners with them for years... the fact that he completely stole the elections.. wake up people....not to mention the fact htat we look like complete idiots in the rest of the world.. read micheal moore's "dude wheres my country" and "stupid white men" and then talk to me.... as much as we'd like to pretend like we are the only ones that exist... we need to concentrate on our own problems before meddling in the problems of others...

" If nominated I will not accept.If elected I will not serve"
:D

Not liberal? Compared to what, socialism, utopia, John Lennon?
Priceless article-
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2003/...2-455080.shtml
"...Columnist Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe also wonders whether Kerry tries to be all things to all people. Jacoby reports that, when in the early 1990s a constituent wrote Kerry expressing support for an invasion of Iraq, Kerry's office responded by sending two letters - one saying he opposed the war and another supporting President George H.W. Bush's response. Kerry blamed it on computer problems and the failure to dispatch a third letter - one opposing the war but supporting the troops."

http://205.180.85.40/w/pc.cgi?mid=31930&sid=5068

Editorial excerpt "Kerry also famously voted to send U.S. troops to Iraq, then reversed course and opposed $87 billion in funding to equip American GIs and advance Iraqi stability.

John Kerry, the Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee is a 194-proof liberal dream come true. His election next November would commence a long, national nightmare. "

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

"NUMBER ONE: KERRY RANKED 'MOST LIBERAL' IN SENATE ROLL CALL VOTES, TOPS KENNEDY, CLINTON

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

Whoa.. he "stole" the elections?:confused:

Which recount was it that determined that?

Let me think... that would be NONE of them.:rolleyes:

He was elected fairly according to our constitution. Because a few Democrat voters are too retarded to read the voting card before they stamp it does not somehow make Bush culpable for stealing an election.