posted on October 11, 2004 10:48:43 PM new
A conservative on Bush and Kerry
You might be interested in the following just written by Charley Reese of
the Orlando Sentinel. If you know the writer and his strongly conservative
reputation, you should find it eye opening.
Charley Reese is a bred-and-born southerner and conservative columnist. His
column is distributed by King Features Syndicate thrice weekly to more than
150 newspapers. A brief biography of the reasonable libertarian is at
http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/columns/creese/bioMaina.htm
Note particularly what he says about John Kerry. The conservative
journalists Robert Novak and William Kristol happen to be saying the same
things.
Americans should realize that if they vote for President Bush's
re-election, they are really voting for the architects of war ---Dick
Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of that cabal of
neoconservative ideologues and their corporate backers.
I have sadly come to the conclusion that President Bush is merely a
frontman, an empty suit, who is manipulated by the people in his
administration. Bush has the most dangerously simplistic view of the world
of any president in my memory.
It's no wonder the president avoids press conferences like the
plague. Take away his cue cards and he can barely talk. Americans should be
embarrassed that an Arab king (Abdullah of Jordan) spoke more fluently and
articulately in English than our own president at their joint press
conference recently.
John Kerry is at least an educated man, well-read, who knows how to think
and who knows that the world is a great deal more complex than Bush's
comic-book world of American heroes and foreign evildoers. It's unfortunate
that in our poorly educated country, Kerry's very intelligence and refusal
to adopt simplistic slogans might doom his presidential election efforts.
But Thomas Jefferson said it well, as he did so often, when he observed that
people who expect to be ignorant and free expect what never was and never
will be. People who think of themselves as conservatives will really display
their stupidity, as I did in the last election, by voting for Bush.
Bush is as far from being a conservative as you can get. Well, he fooled me
once, but he won't fool me twice.
It is not at all conservative to balloon government spending, to vastly
increase the power of government, to show contempt for the Constitution and
the rule of law, or to tell people that foreign outsourcing of American jobs
is good for them, that giant fiscal and trade deficits don't matter, and
that people should not know what their government is doing. Bush is the most
prone-to-classify, the most secretive president in the 20th century. His
administration leans dangerously toward the authoritarian. It's no wonder
that the Justice Department has convicted a few Arab-Americans of supporting
terrorism.
What would you do if you found yourself arrested and a federal prosecutor
whispers in your ear that either you can plea-bargain this or the president
will designate you an enemy combatant and you'll be held incommunicado for
the duration?
This election really is important, not only for domestic reasons, but
because Bush's foreign policy has been a dangerous disaster. He's almost
restarted the Cold War with Russia and the nuclear arms race. America is
not only hated in the Middle East, but it has few friends anywhere in the
world due to the arrogance and ineptness of the Bush administration.
Don't forget, a scientific poll of Europeans found us, Israel, North Korea
and Iran as the greatest threats to world peace.
I will swallow a lot of petty policy differences with Kerry to get a man in
the White House with brains enough not to blow up the world and us with it.
Go to Kerry's Web site (http://www.johnkerry.com/) and read some of the
magazine profiles on him. You'll find that there is a great deal more to
Kerry than the GOP attack dogs would have you believe. Besides, it would be
fun to have a president who plays hockey, windsurfs, rides motorcycles,
plays the guitar, writes poetry and speaks French. It would be good to have
a man in the White House who has killed people face to face. Killing people
has a sobering effect on a man and dispels all illusions.
-------------------------------
Andy Rooney on Fabric Softeners:
> My wife uses fabric softener. I never knew what that stuff was for.Then
> I noticed women coming up to me, sniffing, then saying under their
> breath, "Married!" and walking away. Fabric softeners are how our wives
> mark their territory. We can take off the ring. But, it's hard to get
> that April Fresh scent out of your clothes.
posted on October 12, 2004 12:19:54 AM new
Your writer is a conservative Democrat
bur read the following ....
"Truth Is Scarce," Charley Reese Opposes Bush Reelection
King Features Syndicate, Inc. ^ | 09-12-03 | Reese, Charley
Posted on 09/11/2003 9:08:23 PM PDT by Theodore R.
Truth Is Scarce
Some years ago, I gave up interviewing politicians. They will not tell the truth. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in his official campaign-opening speech recently, is a perfect illustration of the politician's aversion to truth.
"I voted to allow the president to threaten the use of force," Kerry said, adding that it was the right decision.
That's a lie. Kerry did not vote to allow the president to threaten force. He voted to authorize the president to use force. Why couldn't he just say that and add, "In retrospect, that was a mistake." No, Kerry is not going to admit he made a mistake even though his campaign stance is the reverse of his earlier position.
That is so typical of today's politicians and is, I think, a leading cause of voter apathy. Most Americans don't expect politicians to be infallible and perfect, but they do have a right to expect that politicians will be honest.
A free, self-governing society can survive honest disagreements, even serious disagreements, but it cannot survive deception and dishonesty. The whole basis of self-government is that people can make the right decisions if they are given the facts. They cannot do that, however, if they are constantly fed lies. Political lies should be considered a mortal and unforgivable sin.
How many times have Americans voted for men who promised to balance the budget, only to produce record deficits? How many times have they voted for people who promised not to raise taxes and then did raise taxes? Campaign positions and promises, which are now constructed on the basis of opinion polls and focus groups, are as worthless as any other con artist's spiel.
At any rate, in addition to his intellectual dishonesty, Kerry has a lugubrious face, a monstrous ego and a stilted style of speaking. I know the Democrat Party has a history of choosing bad candidates, but I don't think it will choose Kerry. It is nice, though, that he remembered his one year of service in Vietnam, although he appears to have forgotten his many years as an anti-Vietnam War activist. I have to say "anti-Vietnam War" because since then he's shown no aversion to other wars. He fought honorably and I believe was decorated, though I think he later threw his decorations away as a protest.
He is, as far as I know, the only candidate in either party with a war record, but in today's America, that doesn't seem to matter. Most of the hawks in both parties are former draft dodgers.
The only hot candidate and the only non-Establishment candidate is former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. Dean, Dennis Kucinich and Bob Graham are the only Democrats with clean hands as far as the war in Iraq is concerned. They all opposed it. Joe Lieberman seems to want to be George W. Bush, only more so. Poor Dick Gephardt is counting on the union vote, which is shrinking even as he talks. Graham has not done as well as I expected he would, and poor Kucinich simply doesn't look presidential, which is a disadvantage in the age of television.
At the moment, I'd bet on Dean, as he seems to be the only candidate who can inspire people. He's been unafraid to jump on President Bush, but he has also presented a very positive message, according to people who have attended some of his rallies. That's an important trait for a candidate. I hope he gets the nomination — among other reasons, just to spite the Establishment Press, which seems to dislike him.
The only certainty at this time, as far as I'm concerned, is that I will not vote for George W. Bush. He's proven to be reckless, dangerously uninformed, terrible at choosing advisers, far too easily influenced by his bad advisers and, without a script, virtually unable to articulate. He has gotten us into deep trouble not only in the Middle East but here at home, and the scary part is, I don't think he has a clue that he has done so.
Rather than devise policies to solve the problems of America's men and women, he's spent his term paying back his big corporate contributors. I will genuinely fear for the future of the country if he is re-elected.
posted on October 12, 2004 12:36:39 AM new
Thank you Roadsmith, excellent post....lots of my thoughts but I could never put them to paper as well as this man.
Septembermorn, it would do you a world of good to read the OP.
And, do you REALLY think bush has never lied?
HE has never told the truth AND he is a lowly sniveling coward who can send others to their deaths in war but was too yellow to fight himself.....how low can a "man" sink!?
posted on October 12, 2004 06:04:21 AM new
septembermom - Very good rebuttal....especially pointing out he's a democrat. The ultra-lefties here don't think there are any such creatures in their party...conservatives...they'd like to pretend there aren't.
-------------------
And this is the second or third time roadsmith brings a statement to the table about "The conservative
journalists Robert Novak and William Kristol happen to be saying the same things."
As as of today has not been able to prove EITHER, no matter their comments, are voting for kerry. They're not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And they, the interrogator went through all of these statements from John Kerry. He starts pounding on the table. 'See here, this naval officer, he admits that you are a criminal.'" Excerpt from "Stolen Honor"
- James H. Warner Former Vietnam POW
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 12, 2004 06:11:30 AM new
Why historical ignorance is cause for alarm
Presidential debate watchers are always on the lookout for a so-called gaffe--an extreme or eccentric statement that makes the candidate look damningly foolish or hopelessly uninformed. In 1976, for example, President Gerald Ford blurted out that Poland was not under the domination of the Soviet Union. Despite valiant efforts at spin control--his handlers claimed that he was only referring to the spirit of the Polish people, rather than the geopolitical reality--that remark played a crucial part in Ford's defeat in a close election.
President Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, was virtually immune to gaffes. In his 1984 debate with Walter Mondale, Reagan seemed to agree that he had been unaware of the extent of the Soviet Union's land-based nuclear missile threat. That should have been a humiliating admission, since it struck at the heart of Reagan's preparation for crucial arms-control talks. But Reagan just smiled and shrugged it off. And so did everyone else, as the president cruised to a crushing re-election victory.
The recent debates between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry have generated plenty of commentary. Democrats claim Bush has been stubborn and inflexible; Republicans insist Kerry can't keep his own positions straight. On the whole, however, the punditocracy pretty much agrees that neither candidate has blundered into a fatal gaffe. But that is only because they were not paying close attention.
In the second debate, Bush was asked whom he would choose to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. After appropriately declining to name an individual, Bush explained that he would not pick judges who attempted to insert their personal opinions into constitutional interpretation. For example, he said, he would not nominate a judge who believed that the words "under God" could not be included in the Pledge of Allegiance. And then the president made this stunning statement: "Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all--you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America." What woeful ignorance of American history.
Alas, the Constitution of the United States--at the time of the Dred Scott case--did indeed protect slavery as a personal property right. Article Four even required the free states to cooperate in returning runaway slaves to bondage.
Mr. President, that is why we had a Civil War. That is why Abraham Lincoln had to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, and the 13th Amendment was necessary to abolish slavery. And then the 14th Amendment had to be added to guarantee full citizenship and equal protection of the law to the newly freed slaves. This is no small matter. The president must defend and uphold the United States Constitution, so it seems pretty reasonable to expect him to know something about it, not to mention the causes of the Civil War.
I suppose it is somewhat reassuring to learn that Bush will not appoint judges who believe in slavery, but his unfamiliarity with the Constitution--and basic U.S. history--should have set the alarm bells ringing from Ohio to Florida. Then again, the president might just be confused about the causes of war in general. After all, he has provided a shifting set of justifications for the war in Iraq. Why should constitutional illiteracy and historical ignorance qualify as a newsworthy gaffe? Well, just recall the famous observation of the philosopher George Santayana: Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
------------------------------
posted on October 12, 2004 09:12:04 AM new
Miss Cleo the psychic says, (using linduh's ID)
The ultra-lefties here don't think there are any such creatures in their party...conservatives...they'd like to pretend there aren't.
-------------------
Wow again I'm amazed at linduh's ability to read minds , tells us what we believe and what we think wow She should have her own little show on TV!
Well, no, just kidding! Linduh is a just a lying sock o' ship!
posted on October 13, 2004 11:16:02 PM newKerry is a traitor in both words and actions.
Oh yes, a man redresses the wrongs of his government after he serves in combat and he is a traitor.
But a man who deserts his reserve military position during a time of war, and who is on the record saying at least he didn't shoot a finger off or go to Canada deserves our respect.
That's some wacked out reasoning.
Kerry is a true patriot. When called to war he went into combat.
When he saw his country going in the wrong direction, he spoke up.
Bush was a coward and couldn't even stick out national guard service during time of war.
They're not.
Excerpt from "Stolen Honor"