HOLY COW! Reagan employee tells all about Bush. Bad news for repukes.

[Elwood P Dowd]

http://www.chuckmuth.com/newsandviews/nv.cfm

In his farewell address to the nation on Jan. 11, 1989, Reagan observed: "I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things." Even when politics forced him to give way, everyone knew what he stood for. Bush's biggest problem, in contrast, is not that he is a poor communicator. It is that he has nothing to communicate. Victory over terrorists, yes -- but then what American really disagrees with that goal? Beyond that there is nothing.

"Government should never try to control or dominate the lives of our citizens," Bush says. But you wouldn't know that from his policies. He has expanded government power, increased federal spending, initiated an unnecessary war, engaged in global social engineering and undercut executive accountability. This is a bill of particulars that could be laid on Lyndon Johnson's grave. No wonder "Republicans aren't very enthusiastic about" Bush, says right-wing syndicated columnist Robert Novak.


Yet serious conservatives must fear for the country if Bush is reelected. Is Kerry really likely to initiate more unnecessary wars, threaten more civil liberties and waste more tax dollars? In any case, there are other choices (e.g., the Libertarian Party's Michael Badnarik, the Constitution Party's Michael Peroutka and even Independent Ralph Nader).

Serious conservatives should deny their votes to Bush. "When it comes to choosing a president, results matter," the president says. So true. A Kerry victory would likely be bad for the cause of individual liberty and limited government. But based on the results of his presidency, a Bush victory would be catastrophic. Conservatives should choose principle over power.

<more>

About the writer: Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He served as a special assistant to President Reagan and was a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation

This is one of the best articles I've seen that fully explains the cluster-fuck called the Bush White House. :)

[Indiana_Dem]

1. Unfortunately, joe-sixpack will never read this.

That's what is so discouraging.

[Elwood P Dowd]

5. Copy the article and give it to friends.

I know some setting on the fence that need a little push. Since this comes from a Reaganite, it's just what the doctor ordered. This is not coming from the left, this is from someone about as RIGHT as you can get!

[blm]

17. Give it out along with that Charley Reese oped. He's a conservative voting

for Kerry. It's in the Editorials Forum.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

18. What website is that from?

I'd love to find that!!!

[blm]

21. DU's Editorials forum.

heh...more people should check it out.

[Kimber Scott]

28. Joe Sixpack doesn't read a lot of things, but people who really vote do.

I think this is good news.

[pacalo]

2. One thing...

A Kerry victory would likely be bad for the cause of individual liberty...:

Unless I'm having an Emily Latella moment, I disagree strongly with that statement. We need Kerry to save our individual liberties!

[elperromagico]

7. He goes on to say that another four years of Bush would be worse.

But based on the results of his presidency, a Bush victory would be catastrophic.

It would seem that this author regards Kerry as the lesser of two evils. Being a true conservative, it's perhaps understandable why he would feel that way.

[SoCalDemocrat]

3. powerful

That was powerful. I hope conservatives take it to heart.

[Nordic]

4. "choose principle over power". How many GOPers will do THIS?

it just shows you how they don't have ANY principles. Power is everything to them, the ends justify the means, and they don't care if Bush is the 2nd coming of Hitler, he's a republican and that's aLL that matters to these fuckwads.

[mikehiggins]

10. Not true

The conservatives I know are trembling on the brink of a terrible event, casting a vote for a Democrat. Articles like these from the CATO group, a well known right wing voice, are the justification we need to give them the justification for making such a more.

And presenting it as "principle over power" is EXACTLY the right tack to take with these people. Keep in mind that it wasn't "power" that made them conservatives in the first place.

This article is great and grand and we should distribute it everywhere we can. If we can slice into the soft, conservative underbelly of the Bushoid coalition it will cause dismay and fear far out of proportion to the numbers of people involved.

Conservatives for Kerry might sound as odd as Jews for Jesus, but you never know what is going to catch on.

[elperromagico]

15. At the very least, they could do as the author suggests

and cast a ballot for Badnarik, Peroutka, or some other third party candidate.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

20. I know many people

who have decided to vote Libertarian who voted for bush last time around. Friends and family, including my normally very hard core GOP in-laws.

Hey I'm ok with that.

[elperromagico]

23. It takes votes away from Bush, and that's what we want.

:D

[Leilani]

29. There is a difference between Repubs & Conservatives

Repubs put their party first

Conservatives put their principles above party...Bush represents everything that is wrong to these people. Many will stay home, some will vote 3rd party, & some will vote for Kerry.

[napi21]

6. Does anyone know if the polls track other 3rd party candidates?

I just read the article through your link. This is the second time today that I've heard "Conservative" Pubs call for their people NOT to vote for Shrub! Buchanan said this again today on Late Edition, and has explained why in his new book. Now this article mentions several hard core Pubs are saying the same thing. They aren't saying Vote for Kerry! They're saying to vote for the Constitution Party, or the Green, but DON'T VOTE FOR SHRUB!

Do the national polls even check for voters who support 3rd party candidates other than Nader?

Is it possible that these REAL pubs will desert the party at the last minute and vote for some unsung 3rd party candidate, because they don't want Shrub, but can't bring themselves to vote for Kerry???

[elperromagico]

12. A Rasmussen poll in New Mexico -

funded by Badnarik, I hasten to add - asked voters who they supported: Bush, Kerry, or Badnarik. Badnarik received 5%.

It's not being done on a national level, generally, and that's a problem. There are people in this country who don't want to vote for either Kerry or Bush, and will vote for any third option. Plug in Nader in a poll, and they'll pick him. Plug in Badnarik, they'll pick him.

So let's say Nader is off the ballot in maybe 25 states, or even 30 states. Who will those ABBorK (Anybody But Bush or Kerry) voters go for? Will they stay home? Will they hold their noses and vote for Kerry or Bush? Or will they vote for some other candidate?

[napi21]

26. Is this at least one reason we're all not understanding the polls?

Maybe Shrub really doesn't have 47%-50% numbers at all, but the people just aren't given other options, so they say Bush or Nader because their real choice isn't part of the poll.

I dun know. Maybe I'm just grabing at straws, but I've seen a number of things recently, like the Log Cabin Pubs aren't baking Shrub, fairly prominent Pubs are speaking out against his policies, and if there really are any real Pubs left who hate overspending, and Gov't in you're personal business, they sure can't be sure votes for the Shrub, no can they?

[Julien Sorel]

8. Just what a "conservative" is is no longer clear.

To many in Bush's base, a "conservative" is someone who pays lip service to their fundamentalist religious values. Beyond that, they don't really care what the person does. The other half is the business interests, who want low taxes and decreased accountability. Again, beyond that, they don't care what the person does: he or she is a "conservative" on their main issue, so everything else is secondary.

Old time conservatism was a holistic philosophy. Bush style conservatism is an omnibus of initiatives designed to cater to various interest groups within the Republican party. It has no real vision, beyond the desire to placate the interest groups which spiked his father's re-election.

[Leilani]

31. Sorry, you do not know much about {true conservatives}

They are no less principled than {true liberals}

You may disagree with their beliefs, but they are out there.

They have a set of core beliefs, & nobody or party is representing them.

They believe in limited govt, fiscal restraint, no imperialistic wars, true civil liberties, separation of govt & religion, get govt out of people s private lives, etc.

[Julien Sorel]

40. Did you actually read my post?

If you did, re-read it, because it's obvious you didn't understand it. If you need some help, PM me and I'll walk you through it.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

9. I tried to look up the author in opensecrets.org

to see who he donates to and found nothing, for 2000, 2002 and 2004.

Isn't there another website that lists political contributions?

[oregonjen]

11. www.newsmeat.com

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

13. Nothing there, either

He must not donate or he doesn't do it in big enough numbers to show up.

I posted that article on a bipartisan forum and wanted to make sure he doesn't have all kinds of Dem contributions because then it would make a mockery of his article.

Apparently he has NO contributions. Thank!

[Protected]

14. If he's a senior fellow at the Cato Institute

that means he's a strong fiscal conservative. Earlier this year I saw another Cato article that argued voting for John Kerry because having a Democratic president combined with a Rupublican congress means less wasteful spending.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

16. I saw that, too

and this author makes that point, as well. Twice, in fact.

This is actually a very well-written article. True fiscal conservatives are people I can have an actual discussion with. I do disagree with them to a certain extent, but I don't put them in the same category as power-hungry neocons, fundies, freepers, etc. A lot of fundies and freepers have no idea just how fiscally liberal bush has been.

I have a friend that said if people want someone who is going to do a good job with the government's money they need to vote Dem. Clinton did a fantastic, bang-up job.

[cheshire]

19. I disagree with victory over terrorist hugely but agree with the rest

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

22. Now the next question is

are there any hard-core liberals out there writing articles urging other liberals to vote for bush?

I was laughing so hard I almost couldn't finish typing that, but seriously? Are there?

I want to compare.

And for anyone reading this, I'd LOVE some links to other conservatives calling for not voting for bush.

Little project I'm working on...

[DaveSZ]

24. This is accurate:

Conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan worries that Bush "is fusing Big Government liberalism with religious right moralism. It's the nanny state with more cash."

He forgot to note corporate cronyism though.

[wildflower]

37. Yes, because he represents the "true liberal spirit"

such as "unrestrained spending," "meddling in other nations' business," "bigger government," "stripping individual liberties," and other "liberal" values.

-wildflower

ON EDIT: Quotes were to show I'm kidding :)
Or maybe I should say being sarcastic...

P.S. (on edit again) Forgot to mention his true liberal commitment to education!

[wildflower]

41. Something I found...there's a democratsforbush.com; BUT it leads to

the georgewbush.com site: georgewbush.com/democrats. democractsforbush.org gets you to the same page. Guess he/they bought it up!

I saw something about his record of "bipartisanship" on there, gagged, and quickly hit the back button.

ON EDIT: republicansforkerry.com does the same thing (goes to John Kerry's site)...

BUT republicansforkerry.org is an independent site; you might want to check it out.

-wildflower

[karlrschneider]

25. This is a magnificent piece, although I think he's wrong about one thing

" A Kerry victory would likely be bad for the cause of individual liberty and limited government. "
----------------------------------------------------------
:eyes:
:kick:

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

27. continue reading after that

he says a second bush term would be "disastrous."

[Quixote1818]

30. This should be sent to every indepenent voter in the country!! Also..

Could we do a mass E-mail with this?

[Elwood P Dowd]

32. Yep, and we need to send it to other sites

I imagine Mr Muth will take this down when he learns it's on DU.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

33. I've already posted it to several sites

with bipartisan readership.

I went back and checked on the # of views and it is getting a hell of a lot for a lazy Sunday. Lurkers. Good.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

34. I think this needs to stay kicked

this argument is exactly the reason my very conservative father-in-law is voting Libertarian this year. He is a conservative in the classic sense of the word and is disgusted with the bush gang.

He's working on my mother-in-law, one of those unthinking, "just vote Republican!" voters. He'll get through to her. She's also old-fashioned enough to vote the way her husband does.

This needs big circulation, people. Team it up with some other, recent statements by conservatives arguing against voting bush and it's lethal.

I don't mind people who would have voted for bush voting third party or even abstaining, as I know some people are doing.

[Armstead]

35. Nuther Kick

I wish more real conservatives would figure out that Bush is not one of them.

[wildflower]

36. At the very least, this may negate the Nader effect...

IF Nader gets any traction.

-wildflower

[skygazer]

38. Thanks for this

I am making copies for my Bush supporting relatives. I plan on highlighting the part that makes it clear it is from a RW website - might provide some food for thought.

It has struck me for a long time that Bush is no true Conservative in any sense of the word but it's very difficult to get that across to some of these people. Maybe hearing it from a Reaganite will wake them up.

[Elwood P Dowd]

39. Kick

Everyone needs a copy of this article. Send it to your friends, especially those undecided and independent voters.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

42. Kick

[Nordic]

43. sunday night kick

[oasis]

44. kick

[Zookeeper]

45. I printed the article and will make photos copies tomorrow...

and pass them along to a couple Repub friends.

It is a very well reasoned piece and it makes the argument that I've been making to a Repub friend: Shrub is not a mainstream or fiscal conservative! And even is she doesn't agree with Kerry, can he really do more damage than Bush????

Thanks, Elwood, for the link!

(And I'm nominating this for the homepage)

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

46. Good idea

I'm making copies, too. Have to hit the machine tomorrow anyway.

Another kick for this!!!

BTW, guys, send this around via email too. God knows they've sent enough freeper crap to you haven't they? (Friends and family...)

[Elwood P Dowd]

47. Moonbeam & Zookeeper

I'm back on and will keep it kicked up for another hour. Thanks for realizing the importance of this article. We need to get this out.

[Bundbuster]

48. My conservative mother is one of these people

I just spoke with her tonight. She lives in an extremely conservative retirement community, and told me that about half of her friends there are furious with virtually everything AWOL has done and will NOT be voting for him. This will be the first time in her 91 year life that she's not voting for the repuglican Presidential nominee.

My heart soars like a hawk.

[Elwood P Dowd]

49. Thanks Bundbuster. Pass this article along.

Last kick for the morning crowd. Copy it and spread it around.
My mother is 86, and she has turned for Kerry also.