Adrift

I voted for President Bush twice. At the moment, I regret that second vote. It's not that I think Kerry should have won. It's that I think Bush has become the most hollowed out version of a president I can imagine. He has completely abandoned nearly every one of the reasons I voted for him. I voted for him chiefly because I expected him to fight hard for the ownership society, which I saw - and still see - as a means of protecting my children from the burden of carrying an endlessly aging and 76 million strong baby boomer population. It was a campaign slogan. And while Bush can say that he did that because there was too much opposition, how would he justify that with the enormous opposition in America to the amnesty bill he's pushing to get to his desk for an overeager signature?

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans show themselves worthy. Earmark/pork spending, the forementioned amnesty bill, the sloshing around with the money to help our troops who are in the field of battle... I'm disgusted.

At this moment, I will vote neither Democrat nor Republican in the next election. I'm adrift, waiting for the creation (or restoration) of some group of politicians who would believe and vigorously pursue the following:

• Small government
• Strong military
• Strong, enforced, and legal immigration
• America first foreign policy (let the other nations push their own agendas...)
• Ownership society
• Completely transparent earmark policies
• Low taxes, which spurs economic activity
• No limits whatsoever on free speech - political or otherwise

• Small government: neither party
• Strong military: Republicans, but absolutely not the Democrats
• Strong, enforced, and legal immigration: neither party
• America first foreign policy (let the other nations push their own agendas...): neither party
• Ownership society: neither party
• Completely transparent earmark policies: neither party
• Low taxes, which spurs economic activity: Republicans, but absolutely not the Democrats
• No limits whatsoever on free speech - political or otherwise: neither party

For what it's worth, there are exceptions in each party. Obama is very transparent when it comes ot earmarks. Mitt Romney and Fred Thomson rightly call the amnesty bill what it is: amnesty. But as parties, collectively, I'm repulsed.

Tags: politics
by Brett Rogers, 6/27/2007 8:59:43 AM
Permalink

I dunno, buddy...I think you're going to be hard pressed to find anybody who supports ALL those things the way you want them to--or as vehemently as you want them to.

Posted by Bella, 6/27/2007 10:35:16 AM

Well said. I too voted for President Bush twice, which I have now realized was a tremendous mistake. Sitting out the 04 election as I did 06 would have been the better choice.

I think when the dust settles from this presidency the record will clearly show he was more liberal than Bill Clinton. Other than the war on terror, which has been handled poorly, his out of control spending, writing education and now the shamnesty bill with Ted Kennedy, have ripped apart the GOP by abandoning all conservative principles. Pretty much every conservative I know was told the GOP to go take a flying **** (my exact words to them the last time the RNC called me for a donation - and that was before shamnesty).

Here's to hoping there is more to Fred than appearance and how he carries himself. If not, I'm riding the bench in 08 too.

Posted by Pale Rider, 6/27/2007 11:01:58 AM

PR---with all possible affection, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you use the word 'liberal' and 'irresponsible' interchangably and it not fair, accurate, or in opinion of Merriam Webster, definitively correct. :-) Regardless of political opinion, if you don't make 'liberal' a dirty word, I won't make 'conservative' one. Fine if you think Bill Clinton was irresponsible and a liberal, but to call Dubya a liberal is just....insulting. To liberals and conservatives. He's neither. He's just irresponsible, regardless of political bent-- with lives, with money and with ideals.

Nitpicking, I know, but we gotta start somewhere. :-P

Posted by Bella, 6/27/2007 11:14:32 AM

In my dictionary, a person who is liberal loves the application of liberty and all that entails. There are a number of "liberals" these days who aren't liberty-loving at all, be it Democrat or Republican.

And as for the two of you - I know that you're both liberty-lovin'.

Posted by Brett Rogers (http://www.beatcanvas.com), 6/27/2007 11:23:59 AM

Hey Bella. Very observant on your part. I do associate liberal with irresponsible. Not in what liberals would like to achieve but in how they choose to do so. Just because Bush may follow a parallel path that I view as irresponsible (ex: throwing money at a problem - take your pick at education, 9/11, katrina, homeland insecurity, etc.) does not necessarily make him liberal. It does make him irresponsible and he surely is no conservative. Maybe it just makes him a dope. I bet most of the country would agree with that, even conservative talk radio is abandoning him with the current shamnesty. Although we better wrap up this discussion before both parties give us the "fairness doctrine."

Someone please flush the government toilet. It's stinking up the entire country.

Posted by Pale Rider, 6/27/2007 12:05:08 PM

Oh god... the Fairness Doctrine... that might be a post soon.

Posted by Brett Rogers (http://www.beatcanvas.com), 6/27/2007 3:32:05 PM