11/05/2004

The Bush Victory - Now What?

Finally this election season is over. Although the victor, President Bush, is not my ideal candidate; at least he isn't Kerry (or any liberal for that matter). Just as liberals voted ABB (Anyone But Bush), I voted ATCDAL (Anyone That Can Defeat A Liberal) aka George W. Bush. Though I wasn't thrilled to vote for President Bush, I feel it was the right decision to switch my vote from Badnarik to Bush.

The big question is why?

There were a number of reasons why, but most of them had to do with John Kerry.

1) Seriously questioning Kerry's character in light of his actions during and after Viet Nam. Of course, he could have cleared up some of these questions by releasing all of his military records. The fact of the matter is that he betrayed his fellow Men-in-Arms after the war with his statements during Congressional Hearings...none which were ever validated by anyone (though nobody in the news media ever bothered to follow-up). Furthermore, if what he said was true (concerning atrocities that he admitted to), why wasn't he court-martialed? I could go on ad naseaum, but before ripping into this reason, do some of your own research first.

2) News that Justice Rehnquist was diagnosed with cancer. Rehnquist is one of 4 conservative members of the court. With the court aging (4 Supreme Court Justices over age 70), there is the possibility of 1-4 retirements. Kerry would have appointed ultra-liberal justices to the Supreme Court...which is not in the best interests of the country. Right now the court is split 4-4-1, with the moderate vote being Justice O'Connor. A Kerry victory would have ensured a liberal Supreme Court for 20 years.

3) Kerry's liberal voting record (look it up on vote-smart). He has consistently voted against 2nd ammendment rights, for raising taxes, against the intelligence community, and against a strong defense. Though a compelling argument could be made that gridlock in Washington (liberal President with a Conservative Congress) is good for the country in terms of deficit spending, I was uneasy with the thought that he'd raise taxes and attempt to socialize health care.

The big questions for the next 4 years:

1) Will Bush and the Republicans exhibit fiscal restraint by cutting taxes AND spending?
2) Will Bush manage to get any of his judicial nominees through? Will he fight for them?
3) Will Bush finish what he started and stabilize Iraq? Will they remain a democratic country or will the Shi'ite majority turn it into an islamic state?
4) Will Bush accomplish his agenda of privatizing social security, health care/tort reform, and tax reform?
5) Will Bush push forward with a religious mandate to eliminate gay marriage? Will the uses of the Patriot Act be expanded or lessened?

We'll see...in the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy the liberals whining about this election. In case you libs don't know, the majority of the country is RED, not BLUE. Which basically means that the majority of people in this country lean conservative...NOT liberal. Now if we can only swing them to Libertarian...we'd be all set...

18 Comments:

Blogger Yesac and Yarb said...

The democrats are better off with the defeat of Kerry. Republicans now have a full boat...house and senate. The old President brought us to where we are Iraq, (draft) homeland insecurity, out of control spending, tax cuts for 1% of the pop. (Hold on some of us did get a few hundred dollars) job losses along with health care insurance, spiraling deficets. Yes it is just as well that Kerry was not elected because Christ would find difficulty correcting the mess we are in now...we got a pass on this election. I almost forgot, how many hijackers were from Iraq? You ask about atrocities in RVN? You have to remember the average age of the Infantryman was about 18 and EVERYONE was issued an automatic weapon. In free fire zones you were under orders to kill anything that moved...so yes crimes did occur just as they do in Iraq. I witnessed senseless killing even in secure areas. I do not believe the testimony Kerry submitted after the war was directed at the troops, I believe he felt as many of us did that the US was wrong. Killing another person leaves one with horrible memories and I am sure he felt he had a moral obligation to tell the truth. I am pretty sure you would do the same.

November 5, 2004 at 2:07 PM  
Blogger Erik said...

My vote was split between Kerry and Bush, which should make me shoot Libertarian, and for a long time, Badnrik was on my mind as the recipient of my vote. When it came right down to it, the social liberalism is what swayed me to Kerry. Looking back, it may not have been the best vote, and I am glad that Bush won, but with a Republican congress, I think they would be able to keep Kerry in check enough to make me happy with him taking the White House.

November 5, 2004 at 2:37 PM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

Yesac and Yarb
1. Draft? The only draft proposals came from Democrats from the House and Senate. Go look it up.
2. Insecurity? When was the last attack on our soil. How convenient that liberals lay the blame on Bush, while forgetting the failures of Bill Clinton when it came to terrorism. I've posted on this before. Look it up.
3. Tax cuts? Since 2001, I have an extra 3 grand in my pocket and I'm in the middle class...that isn't real money? Money I spent that went back into the economy, not into government coffers.
4. Iraq actively supported terrorism...whether you believe Saddam was involved in al Qaeda or not. He paid $25k to each family of a Palestinian Homicide Bomber.
5. War is war. It isn't pretty. But many of the people he interviewed during the Winter Soldier meetings either never served in Viet Nam or were never in combat. That's documented. Look it up.
We can actively debate whether the Viet Nam War was right or wrong. Inevitably, it doesn't matter as the war was lost not on the battlefield, but here at home. It's very convenient to think of all war is bad, but the NVA and VC went through and wiped out over 1 million South Vietnamese after we pulled out of Viet Nam. It's very convenient that liberals will excuse atrocities when it's convenient for them or make the "well what about this guy, he's worse" arguments. To that I say, they should be on the short list of who's next.

November 5, 2004 at 7:50 PM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

Erik

It's funny how many Libertarians have split the vote. Many libertarians I talked to voted for Kerry in the hopes that gridlock would force Congress into showing some fiscal restraint. I seriously considered that argument, but the Supreme Court is was the last thing that pushed me over the edge and towards Bush.

My axe-to-grind with Democrats is their thinly-veiled socialism. Though I agree more with their principles of freedom of speech and personal freedom, my opinion is that socialism takes away our freedom as well. What good is it to have the freedom to do what I want if I can't afford it due to taxes?

November 5, 2004 at 7:56 PM  
Blogger Erik said...

Slayer,

For some reason, I never even thought about the supreme court when I made my decision.

November 5, 2004 at 8:32 PM  
Blogger Erik said...

Whoops... ended that before I meant to.

I didn't consider the Supreme Court when making my decision. Not that I didn't think it was an important matter, it just didn't hit me until you mentioned it for some reason.

I do wonder what kind of justices Bush will appoint to the court. Will it be justices that indeed do strictly uphold the text of the constitution as he said they would?

I do think that a Kerry-appointed justice would, in the liberal mindset, tend to legislate from the bench, which we really don't want. But then again, that's just pure speculation on my part. We won't know for sure what will happen until the justices are appointed, and we'll never know what would have happend had Kerry had the chance to appoint.

November 5, 2004 at 8:36 PM  
Blogger eskadoni said...

i think you know were i stood on this, slayer. while i wasn't thrilled with kerry, bush seems a bit too jesusy for my tastes. i want to take a bit of offense to the assertion that most people are red. i think most people are in the middle. they looked at kerry, didn't like what they saw, and went with the known commodity. as much as conservatives and liberals like to crow when they win, i think most people just want to watch fear factor and not worry about dying for a little while.

November 6, 2004 at 6:06 PM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

Charles
You can take offense to my assertion that most counties are red...that's why I have comments enabled! :-)

In all seriousness, this electoral season did turn off a lot of the so-called Reagan Democrats. Many that I talked to during the election season were disgusted with people like Michael Moore and the actions of CBS News. The RED revolution actually started in 1994 when the Republicans began taking over state governments as well as the House and Senate. If I was a still a Republican, I'd be excited, but as a Libertarian, I'm concerned (though not quite as much as Democrats).

Though the Jesusy (is that a word?) nature of Bush was a concern, I can't say that he's acted like a conservative either. Thus far he's acted much more like a conservative Democrat than a Reagan Republican. You don't cut taxes AND raise domestic spending. The Medicare and Education Bills were HUGE and we'll be paying for them in the future. My main reason for switching parties years ago was two-fold. The Moral Majority's attempted takeover of the party in 1992, and the Republican's propensity to increase spending AND taxes (Bush I and Republican Congress under Clinton). I'm still asserting that the Republicans have moved to the middle while the Democrats have moved farther to the left. The Republicans are no longer fiscally conservative nor are they the proponents of personal freedom they once were. Neither choice is really palatable for a Libertarian.

I think the gay-marriage issue was one that energized Christian voters from both sides of the aisle. Though the 11 states passed laws defining marriage (which is where I think the debate belongs), I can't see an Ammendment to the Constitution being successful...but ya never know.

Really, the problem for Democrats in this election...and I don't know if they see it...is that they were thinking people would vote for Kerry on the ABB agenda. He didn't excite people in the middle like Bill Clinton did. Hillary will fall to the same fate in '08 but the Republicans don't have a solid candidate but Rudy to run against her. It will be interesting in 4 years.

November 6, 2004 at 9:25 PM  
Blogger eskadoni said...

a part of me hopes bush will make you long for kerry in two years. that would be sweet. the other part of me just hopes for an uneventful four years. as for jesusy, if it isn't a word then it should be.

November 6, 2004 at 11:05 PM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

Even if Bush maintains the status quo, that won't make me long for Kerry. Unless Bush turns into Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon, there's no way I'd long for Kerry. In my estimation, Kerry would have been worse than Clinton...at least Bubba was entertaining.

November 8, 2004 at 12:30 PM  
Blogger eskadoni said...

you don't cringe when one of the nicer things to say about the president of the united states is "at least he was entertaining?" i'd go with boringly successful.

November 8, 2004 at 3:10 PM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

I wouldn't classify Clinton as successful. Certainly he presided over a good economy...but he also left office with a recession due to his tax increases. He also left us with OBL due to his actions and inaction. Despite all of that, he was likable in a folksy sort of way (which isn't to say I ever voted for him).

On the other hand, Hillary is FAR more dangerous as she's more of an idealogue. Bill would seek out the pollsters and go more with the flow. I'm convinced that Hillary is the anti-Christ. :-)

November 9, 2004 at 3:32 AM  
Blogger eskadoni said...

this is charles

i'm not going to defend hillary here, go talk to real democrat for that. also, while i think clinton was more successful in my eyes than bush, it's not like i loved the guy. i just don't like bush's duplicity in his politics. it's about saving money, but let's raise government spending. we should be free to practice our beliefs, unless my god says no. it's all about osama, unless i can't find him. it's all about making the world safe from emerging threats, but only in iraq. And the propensity for abuse of the patriot act is just ridiculous.

November 10, 2004 at 8:19 AM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

Charles

Much of what you said is true and I agree with you (except I think Clinton was WAY overrated...supreme politician...yes, but great leader...NO). I had a hard time voting for Bush instead of Badnarik...but my antipathy for Kerry combined with the possibility of 1-4 Supreme Court nominations pushed me back to Bush.

Our two-party political system sucks. Republicans haven't nominated anyone that I can REALLY get behind since Reagan...and the only Democrats I'd remotely consider voting for are Lieberman and Zell Miller.

The frustrating thing for me is that Ross Perot could get 20% of the vote, but no independents have come close in the Presidential elections since then. If only the LP could come up with a new out-of-the-blue Jesse Ventura-type -- someone that would get people talking and motivate them -- we could break the stranglehold of the 2 parties. Heck, I'd consider voting for Jesse just because he's an outsider....

Ya know, the founding fathers never thought someone would make a career out of politics. They believed that people would serve for a few years out of a sense of duty. Career politicians are the real bane of this country.

November 10, 2004 at 12:39 PM  
Blogger eskadoni said...

well politicians and a few others. i really think perot soured the current political scene on third party candidates. he was so, well, crazy with his determined outsider routine that he scared us off of true outsiders. had he been a bit more affable he may have kick-started a movement for at least a third party. once we forget about him and the scathing snl skits, we may then be ready for another challenger to the aristocracy. man, i get verbose when i'm tired.

November 10, 2004 at 3:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice site!
[url=http://caoqyygo.com/ovhf/yqrk.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://sofygrfe.com/qxbc/zvgj.html]Cool site[/url]

September 28, 2006 at 10:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great work!
My homepage | Please visit

September 28, 2006 at 10:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well done!
http://caoqyygo.com/ovhf/yqrk.html | http://sywjeygl.com/dskv/sigg.html

September 28, 2006 at 10:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home