Yeah
what he said. Spoons tells us why a Bush re-election would be bad for conservatives. A taste:
Got that? A conservative with reservations about a Repubican President who supports affirmative action, who wants the government to restrict political speech, who wants to open our borders and give amnesty to illegal aliens, who wants to pass restrictive gun laws, who resists arming pilots, who surrenders to Democrats on judicial appointments, who embraces liberal junk evirovoodo on the myth of global warming, who lets Ted Kennedy write his Education bill, who spends more than any Democrat President we’ve ever had, who proposes and passes the largest entitlement expansion in the history of the Republic…. Need I go on?
And any conservative upset that Bush is taking the liberal position on affirmative action political speech illegal immigration gun control arming pilots judicial appointments global warming education spending entitlements and free trade… is denounced as a “purist.” Whatever. And any conservative for whom any of the foregoing gives them “reservations” about Bush makes Jay “wretch.”
Spoons thinks that a Bush loss may get the Republicans back on the right track (pun intended). His commentators disagree stating that a loss may push the Republicans to a Giuliani type left. That may happen but, in all honesty, I’d prefer the downward spiral to the liberty-crushing machine to occur quickly as opposed to a socialist creep that oozes upon us so slowly that, once in place, is irreversible. As Donald Sensing said:
I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free.
August 26th, 2004 at 10:06 pm
Why do you assume that slow-moving socilaism is irreversiable while fast-moving socialism is not? The New Deal was fast, and much of it in remains in place today.
August 26th, 2004 at 10:11 pm
It’s not that I think it’s reversible. It’s that I think if it’s fast, Americans will wake up to it and do something about it.
August 27th, 2004 at 4:27 pm
I prefer the fast moving socialism, just because if we’re doomed to the country collapsing, I’d rather have it occur soon while I’m still young enough to survive it.