America, the Bushieful

...beautiful, it ain't.

Eighty-eight verses and climbing:
O Bushieful for... Obamaful for...
1) Specious lies 16) No-bid mercs 31) Change and hope 51) Occupy 71) Coverage yanked
2) Spookdom's gapes 17) New Orleans 32) Bush redux 52) FEMA camps 72) Kiev coup
3) Heroes killed 18) Uncle Buck 33) Detentions 53) Failed false flags 73) New trade deals
4) PNAC's plans 19) Kenny Lay 34) Drone attacks 54) Syria 74) Bundy's stand
5) Double games 20) Wellstone's plane 35) Doubling down 55) Commie pervs 75) ISIS miss
6) Open doors 21) Bonesmen's Tomb 36) Peeping pervs 56) Creeping night 76) Nazi hate
7) Terror scares 22) Black box votes 37) Health reform 57) Swelling tides 77) Ferguson
8) Neocons 23) "New Freedom" 38) Nuke loopholes 58) Romney's thugs 78) Scotland's "Yes!"
9) Preemptions 24) Foolish pride 39) Gushing gunk 59) Diplomats 79) "War on war"
10) Dollar's doom 25) Beast-like men 40) Cap and trade 60) Sandy Hook 80) Borders breached
11) Opium 26) Closet gays 41) Groping goons 61) Rand Paul's stand 81) Shellackings
12) "Shock and awe" 27) Presstitutes 42) Wikileaks 62) Boston's shame 82) Amnesty
13) Toxic troops 28) Abramoff 43) Rising youth 63) Orwell's fears 83) Boehner's tears
14) Genocide 29) Trillions lost 44) Telescreens 64) Hasting's pen 84) Oil's crash
15) Torture camps 30) Patriots' dream 45) Fallout's rain 65) World War III 85) Yemenis
46) War times 3 66) Putin's play 86) U.S. tanks
47) Goldstein's death 67) Cruz control 87) Secrecy
48) No-fly zones 68) Shutdown stunts 88) Charleston
49) Mounting debt 69) Mom shot dead
50) Native sons 70) Website woes

Saturday, January 08, 2000

Why Moderate Republicans Are More Dangerous To Our Liberty Than Liberal Democrats

The Bushies like to use fear to promote their candidate. Because there are not many good reason's to vote for Dubya, they argue that we should do so anyway, as opposed to say vote for a genuine conservative of conviction like Pat Buchanan, because voting for Dubya they claim is the most effective way to vote against and defeat the liberal Democrats, Gore or Bradley.

Implicit in their argument is the assumption that it is inherantly worse for the nation and more dangerous to the survival of our liberties to be governed by a liberal Democrat president than a modererate Republican president. But I would argue that exactly the opposite is the case.

Why? Because moderate Republicans believe in fundamentally the same philosophy of governance as liberal Democrats and will pursue the same policies but with this key difference: whereas a liberal Democrat president will polarize and unite the opposition to such policies, making it more likely that they can be frustrated and defeated, a moderate Republican president will coopt that same opposition, give bipartisan cover to the Democrats, relieve them of accountability, marginalize conservatives, and frustrate all efforts by the American people to slow or hault the federal government's relentless march toward centralism at home and globalism abroad.

As an illustration, let us consider the two most recent federal tax hikes, one signed by moderate Republican George Bush, Sr. and the other by liberal Democrat Bill Clinton. Which one was harder for the Congress to pass? Which one resulted in almost no political consequences for the Democrats in Congress and which one produced the ultimate political consequence for the Democrats in Congress? And, finally, which one tore the Reagan coalition to tatters and which one reunified that coalition like never before to stop the liberal Democrats cold?

You all know the answer to all three questions: the repercussions of the Bush tax hike were far more pernicious for the country and our freedom than the Clinton tax hike. They are identically bad policies, but with a moderate Republican at the helm, the federal government pulls them off without a hitch because of the bipartisan cover only a moderate Republican can provide. With a liberal Democrat at the helm and a united opposition, there is instead political hell to pay as a result.

So, my answer to the Bushies' fearmongering tactics is this: Experience has taught me that I am far more secure in what little liberty I yet possess with a liberal Democrat president than I am with a compromising, me-too, sell-out moderate Republican president like Bush, Sr. or his simpleton son. Therefore, in the fall, when I face the choice of Buchanan vs. Bush or McCain vs. Gore or Bradley, I will stand and proudly vote for the only true conservative in the race, Patrick J. Buchanan, and I will do so without fear, because I will know that whatever happens, the worst possible thing that could happen -- the election of a moderate Republican president -- won't.

Even better, if all of you do the same, we just might elect the first truly conservative president since Ronald Reagan. And isn't that hopeful prospect well worth the risk of not electing yet another worthless moderate Republican who probably wouldn't be elected anyway (like Dole)?