Nov 20 2006

Idiocy Of The Anti-Bush Republicans

Published by at 8:45 am under All General Discussions

Note this Anti-Bush Republican’s lack of understanding on the issue of a ‘big heart’ that uses common sense in government policy development. Something that I presented when describing Bush Conservatives (who now stand apart from Republicans). The arguments presented in the post are commonly shared by the Anti-Bush Republican crowd.

Here is the fallacy in their argument. All Conservatives have a big heart concerning this country – especially those serving in the military. It is not wrong to have a big heart towards the country or the people. Those Bserving in the military are willing to sacrifice their lives to protect this country and its people. It is the ultimate sacrifice one can give to the people living here. It is their ‘big heart’ which drives them to risk all for us. They love this country.

The idea some Republicans are so damn stingy they cannot abide a Prescription Drug Benefit for seniors (one which I wish the rich would pay their own way on), just rubs against the American ideals of patriotism, love of country and looking out for each other. Yes, we can waste money on liberal feel good policies. But that doesn’t equate to all government policies are all bad. These Anti-Bush Reps consider anyone who would support Bush’s changes to the broken and expensive medicare/medicaid programs an enemy of the republican party’s goals.

This warped logic again illustrates why the anti-Bush Republicans are not what Bush conservatives, or Americans, support. And it illustrates why Bush Conservatives will not align with the Republicans any more, just conservative policies. We saw that in spades this last election as candidates went down and ballots won huge.

Every time these Anti-Bush Reps reinforce their self destructive nature by stating how terrible it is to use market forces to address a problem facing this nation they become irrelevant. Same with the Fence Only corwd. Everytime they stand in the way of widely supported policies, like a guest worker program for those folks already here, with the penalties of back taxes and lost time towards any possible future citizenship, they become irrelevant. They oppose America’s widely held views – which are not the evil they pretend them to be.

We need Bush to see us through on Iraq and defend this nation from the terrorists trying to kill us, not to mention the dangerously naive liberals trying to tear down our defenses. We can definitely can do without those trying to cut Bush down for strange and unpopular policy theories. The anti-Bush Reps lost the Congress . We don’t need, nor can we afford, anymore of their types of results.

4 responses so far

4 Responses to “Idiocy Of The Anti-Bush Republicans”

  1. Typical Response…

    Go figure right, I gave a point by point rebuttal of an argument the basicly tells people to follow Bush blindly and the response is name calling.

    Strata’s keen intellect counters my rebuttal by labeling it idiocy and just repeating what he origin….

  2. stevevvs says:

    I’m hearing a lot of people (Republicans) saying we need to get back to basics. I couln’t agree more. Here is a link and snippet of an article in National Review today:

    In November 7 exit polls describing the most important voter issues, the economy weighed in at 82 percent, corruption at 74 percent, terrorism at 72 percent, and Iraq at 67 percent. Possibly, it’s still the economy, stupid. Despite plunging gas prices, a low 4.4 percent unemployment rate, and a soaring stock market, voters are worried that debt-financed overspending will make the future economy worse than today’s.

    During the Gingrich congressional years, and particularly during the fight for the balanced-budget amendment of 1997, limited spending coupled with low tax rates was the winning message that gathered both conservatives and Ross Perot independents into the GOP tent. Now is the time to return to these very same principles.

    The recent passing of Nobel economist Milton Friedman, who for decades advised Republicans to maintain this limited-government, low-tax message, should be another reminder and a spur to action.

    — Larry Kudlow, NRO’s Economics Editor

  3. The Macker says:

    AJ, your last paragraph stated it all.

    To Free
    • “No, there is no pure conservatism, but there are grades and levels.” – Who gets to define “conservatism?”

    • “More government is more government.” – True, but more government isn’t always bad. ( ie. bigger military, more border patrol agents, a new national park ). Intelligent conservatives can figure out what must be done by government and what can be done by the private sector.

    • The Medicare Prescription Drug Plan is a response to the prohibitive costs of modern medical technology. It is an open market solution with private plans competing with each other, setting their own protocols and setting their own prices.

    • “here is no “Fence Only Crowd.” There is an Enforcement First Crowd” – Maybe, but the EF crowd can’t understand that there are more important ingredients to enforcement than a fence.

    •” individuals whose first act is to break our laws – first by entering illegally” – and for many, that was their last illegal act. If you are going to hammer on the “law” lets apply the “statute of limitations” to those with a good record who are “established” here. “Is it amnesty or isn’t it,” is a pointless word game.

  4. aerawls says:

    The only conservatives I have a gripe with are those who bailed on the Republicans in the recent election because the Republicans showed insufficient ideological purity of whatever preferred stripe. These people, whether they voted Democrat or stayed home, in-effect voted for retreat and defeat in the war on terror. The place to be utopian is in the primaries.

    On this front, the only person in this exchange who seems to be standing up for ideological purity is AJ:

    The only people who get my support will embrace Bush’s comprehensive vision of workers who are registered, background checked, working in the open economy, and who must avoid criminal activities if they stay here.

    Today we have ZERO border enforcement, and AJ seems to think he can’t vote for somebody who is insuffiently lenient on border issues. How can such third rate concerns even begin to compare to whether or not we fight and win the terror war?

    Not that I’m down on AJ, who is one of my favorite bloggers. I just don’t see why he is calling other people idiots and drawing lines in the sand over secondary issues.