Seems like some conservative groups breaking with the Republican leadership
 

Conservative groups break with Republican leadership
By Ralph Z. Hallow
The Washington Times

You think Bush is in trouble? Don't actually know how big these 6 conservative organizations are and how much of an electoral following they have, but it does seem to pose a mayor problem for the Bush campaign. Sign of the times?

Re: Seems like some conservative groups breaking with the Republican leadership
 

This is where I break ranks with Bush as well. Its fine and good to try to expanded your voter base, but doing so using the democrat method of buying votes over principles violates one of the very reasons I vote republican in the first place.

I'll still vote for Bush in 2004 because I think national security is more important, but his taking away democrat issues by acting like a democrat won't make me really happy about it.

Problem for these conservative groups is that they haven't got an alternative to Bush - not with another party that they can support and no choice within the Republican party, since their is no alternative Republican presidential candidate - so Bush can pretty much do as he pleases.

You could stick to your guns and vote libertarian this cycle Ustwo.
Or Constitution party.

About the only way I'd do this is if Liberman got the nomination since I wouldn't fear him in the national security department. I feel we can not AFFORD to let a democrat take office right now, so while I"d like to make a statement and vote libertarian (and while I like them, I don't like their stance on national security) its overcome by the need for a strong leader for national security.

Plus I'm not sure if Bush will continue his spending spree, I think he tried it hoping for his 'new tone' and since the very people he empowered to spend like Ted Kennedy are still being assholes he may well back off.

Also he DID promise things like a drug plan, and I think so far he has kept ALL of his campaign promises, or as close as any presidential candidate in my memory.

With the latest moon proposal, it certainly seems like there's no end in site to Bush's liberal spending.

But don't worry, America - we'll get a Democrat back into the oval office to clean up the Republicans' fiscal irresponsibility, just like we did last time. ;)

As I recall, the last man who sent us to the moon was a Democrat :D

Anyway, I have to agree that Bush has dissappointed me with his spending ways and that is one thing I miss from the Clinton years: A balanced budget.

Unfortunately, I don't see a Dem I would vote for this time around.

Dean, as governor got fairly high marks from the Cato Institute for his fiscal responsibility. He got B's through his term, except for his last one. Where, admittedly, in his last term he got a C. But I think he has a decently proven track record of fiscal responsibility. The state had a surplus throughout his terms, and the C I think is a result of him pushing healthcare for uninsured kids in his state.
And it is no liability that he comes from a small state, (which some think are easier to balance). Clinton came from a small state too and he did a damn good job.

Good point.


I have a question for both Ustwo and Lebell: Have you considered Clark? As to Ustwo's national security concerns, Clark is a bonified war hero and a 30+ year veteran, not to mention Supreme Allied Commander. As for social issues, he was a Republican until he entered the race ;), and he has some good ideas regarding the economy (steering it towards balanced budgets a la Clinton).

Sparhawk,

I did consider Clark, but two things that make me lean against him are his stance on gun control, "if you want a gun, join the army" and an article I read the other day which caught him in an out in out lie where he currently says he never supported the Iraq war, yet he is on record before congress in 2002 supporting Bush in Iraq.

So my impression is that he is willing to say whatever to get elected.

Not that it makes him any different from most politicians, but the smart ones don't make it so obvious.

The more I learn about Clark the less there is to like about him.

The other generals hated him, he was relieved of duty, and he is obviously lying on his Iraq stance.

The ONLY reason democrats 'like' him is they hope the 'ex-general' effect can defeat Bush. Its pure desperation and wishfull thinking.