I’m not sure what to say. An incredible stand by the editors.
I’ll just throw it out for debate. I will say that I agree with the assesment of the presidency, although I evision a different solution. I also agree with the idea that Kerry will be a one term president, spending his four years cleaning up aisle ME.
If there’s a better indication that the Bush Administration is far off the mainstream of American values, I can’t think of one.
I read the article cited and a few others that I could. What I find MOST interseting about it is that exept for maybe 1 or 2 sentences there is no mention of Kerry. Only attacks against GWB. And I think that is telling.
These are not people who think that Kerry would be a good President. In fact, as I read it a Kerry presidency would only serve as a prelude to an even more conservative president in 2008. Sure they adhere to the “anyone but Bush” camp, but not for the reasons the Democrats do. To them he’s TOO liberal.
No. They don’t think Bush is too liberal. More that he is just an incompetent conservative. Particularly when it comes to international politics.
It’s weird that this is Pat Buchanan’s magazine, and yet Pat endorsed Bush a couple of days ago.
True. I stand corrected.
Good article, but to be fair, it appears that American Conservative magazine is endorsing everybody in turn. In essence, it’s endorsing nobody.
In fact, now that I look, one of the articles literally does endorse nobody, i.e., not voting at all.
Not quite – they’re endorsing everybody but Bush.
Well, the headline is “Kerry’s the one”, and since this is the presidential endorsement, I think they meant it. I doubt this is an editing error.
Pat Buchanan endorses Bush. Granted, he’s not particuarly happy about it.
Yep. And Buchanan endorses Bush basically on the logic that good Republicans should support their party’s candidate, even if he sucks. IOW, vote for Bush, but hold your nose while doing it.
Truer words have never been spoken.
Something that I have appreciated for quite a while now. I’m even a registered Republcan. I just am so very turned off by Team Bush’s incompetence and perfidy.
The Tampa Tribune, which has also almost always endorsed Republican Presidential candidates, has refused to endorse Bush. There was one other time that they did not endorse the Republican candidate was in 1964 when Goldwater was running against LBJ. They endorsed no one.
It is funny that at another board I post at the reaction from the right to this endosement is exactly the same as here: They endorsed nobody.
Must be the marching orders from the republican right.
Or maybe it is a coincidence…
No, it is just that few Pubs really find Bush all that appealing. The Religious Right doesn’t like him, because he just gives lip service to their agenda. And he certainly isn’t the darling of the fiscal conservatives. Those with a libertarian bent can find little good with Bush. Iraq is looking worse as time goes by. Now if Bush had managed to blow Osama’s ass to hell… About all Bush has going for him is that he seems more appealing than Kerry.
Well, humans are more or less hardwired to react positively to fuzzy, stupid animals, so I can see that…
How exactly is this unclear? Look at the picture of the magazine’s cover, for Bob’s sake!
Everybody gets an endorsement. “Kerry’s the One” only for Scott McConnell.
It’s not even the first article on the list!
And furthermore, this, at the top of every single page, bolding mine:
Clearly, they’re not enthusiastic in the least for Bush. But the article endorsing Kerry wasn’t exactly glowing either. And hell, Peroutka, got two endorsements. :shudder:
And by the way, if it wasn’t clear already, I’m not voting for Bush.