Conservatives: why do you support a lying and divisive liberal?

God knows, the nation has never been more polarized. An ABC News Poll shows Bush and Kerry in a dead heat for electoral votes: Kerry - 221, Bush - 222. But Bush apparently meant that he would be a uniter in the spirit of Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America. I wonder whether it’s a coincidence that the Texas Republican Party platform, recently pitted by RTFirefly, is eerily reminiscent of the Texas Republic’s Articles of Secession. Both basically declare everyone except straight white church-going males to be subhuman.

If Bush is a uniter, I’m a fucking Marxist. He’s got the nation by its balls, and is pulling them in different directions. He even has the press bickering over whether to poll likely voters or registered voters. He’s made America so cynical that even some liberals shrug off the Patriot [sic] Act as inoffensive to our liberty.

This Weasel in Chief campaigned on three primary ethical promises: (1) to be compassionate, (2) to be conservative, and (3) to be a uniter. Where the hell is any of it? Where is the compassion in giving vast discretionary powers to unelected enforcement agencies? Where is the conservatism in creating new deficits from a budget surplus? Where is the union in saying that everybody who disagrees with you is your enemy?

Conservatives who support Bush would do well to ask themselves why conservatism is so unsatisfactory that it must be fixed by making it more compassionate, and whether Bush’s economic policies are not in fact to the left of Bill Clinton. Finally, ask yourselves whether you want a man representing you who can do no better than divide the country in exactly half even when he has the advantage of incumbency and a military victory.

Military victory? What military victory?

Afghanistan, of course. Al-Qaeda was pushed out into Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Fuckamericastan.

Well, for the most part us Conservatives are pretty damn united. :wink:

I don’t want to hijack your OP from the start so I’ll just say this and let it go. Karzai controls about 2 square blocks of Afghanistan, which I hardly consider a military victory.

Not really.

Wait, we’re not all mindless drones? Is that what you’re saying?!? :dubious:
Liberal, you’re about to alienate everyone here. :wink:

United in delusion.

The Republicans seem to be mobilized a lot better, united or not.

When you said, “Well, for the most part us Conservatives are pretty damn united.”, did you mean that you were mindless drones? :wink:

Actually, if you’d dump your social authoritarianism, and if modern liberals would dump their fiscal authoritarianism, we’d all be one big happy family. :stuck_out_tongue:

Yes, their smear tactics and character assasination techniques are better mobilized.

I don’t think that has anything to do with unity. I think that’s the work of Karl Rove and his Waffen SS.

No more than dems being drones for uniting with Kerry.

What happened to liberalism is happening to conservatism: power has ripped apart its coherence as a political philosophy. What’s left is just an us-vs-them anger and a handful of outdated rants about the liberal media, how liberals want to enact to communism, coddle criminals and not hold anyone accountable. (mote and beam, mote and beam) Conservative leaders and elites have become just as shrill and knee-jerk sneering as liberals used to be, without even realizing that they have become exactly what they complained about for so long when they were out of the mainstream.

Zell Miller is a classic example: there’s no real philosophy to or behind his switch (maybe just returning to his anti-Civil Rights ways?), just personal emnity that has him spitting boring anti-liberal candards (oh, yes, Democrats just want to hug death row inmates! That’s right! It’s part of Kerry’s platform).

Liberal, when you accuse Bush of being a “Liberal” do you mean a Classic Liberal like you? Doesn’t seem like you mean that. Or do you mean “Liberal” in the current vernacular sense? Even if you have points to make about his spending habits, he’s -obviously- way off base on the social front. I get your complaints, I just don’t see how you’re applying the term.

You can have my fiscal authoritarianism when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!

I mean liberal in the Rawlsian sense, a blend of religious faith and rational intuition underpinning the notion that government, by its planning and action, can aleviate the suffering of people. See John Rawls and the Liberal Faith, by Peter Berkowitz, for an overview.

Not another type of Liberalism… no!

Dude, in my personal definition of liberal, GW is no liberal. The fact remains that he isn’t conservative either, but it’s not my mission in life to pigeonhole everyone into a definable niche…

Never more polarized? So that whole Civil War thing wasn’t as divisive as Reeder and Brutus calling each other names in the BBQ pit? I guess we were all getting along just fine and singing Kumbaya in 1968? So we didn’t have a dead heat in the last Presidential election?

Get some fucking perspective.

I believe I mentioned Jefferson Davis. At least during the WONA, people didn’t blindly hate each other. They fought for principle. And you needn’t lecture me about 1968. I was there. Again, it was a separation born of ideology. That is not the case today. George Bush has dropped a cleaver right through the heart of America, dividing one against another, not over some noble principle, but over who is fer me and who is agin me. Cry me a river with your indignation.