Ranting to /dev/null

He's the American Tony Blair. I like centrist stuff.

Two differences: 1) Blair doesn't spin himself as a conservative. 2) Blair isn't the darling of conservatives everywhere; if anything, they've historically been a bit peeved at him for his centrist-to-leftist domestic policy. Bush, on the other hand, is a rhetorical champion of all things conservative and despite his actual policies, beloved by conservatives for his perceived conservative views on domestic issues. It's just strange.

Josh Claybourn, another conservative pundit with a blog, has also made a bit of noise about how un-conservative Dubya is, particularly in regards to federal spending. One high dollar area where I do agree with Dubya is AIDS relief for Africa.

I wish it wasn't such a given that a first term president always earns his party's nomination. It would be nice to have other Republicans to choose from in 2004. Maybe one day the LP will be a viable third party alternative.

Thing is Ryan, I don't like the old conservative right, the Trent Lott's and the fundamentalist baptists. I don't like the "Christian America" take on everything.

I'm pragmatic about most stuff with government. Bush has a FoPo I like, a domestic policy that, with the exception of doing away with abortion, I really like. I don't really mind the government spending either, billions of dollars of money floating around here and there has yet to cramp my lifestyle. Until it does, I'm not sweatin' it.

I like that he's trying to export democracy. Sure, its' idealistic, but I like that he's givin' it a go-round. It might not work, but hey, it'll be a lesson learned.

Josiah wrote, "Thing is Ryan, I don't like the old conservative right, the Trent Lott's and the fundamentalist baptists. I don't like the "Christian America" take on everything. "

What on earth does that have to do with what Ryan said?

There's a difference between the "old conservative right" and conservative economics and foreign policy, neither of which Bush is evidencing.

Ok. Bush plays the traditional conversative right (think the South), their his power base and odds are always will be. This power base includes everything from Christian Reconstructionists to Bob Jones University. He has to stroke them, and throw them the occasional bone (like faith-based initiatives) to keep them happy. Fortunately, this group of people are also traditionally war happy, so Iraq & Afghanistan didn't hurt.

But, this is a very very different group from the neo-conservatives, which makes up the majority of Bush's cabinet (And thus far his policy decisions).

Now Neo-Conservatives have far more in common with FDR and Truman than they do with any president in the last 40 years or so. So you have to be careful about the connotations you attach to the word "conservative." But you probably know that...

As to why Bush is the darling of the old-right, I think that's largely because Bush is a believer and he speaks in an evangelical way about himself and his job as President. People like that. The Christian right will forgive Bush of a great deal of things, as long as he keeps quoting the Bible and yelling "bring it on" to the terrorists.

If what you say is true, we're in big trouble. It was FDR that set up the entitlement programs that have been screwing us hardcore for the past 60 years. His domestic policies were a complete trainwreck, with fiscal irresponsibility on a scale that boggles the imagination. And no, he didn't get us out of the depression, Hitler did that. Regarding Truman, whether or not you agree with the decision, he is the only world leader ever to order the use of nuclear weapons. On civilian targets too. Necessary or not, it's still pretty horrific. So if we've got an FDR/Truman combo on our hands, it's time to be afraid.

So what Presidents do you like? And who would you pick to run against Bush? Are you a secret Howard Dean fan? :)

First, I don't see anyone around who'd do better than Bush, and as much as his policies scare me, I'd rather a hawk deal with terrorists than a dove.

Reagan was great. Huge military expenditures, sure, and yes, he ran a pretty big defecit, but he cut taxes and cut spending in most non-military areas. Which is good. Deregulation, stuff like that. He also, to my knowledge, hasn't had these problems with civil liberties. And if Bush was doing okay there, I'd be much more willing to deal with is foreign and fiscal policies.

Oh, and anyone who runs against Bush in 2004 is a not-that-secret masochist.

If the Democrats play their cards right (something they've shown no ability to do in years), I think that the candidate they run against Bush will be less of a masochist than a sacrificial lamb.

Look at it this way: The Dems to all appearances have no candidates that can win. But they might have a candidate who can consolidate the many people who are growing frustrated with Bush's aggressive foreign policy, his restrictive security measure, moralistic tax cuts and black-and-white rhetoric. That candidate could be the rallying point for an "egghead backlash" (I'm coining the term here and now): people fed up with the increasing ethos of know-nothingism building in the White House. These people exist all over the political spectrum, but agree on one thing: Bush has an overly simplistic worldview that prevents him from seeing the potentially negative ramifications of his policies.

A candidate who united these frustrations would need to be blunt, intelligent and unafraid of challenging Bush on every issue. He would also need to be willing to lose, and badly, for the sake of consolidating a grassroots movement against the Bust administration. Basically, he would need to be willing to be Barry Goldwater, a candidate whose crushing loss was the first step in the Reagan revolution.

Who could do this? A lot of Democrats are looking to Howard Dean, of course. My dream candidate, however, would be John McCain. Just straight-talking enough to unite people, just egotistical enough to lose. Perfect.

The one problem with McCain is that he's Republican. Frankly, I can think of no one - with the possible exception of Bill Frist, and I'm iffy on that - that I'd rather have be president. Which is saying quite a bit.

What about me? Think of it! No Department of Education! No FCC! No FDA! No income tax! No conscription into the Social Security program!

Vote Constitution Party! http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Okay, I'll go away now.