Buchanan gives Bush a scathing... endorsement?

Over at The American Conservative, Pat Buchanan has decided to endorse Bush for president. His reasoning is that although Bush is wrong on 95% of things he is right on a couple whereas Kerry is right on none.

Understandable, I suppose, though I notice he's swallowed a lot of the Bush campaign lies about Kerry and thinks the left are statists while not noticing it on the right. I can't tell any difference between the parties anymore except on a couple of issues that I don't care about like abortion, but Buchanan's theory is that no matter how bad it is we have to support Bush because he's a republican and if conservativism is going to rise it will be through the republican party. Yeah right, they'll find Jimmy Hoffa before they find a conservative in the party, other than the good Ron Paul, of course, hallowed be his name.

Buchanan says that "Bush is right on taxes, judges, sovereignty, and values" while kerry is right on nothing.

On taxes he says that Kerry will raise taxes and bring on new programs that will bankrupt us. Um, hello? We've been bankrupt for four years. Bush has created every program there is to create. There's nothing left. Well, other than securing our ports, borders, and airliner cargo areas but as Bush hinted in the debates, that's just too damn expensive.

Bush has pushed through at least two tax cuts that I know of in the past two weeks alone. One was a huge tax cut on corporate jets that seems to not have made the mainstream news (CSPAN radio really pays off). I'm all for tax cuts but, geez, do you really think this is a good time for it? Hell no. We're over the limit on our Master Card and those tax cuts are going to cost a lot more in the long run than I, for one, am going to be willing to pay. If Kerry raises the taxes on corporate jets, who am I to care? I've never been for a single raise in taxes but when you have a lot of bills and you know your car is going to need a lot of work soon, you generally try to save money not take in less. We now have the worst deficits ever so maybe now's not the time for tax cuts, that's all I'm saying...

I hate the talk of judges because politics has entered the courts with one side trying to pass it's liberal judges and the other trying to pass it's conservatives. Wake up, they're all activist judges. I'd prefer good nonpartisan, noncorrupt, nonextremist judges with a bit of common sense but those are going to remain a rare sight in the political climate we live in today. Buchanan says that Kerry "opposed the conservative judges Bush has named to the U.S. appellate courts" but there have been 171 appointed and only six blocked. Not bad considering republicans blocked 60 and only passed 248 total during the six years they controlled congress under Clinton. In fact, on the contrary to republican assertions, Bush's appointees have enjoyed a record setting pace of confirmation. Even Reagan didn't fare as well with a republican congress. It's normal that some won't make it but democrats have actually been surprisingly good at working with Bush it seems.

The third thing Bush is supposed to be right on is sovereignty. Well, unless that means securing the borders, securing the ports and all that stuff, but I assume this means Kerry wants to hand the right to defend America to the French or something. It's funny, no matter how hard Kerry pounds his position home, the soundbites the Bush campaign use are all anyone ever knows about Kerry. "I will never give our right to self-defense to anyone else!!" "See, he wants to give our right to self-defense to someone else".

The fourth issue that Bush "is right on" is values. I have no idea what that means. Is Kerry against values? When the Bush administration lies, blackmails, flip-flops, bribes, sells out CIA agents, and pardons nuclear smugglers, does that mean they're standing for values? Later on there's a mention of "the values of faith, family, community, and country" so that's apparently what he's talking about, but how is Kerry wrong on any of them? On faith, Kerry's religious. And I'll tell ya a couple things; first, if Bush is a Christian he's a damn poor one and second, if a politician has any effect whatsoever on your religious faith, there's something terribly wrong with your religious faith.

Isn't Bush only for family values when it comes to certain types of families? I'm totally indifferent on the issue of gay marriage but if I were preaching family values I'd want everyone to share in them. If gays happen to have kids I think it's great that they raise them in a loving family, no matter the genatalia ratio of the parents is 2:0. What's the alternative? Abortion? Send them to Iraq? No, make a family with what you've got and just love each other and be happy.

Bush talks a lot about communities but what on earth for? Are you closer to your neighbors with Bush in office? If your community spirit is closely related to the actions of the government, you might be living in a communist state.

The last thing in this strange list is country values, or the value of country, or, to tell the truth I'm not sure how you're supposed to say it but I guess it stands for pride and love for your country. You know... patriotism. Well, the thing about patriotism is that it has to do with love of the country, not the government. In fact, I think that fighting the government when it's making mistakes is true patriotism and staying silent as the government harms the country is treason. Our founding fathers were patriots yet they didn't even have a government.

Rudyard Kipling was a pro-war hawk in his day yet G.K. Chesterton criticized him for his "lack of patriotism". As he said: "He admires England, but he does not love her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reason. He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English." That's patriotism to me.

I love this country and I damn sure hate to see the government screw it up. That goes for a Kerry government or a Bush one. Conservatives are supposed to agree with me, but alas, there are no conservatives left, only republicans, and party trumps country with that crowd any day.

Having said all this, I want to make clear that I don't endorse Kerry. I think both are equally poor choices. I don't think Kerry will be much different than Bush except on a couple of things that I'm not concerned about. But I will say that Kerry at least represents an unknown change while Bush represents, in my opinion, a real danger, and I think we'd be much better off with a balanced government consisting of a democrat president and a republican congress instead of the rubber stamp partisan hackery we have now. Kerry at least has those small positives going for him while I can think of none for Bush.

Having said that, however, remember: don't vote, it only encourages them. Kerry in November, civil war in December.

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?