For a moment never mind that I’m not a conservative.
A few minutes ago I was thinking about what appears to be the upcoming bush-kerry competition. First, I think bush is a total disaster (and thought much the same of his predecessor). His potential opponent, depending on which aspects of his voting record you review, looks like a bush clone on Iraq or only a bit left of bush when it comes to spending.
So I was thinking that since things happen best in DC when they happen least that the optimal result this time around will be a kerry win along with a few more repuglicans in both the house and senate. About 1 minute later I happened on to Chris Lawrence’s post linked below which is in response to Steven Taylor who has some thoughts on my opening question and reminds folks:
In short, repeat after me: �I will never get exactly what I want all the time from democratic government.�
The only government in which one gets everything one wants is a government in which one is the absolute dictator. Those jobs are hard to come by.
and then points out:
To put it in simple terms: if one is unhappy with aspects of Bush’s administration, this shouldn’t be a surprise. However, the only serious alternative, it would seem, is Kerry.
And recall that all the conservatives who were upset with Bush I’s breaking of the “read my lips pledge” and who said that “it can’t get any worse” helped led to eight years of Bill Clinton.
To which Chris Lawrence replies:
On the other hand, if you�re a conservative�not necessarily a Republican, mind you�a spell of divided government might well be desirable.
…given that Congress is essentially a lock to remain in Republican hands for the forseeable future,* if you�re not much of a social conservative and you make under $200k it�s hard to see what you�d lose under a Kerry (or Edwards) administration.
This is probably good advice for conservatives as well as those who are orthogonal to the demublicans.