Mr. Auster is, of course, as always, correct.

But, personally, I can’t tolerate the threat of that sack of stinking sewer gelatin Ted Kennedy picking the next three Supremes. I can’t tolerate the prospect of a semi-totalitarian regime, an iron triangle of White House, Judiciary, and media, feverishly working to internationalize and deculturize America. And I can’t tolerate the idea of a President Kerry declaring a blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens, in effect dissolving what’s left of the borders and the nation.

True, I can’t bring myself to pull the lever for President Bush, but I am sure that on Election Day I will find myself urgently hoping that Kerry loses.

The Dhimmicrats have become just too horrible. It would be like allowing the Bolsheviks to take power. Sometimes you just have to go with the least-bad.

I don’t know of any Reagan waiting in the wings anyway. Our entire ruling class, both vicious, squabbling factions, seems to have been entirely gutted of patriots.

In 1996 I voted for the Constitution Party candidate (Howard Phillips) and did not support Dole because I thought that Dole was running away from conservatism and the country could survive another 4 years of Clinton.

Now I’m faced with the same decision. I don’t like Bush either, but could the country survive a Kerry presidency?

Normally we can “correct” a bad presidency, but Kerry could do irreversible damage. No Supreme Court justice has retired in 10 years. That’s the longest time period of non-retirements since 1811 – 1823! It means that those geezers on the Court will be streaming for the exits the next four years. Kerry will pick 4 or 5 justices. If re-elected, maybe 7 or 8.

The American people will have less and less effect on political decisions as most of these will be decided by the Court. That’s been happening for a while, but I see it accelerating big time.

The only silver lining in a Kerry presidency is that it takes Hillary out of the picture in 2008.

Shrewsbury says I’m correct, then proceeds to dismantle my position. I think he’s in the same unresolvable ambivalence that I and many of us are in. In 2000 I thought Gore was very bad, and preferred that Bush win, but I still refused to vote for Bush and was ready for Gore to win if that was the way it happened. The ambivalence I felt then is far stronger today, because the Democrats have become vastly worse now. They are literally an anti-American, treasonous party. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they would govern that way if they came to power. Much of their insanity is a function of their irrational hatred of Bush; I would expect that they would behave at least somewhat more responsibly if they were in office. But how much comfort is that?

Kerry’s political nature is reflected perfectly in this matter of his cancelling his long-scheduled keynote address to the U.S. Mayors’ conference in Boston because he refuses to cross a picket line of Boston police. Now the police, according to a rare, worthwhile editorial in today’s NY Post, are _not_ on strike, they are in negotiations; therefore this picket line is not a real picket line. Yet so subservient is Kerry to his constitutent groups and his orthodox left-liberalism that he is willing to insult the mayors of America in order to demonstrate that subservience. As the Post argued, if the Boston police keep up the same phony picket line outside the Democratic National Convention in Boston, would Kerry refuse to appear at the convention where he is to be nominated? Only a really big unprincipled exception would get Kerry out of that pickle.

More ominously, this shows how Kerry, as a leader, would fold and surrender before any supposed victim group with some kind of claim. All the signs are that the man, because of the combination of his orthodox left-liberalism and his inborn indecisiveness, is incapable of leadership, and that a President Kerry could be truly ruinous to the U.S. in his dealings with our friends, adversaries, and enemies.

Here’s the NY Post editorial:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/24151.htm

The November election presents a conundrum for me. If the Kerry mob gets in, the long-term best interest of the country will arguably suffer. But I am so sick of that DUMMY from Texas…

The True Believers who laud him insist that he is really a smart guy, and that his bumbling and apparent failure to grasp concepts beyond what we would read on a bumper sticker is not reflective of the “real” George Bush. I beg to differ! He is a DUMMY.

Our back luck to have a president with NO gravitas, and limited or NO ability to bring the American people along with him. The job of president requires skill at selling snake oil, and he ain’t got it.

Don’t get me started on stem cell research, reproductive issues, and other topics driven by the religious right…

Every time there’s an election, it’s always portrayed as “the most important election ever” and “the end of civilization as we know it” if X doesn’t get elected. We survived Clinton; I suppose we would survive Kerry.

Correction: Shrewsbury did not dismantle my position. Our positions are the same: we both absolutely dread a Kerry presidency, and are unwilling to vote for Bush. In other words, despite our shared ambivalence, we are both making a decision.

However, in all painful honesty, I must say that if by election day I became convinced, say, that Kerry would engage in some catastrophic surrender of U.S. security interests, I might be forced to vote for Bush. If the international situation has quieted by November, a Kerry presidency would seem less intolerable. But if there are palpable international threats, electing Kerry would be like choosing an appeaser to be Prime Minister of Great Britain on May 10, 1940.

“Every time there’s an election, it’s always portrayed as “the most important election ever” and “the end of civilization as we know it” if X doesn’t get elected. We survived Clinton; I suppose we would survive Kerry.” - Fester & Carbuncle

F & C describes the classic scare tactic employed every election cycle by Republicans against conservatives. Like Shewsbury, I’m totally ambivalent. As Mr. Auster mentioned, the Dhimmicrats are openly treasonous. While F & C are correct that we survived Clinton. I would add that we only barely survived him. As both parties move further leftwards towards totalitarianism, we will actually reach a point after which there is no return. The American republic will have come to an end. It will most likely be through a combination of Judicial fiat and totalitarian legislation such as hate crimes statutes. The only strategy I can see is to vote selectively in order to create a gridlock situation - which would buy us more time to organize the resistance.

F & C reminded me of a Paul Weyrich piece I saw a few months ago. Weyrich had attended a meeting between GWB and DC “conservatives.” Weyrich wrote that, “Bush is very smart in a private meeting away from the TV cameras.” So now, GWB is “very smart in private.”

A year or so ago, I posted on this Forum how Weyrich was saying in 1999 that, “GWB is very conservative in private.” During the 2000 election, a NR writer wrote the same, “GWB is surprisingly conservative in private.” When I posted this, someone said that the Texas GOP had played that scam ever since Bush ran for Governor.

So Bush is both “conservative” and “smart” in private, while in public he’s a silly, liberal fool. Well, we need some humor for our situation. Regarding Supreme Court appointments, GWB has been panting to put a liberal hispanic on the court for four years. He hopes Ms O’Connor will stay on to take the Chief Justice spot.

I am seriously dreading this election and the next four years. Either we are stuck with Bush, who will likely continue to pander and spend, and who could end up strengthening the influence of “compassionate” “conservatism” because it was so “successful” for Republicans, or we are stuck with Kerry, who will likely pander and spend even more than Bush, and possibly appoint more Ginsbergs to the Supreme Court. At least under Kerry, though, Bush-style conservatism might be questioned…though a Kerry victory might even backfire here, possibly making Republicans and neocons think they haven’t moved *far enough* to the left.

Both candidates support amnesty for illegal aliens and have no intention of reducing legal immigration (much less stopping virtually all unskilled immigration as I support). Both support some version of prescription drugs for seniors, though Kerry wants an even more radically expensive plan (the current prescription drug plan is expected to cost $190 billion for the year 2023; if the donut hole is closed, the plan is expected to cost $360 billion yearly).

The mainstream conservative/Republican focus on optimism (really complacency) is something I see as extremely dangerous and foolish. The misplaced optimism of many mainstream conservatives, IMO, is a major driving force behind many of their questionable positions—Loose borders are OK because all immigrants can and will all assimilate under any circumstances. Big spending is OK because our economy will somehow expand to support it and big deficits aren’t really that bad anyway. We should aim for democracy in Iraq because everyone has a natural desire for democracy.

“…which would buy us more time to organize the resistance.”

For how frequently this site attacks neocons for their naive belief in assimilation, I find a surprising amount of equally unrealistic talk of “resitance” and “change” regarding the current socio-economic structure of this country.

It is very easy to convince people to take something for “free”. It is incredibly difficult to convince them to voluntarily give up that same handout once they have been receiving it for even a short period of time. It is utterly impossible to convince them to do so when they have been given, with the handout, assurance that they are fully entitled to free stuff.

Everyone from the poor to the middle class to the wealthy coporations are now, in some form, on the take. What’s more, even the wealthy producers we have enslaved through the tax code to make this possible believe that it is all perfectly legitimate. It would take an enormous block of voters to take us off the course to socialism. Such a block has not existed in this country for a very long time.

Dan, when I speak of ‘resistance’, I’m referring to the survival of traditonalist thought. We need to survive for the day when the corrupt system finally collapses due to its incoherence, for the emergence of a true patriot to inspire and lead.

I really have no illusions about the clueless soccer-moms, the sleazy business owners who hire illegals and collude with Marxists to have the taxpayer provide free schooling, welfare, and medical care, the recipients of corporate welfare, etc, etc. You’re right. At least 50 percent of the country is on the take and, like Esau, will gladly sell their inheritance of constitutional liberty that so many fought and died for - just to keep the good times rolling.

Perhaps we are nearing the end. When a people are so stupefied that there is no outcry over a manifestly totalitarian decision like Grutter, which allows a nebulous “compelling interest” to trump the constitution itself, there’s little we can do but try and point to the truth, which is resistance or dissidence to the prevailing order of lies.

Shrewsbury, F and C, and Mr. Auster have stated the problem very well. I would add one point: in the long run — meaning more than the next four years — Bush is not really an alternative to anything, even if he chances to seem the lesser evil in the short run. His incompetence, and the general incoherence and denaturing of the Republicans he both promotes and symbolizes, virtually guarantee that, even if he somehow ekes out a victory in this election, his successor will be a Democrat, almost certainly much like Kerry (at best.)

The point of electing a Democrat is divided government. That’s all. The hope is merely for deadlock between the executive and legislative branches.

This relies on the fact that a policy supported by Bush (R) would be opposed simply because it was supported by Kerry (D). And that does, to some extent, seem to be the way that politics works.

Anyway, that’s the argument. I can’t see voting for either of them, morally. Fortunately one’s vote counts for nothing unless one happens to be voting in the Supreme Court.

Leonard may be overoptimistic, if I understand him correctly, for there is a good chance the Democrats, if they win the White House, will also win the Congress. Also, the way thing are, control of the judiciary trumps anything the executive, the legislature, the people want, not to mention either the letter of the Constitution or the intentions of the framers.

Yeah, it’s terror of the Supreme Court that really sways me. They’re already using the Constitution for toilet paper. What happens with 3-6 Kennedy-chosen judges? A pretty nice imitation of totalitarianism, I shouldn’t wonder. “Hate speech” such as mentioning IQ differences, or Biblical injunctions against homosexuality, etc., etc. etc., would be illegal lickety-split, with the most dire penalties for the double-ungood miscreant. A vote for Kerry thus assumes the appearance of a vote to have yourself fined $50,000 for wrongthink.

I will repost here a comment that was misplaced in another thread. This thread did not exist at the time I posted it.

There have been two different desires expressed on this board with respect to Dubya: (1) That he win re-election narrowly and be properly chastened by the number of votes given to the Constitution Party, by write-in votes for Tom Tancredo, etc., and (2) that he be defeated and John Kerry elected. I have supported outcome #1, while others have said that only defeat will wake up the GOP establishment.

I heard the tail end of a phone interview with Tom Tancredo tonight on the Lars Larsson radio show. Larsson has been a supporter of Bush who has vehemently disagreed with the amnesty proposal and has hosted interviews with Mark Krikorian, Tom Tancredo, and others. Tancredo said that something has happened this year that has NEVER happened in the history of the GOP. Usually, when a telephone fundraiser is told by a Republican that no donation shall be made because of some issue or another, the solicitor is told to just say, ?I am sorry that you are upset about this; we hope we can still count on your vote? and end the call. However, the number of small contributors who have raised the amnesty issue in refusing to contribute has caused the GOP to develop a telephone script in which they try to talk the potential donor into believing that Dubya has been doing various things to combat illegal immigration, that his proposal is not really amnesty, etc. The epidemic proportions of donor refusals led to this, but it is not working too well.

What about the big donors, who are called by special solicitors? Are they Country Club Republicans who have a different reaction than the small donors? For a refutation of that idea, see the following article, written by a special solicitor for big GOP fund-raising dinners of the $2000 per plate variety: http://www.amconmag.com/2004_04_12/article1.html

It would seem that the GOP is getting the message loud and clear. I just returned a postal solicitation with no contribution and ?No AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS!? written on it.

This should cause some further reflection on the position that only a Dubya defeat will get the message through, or that a Dubya re-election will produce a lame duck who no longer needs our votes and can do what he wants. Money talks. The GOP needs to raise money during the next 4 years, whether Dubya needs another re-election or not. The big donors include quite a few who are withholding funds because of Bush?s treason.

Scott in PA—welcome!

But I have to disagree with you on the importance of the US Supreme Ct. That court was, for all intents and purposes, a 5-4 conservative court. Then, soon after their now-famoue 2001 post-election decision that put Bush II into The White HGouse, Sandra Day O’Connor was turned. I don’t know if it was the ACLU, Ruth Bader Ginsburg or guilt over siding with the majority in the election decision, but she has literally become a leftist. Something in her life happened to change her—perhaps a personal tragedy or something—I don’t know. Whatever, the point is, you (we) can’t rely on that court to side with conservatives any longer. The Court sometimes—and of late, many times—makes bad decisions. We need a strong conservative president show the Court and the rest of us “the way”, even if they (the Court) resist. I just don’t think the focus should be on choosing the better of two evils on the Supreme Court future vacancies. Look whom we got from Bush I—David Souter, a wacked out lefty. A RINO president like Bush II doesn’t guarantee we’ll get ANY cpnservative judges on that court.

That being said, we can then move on and select a president for other very important reasons—one who will close down the Border with Mexico and deport all illegals, one who will enforce the immigration laws that the GOP, other leaders and state and local police (who are told they can’t under law question possible illegals) refuse to or are afraid to enforce. The issue of the government schools forcing children to dress up as Islamics and pretending that “jihad” is just another walk in the proverbial park (as in Byron, CA)—these are the kinds of things that a president needs to talk about and fight against.

To F&C: One does not necessarily have to be “…on the Religious Right” to be against stem cell research and abortion! I am certainly NOT part of the Religious Right (they send me form mail to donate, I toss them) and I opposed stem cell research, abortion/murder, homosexual marriage, etc.!! Please do not assume that many of us here at VFR are card-carrying members of The Religious Right. I am going out on a limb here to guess that majority of us are “Independent conservatives”, which means we have minds of our own and don’t walk in lock-step with ANY group…but, I could be wrong.

My apologies for sloppy typing and proofreading, again! In the aove post, I meant of course “now-famous” and further down, “We need a strong conservative president TO show the court…” and “A RINO president like Bush II doesn’t guarantee we’ll get any CONSERVATIVE judges…”

A minor piece of evidence for Mr. Auster’s comment on the Democrat’s irrational hatred of Bush. I made the mistake of looking at Jimmy Breslin’s column in Newsday this afternoon. He compared Bush unfavorably with the child murderer Steinberg. Admittedly, Breslin is a particularly psychotic case, but one does have to wonder if this sort of irrationality is going to dissipate with the departure of Bush, as Mr. Auster assumes. Somehow I doubt this. It seems to me that we may have been spoiled by Clinton. I suspect we are reaching a new stage in the breakdown of standards and rationality on the liberal side.

Bravo to Mr. Auster for his 12:45 PM post! He is stating what I am thinking almost to the word.

Unfortunately, the international situation outside of Iraq is not good. We (and the Israelis) has let Iran build nukes. And, we went to sleep and let North Korea do the same, now with the ability to hit Hawaii and soon the West Coast. Those two countries—and Pakistan, which also have nukes— are the countries (other than Red China) we really need to go after. I highly doubt that either man will confront those countries, but Bush II is more likely to do so than Kerry.

Perhaps some need to be reminded how aweful is Bush:

1) He petitioned the Supreme Court to preserve Affirmative Action in the Grutter case.

2) He is offering amnesties to illegal aliens.

3) He signed Ted Kennedy’s education bill.

4) He is throwing millions of dollars into the African AIDs sinkhole.

5) He presided over the largest expansion of Medicare in the form of the prescription drug bill.

6) Campaigned as being against the abomination known as McCain & Finegold, then signed the legislation.

7) Add your own.

Folks, I can’t believe anyone can endorse this phoney by voting for him. Good Lord!

My apologies again for sloppy typing—I meant, in the above post, “We (and the Israelis) HAVE…”

I’m voting Constitution Party. I encourage everyone to vote for a real conservative, whether CP, a write-in, etc.
Just use your vote in a way that will say “we want someone who is more conservative than Bush.”

You know, I think the “Saturn Devouring his Young” picture of Bush at pleasevote.com might actually make sense if you look at “his young” as being true conservatives who are supporting Bush and blinding themselves to his faults. In the end they will be consumed.

Bush is a horrible president, and anyone that says otherwise is an uneducated thoughtless moron. If the American people re-elect Bush, the fate of this country is imminent and inevitable—we are all doomed, and so is the rest of the world.