Voting for president used to be so easy, at least for a conservative. There was the Republican candidate. You knew he generally stood for lower taxes, less government spending, giving fewer powers to the government, lower deficits and a zealous regard for individual privacy.

Now we have the election of 2004. For the first time in my voting life, the choice in the race for president isn't so clear And, among true conservatives, I'm not alone.

But the concerns for many conservative voters -- concerns that may cause them not to vote for Mr. Bush on Nov. 2 -- fall generally into three categories: fiscal, physical (as in the physical security of our nation) and freedom (as in protecting our civil liberties).

When Bush became president Jan. 20, 2001, he inherited an enviable fiscal situation. Congress, then controlled by his own party, had -- through discipline and tough votes -- whittled down decades of deficit spending under presidents of both parties, so that annual deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars had been transformed to a series of real and projected surpluses. The heavy lifting had been done. All Bush had to do was resist the urge to spend, and he had to exert some pressure on Congress to resist its natural impulses to do the same. Had he done that, he might have gone down in history as the most fiscally conservative president in modern times.

Instead, what we got were record levels of new spending, including nearly double-digit increases in nondefense discretionary spending. We now have deficits exceeding those that the first Republican-controlled Congress in 40 years faced when it convened in January 1995.

The oft-repeated mantra that "the terrorists made us spend more" rings hollow, especially to those who actually understand that increases in nondefense discretionary spending are not the inevitable result of fighting terrorists. It also irritates many conservatives, whether or not they support the war in Iraq, that so much of defense spending is being poured into the black hole of Iraq's internal security, while the security of our own borders goes wanting.

That brings us to the second major beef conservatives have with the president. He's seen as failing to take real steps to improve our border security. In many respects, because of his apparent desire to appease his compadre to the south -- Mexican President Vincente Fox -- Bush has made matters worse. More people are entering our country illegally than ever before, more than 3 million this year alone -- and most of them are stampeding across from Mexico.

It seems as if every time an effort is made to implement measures that would crack down on illegal immigration, Fox complains, and the White House tells our enforcement folks to back off. Perhaps that is why intelligence reports indicate al-Qaeda is actively recruiting in Central America.

At the same time, here at home, many law-abiding citizens accurately perceive that their own freedoms and civil liberties are being stripped. They are being profiled by government computers whenever they want to travel, their bank accounts are being summarily closed because they may fit some "profile," they are under surveillance by cameras paid for by that borrowed federal money, and, if the administration has its way, they will be forced to carry a national identification card. That skewed sense of priorities really rankles conservatives.

Hmmm. Who's the Libertarian candidate again?

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/n...ingaction.html

__________________
The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself. George W. Bush

The present Republican president has led us into an unjustified war -- based on misguided and blatantly false misrepresentations of the threat of weapons of mass destruction

Also, if there as well had been proper and careful coordination of services and intelligence on Sept. 11, 2001, that horrific disaster might also have been averted

For Cheney to tell the hand-picked, like-minded Republican crowds in Des Moines last month that to vote for John Kerry could mean another attack like that of 9/11 is reprehensible

In both presidential debates, Kerry has shown himself to be of far superior intellect and character than Bush

I am more fearful for the state of this nation than I have ever been -- because this country is in the hands of an evil man: Dick Cheney. It is eminently clear that it is he who is running the country, not George W. Bush.

This imperialistic, stubborn adherence to wrongful policies and known untruths by the Cheney-Bush administration -- and that's the accurate order -- has simply become more than I can stand.

Although I am a longtime Republican, it is time to make a statement, and it is this: Vote for Kerry-Edwards, I implore you, on Nov. 2.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5029512.html

__________________
The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself. George W. Bush

This guy read my mind!

No need to copy any quotes here. He said it all! Bravo!

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

Ken YOU CAME ACROSS WITH SOME GOLD AGAIN Bush is a big spender, an opportunist, and not a defender of the constitution. A true conservative would never lead his country into a poorly defined war, for a nebulous or lying reason or spend us into a deficit .

W is nothing more than a puppet on the NEOCONS

What's a neocon anyway? got a definition?

Anyway, I better hurry over and change my party affiliation before it's too late... I mean oooooh some republican who i never heard of doesn't like Bush....

Guess what? I HAVE heard of Ed Koch, I have heard of Zell Miller, I have heard of Ron Silver....

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions... and loved it.

The fact that you don't know talks about how uniformed you must be. How about this definition for you:

Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.

I would explain more but it would take more than a one sentence sound bite, which seems to be republicans maximum attention span.

SINANJU WROTE You never heard of Bob Barr ? Who is the former Repub governor of Minnesotta anyway ???? Wasn't that Jessie Ventura the WWWF guy, a Peronista ?

Neocons ? Good question.. I see them this way ' Those who demand to use American superior force around the world just because we can but not necessarily when and where we have to.' i DON'T BUY hard Drivers definition at all. As a side bar most are Chicken Hawks. I have very very little use for Chicken Hawks....

Chill out guys... I was being sarcastic...

sheesh... always so serious!

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions... and loved it.