It is important, for many reasons, that Kerry and the depraved version of the Democratic Party he leads to be crushed into compost so that a new party can grow back in its place.
Hey, that's my line!
After seeing Kerry's remarks would anyone trust him with the nuclear trigger? The contrast between the two men couldn't have been better. Only idiotarians could vote for this foaming wombat.
But Sullivan is right: if this is conservatism, conservatism is dead. Bush pays lip service to the idea of govt not being a nanny, but then proposes all sorts of new $pending that has nothing to do with real Reagan/Thatcher limited govt. At least Kerry's up front about taxing you to pay for his agenda.
Sullivan wouldn't know a conservative if one bit him on the ass.
What Bush is proposing isn't nannyism, its much more in the way of attempting to make sure there's equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. So money is spent. So what. Reagan spent alot of money too. Fiscal conservatives don't know when to spend money. They continually strike me as little Ebeneezers.
Andrew Sullivan's support of Kerry has a lot of wishful thinking about it. Andrew's stating that Kerry is closer to the fiscal conservatives because he's "endorsed the critical pay-as-you-go rule" ignores Kerry's extensive record as a Senator.
At least AS is honest at the end of his entry today, that his opposition to Bush comes down to Sullivan being homosexual and GWB being on the opposite side of the gay marriage issue. Andrew had been dancing around that admission for a while, so it was refreshing for him to finally openly admit that.
That AS's sexual persuasion trumps whatever else he thinks has been obvious for a while. While its about time he admitted that, it now shows how much he just doesn't get what the WoT is about.
One only has to observe the carnage in Russia today and think about General Franks said; "You want to fight them there or here?"
Hasn't anyone mentioned to Andrew that Kerry is also on the opposite side of the gay marriage issue?
Actually, AS didn't endorse Kerry, he said he couldn't vote for Bush, putting him in bed with Spoons
I don't know that Sullivan's sexual preference is the issue here. If anything, Sullivan's central issue has always seemed to me to be that his sexual issues tend, over time, to trump every other consideration. It is only then that he tends to haul in a generous helping of 'fiscal analysis.' Done either as a smokescreen or out of the sincere but mistaken belief that traditional "conservative" fiscal values are important, obtainable, or even possible in the straits in which we now find ourselves.
I don't think that conservative fiscal values need be, at all times and in all situations and eras, centered around a remorseless and ceaseless effort to reduce government spending. Instead, I would think that the guidepost would be "pragmatic" fiscal values.
In other words, there may be times -- such as when engaging in the initial phases and buildup for a global war -- when a pragmatic fiscal conservative would want to increase short term (five-ten year) spending, if it would insure the long term (10-100 year) economic structure that makes conservative fiscal values possible.
Since everyone is talking about Sullivan, does anyone know what the deal is with him putting a donkey on his title banner, endorsing Kerry.... and then swapping the donkey for an elephant... but not indicating any particular change from his pro-Kerry stance?
What's up with that?