T Nation

Other Disaffected Republicans?


Speaking as someone who's voted for Bush twice, worked on a Senate campaign, and been a Republican since I was 11 and H.W. Bush was running against Clinton, I'm finding it harder and harder to defend this administration, and Congress for that matter, to friends and to myself. Katrina doesn't bug me that much, that's a local failure more than anything else, but the military and financial mismanagement at the highest levels of government is staggering. From the failure to get serious in Iraq to the unequalled profligacy (although that's more Congress) of once-fiscal conservatives, it's been three or more years of growing disaster. The one-note Democrats are not an answer of course; maybe McCain is? Do any of you other forum Republicans (particularly some of the more serious ones) ever find yourselves thinking this way, or are you all just content to rally around the (Bush) flag?


McCain has always been my horse until Karl Rove S-canned that during the GOP primaries for 2000.

I knew that the GOP was in trouble.

I wish I was not proved correct.

The only 'good' thing is the rest of America does not see the Democrats as a truely viable option (yet) and congressional districts are so gerrymandered that minimal if any seats will be lost. The right wingnuts are going to lose control of the GOP and fast.

It would be a nightmare if the Democrats picked up the Senate because articles of impeachment would be drafted and like football there is holding on every play.


I'm completely with you, dude. I strongly preferred McCain over Bush in the 2000 primaries. I would greatly prefer McCain over Bush now or in the future, although I think Giuliani would be my dream candidate in '08. They'll never nominate him, co course, because he's pro-choice, not from the South, not a Bible thumper and is generally just too smart, but if they did he would wipe the floor with ANYONE the Democrats could nominate. Oh well. :frowning: The party has really gone in a direction which leaves me to view it as merely the lesser of two evils (but only marginally).

And this administration IS indeed a mismanaging, fiscally un-conservative, head-in-the-sand shit-show.


Exactly, that's where I find myself, instead of being a Republican without a second thought. I voted for McCain in the NH primary, saw him speak once, loved the guy. Little less sure now, he seems to be a little too eager to please the media, but he'd still be my pick in 2008. Don't like Giuliani at all personally, and he has a huge skeleton his closet. A live-in mistress isn't gonna fly in the GOP primaries, and I don't see that as a bad thing.


I have also become disenfranchised with the current administration.

Iraq is turning into a mess. I don't know how anything different could be done at this point, pulling out would not be a good option, but a mess it certainly is.

I am more troubled by the spend happiness that seems pervasive by both the Congress and Presidency. What ever happened to fiscal conservancy? I realize Iraq and now the disasters have put a severe strain on our economy and limits some deficit control, but cuts need to be put in place soon. Someone needs to take the reins and say enough is enough.

I am just as troubled, by what I see as our nation's #1 problem, and that is health care/health care reform. I don't stand here with any great solution, but this has single handily put a stranglehold on the American worker/family/businessman/company. Why is there no bigger outcry about this and why aren't we in the planning stages of a program that can bail us out of this mess.

To me, if someone comes up with a good plan, both feasable and qualitative in practice, that person gets my vote. Regardless of party.


I hope you're right, but I'm not so sure, the combination of Katrina and Iraq could flip the Senate. House oughta stay safe, from what I can tell, although Tom "there is no fat" DeLay's troubles don't help.


I don't know from experience, I'm 23 and in grad school, but from talking to my parents, who own a business, you're absolutely right about this.


Not a republican, but I usually end up voting for them.

I am disappointed with the spending too. We need some fiscal restraint.

McCain is an interesting guy but I don't think he would be a good president.

His stance on sports, supplements and steriods is based on perception and not reality. That kind of bothers me.


Ah yes, DeLay's shenanigans. Just warms you even more to the party, doesn't it?

I don't know if you all agree with me on this, but a socially libertarian, fiscally conservative, strong leader type (i.e. Giuliani :slight_smile: ) would get my vote any day of the week over an idiot like Bush. I realize that the skeletons in his closet are another thing that will prevent him from being nominated, but I think that's a massive shame. This country has its head in its collective ass priority-wise when it comes to things like that. We're in a global war with Islamic extremists, a tough-ass regional war (with clearly no plan and not enough resources devoted to it) in Iraq, gas prices that are through the roof, home prices that are pricing many people out of the market, a budget deficit that's blimping up, a huge trade deficit, a pipe dream of an idea of social security and two massive natural disasters that just hit the country and people want to say, "But he had a 'mistress' years ago before his divorce was final." The guy (Giuliani) could lead men into Hell with a gasoline can and bring them out victorious.


I would have voted for McCain. Normally I disdain not voting on party lines, since one is voting more for the party than the guy when you vote for President. But I admired his military service, the common sense he seems to have, and his openess to ideas that are traditionally GOP fodder (the abortion question, etc.)

I guess don't take my word for it, cause I would probably still vote for Ted Kennedy. But I liked McCain. I would most likely vote for him over the bitch on wheels that is Hillary Clinton.


I know exactly where you are coming from, but I'd rather not talk about it right now.

I agree with Zap on McCain. He might be a decent person, but he proved to be just another idiot politician when it came to his understanding (or lack thereof) on the supplement/steroid/sports front. I was all for McCain in 2008, but I he's made me second-guess him and I'll look forward to other options.

I took a political "quiz" to see where I was at on the party line, and it came out that I was a Colin Powell Republican (damn near the middle). Therefore, I vote Colin for 2008! Rice can be the VP.

~ J


The "there's no fat" remark that DeLay made was sarcastic. He knows full well that there is plenty of room to cut the budget, but no one - dem or repub - wants to take their own self-serving pork off the table. The remark is really funny, and just a little ballsy, when you know what he was saying.

As for his indictment - I'll bet you a case of Grow! bars that the case never gets as far as jury selection. It is baseless, and if you know anything about Texas politics, you would know that Ronnie Earle defines the phrase "partisan hack", and that his track record on getting a conviction out of one of his trumped up indictments is abysmal.


I don't know about that last bit. I'm told she's a borderline sycophant with regards to Bush, and makes Hillary Clinton look like the picture of warmth.


Unfortunately fear of assassination will probably keep them both from running.

I agree for the most part with everything else that has been said here.


Written like a true right wingnut.

Ronnie Earle has indicted more than twice as many Democratic office holders Republican office holders.

The only people calling this guy a hack are those with an ax to grind.

The bottom line is Texas really has only 1 law regarding politics...no corporate money can be collected to support a candidate. The gerrymandering in Texas could have been accomplished without breaking this rule. Arrogance comes before a fall and the right wingnuts are getting dropped on their heads as a result.

Delay and Frist only make the GOP weaker. The sooner they are replaced by real conservative fiscally responsible Republicans the better.

That sure is good Kool-Aid...right Rainjack.


Great words by conservative publisher Al Regnery:

There is an old saying among conservatives that when we send our people to Washington, they?re not our people anymore. Ronald Reagan was the exception that proved the rule, and it is a rule that conservatives have been living with since conservatives first emerged from the shadows in the 1950s. Conservatives often become disillusioned in election campaigns that a politician who is ?pretty conservative? will be, well, ?pretty conservative? after he gets elected. It didn?t work with Eisenhower, it didn?t work with Nixon, it didn?t work with George H.W. Bush, and it isn?t working with George W.

The conservative?s job is not to be a good Republican, but to keep Republicans honest, to hold their feet to the fire. So what is going on now is exactly what should be going on -- conservatives telling the congressional leaders and the President that being ?pretty conservative? (and you have to wonder what ?pretty? means sometimes) isn?t good enough. If it means losing an election or two, that is the price we need to pay.

Do you miss Ronald Reagan as much as I do?


It's being reported as a serious remark in the conservative media, not just the mainstream press, which I hardly even read these days.


You guys sure are very proud not to read the "mainstream" press.
Hell, Bush was very proud to mention he didn't read any papers at all. Since he was unaware about the Katrina disaster for several days, we now know he doesn't look at the news on TV either.
And neither did what's his name, the guy doing one heckuva job.
I'm not suprised he didn't boast about that recently though.

Doesn't it just bring a tear to your eyes when you realise you're better informed reading the papers, watching the news than the leader of the greatest nation on earth?


It's Clinton you should be missing. Remember the good ol' days when all you had to worry about where the stains on a blue dress? When the econmy was up? when there was a surplus? when the US was leading the UN? and you had allies all over the world?
Remember that?


Yes, but the dems he indicted - i.e. Jim Maddox (sp?) - were all ideologically opposed to Earle and his way-left fanaticism. You have to remember that up until 15 - 20 years ago, there were no republicans in Texas politics. I exaggerate, but not by very much.

You prove your ignorance of the sunject by automatically pulling out the partisan bullshit. No one but the leftest of lefties will give ronnie Earle any credit. Go see what Jim Maddox has to say about the Travis Co. DA.

You really shouldn't post out of utter partisan ignorance. It's not becoming at all. But you are getting good at that.

Read the indictment. Show me where it states that DeLay did any of those things. I have a hint so you won;t wste a whole lot of time - the indictment doesn't say any of that. In fact there is not even a list of charges in the indictment.

I might agree with you about Frist - he's a pussy in my book, but Delay is the one that pushed Bush's agenda through in his first term. The left won;t go after people that make the right weaker - that just has no logic to it at all. The left is targeting the effective ones. The left can't win at the ballot box, and they'll sson see that they need more than trumped up charges to win in the courtroom.

The only reason Earle went on this witch hunt in the first place is because his far left-wing fuck buddy, Martin Frost, got gerrymandered out of a job.