A Reaganite argues that Bush is dangerous

[MISSDem]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/09/10/conservatives/index_np1.html

[MissMarple]

1. Good article, except Kerry would protect individual liberty

far better than George.

"Jonah Goldberg, a regular contributor to NRO, one of Bush's strongest bastions, complains that the president has "asked for a major new commitment by the federal government to insert itself into everything from religious charities to marriage counseling." Indeed, Bush seems to aspire to be America's moralizer in chief. He would use the federal government to micromanage education, combat the scourge of steroid use, push drug testing of high school kids, encourage character education, promote marriage, hire mentors for children of prisoners and provide coaches for ex-cons.

Conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan worries that Bush "is fusing Big Government liberalism with religious right moralism. It's the nanny state with more cash."

...

Yet serious conservatives must fear for the country if Bush is reelected. Is Kerry really likely to initiate more unnecessary wars, threaten more civil liberties and waste more tax dollars? In any case, there are other choices (e.g., the Libertarian Party's Michael Badnarik, the Constitution Party's Michael Peroutka and even Independent Ralph Nader).

Serious conservatives should deny their votes to Bush. "When it comes to choosing a president, results matter," the president says. So true. A Kerry victory would likely be bad for the cause of individual liberty and limited government. But based on the results of his presidency, a Bush victory would be catastrophic. Conservatives should choose principle over power."

[eauclaireliberal]

2. RE: "A Reaganite argues that Bush is dangerous"

Goldberg is a fraud-time and time again he has shown himself as the hack that he is. Just because he has written under the guise of clarity doesn't improve his status: He is still a drooling neo-con who knew damned well what he was getting into. He can't cry foul now.