I've proffessed, here in Sci that I'm Capitalist, conservative republican that has been betrayed by this present administration, hence the reason of my support of the next pundit, "the LESSER EVIL" Kerry.

Anyhow this I thought was weird of me, not supporting my party rep. I thought I was alone, the choice was null by the election of 2000 and circumstances in my life impeded me from voting, though I did try, but was not alowed because I had failed to "register" on time, I had just moved to Houston Tx. I would have voted, for Bush!

However in do course of activity through his administration, I realised as the party plataform of "consevatism" has been betrayed. And the following article reafirms my observations.
link (http://www.nypress.com/17/31/news&columns/WilliamBryk.cfm)

Also since I been discusing my views of the political situation I've found that I'm not alone, I'm not the only Republican that is supporting Kerry on this election.

link (http://www.republicansforkerry.org/)

Godless.

There are no “Republicans for Kerry.” They are “Republicans who refuse to admit that Democrats better represent them.”

Bush did not win a coup. He was elected by millions, and the millions who will vote to re-elect him share his public viewpoint more so than they do Kerry’s.

Bush is a natural outcome of a long-term application of Republican values, which boil down to: money & power for the few and the rest can eat cake. Most of what Republicans say they stand for is just window dressing. Having seen behind the window, Republicans for Kerry seem to prefer the Democrats’ values: freedom and justice for all.

He was elected by millions, and the millions who will vote to re-elect him share his public viewpoint more so than they do Kerry’s.

This is inaccurate. Bush was elected by the college. Were it the sheer will of the people, Bush did not win. One cannot say that Bush was "elected" by millions. He received millions of votes, but he was elected by a body that numbers in the hundreds.°

On the notion that there are no Republicans for Kerry, I must disagree. Ever since the Clinton administration rolled right, the Democrats have conceded certain economic issues to the Republicans; the Democrats are now playing by the same old conservative rules where economic growth is the holy grail and people exist as abstractions in business-model experiments. I've noted repeatedly the reason for the Democrats' poor showing in 2002: with a real Republican across the ticket, why would anyone vote for a fake one?

Well ... perhaps the so-called "Republicans for Kerry" have an answer for us. Maybe they looked up the old newspaper articles, like the editorials that called a certain Poppy Bush budget bad for the military. Funny how Kerry now takes heat from Republicans for voting against a bad appropriations bill.

See, this is why it wasn't the Year of the Hillary.
____________________

Notes:

° elected by a body that numbers in the hundreds - Yes, I know them's the rules, and that's beside the point. So is the revocation of thousands of Floridians' voter registrations for no viable reason. Rather, I'm simply pointing out that any rhetoric based on the idea that Bush was elected by millions is suspect for its premise.

OK, he was indirectly elected by millions. Republicans for Kerry take the stance that Bush flouts conservative values. But his values must represent the conservatives because he was indirectly elected by millions and stands a good chance of being indirectly elected by them again. If Republicans for Kerry find themselves so unlike those millions that they prefer Kerry then I'd call them Democrats.

Or just call them "Republicans for Democrats" to see how nonsensical it sounds. It's like "Rappers for Sinatra."

On the flip side. There are also democrats that will vote for Bush.

It can be said that the republican party has shifted further to the right, and have taken the notion of coservative to acutally more liberal strata. Considering that the GOP should not be raising the deificit, nor should they be increasing debt, creating more gov't then ever before (with the possible exception of FDR), invading nations for no real reason (at least publically), and blidnly supporting cronies. This is the new Republican party, this is empricial this isn't theoritical. We lived four years of it, and now at least half of America likes this weird liberal-conservative mix.

The current republican party is economically liberal and socially conservative(relatively speaking). Do republicans actually realize this? I dunno. The problem is that many people do not know where they fall in the political spectrum, thus they blindly cling to "democrat" or "republican", probably based on where they grew up. Or perhaps they anti-identify by hating "liberals" or"conservatives", despite the fact that these two terms are meaningless without context and do not neatly fit with our political parties.

Neoconservatives and conservatives are not the same, the question is does the majority of republican conservatives blinding following neocons just because they are both in the same party? Or do republicans conservatives agree with neocons?

Like I always say "ignorance breeds compliance" (trademark!)

If a liberatarian or an Independent (NOT NADER) was on the Ballot with these two pundits parties that have pretty much "fucked" us all. I'd be inclined to vote for them. However the facts are that America people "believe" it's a two party system. It is because these two are the most popular. I'm sure you all know that we even have a communist party in this country. http://www.cpusa.org/

So we have choices, however since we live in a country were people know more of who's tit flashed out of her dress in the Superbowl, Kobe Brian's rape "scandal" Michael Jackson molesting another kid. Rathe than real issues, like our national debt, who exactly gets those freaking "tax cuts", or what is the UN and who it's main supporter is. We are in Wonderer's word, "Bobs". LOL... That is why these two party plataforms are the most popular.

My dad was a Republiacan, and he explained to me he believed it was his only choice. This is the first time I heard of "lesser of two evils". Thus I too support the "true conservative values" but not represented by this present administration.

Godless.

P.S the Vice's debate is about to start. C ya!.