The American Conservative magazine endorses Kerry!!!!!!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

File this in the list of unexpected endorsements.

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you read the full set of articles, you'll see that the magazine was badly split editorially and decided to present the best possible case for each of the six choices under consideration before wrapping things up with the magazine's official stance, which was to support Petrouka, not Kerry.

[freedomburns]

If you read the full set of articles, you'll see that the magazine was badly split editorially and decided to present the best possible case for each of the six choices under consideration before wrapping things up with the magazine's official stance, which was to support Petrouka, not Kerry.

Right, sure, and their detailed analysis also has this to say about Bush:

"Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. "

Word.  God damn!  Conservatives who speak the truth??? 

You could knock me over with a feather right now...

freedomburns

[Platypus]

<feather as well.

[Aegir]

If you'll notice, by far the most know writer in that magazine, Patrick Buchanan, endorsed Bush.

A guy on there also endorsed Nader, so one endorsing Kerry is nothing.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I'd be interested to know who endorsed Nader, and why.

[Posterity]

Alan W. Bock endorsed Michael Badnarik.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover4.html

[khirkhib]

Wow the endorsement for Bush is pretty Scathing.

In the fall of 2002, the editors of this magazine moved up its launch date to make the conservative case against invading Iraq. Such a war, we warned, on a country that did not attack us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us, and had no role in 9/11, would be “a tragedy and a disaster.” Invade and we inherit our own West Bank of 23 million Iraqis, unite Islam against us, and incite imams from Morocco to Malaysia to preach jihad against America. So we wrote, again and again.

In a 6,000-word article entitled “Whose War?” we warned President Bush that he was “being lured into a trap baited for him by neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations...”

Everything we predicted has come to pass. Iraq is the worst strategic blunder in our lifetime. And for it, George W. Bush, his War Cabinet, and the neoconservatives who plotted and planned this war for a decade bear full responsibility. Should Bush lose on Nov. 2, it will be because he heeded their siren song—that the world was pining for American Empire; that “Big Government Conservatism” is a political philosophy, not an opportunistic sellout of principle; that free-trade globalism is the path to prosperity, not the serial killer of U.S. manufacturing; that amnesty for illegal aliens is compassionate conservatism, not an abdication of constitutional duty.

Mr. Bush was led up the garden path. And the returns from his mid-life conversion to neoconservatism are now in:

• A guerrilla war in Iraq is dividing and bleeding America with no end in sight. It carries the potential for chaos, civil war, and the dissolution of that country.

• Balkanization of America and the looming bankruptcy of California as poverty and crime rates soar from an annual invasion of indigent illegals is forcing native-born Californians to flee the state for the first time since gold was found at Sutter’s Mill.

• A fiscal deficit of 4 percent of GDP and merchandise trade deficit of 6 percent of GDP have produced a falling dollar, the highest level of foreign indebtedness in U.S. history, and the loss of one of every six manufacturing jobs since Bush took office.

If Bush loses, his conversion to neoconservatism, the Arian heresy of the American Right, will have killed his presidency. Yet, in the contest between Bush and Kerry, I am compelled to endorse the president of the United States. Why? Because, while Bush and Kerry are both wrong on Iraq, Sharon, NAFTA, the WTO, open borders, affirmative action, amnesty, free trade, foreign aid, and Big Government, Bush is right on taxes, judges, sovereignty, and values. Kerry is right on nothing.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
And it goes on about why Kerry is wrong.  Not much of an endorsement for Bush. I've been saying for a while the Bush isn't really a republican.  Go ahead vote for Peroutka

[freedomburns]

Wow the endorsement for Bush is pretty Scathing.

In the fall of 2002, the editors of this magazine moved up its launch date to make the conservative case against invading Iraq. Such a war, we warned, on a country that did not attack us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us, and had no role in 9/11, would be “a tragedy and a disaster.” Invade and we inherit our own West Bank of 23 million Iraqis, unite Islam against us, and incite imams from Morocco to Malaysia to preach jihad against America. So we wrote, again and again.

In a 6,000-word article entitled “Whose War?” we warned President Bush that he was “being lured into a trap baited for him by neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations...”

Everything we predicted has come to pass. Iraq is the worst strategic blunder in our lifetime. And for it, George W. Bush, his War Cabinet, and the neoconservatives who plotted and planned this war for a decade bear full responsibility. Should Bush lose on Nov. 2, it will be because he heeded their siren song—that the world was pining for American Empire; that “Big Government Conservatism” is a political philosophy, not an opportunistic sellout of principle; that free-trade globalism is the path to prosperity, not the serial killer of U.S. manufacturing; that amnesty for illegal aliens is compassionate conservatism, not an abdication of constitutional duty.

Mr. Bush was led up the garden path. And the returns from his mid-life conversion to neoconservatism are now in:

• A guerrilla war in Iraq is dividing and bleeding America with no end in sight. It carries the potential for chaos, civil war, and the dissolution of that country.

• Balkanization of America and the looming bankruptcy of California as poverty and crime rates soar from an annual invasion of indigent illegals is forcing native-born Californians to flee the state for the first time since gold was found at Sutter’s Mill.

• A fiscal deficit of 4 percent of GDP and merchandise trade deficit of 6 percent of GDP have produced a falling dollar, the highest level of foreign indebtedness in U.S. history, and the loss of one of every six manufacturing jobs since Bush took office.

If Bush loses, his conversion to neoconservatism, the Arian heresy of the American Right, will have killed his presidency. Yet, in the contest between Bush and Kerry, I am compelled to endorse the president of the United States. Why? Because, while Bush and Kerry are both wrong on Iraq, Sharon, NAFTA, the WTO, open borders, affirmative action, amnesty, free trade, foreign aid, and Big Government, Bush is right on taxes, judges, sovereignty, and values. Kerry is right on nothing.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
And it goes on about why Kerry is wrong.  Not much of an endorsement for Bush. I've been saying for a while the Bush isn't really a republican.  Go ahead vote for Peroutka

Wow, these guys were amazingly prescient here.  I am very impressed by their quick analysis of this situation, and their bravery in publishing this in a time when it could not have been a very popular move to do so.

fb

[Prospero]

I'd be interested to know who endorsed Nader, and why.

It was Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com, who wrote his article from a libertarian point of view, although there is another article written in support of the Libertarian Party candidate.  American Conservative is a great magazine.  I think it did a great job of making the case for all of the candidates.