Conservatives eating their own

After Pat Buchanon's magazine's, The American Conservative, editorial board endorsed 6-1 candidates other than Bush (1 for Kerry, 2 for Badnerik, 1 Perutka, 1 Nader, and 1 Don't vote), several other conservatives are coming forward with their own critique of the Bush record and finding themselves voting for someone other than the president. I applaud the fact that these candidates are standing on conservative principles rather than Republican rhetoric. To my mind social conservatism is government activism (which is a hallmark of liberal principles.) Pat Buchanon's plee that conservatives remain in the Republican party and try to change it from within reminds me of the plee of Democrats trying to get liberals to vote for Gore in 2000 rather than Nader. Question for Pat: What exactly has this position accomplished for liberals in this country? We didn't get the party to pay more attention to our needs nor did we get a liberal candidate. We are probably going to hold our noses and vote for Kerry, but only because the alternative is so deplorable. Frankly, liberals need to find a new home. Nader didn't offer it this year and the Green Party is not yet viable. I think Conservatives should seriously consider their options as well. To my mind neither the Libertarian nor the Constitution parties are a good fit for their positions, but I understand the conservative desire to offer protest votes for those parties.

Speaking of protest votes, Bob Barr, former Republican congressman from Georgia, has endorsed Badnerik for President. Good for Bob. He was a partisan hack when in Congress, but now the air is a little cleaner and he's stepped back from the 2-party's brainwashing machines. Here's his analysis that came before his endorsement.

Walter Olson was an advisor to the 2000 Bush campaign. This year he cannot find it in himself to vote for Bush.

The Financial Times, hardly a liberal publication, endorsed Kerry. They did so not because they like the guy. In fact, they have grave reservations about him. However, Bush has been so deplorable that they felt the need to go elsewhere. Hey, as the dollar continues to plunge in international trading (don't believe the hype that Castro switched to Euros simply because the US was tightening policy - the Euro is the even keeled currency at the moment), it is going to be a monumental task for the next president to boost it and keep inflation in check. Bush got us here.

Finally, the Tampa Tribune, who endorsed Bush in 2000, is now endorsing Kerry. Like the Financial Times, they are troubled by Kerry as well. However, in a lengthy and damning editorial they tear apart the Bush administration.

Edit: Two more Republicans endorse Kerry. First is Andrew Sullivan. Hardly surprising given Bush's stance on gay marriage, but there is more to Sullivan's response than that. Sullivan reminds his fellow Republicans that if Kerry is elected, he'll have to work with a Republican Congress that will keep his more liberal policies in check.

Second is Jude Wanniski, who adds to the pile on of Bush's failed foreign policy. Wanniski notes that he differs from Pat Buchanon's nationalist views and mistrust of international institutions. Rather, he supports those institutions formed after World War Two, but feels that Bush has taken a stance that could only be described as "imperialist". Hey, it's not just liberals that feel that Bush is an imperialist anymore.