I'm just going to go off at random here because there is far too much to say and to organize in the short time that I want to get this out. In the future I'll take my time and write more elaborating articles and link them here.
On October 5 1999, Bush was again being a pathetic poll chasing, compromised conservative and decided to show where he disagreed on the GOP. His stances were notihng but mere rhetoric and clear that he was just trying to please his advisors or the PR (Public Relations) people that he has working for him. He's creaming Gore in the polls, and yet he feels the need to clarify himself to prove that he isn't an extremist, angry white male... take your pick. He said that the GOP asserts that we are slouching towards Gomorrah (the sinful city in the Bible that was destroyed). The GOP is right; George W Bush is wrong! And on top of that, he said nothing to explain what were the agenda differences between them and him, which of course would have to mean that there is some radical laws coming from the GOP asserting a false premise that we are in moral ruin. But he didn't.
My complaint as a right winged conservative is that it is not just the degree of our moral decay (teen sex cited at 60%; teen pregnancy; divorce; porn sales; strip clubs...) but the incredible systematic structure to it! In the modern world we accesorize immorality. We don't just have teen/pre marital sex; we have the theme music for it. We have the videos, the movies, the slang, the clothes, the liesure time, the malls, the paraphernalia, and the extreme generation gap between ourselves and our parents so that the morality sublimated in TV and endoctrinated in the high school locker rooms is the irrefutable religion of the times. Second of all, immorality isn't just some linear scale with a rate from 1 to 10. It is not like this recent drop in teen sex is an indication that things are better; there are more factors. Evil has a way of adapting into a new form once it is exposed. In the start, our pop culture lambasted premarital virginty and said that we need to be more free. Systematic teen sex came into play and we saw an ugly result of this proposed sexual utopia. So, now we have just the problems of the outright pregnancy and AIDS and extreme cases of moral impact regarded as the only factors of pre-marital sex. This new abstinence is just a polished off liberal street smarts instead of a conservative backlash. Instead of hardcore pornography being a mianstream problem, it is the slight seductive poses and looks in swimsuit calendars, trucker babe magazines, and promoshots by models for makeup, clothes and whatever. This is sexual morality having a finer edge and being more powerful. It is like a burgular wearing black at night making the least noise instead of a tank with a nuclear bomb advancing in broad daylight.
August 27 1999
(2)The Republican establishment pushes their nominee because of seniority
This is a fairly small point and self explanatory. George W Bush seems to have the same pull because of his family name and being such an inside player. He has just been governor since 1994 [I beleive, the year of the Republican sweep of Congress] as opposed to Dole who had been senator for a few decades. In one way, I can go off about this forever, and get into the themes behind this and the arrogance of established politicians, or I can just sum it up to say that it was stupid because moderate Republicans have a disposition for substituting ideology with power and expecting progress to be made, when it isn't. Bob Dole in 1996 and George Bush in 1992 did a fine job of squashing Pat Buchanan (and all other challengers) for the nomination, and showing their awe and power, but Slick Willie pimp slapped those two weaklings like it was nothing.
Currently, George W Bush is catching some flack for not having strong platforms. It's easy to say that you are some generic conservative, but what makes you so different from the others? What unique facet of conservatism do you apply? His attempt at "compassionate conservatism" simply means that he knows of the claims that Republicans are angry white males and that he admits that liberals are right and that he has to correct that, instead of asserting that conservatism never lacked compassion. He should get aggressive and show how liberalism, social spending, and social engineering has kept people down and in the dirt hole, and has NOTHING to do with compassion, just emotionalism. It feeds the egos of white limosine liberals. It baffles me as to why he has so much support; then I think it is clout, power, money and toe sucking; plain and simple. There's a desperation to get back in the White House and we have a growing notion in this country that you have to sell out in order to win, and that's what's fueling Bush.
(3)Moderate conservatives cower in terror to liberals and bend down to their wishes
This is one of my favorite ones. The more and more the cowardly that the moderates become to liberals the more vile and angrier the liberals get with the Republican nominee. In the 1996 race all of these pathetic attempts to build the Republicans in a better light failed. Jack Kemp called himself a "bleeding heart conservative" and was pushed as the inner city advocate; two things that should have distanced the Republicans from the image of angry white male losing power and jealous of the women, minorites, and ignoring the poor. It didn't help.
Then, the cowardly, senile notion of thinking that we still live in the days of "Leave it to Beaver" and "Ozzie and Harriet", the Dole entity pushed that he was from the 1920's and we could build a bridge to our past. This was some attempt to say that thigs were safer (as Dole said at the convention), you could leave your door unlocked and so forth. What happened? I see a journalist on CNN saying that women and minorities would disagree with going back to the 1920's. So there you have these liberals accusing Dole of wanting to go back to segregation, an all male vote, and probably slavery since the 20's were close enough to the 1860's.
Also, Dole banned Buchanan from the convention and this did nothing to prove to the liberals that he wasn't an angry white male. He avoided abortion and didn't say SQUAT. No avail. I didn't see him make any comments on how liberals are trying to engineer sexual morality in our kids in schools, nothing on how government social engineering is replacing the breakdown of the family. NOTHING. Did that help? Did that win over moderate votes? Dole got pimp slapped like a hooker.
(4)Overconfidence and arrogance
This is a quality I see in people who are power oriented. In 1996 I had a USL college Republican member say that Dole/Powell was an "unbeatable ticket". What? Moses could have run with Dole and got creamed. This same guy also said that he knew we would have a better chance in 1996 because he saw an "energy" that was not there in 1992! What? Energy? It doesn't matter how pumped up the camp is, it only matters if you can get votes beyond the core conservatives! These people who are so entrenched in their own political outlook in life can't see how other people don't see things their way. This obliviousness is killing us; and these are the exact type of people that we are systematically breeding in the party when we enforce the notion that winning is more important that ideology. You get these people who are blind and see nothing but hype, gloss, power and polls. They have no capacity to analyze socio-political themes and cultural factors and scoping out a territory in winning a race. It's just kiss you know what, read the polls, and get in office so you can do nothing.
(5)Resorting to superficial statistics, occurances, and the past
(6)Getting behind a man or a cause, which you know is poor
In the spirit of working together, Kemp got behind Dole, which was the man that he didn't like (I was told that he endorsed Forbes just before Dole locked down the nomination) and was BLASTED by Al Gore in the Vice Presidential debates for saying that Bob Dole never met a tax he didn't hike.
The reason why I have my Virgin Resistance! web page is because I am a nerd that has always existed outside of the mainstream and seen how pathetic the way my generation's sexual/dating ethics are formed. There is no church significance, there is no parental significance, and the dominant standard is established by the dysfunctional kids that are struggling with their baggage and trying to step on everyone else to get some stability or fulfillment. It's OK at screw on the first date, but not OK to open up with someone in the first few months that you date. Showing the opposite sex that you find them attractive, or that you are interested in them, is a sign of weakness and desperation, so you have to play mind games and gender based power struggles. I've seen a long list of my peers have their lives irrevocably altered and screwed because they pissed away their virginity and adopted petty pop culture superficial standards in going after the opposite sex and communicating with them.
I see that we have not liberated or freed women in this century, but just invented new ways to oppress them. When I see males that degrade women never go long without dating, and guys like me that bend over backwards to be the kind of guy that will still kiss their wife passionately after 10 years of marriage, I know that something is wrong. This is personal for me. Generic conservative males who go to strip clubs and can have one night stands if they are really tempted, mean NOTHING to my cause. Left up to them, there will never be a moral revolution in this country. It is up to nerds like me who exist outside of this mainstream pop culture and truly cut goernment soical engineering out of our lives, and boycott and sometimes even sue entities that we feel foster a culture of failed marriages, male sexual dominance, and that raises kids to learn about sex in the locker rooms (and even do it in the locker rooms).
I went to George W Bush's real website and saw that he wants to match government funds for abstinence training in schools... WHAT?!?! What the hell is this? Government in now no longer the enemy? We can have a moral revolution WITHIN government? The real conservative premise would be to push private entities for sex education to get the Parents involved, and have no government mandate endoctrinating sex into kids, and have these things seperate from school. No matter how much of a mandate any liberal has because gutless conservative paretns refuse to discuss sex with their kids, they are neevr justified in asserting that these kids are now property of the state. Let them get to the parents and kids without federal police power from Almighty Government. If these guys truly ended slavery, a couple of uptight sexually frigid parents should be NO obstacle for them!
This is the kind of pesudo ressurection that I'm speaking of. This image of a conservative agenda that isn't even consistent with the premise that leads to it. The conservative premise for all of the teen sex is that an amoral government agenda is replacing the institutions of the family and church. Faceless bureaucrats or engineering values in kids like crops instead of parents leading by example and instruction. I've never seen George W Bush ONCE go off about moral deterioration. Let's say he slept around and changed like the allegations are currently going. Changing from boinker to monogamy is NO conservative turn around. Not being a boinker is today more street sense that hardcore moral rooting. That's why we need genuine conservatives like Keyes, Bauer, Buchanan and such, but they'll never win because of this pop culture, so advocates like me have to come up with this decade long media plan to change some of this culture for us to ever make a difference.