Hey, Big Spenders (don't vote lesser of two evils)

Small government conservatives and Republican leaning libertarians face a difficult choice going into the polls this year. President Bush and Vice President Cheney occasionally pay lip service to restraining government growth, but they don't mean it.

When Bush came to power, the federal government spent just shy of $1.8 trillion a year, and that was considered extravagant by many. The proposed budget for next year is $2.4 trillion, and that figure understates the total because supplemental legislation will be submitted to cover the bill for Iraq. This year Uncle Sam will spend over $500 billion more than he takes in in revenues. The nation's total national debt, as of October 21, was $7.4 trillion and change.

The website for the U.S. National Debt clock reminds us that debt has been piling up at what should be a worrying pace: $1.7 billion per day since the end of last September. As the late senator Everett Dirksen once morbidly quipped, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money."

Part of the Bush binge is due to something the president couldn't have foreseen: that Islamic terrorists would bomb D.C. and New York, inaugurating the war on terrorism abroad and homeland security at home. But spending on domestic programs has continued unchecked. Bush has yet to veto a single bill, and his party, once home to deficit hawks and budget slashers, has learned to stop worrying and love entitlements and pork barrel spending.

The Republicans' approach to highway spending, to borrow the formula of another piece of legislation that the president is so proud of, would appear to be, Leave no inch unpaved. Also, at Bush's urging, Congress passed a massive bill to subsidize the drug purchases of our senior citizens -- the richest group of retirees the world has ever known. Republicans have traded thrift and prudence for bread and circuses.

The horrible problem that small government-minded voters face is that Senator John Kerry would be worse -- possibly much worse. His party's response to Bush's budget proposal for next year was to complain that, with the exception of military funding, spending isn't increasing enough. Let me recast that for emphasis: Democrats want to spend more money.

As president, the Massachusetts senator wouldn't have the stomach for spending cuts or entitlement reforms, and his proposals for education and health care would be pricey. At best, a Kerry administration would oversee targeted tax increases to pare back the deficit and pay for more social spending. More likely, we'd have a whopping tax increase.

At first glance, the choice is between a candidate who would spend a lot more money, chip away at taxes, and at least whisper the right sweet nothings about Social Security reform and a candidate who would spend a whole lot more, raise taxes, and let some other president deal with the problem when Baby Boomers start to retire. Given those options, a lot of otherwise disaffected conservatives will grab a clothespin and pull the lever for Bush.

That's not a hard vote to understand. If I had to cast the deciding ballot between the two, I'd go for Bush. The lesser of two evils is, well, less evil. But I live in Washington state, which will not cast its votes in the electoral college for the president unless Kerry's campaign implodes. A vote for Bush here is wasted; it amounts to cheerleading for an administration that could use a stern talking to.

No thanks. I'm voting Libertarian for president this year, and I encourage all small government conservatives in solidly Kerry states to do the same. The logic behind this tactical voting is simple: If your vote won't count toward Bush's victory anyway, why not vote for a party -- even a fringe party -- that advocates a much smaller government? It would be our own small way of standing up to be counted at a time when so many of our elected leaders have decided to sit this one out.

November 2: The Decisive Election of Our Century

ChronWatch ^ | October 17 | Mathew Manwellar

Since this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm and no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.

This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication, and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands.

If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold.

First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things.

Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis, and walked upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that they don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when the country can be defeated in the newsroom. Terrorists learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America.

Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracking polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.

It is said that America's World War II generation is its ''greatest generation.'' But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's ''last great generation.'' Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of World War II, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor, and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake ''living inAmerica'' as ''being an American.'' But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities.

This November, members of my generation, which have been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the oblivion they may deserve.

I believe that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."

----------------------------------------

The lesser of two evils? That's what some would have you believe. They understand the true importance of this election, that is why they will do everything they can to get their candidate, John Kerry, elected.

The choices couldn't be more clear.

Look I've been a republican all of my life. I was Chairman of the College Republicans and have suported many for office.

But I no longer send dues to the RNC, instead I support the Club for Growth. When the party supports Specter over Toomey (Toomey by the way is bigger conservative), I begin to challenge the party and its true principles. I'm even a Life member of the NRA and GOA and NRA was wrong to endorse Specter since we cannot count on him to support the second amendment in tough votes.

As a result I'm seriously considering a vote for the Libertarian for President. Bush has had the opportunity to reduce NON_DEFENSE SPENDING (prescription drugs, farm bills, public health clinics in every county. etc.) and has failed to do so, figuring if he loads the Christmas tree with enough goodies he wouldn't be clobbered at election time. Rather than stand on principle, he opted for appeasement instead and has been bullied, coerced and lampooned in the media.

When do we say enough is enough with Republican big governemnt? In my way of thinking its not a wasted vote to support Badnarik when a vote for Bush is wasted and nothing happens in the policy front.

I disagree with Libertarians on a few issues but I find the republicans are like standing on shifting sands in the public policy debate. Bob Barr was my former member of Congress and he has announced his vote for Badnarik for similar reasons.

How many times do we have to be told a no-vote for Bush means Kerry wins. You don't want Kerry in do you? I recall hearing this in 2000 with Gore, 1996 with Dole and republican policies have not improved much even with control of both houses of Congress.

When then does my vote for Bush truly matter? Have I lost faith in republicans? To some extent, yes! Can they do better? YES. But competition from both outside and inside the party will make that shift to the Goldwater/Reagan side of the ledger not the Rockefeller side.

I voted for Michael Peroutka, of the Constitution Party, because Bush is too liberal and because Bush can't win my state, Illinois.
Here are three issues that prove that Bush is too liberal. His tax cuts are too small, and his spending increases are too large. The growth in non-DOD spending increased faster under Bush than it did under Clinton. Bush signed the drug benefit bill, which is the largest entitlement since Medicare was started in 1965. When Bush campaigned in 2000, he said that he wanted to deport more illegal immigrants. This year, he said that he wants to let some illegal immigrants stay in the U.S. longer.
If I thought that the election would be close, in IL, I would vote for Bush because I don't want to help split the conservative vote, helping Kerry win Illinois' 21 electoral votes. However, based on the 2002 election and the latest polls, I think that Kerry will win IL 56%-42%.
I hope that all consersvatives who do not live in swing states will vote for the candidate with whom they agree the most.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.