Republicans Against George Bush

Personal Creation | 1/21/04 | Manny Paulet

[MannyP]

REPUBLICANS AGAINST GEORGE BUSH

1. Who are we? We are Americans. We believe in small government, America first, the Constitution, the rule of law, secure borders and competitive capitalism that favor the needs of the average American over the rest of the world.

2. Why are we against President Bush? Chairman of the GOP Gillespie has stated that the GOP does not stand for limited or smaller government and President Bush is acting accordingly. Cutting taxes is a good thing, but not when cutting a single program or entitlement hasn't even been proposed. The opposite is true. New or expanded programs are constantly being proposed by the Bush administration. Since the advent of the Bush administration, government has become a larger and even more intrusive force in our lives. In addition, continued free trade overtures threaten to destroy the economic viability of the average citizen of the United States.

3. What do we want? We want likeminded Americans to vote for the Reform Party candidate for President of the United States and for Republicans in the congressional races? We think that enough people voting for the Reform Party in the presidential election, and doing so publicly AS REPUBLICANS, should cause President Bush to lose. This in turn should create a demand within our party for a President more in line with our principles. If we do this, we must make sure that OUR Republican party hears our message. This makes it twice as important to get every Republican voter that we can get publicly behind this. They must not stay at home for the election. I hope to be able to point to the numbers of people who vote for the Reform Party candidate and tell our Republican leadership that we are the party of small limited government, strong national defense, individual rights, a rule of law and sound economic policies.

4. Do we mean for the Reform Party candidate to win? This is not a goal of this group. We want to create a public demand for a small government GOP without leaving the party.

5. Does this mean that we approve of Dean or any of the other Democratic nominees? No! We explicitly reject the Socialist /Democrat party and think that their actions are causing the decline of this great nation. It is because our beloved GOP is becoming indistinguishable from the Democrats in other than foreign relations arenas that we are undertaking this action.

6. Are there any up-sides to this action in the 2004 election? It is likely that there are many Republicans that are disillusioned with the current administration and Jim Gillespie’s leadership. The likely result is that many will stay home. This could cost us seats and/or control of the House or Senate. If enough people turn out to register this protest vote, we could increase our majority.

7. Do we have any specific long term goals? If President Bush loses due to our efforts, it is our hope that our party leadership will enact a platform more in line with our traditional Republican principles. The next candidate should also be more concerned with sound domestic policies.

8. How many people would it take to accomplish our objective? According to recent election results, a few thousand in just a few states could change the result of a presidential election.

9. What happens if we do not succeed? If Bush wins in 2004, after eight years of growing government and spending, the average Republican will be dispirited and stay away from the polls just like what happened to his father. Also, the people will be tired of a war on terrorism that can’t end and the strength of foreign policy will not sustain the next candidate either. (Remember; “Its the economy stupid” ?) Facing increasing debt, a lack of meaningful employment, and a dispirited/divided Republican Party, Hillary/Bayh will likely be elected. Strengthened by eight years in opposition, the Democrats will be united and will show up to the polls for Hillary/Bayh. To those who claim that it can't happen, I would refer you to those of us who said Bill would never get elected or reelected and those who said that New York would never elect Hillary. Does it still seem so far fetched? How many Republicans have you met who are really excited about the direction of Bush's domestic policy?

10. What’s in it for R.A.G. BUSH? When we pledge allegiance to the “Republic”, we do so not to any politician or party, but rather to the republican system of limited government set up in the Constitution. We consider socialism and tyranny in all of its forms an enemy to be conquered and not one to compromise with. We get to do something to try to keep freedoms lamp lit in America. We want our children to know the greatness of the United States, not experience its decline. Enough people talk about all the things that are wrong, let’s do something. In 2008, we want to help elect a strong Republican president who stands for the things that we value and who will face the ineptitude of one of the eight candidates that are currently contesting the Democratic nomination. We have faith in our fellow Americans. If our purpose is righteous and Americans united, who can stand in our way?

"This idea that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path." Reagan (1964)

[gatorbait]

Correction: that name should be John FRAUD Kerry.

I stand well corrected

[onyx]

I couldn't agree with more. Well stated and here's a reminder.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Once a Dem gets into office, this country can kiss off installing Conservative judges to the bench for the next few decades.

[onyx]

Exactly right, BSF. A democrat president will appoint Bader-Ginsberg clones and maybe even Alan Dershowizt and Johnnie Cochrane.

[Nanodik]

What attracts you to the Libertarian party, their stance on DRUGS? No restrictions, anything goes?

Were the LP in power and proposing to open up the borders, I would bitch loud and clear. Right now, since they are unelected there is plenty of time to get their platform changed before it ever becomes an issue. As for the drug issue, my main worry is donuts. Philosophically speaking, if you allow the govt to dictate what you can eat or drink or smoke, have you not surrendered your very being over to the govt? And if it is the govt to decide what is good for you, how long before they come after your Marlboros? And after that, fatty foods? Do you think anyone really needs a donut? You look at all the fat people in this country and you know those donuts must be a social ill. It is just a matter of time before they end up telling you how to wipe your ass. You need to take things to their logical conclusion.

[BigSkyFreeper]

People think the loss of freedoms is bad now, wait til all the judges have the same opinions on every case that lands in their laps. The Patriot Act needs to be toned back, it was passed with sheer emotion from both sides.

The day will come when my congregation won't be allowed to have the nativity scene on IT'S OWN PROPERTY because someone who doesn't pray at the same church I go to got offended because the grocery store happend to be along the way. I respect other's religious freedoms, I just wish "other's" would respect mine.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Were the LP in power and proposing to open up the borders, I would bitch loud and clear.

The borders were and always have been open. We don't need to close the borders, we need to enforce the damn laws.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Right now we have no restrictions, to a point. If I want to smoke, I can't smoke in a restaurant or any other public place, it's that simple. We're a land ruled by laws. No law says I can't smoke at all, but laws state where I can smoke, and it's usually where I don't want to be, in some cases. We also have choices. If you want to eat fatty foods 3 times a day, go for it, no government is telling you that you can't, they are telling you the dangers of eating fatty foods all the time. (heart disease, high cholesterol, death, yada yada, the "usual suspects"). The UN however wants to control everything in this country from the internet to what you eat every day. The last time I checked, the UN had no jurisdiction over the Constitution. The UN, in and of itself, is a country within a country. They're immune to our laws, to a degree. The UN's insistence of reaching judically where they shouldn't is what bothers me. Food labels don't bother me, and smoking in my home shouldn't bother anyone.

[Nanodik]

I think you are missing the point. If you do not protect someone's right to smoke pot, use cocaine, etc. then you have surrendered the choices of what to eat, drink and smoke to the govt. Just because you do not want to smoke pot or take cocaine does not mean you should not be outraged that the govt is passing laws to prevent others from doing it.

[MannyP]

I am curious as to where I criticized the War on Terror. I predicted that "the people" would grow tired of the war on terror and elect Hillary. That is different.

[MannyP]

I not only voted for President Bush, I have a campaign sweatshirt and a "Victory 2000" Republican National Committee Card. I supported him 1) because I hated Gore and Clinton. I owuld have voted for the town drunk over Gore. I will vote for the town drunk over Hillary. 2) I believed that Bush's heart was in the right place and that he would restore Republican values to the White House. 3) I liked the guy. I have voted for the Republican candidate in the last 4 Presidential elections.

[MannyP]

I am a Republican of libertarian i.e. freedom loving leanings as I think that Reagan was. The decision was between the Libertarian and Reform party's on who to throw my support to. What made the choice clear to me was that the reform party is not quite as anarchist and believes in America first.

[spintreebob]

Government is, by definition, the institution in society with the power to coerce others. If there were anarchy, the power hungry would dominate those who just want to be left alone. Thus limited government is created by reasonable people. The debate is over HOW LIMITED should this government be?

The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from some powers but is silent on the states using those same powers. Other parts of the Bill of Rights, eg the 2d Amendment, apply to all governments.

Interstate commerce and many other powers of a government are no different. The question is how to build a system of checks and balances and where to draw the line.

I, like you, prefer a much more libertarian approach by eliminating the FDA, and its clones. But to imply that regulation of food, alcohol, pot and cocaine are all the same is ridiculous and make the libertarian argument look ridiculous. There are, in fact, logical differences.

The biggest difference is not in chemistry, but in forcing a situation (extreme libertarianism) on a society not yet ready to accept it.

Forcing libertarianism on an entire non-libertarian society is an act of non-libertarian force just as much as forcing socialism is. We are not going to win by being hypocrites.

Yours for creeping libertarianism, Bob

[MannyP]

What no one has addressed is whether or not they dispute the scenario that if Bush wins, Hilalry will be President in 2008. That is the scariest thing for me. For those of you who dismiss it as too horrible to happen, don't. This is precisely what happened with Slick Willy.
There are several joint goals fo this program. They include keeping GOP congressional majority, causing Bush to lose thereby making our party more conservative as the Green Party has made the Dems more socialist AND preventing Hillary from being able to run in 2008. For those of you who despair of proper judges getting appointed, its not like we are getting those now. Judges that want to simply follow the law instead of inventing it are not being given a chance for an up or down vote. Within 36 hours of this post, I will have a website at
www.RAGBUSH.com
I invite all of you who are considering that I may have some idea of what is going on to visit the website. I don't like the idea of any Democrat being in the White House any more than any of you, however sometimes you have to sacrifice the short term for the long term. Feel free to email me at MPaulet@aol.com with suggestions and ideas.
The question I really want all of you to ask yourselves is whether you are Republican to be Republicans or whether you are Republicans because you stand for principles. Seeing how our president is selling the national interests out in a potentially politically astute move to capture Hispanic votes should give any Republican pause.
I have lived in many places and was stationed in Berlin. I saw the wall that a socialist regime built to keep its people in. We have travelled far on that path. Our Republican system of government is the best system ever devised for men. We need to fight to keep it. Feel free to email me at MPaulet@aol.com with suggestions and ideas. God Bless America

[Nanodik]

But to imply that regulation of food, alcohol, pot and cocaine are all the same is ridiculous

Hardly. Tell me where in the constitution is limits the power of the govt as to where it can regulate what I eat or drink or smoke? Give up? Of course, because there is no clause in the Constitution giving the authority to the feds and now that they have assumed it, there really is no limit to what they can regulate. You don't think the herbal nuts are now outraged that ephedra has been banned? What do you think the reaction would have been 80 years ago if you had said the feds were going to consider banning an herb?

Forcing libertarianism on an entire non-libertarian society is an act of non-libertarian force just as much as forcing socialism is.

The US was designed as a libertarian form of govt. The feds have very limited and defined powers under the US constitution. The DOI recognizes that men are endowed with certain unalienable rights (thereby forbidding tyranny of the masses). Socialism is what has creeped into our govt and by any objective interpretation of the US constitution, would be wholly illegal in the US.

[levotb]

Hi, MannyP!

Sorry it took so long for me to reply to you cogent words. I respect and value your service to this country.

I can't argue with your points--they are excellent and we are in total agreement. "How" Bush loses this year isn't important--it is only important that he lose. Whether one votes for a third party out of protest or stays home isn't as important as the GOP being sent a message--that presidents like Bush are NOT who we want in control of our country. He and Ashcroft have run rampant over the Constitution (Patriot Act) in ways that Billy Clinton never would have dreamed. Remember how many conservatives were seriously worried about Clinton declaring Martial Law in the days prior to Bush's taking over? Yet, look what we got! Granted, Clinton didn't have 9/11 and its aftermath to deal with.

Again, I voted and supported Bush through the 2000 campaign when 90% of the town I live in voted for Gore. I'm no longer in the GOP, but I'll vote "conservative" everytime. However, as soon as Bush got in, he bolted towards the left with amnesty for illegals, kissing up to Vincente Fox and--whether Republicans like this or not--allowed the country and the FBI to go sleep when 9/11 hit. Then, instead of immediately going into Afghanistan, he waited 1.5 months, allowing Bin Laden to escape. I remember scratching my head and wondering, "WHY did we take so long to go after the scum?"

Excellent points, again, my friend. I salute you. levotb

[ObiJuan]

Where did our party go. Everyone has gone leftward. Gone is the day of the Kennedy Democrat. Today he would probably be a Republican not because he moved to the right but because the ESTABLISHMENT Republican Party has fallen off the leftward edge. Does anyone really think that we can give back the powers that the increased federal government has taken back to the states. Does anyone really think that it will be easy to end the nanny state especially with a large group of RINOs in Congress.

[levotb]

Hi, LivertyValance--

I have news for you--G.W., if re-elected, will be raising your taxes big-time to pay for his Mars and Moon Missions, his sending our own Social Security monies to Mexico, to pay for the trillion-dollar boondoggle called the Medicare Pill Bill and for his expanding the War on Terror to Syria and possibly Iran--and for everyday we stay in that toilet bowl called Iraq. Where do you think THAT money is going to come from? The tooth fairy?

levotb

[levotb]

Hey, Onyx--

You are referring to G.H.W. Bush, of course, who was at 91%...before the crap hit the fan.

G.W. Bush is in trouble with his base, and if he wasn't, you wouldn't be coming out so forcefully. But, I have to admire your effort, nonetheless!

levotb

[levotb]

Bravo, Nanodik!

Whatta great pseudoname!!

Bravo!

levotb