Republicans Against George Bush

The title of your thread needs to be changed because it is MISLEADING at best and actually DISHONEST. This is not the "Personal Creation" of a REPUBLICAN. It's the rant of a self-proclaimed* Libertarian Randite who wants others to join in his efforts to cause President Bush to LOSE the 2004 election.

*From your "Capitalism and Communism Are The Same (Repost) My Own Thoughts | 5/27/03 | MannyP" thread: Email me with comments at MPaulet@aol.com PS- I am a Conservative Libertarian.

Philosophically, I am a conservative libertarian. I am however a member of the Republican Party, Young Republicans, and have either voted for or campaigned for Republican candidates all my life. I am a Reagan Republican.
Ayn Rand wrote a great book in Atlas Shrugged. She did it so well that it not only points out the flaws in socialism, it exposes the flaws in objectivism quite well. Just as in communism, her system begins with the statement, "If only men...."
The greateness of the American system is that it takes one of men's greatest weaknesses, greed, and turns it into a strength. However, as De Tocqueville predicted, the American Republic can survive only until Congress bribes the people with its own wealth.
You are right about one thing. I do mean to cause President Bush to lose this next election.

Could you support the Reform Party instead? Check out www.ragbush.com

Central control over education or anything else does not work i.e. is not as efficient as local control. Mainly, it provides jobs to a bunch more government workers. The prescription drug thing was not even being lobbied for by the senior citizens that were its major beneficiaries. It is plain pandering. However, the really wrong thing is that government programs once created are never eliminated. As Reagan said, they are the closest thing to eternal life that we will see on Earth.
Serving two terms is not the norm, but the exception. It is highly unlikely that any of the Dems currently running would serve two terms. They have not one tenth the ruthlessness, facility with lying or charisma of Slick Willy. Hilalry will be 65 by the time the 2012 election rolls around. If she does not run in 2008, she will not run ever. Therefore, if Bush loses Hillary never runs. If it pulls our party in a more Reaganesque direction, I am all for having four bad years witha socialist rather than four more years of semi-socialism by someone in my party.
Even if your unlikely scenario is right and he is waiting for the second term to really get conservative, it is unlikely that any new entitlements would go away. Not only that, but it would virtually guarantee that Hillary would become president in 2008. That is something that I cannot abide.
You say that we are a rich country. How many well paying jobs have disappeared in the last 15 years never to return for average Americans? About 5% of the population is doing well and supporting the rest with taxes paid on their earnings. The rest of our population through globalization have become a non-scarce and therefore economically valueless resource. That particular point made me choose the Reform Party over the Libertarian Party to throw my support behind.

OK, but here's the thing. The base is dispirited. They will likely stay at home anyway. That could cost us a lot more than the Presidency. It could cost us control of congress. That we must keep at all costs. That is why I'm asking people who agree with me to make sure and get out and vote Republican for congress. Not that many congressmen with fires in their bellies are left from the 1994 Republican revolution. If people join me in opposing Bush and get out and vote instead of staying at home we could keep and maybe even increase our majority. That same congressional majority should be able to stop any real crazinesss by a Dem president.
I agree that we are a divided people with half of them ready to blame America for anything. But, I think that if we believe in our system and get another leader, another Reagan type to run, it could mend lots of things. Reagan's greatest gift was that he believed in the system and in the American people. His unwavering career of over 40 years of beating the drum of freedom was an inspiration to all. Reagan united us. All of his career, people were telling to be more moderate or to be satisfyed with less. Reagan never caved regardless of which way the political winds were blowing. Even his harshest critics would agree that he never pandered to the people, but acted on his firm convictions.
Limbaugh has even described many of Bush's maneuvers to curry favor as Clintonesque. Bush may indeed be a good political tactician, but the people need a leader. Bush is not him.

(and really Bush has dome a LOT that is great)

I can't think of anything off hand...enlighten me.

"....back GW Bush to the hilt...."

Careful how you word that. It sounds kinda, well you know.

What makes you think that he would have any better luck with a Supreme Court judge than he has had with lower level judges like Estrada? Yes, if electing Bush would guarantee me good Supremes that followed the law instead of inventing it, I too would think it was worth it. However, I see that as not very likely. With us in control of congress, theoretically we should be able to keep any wanna be Platonic guardians off of the Supreme Court.

As much as I hate ad hominem reply, this is simply moronic, sounding like the ranting and raving of a 18th/19th century Luddite at the blossoming industrial age.

1. Congress appropriates. If you truly want less government, make that clear to your congressman that you want to see less spending. And remember, less spending begins at home. Tell your congressman no pork in your neighborhood. Bet you haven't got enough guts to do this.

2. Trade restriction had some potential for local economic benefit back in the days when information flowed on quill scribed pages that moved between continents by horse or sailing ship. In a world of near instant and incredibly cheap information flow, trade restriction is a guarantee of backwardness and economic failure. This is an irretrievable consequence of the information age. And the only way alternative is a declining third world economy.

Learn to compete and accept the fact that manufacturing is going to be done where labor is cheapest, taking into account the cost of transporting raw materials to their point of use and the finished goods to their point of market. If your living is earned by sweat, don't expect to be paid more here than anyplace else unless your sweat delivers a local service.

3. If you are against immigration and the Bush "guest worker" program, then you should recognize that it is impossible to stop illegal immigration and that so long as our borders represent a line of profound economic demarcation, the flood will continue. Absolutely the best thing that could happen for American jobs and American well being is for the economy of our immediate neighbors to improve. Then free trade is truly bilateral trade and immigration will slow. Alternatively, you can minimize the profundity of economic demarcation by driving our own economy into this cellar. This is the ordained outcome should the latter day anti-free-trade, anti-immigration, America-first, Luddites somehow gain power.

The Bush programs recognize these realities. Unfortunately, the Pat Buchanan, America-First, Republicans are as ignorant on these matters as your average labor union member/blue collar democrat.

4. Labor is always necessary. But until there is much nearer economic parity between say Mexico and the US, US wages for unskilled and semiskilled work will move in the direction of the Mexican norm. If we allow wages to freely float, they will decline, but jobs will stay in America. If we hold the wages artificially high (by means of legislation), jobs will leave. No rational person would predict equilibrium sooner that 20 or 30 years.

In the mean time, assuming Gimmecrats don't gain power and crush our economy forever, those who are smart, hardworking, and well educated will competitively prosper. The Gimmecrats call this the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and blame the plight of the poor on the rich instead of the information age. But the reality is that the next 20 to 30 years will indeed be rocky with uncertain outcome.

Republicans ought to clearly recognize the truism that 1/2 he people in America have below average IQ's, the future of the not too bright is not too bright, especially given a garden variety public school education, and that the Gimmecrats are clearly targeting the not too bright as their constituency. And since being reasonably bright is hardly a guarantee against being gullible, they can appeal to a few of the smart ones too. We need a positive answer here folks. The answer of the Gimmecrats is that those of us who are smart, well-educated and work hard pay for the rest. But if we do by virtue of wealth transfer, we become totally non-competitive as a nation and move down toward Mexico rather than bringing Mexico upward to US.