Posted on 01/21/2004 9:58:05 AM PST by 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)
You just made me pro-choice.
You confuse berating with plain old ridicule. Go create the 500th version of a 3rd party. Hell in a century or so you may get above 1 percent. The flea running up the elephants leg with rape on its mind can't hold a candle to the “we are going to teach them a lesson this time" midgets.
I'll bet you floss with an electrical drill too.
Don't come out in public please.
LMAO! My nomination for quote of the day. LOL!
No even the Mcaniacs weren't this stupid. This is the "we will never vote for Bush again just like we didn't vote for him before" site.
LMAO!
Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
If you're for real,Kerry should frighten you even more than AlGore. You can do the research then tell us all how John Forbes Kerry is a good deal for the country and for you.We're waiting in breathless anticipation for your wish and well reasoned answer.
I'm rolling here... I can't get the visuals out of my head ;-)
Unlike the Bushbots around here, just because an idea comes from my party does not necessarily mean I will support it.
Correction: that name should be John FRAUD Kerry.
Truer words were never written. After listening to the remaining Democrats last night, I am convinced that re-electing Bush means life, or death, for our nation. This is the most crucial election my country has faced in my rather lengthy lifetime.
Look at the choices:
1) A maniac (or at least bi-polar) doctor with delusions of grandeur.2) An admitted perjurer reverend who bases his claim to fame and leadership on a made up case full of lies.
3) A fraud from New England -- lied about his ethnicity and then changed it when it became more convenient to claim something else. Flip-flopped from a VN War supporter (1st campaign) to an Anti-War demonstrator (after he lost the 1st campaign) and who threw someone else's medals away and lied about it to grab the headlines. Flip-flopped on his support of the Iraq War -- voted to get in, then withheld his vote to support the troops with funds. I sure don't want to place my life and the lives of my children and grandchildren in Kerry's hands.
4) A "still wet behind the ears" Southern lawyer who made his fortune on the backs of the disabled and who blathers on, bluffing about subjects he knows nothing about -- Islam, foreign policy, education. Is this the candidate who wants to turn the oil and all the contracts over to the UN to manage? Or is that #5? In any case, don't these creeps remember all the UN food found in the bombed out kitchen of Uday Hussein? Could we really trust the UN to handle the oil and the reconstruction contracts without being stolen blind by them?
5) A former general who was relieved of his command for reasons we still do not know, but his former colleagues are not supporting him. He knows nothing about domestic policy and has "secret" plans for ending the war in Iraq by turning over the whole operation to the UN (an organization that didn't want it in the first place.) He's also a major flip-flopper.
6) A US Rep who is just plain weird. Three wives got rid of him. Why would we want him?
7) A Senator and former VP candidate who is the most reasonable of the bunch but who seems weak and ineffective as a leader.
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.