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)

Will A Democrat Be Our Next President?
February 2, 2004
by Tom Barrett

It’s starting to look like there will be a Democrat in the White House next year. Unfortunately, his name is George W. Bush. Let me explain…

Traditionally presidential candidates move toward the center prior to elections. Just look at the two Democrats who seem to be leading the pack of dwarves seeking that party’s nomination. John Kerry is so liberal that his voting record had him mirroring Teddy Kennedy’s votes 96% of the time. Howard Dean would make homosexual marriage national law if he got the chance. But they are both trying to appear “moderate” right now because they know that if America knew their true agenda they wouldn’t stand a chance of being elected.

BillyBob Clinton used this strategy to good advantage during his first run for the White House. To hear him talk, he was just like all the “folks” back home in Arkansas. He realized that the majority of Americans are conservative, and that he had to trick them to gain the White House. And trick them he did. Once he was in power his first official act was to institute his infamous “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding homosexuals. This policy has caused thousands of our best military people to leave military service.

During his first three years he showed his liberal colors proudly. Then during the year prior to his reelection, Slick Willie suddenly became a conservative! I watched it happen and I thought, “Surely Americans are too smart to fall for this!” I was wrong. As soon as he was reelected, he took off his pseudo-conservative hat, put on his socialist hat, and went back to business as usual.

As much as I admire President Bush, I must report that I see him moving more and more to the left as this election approaches. For someone like Clinton, moving toward the center means moving toward traditional values that are held by the majority of Americans. For Bush, moving toward the center means moving away from those values.

Bush is acting and sounding more like a Democrat every day. We elected him because we did not want a big spender in the White House. We supported him because we believed he shared our values. We put him in office because we believed he would use his power to protect our nation.

He is signing bills that he should not sign. Many contain “pork” that serves the interests of the politicians who wrote the bills, but does not serve the interests of the American people. Others spend money in ways that the Constitution does not allow. Most are just business as usual for Washington – constant budget increases for things that America does not need or want.

Bush betrayed the family values of his supporters when he allowed millions of federal dollars to be wasted on the National Endowment for the Arts recently. This was one of the largest grants ever from the federal government to this obscenity-promoting organization. According to the Family Research Council (www.FRC.org), “The NEA has consistently funded, produced, and distributed morally objectionable art that frequently included attacks on religion, traditional art forms, and families. The NEA has also been a forum for the promotion of homosexuality, pornography and other sexually explicit material.” Thank you, Mr. President.

The President’s most serious mistake of late has been to side with the Democrats on immigration. The first job of any elected official is to preserve the security of our nation. I believe the most serious threat to our nation, both economically and with regard to terrorism, emanates from uncontrolled immigration, both legal and illegal. Millions of illegal immigrants are flooding our country and siphoning off billions of dollars in welfare. The President proposes to deal with this problem by making them legal! He says he opposes amnesty, but his plan sounds an awful lot like amnesty. His father tried amnesty, saying that once we made the illegals legal, we could control immigration. His actions only encouraged more illegal immigration. Learn from you father’s mistakes, G.W.

He has also failed to address the problem of legal immigration policies that do not put America’s interests first. We know that there are hundreds of Muslim terrorist cells operating in the United States. We know that every 9/11 terrorist was an Arab. We know that radical Islam has declared that the United States is “The Great Satan” and must be destroyed. And yet we hold the door wide open and invite millions of Arabs and Muslims to “Come on in.” “But what about immigrants’ rights?” some may cry. Under our Constitution, people from other nations (particularly known terrorist nations) do not have any “right” to live in the U.S. Immigration is a privilege. We do, however, have a right and an OBLIGATION to protect our children from those whose stated mission is to destroy us. I don’t suggest that we cut off all immigration, but I do demand that we be a lot more careful of whom we allow to immigrate. Remember that all the 9/11 terrorists were in the U.S. legally.

I believe George W. Bush will be elected to a second term. It is obvious to me that some of his advisors are telling him that he needs to sound more like his challengers for that to happen. That is BAD advice, Mr. President. America wants a clear choice. We don’t want to choose between a liberal trying to sound like a conservative and a conservative acting like a liberal. We elected you because you espoused the conservative values of the majority of Americans, and because you promised to put your words into actions. To a large degree you have done so, until recently. I believe the only way you can lose this election is to continue to act like a Democrat.

Sorry about not tending to my posting for a goodly period of time. I have been busy.

1. I don't generally pay any attention to something Chuck Schumer attaches his name to or people who are third assistant anything.

2. Alan Greenspan's most recent testimony seems to agree with my position. This is a much more credible source.

That the new and somewhat brutal rules of the information age affect highly overpaid American software engineers is hardly news. That they are in a better employment position than the less bright and less well educated is indisputable and the thought that they might need or warrant protection is foolish. The information age means a vibrant economy depends upon our our goods and services competing overseas. We can not compete if we erect barriers of any kind because the ultimate cost of barriers is higher cost.

We can remove hobbles, however, that serve only to hamper our competitiveness. For example, why should a US corporation producing product or basing service within the US have to pay Corporate Income Tax on its export earnings when they are subjected to similar tax within market country (usually at a lower rate)? Sure, there are offsetting deductions but not enough to compensate for being taxed twice. And, the foreign company, not facing this situation of double taxation at the higher American rates, has a cost advantage. Why do you think wholly owned American subsidiaries of Japanese companies make essentially no profit in the US (Because they shift all the costs that they can to the American side of the books, keeping the profits at home where there are dramatically lower taxes)?

Similarly, we can strongly incentivize and strongly defend intellectual property. Why? Because at the moment we remain the world's leader in creativity and it is essential to keep the IP value side of margin on-shore. The laws are already there and are agreed to on an international basis. They are, however, inadequately enforced at our borders.

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.