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)
OMG! I'm gagging at the thought. Ted "The Swimmer" on Mt. Rushmore. Why does the Democrat Party attract the worst reprobates in the country?
Unless it gives you a Perot who can throw the election to the likes of Bill Clinton for 8 years. 3rd Parties can be dangerous to the health of the nation.
At the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, then-President George H.W. Bush had approval ratings of 91 percent. Tell me, onyx, how did his second term turn out?
FACT: The Democrats ARE the greatest threat to conservative principles in America today.
FACT: George W. Bush's re-election is the ONLY defense against a new onslaught of leftist ideology in the halls of government, in our courts, and in American society.
FACT: I think it's pretty well established that most of the naysayers on FR these days are 1) disruptors from the DNC who pretend to be Republicans who bash Bush; 2) disruptors from DU who pretend to be conservatives who bash Bush; 3) disgruntled Buchanan supporters who still hope that Pat hijacks the conservative movement and carries it back to the 1930s and '40s, and to about 15% of the US electorate; 4) the terminally crumudgeonly; 5) those who are still ticked off that most Freepers didn't support Tom McClintock in the California recall.
FACT: The naysayers spend more time trashing George W. Bush than they do trashing John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards, and all the other Democrats combined (which should tell you something).
FACT: I predicted back in September that the very same people who attempted to destroy the Republicans' chances of replacing Gray Davis would be sharpening their knives to destroy George W. Bush in the new year, and my prediction has proven correct -- you are precisely the same people, making the same tired arguments, but now targeting them at Bush.
FACT: It's fine to disagree with Bush on any one or number of policies, but we've rounded the corner in this election cycle and now is the time for all conservatives to emphasize what they support about Bush's Presidency, rather than tear at each other over one or two single issues.
FACT: The Bush-bashers haven't said anything new in weeks; it's the same old mantra.
FACT: It’s a minority of people on FreeRepublic who incessantly complain about George W. Bush…
FACT: …and the rest of us really don’t give a rat’s patootie what they think.
FACT: Jim Robinson has repeatedly made clear that, yes, this is a conservative discussion site, AND that it supports the re-election of Pres. Bush, supports the war on terror, supports the effort in Iraq, supports the President's judicial nominees, supports (in general) increasing the Republican majorities in Congress, all as the most practical means of correcting largely 60 years of leftist tilt in this nation. And...
FACT: These incessant criticisms of Bush go way beyond honest disagreements on policy, taking on an emotional edge which suggests that those who continue to gnaw on this particular bone suffer from the inability to step back, take a deep breath, and actually contribute something positive to the discussions on FR in particular, and to conservative interests in general.
Frankly, I’m wondering when the Overlords here on FreeRepublic will decide to start deleting these over-the-top posts bashing President Bush. Nothing new has been said by the naysayers in weeks, probably months. “We don’t like Bush’s immigration proposal!” Fine. “Bush spends too much money!” OK, duly noted. “Bush shouldn’t have signed CFR!” Given the Supreme Court’s distressing decision on CFR, Bush himself probably now regrets signing it. All of these points have been made over and over and over again, day after day after day, umpteen times a day. What more needs to be said? We’ve heard it all, and nobody is swayed by the arguments. So what’s the point of constantly repeating these attacks on Bush?
The point clearly seems to be to disrupt discussion on FR. We all know the Bush-bashers’ concerns. We all know that a majority on FR also share these concerns, but have determined to vote for Bush regardless because of the big picture and other issues on which he is conservative.
The Bush-bashing posts long ago lost any topical or meaningful discussion value. Nothing new is ever said on them. They’ve taken on the quality of graffiti on buildings in the inner city – they are an eyesore and they degrade the overall “quality of life” of the “community.” They need to be spray-painted over. Intelligent discussion no longer takes place on the bashing threads. I found a typical comment on a recent Bush-bashing fest, as one intelligent poster made us all aware that “Bush makes me puke!” This observation was then concurred in by yet another poster.
Very seriously, when are the Overlords on FR going to take back control of this forum and rein-in the disrupting posts? If a negative post on Bush is placed on FR which actually broaches new territory, then fine. But the never-ending regurgitation of the same old slop every day, dozens of times of day, has decreased the quality of FreeRepublic. The litter needs to be picked up and disposed of.
And how did Pres. Perot's Administration fare?
Probaby because they all share the same "values system."
Oh Man! And I though James Carville was the master of changing the subject!
This is the subject. This thread, and virtually every other thread that blasts Bush, are put up here by the whiners and restricted-vision types who will always vote for a Perot or a Buchanan out of "principle," thereby opening the door for pure evil (the Democrats) to take power. This is precisely the point. If you don't see it, well, that's part of the problem, isn't it.
"My way or the highway" sounds great in cowboy movies, but in the world of practical politics respecting your base and communicating with it is necessary to a winning formula. I submit that ridiculing their principles, calling them whiners and other names is simply a way of driving them out of the party. Thanks for writing back to answer my original question. While I respectfully disagree with your premise, I certainly admire your passion.
So are you Libertarian, Republican, or Reform? If Libertarian as you state in the above what not support your LP rather than the RP.....
PS...... Does any of the following names mean anything to you?
Straw man arguement, Einstein. At this point in his term, GWB enjoys the highest approval rating since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956.
He is also backed and supported by 91% of registered, voting Republicans.
OK, I'll give you a grade of 91% for sarcasm -- but Bush dosn't have the luxury of ducking questions by declaring them straw men. Candidates who do ultimately lose.
By the way, I happen to be a big fan of Einstein. He came to this country legally. If you *really* want to cut me to the quick next time, call me Karl Rove! [ ;) ]
Failed to do what? Failed to not support the LP on their open borders policy?
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.