GOP PRIMARY PROTEST VOTE

e-mail from Citizens Lobby | 1/18/2004 | Unknown

[JimRed]

If your state is holding a "primary" vote for the Republican candidate for president, Citizens Lobby strongly urges you to cast a "blank" ballot -- OR write in a candidate of your choice.

We recommend Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan or Alan Keyes...

President Bush needs a wake call and your vote is a great way to send him a message.

[FreeReign]

Then numbers for President Bush are too few for a good sample, but one certainly can't extrapolate a trend of fiscal restraint from them.

I agree with that.

[Owen]

Thanks for providing that raw data.

Some observations. In the first 3 years of Reagan's presidency, he does seem to have spent more as a % of GDP than GWB, and yes, the budget cycles are such that only 1 of those years can be validly compared.

And yes, I agree that RR had a more expensive Cold War to fund, but yes, I also agree this is about discretionary expenditures more than defense.

Let's also note that given this is a matter of "% of GDP", then a growing economy is going to improve one's percentage. That would have been . . . hmmm, I don't remember if Volker's work really had taken hold by then or not. Regardless, the point is to do the comparison in a really thorough manner we need to know the GDP growth numbers RR vs GWB had to work with. But without going to get that data, these numbers you've provided are nevertheless illuminating.

So we really have only one number to compare. Your choosing Reagan's last years of 8 versus Bush's first 2 is probably not a valid comparision. We should look only at the numbers that purely compare, i.e., RR's 2nd year vs Bush's 2nd year. That's a pure 1:1 comparison. For RR that is 1982 and his discretionary spending was 3.9% of GDP. GWB's was 3.5% of GDP.

The Clinton years are largely invalid because of the growing economy he inherited and the arrival of the dot com boom, but it is particularly useful to note how he drastically gutted the military. His reduction in total spending derives from that and the dot com boom that affected the %.

So interesting overall. Clearly GWB has spent less in discretionary spending than the same year of presidency for RR. Also, frankly, the numbers don't move much overall. 3.5ish% seems to be the multi decade standard for discretionary spending as a % of GDP.

[Delta-Tango]

[Terry McAuliffe thanks you for keeping him in office and for helping put a Democrat in Office.]

---

Hey there, Howlin!

As Sollozzo said to Michael Corleone in The Godfather: "You think too much of me, kid -- I'm not that clever."

The truth is that Karl Rove is much more of an ally to the Dems by infuriating the GOP base with this amnesty-on-the-installment plan. Does Karl (I'm the Smartest Political Operative in the World) Rove *really* think all these "willing workers" he's inviting in are queuing up at Motor Vehicle Department to register Republican?

Sorry Howlin, but I think it's Fat Karl who just got himself the MVP award from the DNC!

[Hoverbug]

After a period of time they'll show up for dinner. They always do.

Really? Like they showed up for Dole? My memory is they didn't show up for dinner again until the Party went back to the right, Newt, Contract With America, you know, all that stuff.

Hb

[ClintonBeGone]

Really? Like they showed up for Dole? My memory is they didn't show up for dinner again until the Party went back to the right, Newt, Contract With America, you know, all that stuff.

Let me give you a little history: Newt = 1994; Dole = 1996.

[ClintonBeGone]

You must have a lot of time standing in the corner facing the wall.

I never turn my back on the children :) Now go to your room!

[gatorbait]

gatorbait, you're thinking of Lenora Fulani, who is most definitely far far left.

Cats, thanks, I admit I was confused there .What was the deal with that alliance anyway?

[Catspaw]

What was the deal with that alliance anyway?

Just venturing a guess: $$$$$

[Catspaw]

Let me give you a little history: Newt = 1994; Dole = 1996.

Thanks for that. I thought I was having one of those "...when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" moments.

[34512a]

Hey, I didn't list the names, the e-mail did. Lets hear some constructive suggestions!

Vote for Russel Kirk.

[cc2k]

Amelia wrote:

---

Can you tell me what percentage of votes Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, and the other "true conservatives" received in the 2000 primaries

---

You would have to include George W. Bush in the conservative ranks in 2000, and that means there were a whole lot of votes cast for conservatives.

Remember, George W. Bush ran as a conservative and promised to advance parts of the conservative agenda. After being elected, he signed a CFR law that he promised to veto if it had certain provisions in it (and it still had those provisions in it when he signed it). He also let Ted Kennedy write the "No Child Left Behind" Education bill.

Then, we conservatives were told that we couldn't expect the conservative agenda to be advanced because Dems controlled the Senate. So, in 2002, conservatives turned out in large numbers and the Senate was turned over to Republican leadership. In return, we got farm subsidies and a huge Medicare entitlement so that our grandchildren can buy pills for Bill Gates when he gets older.

Now, the Bush campaign wants us to believe that if we re-elect Bush, he'll be a conservative in 2005-2008, but he can't be conservative now because he needs to get re-elected. Well, I'll probably hold my nose and vote for Bush this year because the alternatives are just too scary to consider.

I do think that we need to register some sort of protest. And the Republican party needs to decide if it wants to be truly conservative, or if it wants to be the Socialist-lite party. And if the Republican's don't want to be conservative, then there should be a truly conservative party to challenge them. This is especially true if the Democrats continue to marginalize themselves (and Whig out as might happen). That might provide an opportunity to shift things to a two party system where the current Republican party (most of it anyway) is the liberal/socialist choice, and a new conservative party (Constitution Party?) provides the balance and challenge from the right.

If conservatives don't come up with some plan of action, we will become the blacks of the republican party. Always counted on for 90% plus turnout, and never getting anything of consequence for those votes.

[gatorbait]

Buchanan's running mate was Ezola Foster

Thanks ,I had already read the correction in an earlier post, but I appreciate your input. That all said, Buchanan is a fringe candiate who continues to marginalize himself on a too regular basis. I 'd like to say he deserves better , but his wounds are above all, self inflicted.

[deport]

Lenora Fulani and the Reform Party.... essentially she had some control over the party and Pat needed her votes so he took her on as a campaign co-chair to which she finally left in mid 2000.

http://www.politics1.com/reform04.htm

[gatorbait]

Thanks, deport. :- )

[bc2]

What exactly do you find so difficult to understand about the United States Constitution?

---

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article. I.

Section. 8.

Clause 1.
The Congress shall have Power To...

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

---

That stupid, dusty old document. We don't need that anymore. Or is it a living document, that we can twist and change at a moments notice to suit the fancy of the day?

Whatever you may like to call yourself, you sure ain't a Constitutionalist or someone who cares about the Republic or the turn it's taken for the worse.

[Hoverbug]

Let me give you a little history. The Party went to the right in 92, then when they pulled the same ol trick in 96 of heading back left, the voters responded.

Hb

[deport]

and a new conservative party (Constitution Party?) provides the balance and challenge from the right.

---

I read a post by one of their State Ch. the other day saying they weren't really pushing the Presidential race this year but concentrating on lower level races... which ones I have no idea...... But they can't get over 100,000 votes nationally then they have very little to work with. Any party that becomes a start up party needs to get the grassroots orgs in place in order to be a viable player on the national scene, imo.

I guess the Perot, Reform Party or whatever he ran under would be the exception... He had the cash, was willing to spend it, and got a ton of free publicity from LKL. The libertarians usually field a lot of local candidates yet get very few elected. It's a tough road to traverse for the 3rd party, I think.

A poll the other day indicated that the Republicans support the President by some 91%... In the Primary race it makes little difference if he has a bunch of unknown challengers as he'll win the nomination easily, imo. Now if they stay away in the general it could present problems.....

[gatorbait]

What exactly do you find so difficult to understand about the United States Constitution?

I understand the Constitution just fine. I don't understand the suicidally stupid ,fringe loving, mouth breathers who would rather whine and carp about perfecton, ergo, never being happy in life or politics,and who seem to have the warm fuzzies for utter defeat and helping elect something far worse than whom they are unhappy with. That clear things up for you?

[bc2]

*yawn*

go cheerlead for the AWB renewal, or celebrate your CFR victory.

I'll work to restore the Constitution and it's weight in our society.