When Bush Loses In November, He Will Have No One To Blame But Himself

Chuck Baldwin Ministries ^ | 01-23-04 | Baldwin, Chuck

[Theodore R.]

When Bush Loses In November, He Will Have No One To Blame But Himself

By Chuck Baldwin

Food For Thought From The Chuck Wagon

January 23, 2004 Let me be the first one to say it: President Bush is on track to lose in November, and it won't matter who his Democratic opponent is. His fabrications, deceptions, and prevarications are just too much to stomach. His duplicity rivals anything in the previous administration, a Republican name plate notwithstanding.

It's hard to think of anything this president has done right. His policies are every bit as socialist (or fascist) as the most liberal Democrat. We have lost more freedoms during the last three years than we had lost during the previous thirty! Even though Bush has enjoyed Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, neither conservatives nor constitutionalists can point to a single victory Bush has given them. Not one!

Babies are still being aborted at an escalating rate. The Bush administration has done as much (or more) to promote the homosexual agenda as any Democrat. Bush has proliferated the growth of federal spending and corresponding federal deficits to levels not seen in decades. Furthermore, he has created the embryo of a giant Orwellian police state while at the same time offering amnesty and legitimacy to foreign criminals who have invaded our country. If all of that isn't bad enough, Bush even threw his support behind the Clinton gun ban!

Due to Bush's dismal record, the Democratic nominee (whoever he is) will have to work at losing this election. The facade of a "wartime" president is wearing thin. Moreover, gas and oil prices have skyrocketed since oilmen Bush and Cheney rode into Washington, D.C. In addition, without a willingness to cut spending, Bush's tax cuts are a fraud! And now Bush wants to spend an additional billion dollars annually (where this money is coming from nobody knows) to send men to Mars. Get real!

Beyond that, Bush has repeatedly stated that his war against Iraq was fought for the purpose of "enforcing the demands of the United Nations." Now, isn't that lovely? Does he really expect us to re-elect him President of these United States after hearing that he ordered more than 500 brave, patriotic Americans to die in Iraq on behalf of the UN? Does he think we are a bunch of morons? He must.

G.W. Bush deserves to be a one-term president. And the truth is, the nation won't be worse off with a Democratic replacement. At least with a Democrat in the White House, Republicans in Congress might decide to actually oppose liberal policies.

With a liberal Democrat in the White House, a president might get 40% of his agenda through Congress. Bush, on the other hand, will get 80% of his policies through Congress, and Bush's policies are every bit as bad as any liberal Democrat's. So, you tell me who is actually "the lesser of two evils."

(If you would like to track the ongoing Bush record, go to http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bushrecord.html.)

Therefore, when Bush loses in November, he will have no one to blame but himself.

© Chuck Baldwin

[Nanodik]

An odd comment, coming from someone with "dyke" in his/her screen name.

I have always said I was a lesbian trapped inside a man's body...

[Theodore R.]

I guess everybody's tax situation is different. The Bush changes made little difference in my case. And aren't these "cuts" temporary at that?

[Theodore R.]

Did Bush rescind the Clinton executive order permitting abortion-on-demand for any reason at any time in military hospitals?

Did Bush rescind the Clinton requirement that family planning agencies not offer information on the consequences of abortion? Reagan-Bush had required such information be given to the patients. Liberals damned that as a "gag rule." (There was also a "gag rule" from 1836-44 in the House, when that body forbade the receipt of antislavery petitions.)

I am glad that you are pleased with the President's prolife position. When he said that the culture does not "now" make outlawing abortion possible, why do you think that he has not spoken more on the issue in an effort to move public opinion?

[donozark]

Only way GWB could get them past the RINOS and DIMS was "temporary." However, in his State of the Union speech he stressed the desire to make them permanent. This is key to CEOs/small businesses that plan ahead. Also, investors, large and small.

I regret you did not benefit from one or more of the tax cuts. If I asked why, I realize you'd have to put your business on the street, so to speak. So I won't ask you to do that. However, surely, in SOME way you have benefited from the 3 tax cuts? Everyone I know, to date has...

[Theodore R.]

I think it is very possible that Bush will name a judge who turns out to be pro-abortion if and when a Supreme Court vacancy occurs. Apparently, none of the judges are "dying" to relinquish their power. When the judge turns out to be pro-abortion. Bush defenders will say that he had no choice given the opposition to a prolife justice iby the Senate.

[Theodore R.]

My daughter moved out and got a job; so I lost her tax exemption. That offset any help from the Bush tax cut. The taxes are still astronomical to me.

[donozark]

The first tax cut-received just prior to 9-11 attacks, surely you got a check?

You should, eventually benefit, if not directly, indirectly-via a growing economy, incresing employment as well as employment opportunities. I would certainly hope all would.

Most have an IRA/401K/mutual fund/stocks,etc. All those who do? Benefitted greatly as part of the "investor class."

[jmaroneps37]

And when he wins without you, as he will because he is bring in enough former rence sitters to replace you, you can go fet perot to lead a new party for you.

[Theodore R.]

We who are without a party are not looking for a new party. What we need is a "second party."

[baseballmom]

I intend to hold Bush accountable for the decline of affordable health care in America

Then you would be wrong, and completely ignorant of what is really happening in medicine today.

[MississippiMan]

...if a second Bush administration does not deliver on the Court, then no Republican will be taken seriously in 2008. Perhaps that is what the popular Senator Clinton is thinking too, horrors!

Yes, horrors. And she's DEFINITELY something to worry about in 2008.

MM

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

But that doesn't alter the fact that it's [The Constitution Party] another one of those nutbag groups that swears up and down that Bush is as great a threat to the United States as flouridation. That's why I hold the CP in such slight regard.

So they won't vote for him. So effin' what. They never won anything. Ask Howard Phillips.

[::Insert Wild, Sustained Applause Here.::] :)

[varon]

And now Bush wants to spend an additional billion dollars annually (where this money is coming from nobody knows) to send men to Mars. Get real!

Well, someone's got to fix the rover ;-)

[reg45]

Baldwin did not mention Supreme Court appointments; of course, there have been no vacancies on the high court in ten years.

I sure Mr. Baldwin will be overjoyed by Ketchup Boy's appointments to the Supreme Court.

[deport]

Baldwin needs to do his taxes. I did.

---

Oh I'm sure he takes everyone of the religious breaks, deductions, etc. offered in the tax code.......

[EternalVigilance]

Sheesh, man. I think you've been experimenting with life as a libertatian, if you know what I mean.

You said not to take you seriously. Okay. But the kind of attitude you convey does harm to George Bush...at least as much so as the rantings of a Chuck Baldwin.

If you want to slam Pat Buchanan, fine. He is not part of the Republican coalition, and he has earned it by spawning unjust and unfair ranters like Baldwin.

Criticism of the CP for allying themselves with people like Baldwin is also I think justified. But smearing them as racists, with no evidence (which you subsequently admit), is wrong.

But where you hurt our efforts to turn out the maximum number of voters for the President the most is when you then begin to slime loyal members of the Party. (I thought y'all believed in 'Reagan's Eleventh Commandment).

Dr. Keyes is a Republican, one who continuously fights for the things we as conservatives believe in, and one who has ALWAYS done it WITHIN THE PARTY. He most generally represents very mainstream conservative Republican values, and has a huge constituency in the GOP. Why in the hell do folks like you try and piss off a large section of the party? It serves no purpose but to vent your spleen.

To put it more bluntly, and on a pragmatic level, you are doing nothing but helping the Dems with your divisive rhetoric, especially at such a crucial time at this in a critical election cycle. Are you working for Terry McAwful, or what?

Finally, your distain for conservatives is demonstrated on this thread by your slime job on an entire Republican state: the great state of Idaho.

About 90% of Idaho's elected representatives are Republican. They are overwhelmingly moderate to mainstream conservative.
Your portrait of them as nazis is a parroting of how the liberals in the lamestream media habitually portray them. But it has no connection to reality.

So, one last time, I will reiterate: your comments on this thread are very similiar to Chuck Baldwin's, albeit coming from a different ideological perspective...unkind, unsubstantiated, unfair attacks on good people.

Lay off the weed, man.

[honeygrl]

Jim really ought to consider shrugging off the dead weight in the forum, set a cover charge, and allow us to focus on scheming, instead of fighting these 3rd party fringers, interlopers, hopeless nay-sayers, and miserable malcontents. The upcoming election is just too important.

You know, when you are trying to tell Jim how to run his forum, it doesn't really work if you don't ping him to the post.

[honeygrl]

That post didn't even come close to answering the question I asked in the post you replied to. Care to try again? What issues on the Comstitution Party Website do you disagree with?

[Cultural Jihad]

... it doesn't really work if you don't ping him to the post.

Who besides you is claiming that the owner wasn't pinged?

[honeygrl]

OK, I went back and realized that the ping list was cut off so I couldn't see but a few names. Sorry about that.

It is still not your place to tell Jim how to run his site. Personally, I have the utmost respect for Jim, the mods, and the patience they've had with all the flamewars lately.

All you are looking to do is cut off debate. You disagreeing with the point of view of many people here doesn't make the opposition "dead weight." We are also not "fringers" no matter how many times you repeat it. Saying it is so 10 times doesn't make it so. The last time I checked the home page of Free Republic it said:

"Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. "

What it does not say is "FreeRepublic is for devoted Republicans regardless of whether they are liberals or conservatives and we will throw off all the dead weight conservatives who don't vote Republican."

We have many very intelligent conservatives here who don't always vote republican but are still great assets (and monthly donors) to the forum. I am sure Jim knows that as well.