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

[jpsb]

Populism is not conservative.

Not true again, it all depends on the idea that is popular. Just because an idea is popular does not mean it isn't conservative. If the people were to demand and end to the income tax and a return to a traffic to fund the federal government that would be a very conservative idea. Conversely should the people demand that everyone get a federally funded free lunch on Tuesday, well that would not be a conservative idea.

[jpsb]

aggree to disagree .... no problem and I have with you on tort reform. I blame stupid juries.

[Texasforever]

You don't even understand what "populism" means. That makes it pointless to continue.

[Beck_isright]

"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."

The major point that I agree with.

[jpsb]

a person, esp. a politician, who appeals to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people

[Petronski]

Pre-f**king-cisely!

;O)

[nopardons]

Huey Long was a " populist ".

William Jennings Bryant was a " populist ".

Would you please look up the definition,before making future claims;PLEASE ?

There really IS a difference between " populist " and something that is " popular " with the populace. LOL

[Texasforever]

person, esp. a politician, who appeals to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people

Well at least you looked it up. Huey Long was a populist, PJB is a populist. They have NO relation to conservatives who are free trade, pro-competition, pro-business, anti-union, and are not isolationists/protectionists. The "conservatives" you lay claim to take the exact opposite views on the items I listed aka populism and are the exact oppisite of true conservatives.

[jpsb]

I could care less about the personalities, I care about ideas and as I said the definition of an American Conservative is one that supports the original intent of the Constitution. And free trade is not conservative nor the original intent of the Constitution. In fact tarffic are explicitly enumerated as a means of funding the federal government. yall like income taxes, I rather have tarfics.

Also the governement should not be pro-busness or pro-labor or pro-marriage. The governemt should be pro enforcing the laws, protecting the country and building infastructure.

[jpsb]

see 285

[Texasforever]

I could care less about the personalities

I only listed personalities as examples of the "populist' philosophy. I have also clearly shown that populism is not in any way close to conservatism. With the exception of a few moral issues, populists are more in line with liberals. Both want government to "protect" them from competition. Reagan brought many populists into the GOP from labor unions based almost entirely on his appeal to social conservatism. They have NOT left their loyalty to Unions or protectionism behind.

[nopardons]

I saw, I read, and came to the conclusion, that you sort of know the definition, but then completely throw it out the window, when you try to refute others. Likewise, your " idea " of what Conservatism is and is not, who is and who is not a Conservative,is based solely upon what you " feel ", rather than facts.

[jpsb]

please defend your contention that protectionism is not conservative. I contend that the great industrial ecomony the world has ever seen was build behind protective tarif walls.

[jpsb]

Neither of your assumption is true.

If supporting the orginal intent of the Constitution is not conservative then what is your definition? If popularism is not appealling to popular ideas amongst the people then what is popularism?

[Texasforever]

please defend your contention that protectionism is not conservative. I contend that the great industrial ecomony the world has ever seen was build behind protective tarif walls.

Because protectionism protects bad management, lazy workers and obsolete technologies. The ONLY reason the US has the strongest economy known to man is precisely because protectionism has been rejected for so long.

[nopardons]

What's a " tarffic " or a " tarfic " ?

I assume you mean " tariff ", which you don't understand any more about, than you do " populist ", or the Constitution, or, for that matter, what the FF's had in mind. LOL

[jpsb]

You might try answering the two questions I posed instead of posting insults.

It always comes down to insults doesn't it. You guys really are clueless, you drink the cool-aid and now you think you are so much smarter then the rest of us. Funny really, but it is a drag rarely finding anyone that can debate me. Oh well such is life. later.

[Hotdog]

I'll second that...if Bush loses I'm going to load my mouth with tobacco and spit on anyone that tries to take me away....

[jpsb]

No it doesn't, protectionism protects domestic industries from foreign competition. With good anti-trust laws there is plenty of domestic competition to prevent bad management, lazy workers and obsolete technologies.

[nopardons]

Populism, as the term is applied, is the base fears and/or biases of the ill educated, the gullible, and the greedy. It has little to NOTHING at all to do with " appealing to popular ideas amongst people " and there's no such word as "popularism ".

Go read Huey Long's speeches. His " EVERY MAN A KING " stuff, is populism at it's height; or low. So is W.J. Bryant's " CRUCIFIED ON A CROSS OF GOLD " !

Most people like ice cream, but NO " populist " has ever talked about people's love of ice cream.

Conservatives come in many different stripes. We all agree that government should be smaller, that government should lower taxes, and quite a few other things; however, just as there are many types of Republicans, there are more than just a few varieties of Conservatives. Just look at your fellow FREEPERs, for crying out loud.Do they all agree on everything ? No. Does that make some here NOT Conservative? Well, the answer to that, is ..... YES , however, you'll NEVER get the ones who aren't, to admit to that, because they think that everyone else isn't a for real Conservative. LOL

And, just how do YOU know that your idea of " original intent " of the Constitution, is correct ? It is, because YOU say it is ? LOL