Posted on 01/22/2004 8:07:11 PM PST by 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
And you think that is a good thing? Geeze You are worse than I thought.
...that's dog food, right?
The majority would click on "none of the above", if that was a choice.
I know I would.
So, let me get this straight... a great many more voters are stimulated to turn out and vote in November 2004, due to as you put it, the post 9 11 etc, and these motivated voters will do what??? Vote for none of the above?? What's with that?? Sounds like these motivated voters need more motivating, I mean if they are motivated to go out and vote for...none of the above?
Of course it must be such a drag, finding anyone at your level, with whom to debate, since you know so very much more than anyone else...in your mind.
If anyone is " clueless " around here, it is YOU, you who don't know the meaning of such simple words as " populist " and can't spell tariff.
Then you have moved beyond populism straight into Marxist styled socialism. The Soviet Union was VERY protectionist and fearful of competition.
Do you know what happened, recently , regarding thed steel tariffs ? What happened when, whnen Gore sent the Feds after Microsoft, dued to Microsofts' competitors' demands ?
Jim Shirreffs
i speak for myself and only myself
Nominated (1993) worst writer on the net.
You asked me to answer questions...yet, you asked me none.
You posted the definition of populism, but still don't understand what you posted.
You talk about protectionism, but don't understand its ramifications.
You spew Marxist junk and then claim that few REAL Conservatives are still on FR.
I've been here longer than you, I am a Conservative, and I know not only history, but what the words I used mean.
You have consistently ignored the very specific, historical points I have made and have gone off on your own rants, filled with egregious errors and insults.
The USA had left most tariffs behind, by then, though. S-H was a throw back and produced the opposite effect wished for.
Now talk about the recent steel tariffs.
Happy now?
But that does not mean that protecting domestic industries is bad for our ecomony. It means that targeted tariffs are not a good idea. If you are going to have a tariff it should be across the board. Or mostly so.
Yall one worlders are the Marxists not me. Yall want to buy cheap crap at wal-mart and don't give a damn about your fellow American that loses his job to slave labor in Chicom country. Site one Marxist thing I have said, just one.
With respect, that was my intention for posting on this thread in the first place. There is crap all over the place.
Dr. Keyes, as much as I actually admire the guy (and I actually do...), represents about 15% of the Party. If he represented any more, he'd be a power within the Party. As such, he got laid off by MSNBC.
Without quibbling about your numbers, it is hard for me to understand how you could consider someone who represents such a large fraction of the the ruling coalition of America to not be 'a power'. It is also hard for me to understand why you, or others who claim to care about the President's reelection, think it is okay to throw brickbats at this group, or willy-nilly group them in any way with those who have made themselves the enemy of the GOP.
Look, I know you worked for the guy and respect him. He was a UN ambassador and a respected rhetoritician within the Party. But he is not a serious politician. Serious politicians are men who are willing to give and take. Alan Keyes is All Apocalypse, All the Time.
Whatever. The thousands of Republicans, including many FReepers, who will crowd the ballroom at CPAC tomorrow morning to hear Dr. Keyes will overwhelmingly reject your harsh criticism, as will millions of conservative Americans.
Finally, I did not call Idaho Republicans Nazis, and you know it. You're building a straw man. I said that there were probably supremacists within the CP (and I strongly suspect that I am right).
Hmmm...that certainly is not how I read the content or the attitude of your posts. And your 'strong suspicions' certainly still don't represent proof...they are nothing more than specious and malicious innuendo.
Considering in the past they have nominated a candidate of Jewish heritage and leading party officers come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds (Jewish, African, Anglican caucasian), I don't think we need to be concerned about the influence of "supremacists" on the Constitution Party any more than the influence of bigots upon the Republican Party.
I don't think so, maybe on this forum, but there are lots of forums on the net. Do a search on jpsb some time and you will see that I have been battling on the net for Conservative principles since the early 90's. You think FR is a tuff forum? Try posting in a conservative group on usenet news.
Do you realize that you correctly said why the recent tariffs were a terrible thing and then turned right around and said that we should impose tariffs on EVERYTHING ? Don't you understand that new tariffs on EVERYTHING would be not just an utter disaster, but a calamity of gigantic proportions ?
We impose tariffs on everything. The rest of the world gets pissed off ( to put it mildly ! ) and imposes tariffs on our stuff to them and then what ?
Protectionism is MARXIST! And it doesn't work well.
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.