Posted on 01/26/2004 11:36:44 AM PST by yatros from flatwater
George Delano Bush
Posted: January 26, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Vox Day
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
George Bush met with some skeptical listeners in his recent State of the Union address, but he truly convinced me of something. He convinced me that the Republican Party, as the party of small government, is dead. Oh, I understand very well that in terms of electoral votes, the Republicans have seldom had a future that looked more immediately promising, but the party is nevertheless a soulless zombie of an institution.
Or rather, make that a vampire. For the Bush administration is sucking the lifeblood out of the United States with every raising of the federal debt roof, with every new federal entitlement, with every new Clintonian promise to end someone's pain somewhere, somehow. Consider the following federal spending increases:
This is not even Clinton-lite, this is simply armed left-liberalism. Note that the increase in domestic departments dwarfs the increase in defense spending during a time of war. This is astounding!
Now, the president's defenders argue that President Bush has no choice, that the exigencies of the War on Terror require that he accommodate his Democratic opposition in order to free his hand for his duties as commander-in-chief. But this is precisely backward! Wars do not prevent chief executives from driving the domestic agenda – in fact, history supports the opposite premise.
Did FDR refrain from his radical program of nationalization once the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in order to accommodate his conservative opposition? On the contrary, he put the pedal to the metal and increased government spending to the greatest share of the economy it has yet known. From this, I conclude that President Bush is doing exactly what he intended from the start, but he is using the war as an excuse to placate his hoodwinked conservative allies instead of using it as a political weapon to bludgeon his enemies on the radical left.
But if the Republican Party is dead, where can those who believe in republicanism, small government, individual freedom and the Constitution go? Right now, there are two places: the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. Either, in my opinion, are vastly preferable to the empty charade of the GOP.
Ultimately, both parties must eventually merge into one Freedom Party, which will certainly require some level of initially uneasy assimilation. Some libertarians will need to accept that abortion is a violation of the unborn child's unalienable right to life, while conservatives will need to recognize that drugs are not an appropriate target of federal warfare. Christians will have to understand that using the state to enforce traditional morality will always backfire in the end, and everyone will have to wake up to the fact that government largesse is nothing more than poisoned bait.
George Bush has not destroyed the Republican Party by himself, he is merely the culmination of 24 years of false promises. Actions speak much louder than words, though, and his resemble none of his predecessors so much as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, expanding central government and eradicating individual liberties during a time of war. He could have been George Jefferson Bush, or even George Reagan Bush, instead, he chose to become George Delano.
As the November elections approach, there are those who will say that one must simply accept the inevitable and vote for the lesser of two evils. To them, I will only say that regardless of whether it is big or small, supporting evil is anathema to any man who seeks the good, the right and the true. Three political generations of Republican promises of future virtue to follow the whoring of Republican principles should be enough for any honest conservative to abjure the party once and for all. I did so 12 years ago – I have never regretted it for a moment.
It is painful to admit that one has been betrayed. It is even more painful to see the rock roll down the hill, and know that one must begin pushing it back up again. But every journey begins with a first step, and sometimes wisdom requires embracing what the world believes to be folly.
Vox Day is a novelist and Christian libertarian. He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and the Southern Baptist Convention, and has been down with Madden since 1992. His weekly column is syndicated nationally by Universal Press Syndicate. Visit his web log, Vox Popoli, for daily commentary and responses to reader email.
I can see that you are not interested in arguing, but rather contradicting. Your original argument was that he compromising with the governed, i.e. that his ideals are in line in conservatives, but were compromised to meet those of the general populace. Now you have changed your argument to suggest that his ideals are not in line with conservatives and he is not compromising, but rather leading. I'm not going to waste my time responding to contradictions.
1. Bush is not a conservative.
God Bless him, I like the guy, but he is NOT implementing conservative policy. To wit:
a. Accelerated growth of government, as pointed out in the article. (NOT a Republican ideal, in case you're confused.)
b. Amnesty for illegals. Polling shows that Americans oppose amnesty at a 77% rate. Even many evil Libs. (Rewarding lawbreakers is also NOT conservative.)
c. Has publically stated that he will sign legislation not only extending the Clinton 1994 AWB, but supports enlarging it. (I know you think I "worship" guns because I pointed out that GUN OWNERS will not vote for him if he does this. This is not worship, unless you have a problem understanding the concept of worship too.)
2. Because Bush has demonstrated he is not listening to the conservative base of the party, he may lose the election.
a. This does NOT mean those who recognize this fact are 'disrupters' or 'Liberals'
b. Being a conservative does not mean switching off your brain. Just the opposite in fact. So knee-jerk reactionism doesn't make the cut for being conservative.
c. Voting for a third party or abstaining is sometimes the rational response. Why? Because if you continue to approve of that which contradicts your set of principles for the sake of winning only, you've missed the point. If a politician never gets negative feedback (i.e. LOSING AN ELECTION) then all the subsequent successors will continue to screw the base.
Okay, now respond with some name calling to remain consistent. Call me a Liberal Disrupter who Worships Guns or something...But if you were honest, you would think about these points and either refute them rationally or ponder them further.
Once again you remain consistent. Gotta give you that. My responses take a bit longer than your witty by half repartee. Sheesh.
Bush-Bashing Conservatives Should Focus on the Big Picture
The key question going into the 2004 presidential election is "What is a conservative to do?"
The answer to this question is simple: conservatives must wake up and smell the coffee. The best choice for conservatives; the best candidate to advance our agenda; and the best person in which to put our hope and faith is President George W. Bush.
On the two previously mentioned issues of immigration policy and federal spending, conservatives only need to look at the alternatives to see that President Bush is the right person for the job. Regarding immigration policy, if Sen. Kerry were to become America's next president, there would be no need to debate the merits of granting legal status to a portion of illegal immigrants, because wide spread amnesty would be the policy of choice. Both Kerry and Edwards favor amnesty for illegal immigrants and would open the flood gates on America's already porous borders. According to campaign information, both Kerry and Edwards favor legalizing the status of illegal immigrants who have worked in the U.S. for a certain period of time.
The best hope for the immigration issue and border security is for conservatives to work diligently for President Bush's reelection and to demand sensible immigration reform from members of Congress. The real work on immigration will be done in Congress. Conservatives must push for meaningful reform, while working to ensure that the candidate who most closely shares our views wins in November. That person is President George W. Bush.
In regards to federal spending, one can only imagine the budgets that would be submitted by Kerry, Edwards, or Dean. A score card of liberal votes in Congress maintained by Americans for Democratic Action shows that Sen. Kerry actually has a more liberal voting record (93%-88%) than his Massachusetts counterpart: Sen. Ted Kennedy. Thus, a Kerry presidency means spending restraint by the Executive Branch goes right out the window. Conservatives have a right to be angry over spending, but the way to fight for our cause is to demand that our Republican legislators trim the pork. It is also up to us to push for presidential leadership in this area. We should support President Bush in his call for fiscal responsibility. We should also call on the president to unleash his veto pen if fiscal responsibility is not what he gets.
[end snip]
1) I cannot agree that with the statement that Bush is not a conservative. He is merely not a full blown conservative on every issue and there are some issues on which he takes a middle-of-the-road stand. I can live with that...a few can't. I will settle for the best I can get rather than something much, much worse.
2) I also disagree with your second point. He may have disappointed the ultra conservatives of the party, but they are not the biggest part of his base.
Furthermore, many of them will still vote for him because they know that helping to elect a very liberal Democrat helps no cause whatsoever other than a liberal agenda.
I think the majority of people look at it as similar to a friendship or marriage. Our friend or spouse may let us down from time to time, but most of us don't kick them out and invite in the neighborhood crook to occupy his/her spot.
I really do hope you are right, that there is some strategic long-term plan at work here that will ultimately allows conservative ideals flourish. The problem is that the enemy never rests, only conservatives do. If we allow them any quarter, they will subsequently press incrementally for more. Appeasement only emboldens them.
The potentially great class of '95 was redirected by Newt from their mandate to shrink goverment. They were ballyhooed into accepting a bogus 'Contract' that was put in place to divert their goals of deleting entire departments of the Federal government. It was a brilliant move to preserve the growth of government, but a demoralizing defeat for awake conservatives.
Yes, we surely do .I really don't have a cogent reason why. Perhaps it is the conservative way of putting something into place, showing how it works then expecting logic to dictate over sloth and emotion.
Well you must do what you must do, but before you start patting yourself on the back for "voting your conscience", think of your conscience of the future.
If you take enough votes away from the much more conservative candidate and hand the people of this country a John Kerry or a Howard Dean and whomever either would appoint to the SCOTUS, you should feel shame for a whole generation or two.
You know a third party will not win and thus, you know who you help by playing this little game of taking all your marbles and going home.
You may well end up a worse enemy to the future of America than a proud liberal.
There are at least 2 things that Mr. Bush qualifies as conservative. He is pro-life, and he cuts taxes. Both excellent creds.
Being Middle-of-the-road on issues like growing the size of government is not possible. It's like being sort of pregnant. Either you are or you aren't. Growing the size and scope and intrusiveness of goverment is solidly a liberal position. Ditto with erasing the meaning of our laws and borders via rewarding illegal immigration.
2) I also disagree with your second point. He may have disappointed the ultra conservatives of the party, but they are not the biggest part of his base.
We shall see. Mr. Bush can win back the "ultra-conservatives" if he takes heed of the growing dissatisfaction and alters course. Many big tent Republicans in 1992 believed as you do now. They thought the conservatives were a lock and would never abandon the 'big R' when GHWB the 41st buckled to the pressure of the Liberals. They were wrong. Maybe you are right and being indistinguishable from circa 1975 Democrats won't cost GWB the election.
Furthermore, many of them will still vote for him because they know that helping to elect a very liberal Democrat helps no cause whatsoever other than a liberal agenda.
You would be correct in your assessment. Many people will hold their nose and vote for him no matter how identical he governs to a classic demonRAT. The only key to change is maintaining the House and Senate.
A RAT in the Whitehouse would be "horrible" if we lost the congress. Otherwise, if the RAT proposed EXACTLY what a supposed Conservative like Mr. Bush has foisted upon us, it would get the necessary scrutiny and be shot down.
The upshot would be the hand wringing at the National GOP and wondering WHY they lost. A cursory analysis would show them to stand for recognized Republican principles in reality, not lip service. Whether they would act on that in 2008 remains open for debate.
I think the majority of people look at it as similar to a friendship or marriage. Our friend or spouse may let us down from time to time, but most of us don't kick them out and invite in the neighborhood crook to occupy his/her spot.
Agreed, if it is not serious. However, if your spouse was cheating on you with your neighbor, you caught him, and he just kept going next door, would you say the same thing? Sure he might have some great points, but the fact of the matter is, he is betraying you and your trust.
That is precisely what some here are expressing. Mr. Bush has some great points. We really like him. But if he keeps hopping the democrat fence and sleeping next door, we can't overlook that.
I cannot agree that with the statement that Bush is not a conservative......should read....I cannot agree with the statement that Bush is not a conservative.
The life issue, by itself, has a profound effect on the future of our country.
If we reach a point where the sanctity of life is but an ancient philosophic memory, nothing else will really matter in the not too distant future.
Therefore, I am willing to put my trust in a Christian man, flawed as are we all. His worst mistakes or errors in judgment cannot compare to what the Democrats want for America. That's enough for me to be thankful for the Bush presidency and vote to keep him in office.
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.