VANITY: The best way to keep America a sovereign free nation is to keep the Democrats out of power!

Free Republic

[Jim Robinson]

Will Bush solve the illegal immigration problem? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush solve the government spending problem? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush solve the campaign finance problem? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush solve the drug war problem? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush solve the nation's education problems? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush solve the so-called healthcare problems? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush solve the so-called environmental problems? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush solve the social security problems? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush solve the medicare problems? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush defend America from those bent on destroying her? You'd better bet your sweet bippy he will.

Will any of the Democrats defend America? Hell no they won't. They'd rather turn us over to the U.N. They'd surrender to the French Foreign Legion if given the chance.

Will Bush appoint conservative judges? Yup!

Will Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Hillary, et al, appoint conservative judges? Yeah, right. And hell will freeze over tomorrow.

Will Bush continue reducing taxes? Yup.

Will Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Hillary, et al, raise your taxes as soon as they possibly can if given the opportunity and continue raising them until hell freezes over? Yup.

Will Bush defend the right to life? Check

Will Bush defend marriage between a man a woman? Check

Will Bush defend the right to keep and bear arms? Check

Will Bush say no to Kyoto? Check.

Will Bush say no to a world court? Check.

Will Bush say no to the U.N.? Check.

Will Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Hillary, et al, remove our national sovereignty and subjugate America to world government? Just as quickly as they possibly can if given the opportunity.

Will any other person be elected to the Presidency in 2004 other than Bush (God willing) or a Democrat? Obviously not.

Doesn't make a lick of sense to me to allow the America hating, freedom hating Democrats back into power now that we've kicked them out.

Say yes to sovereignty for America and continued freedom for all Americans.

Say no to the RATS!!

[WOSG]

"Get in an inept socialist weenie who is soft on terrorism, ... "

And get another 9/11 by 2007.... And in 4 short years, you can LOSE countries from freedom to tyranny, create an economic depression, and set the country back for years with bad judges, bad executive orders that solidify our decadent culture, open borders, expand welfarism, etc.

Let us be clear - Kerry was and is a Kennedy-liberal-big-spender who is claiming Bush's spending is NOT ENOUGH, his guest worker program is NOT AMNESTY ENOUGH, he should GO TO THE UN to beg permission to do things, and that abortion is a wonderful thing.

Yes, we survived wars and depressions. A man recently survived a lion attack. That doesnt mean it is wise to throw yourself in the lion's den saying 'here kitty!'.

[WOSG]

No matter who wins in November, we'll get further government expansion."

Disagree... Bush and a *conservative* Congress that wins on his coattails will cut spending.

They have already cut the taxes and now the pressure is on to cut the deficit to match. 2 choices:

A. Undo the tax cuts.

B. Cut back on spending.

Kerry/Democrats will do A.

Bush/Republicans will do B.

[WOSG]

to a man (no women present), they agreed that President Bush MUST be re-elected. If he's not, then the deaths of over 500 troops will have been for nothing. WHY? Because a Democrat President will either turn the War on Terror into a meaningless police action and/or subjugate our security/troops to the tyranny and corruption of the UN [The guys became absolutely apoplectic when they thought about the possibility of our troops wearing 'blue helmets'!]

Absolutely! This will have to be a key reason and component of the re-election campaign.

But we have to be clear what the Republican party success rests on, a 3-legged stool ... Economic freedom/conservatism (low taxes, small Govt); national security ("peace through strength"); cultural pro-family values ("faith, family and freedom").

Bush will need ALL THREE components to hit all cylinders to win. This is why his lack of fiscal restraint and the resulting disaffection from 'small-govt' conservatives is troubling. Some people emphasize some issues more than others.

[Texasforever]

... Economic freedom/conservatism (low taxes, small Govt); national security ("peace through strength"); cultural pro-family values ("faith, family and freedom").

Bush is aces on everything you listed except spending and "small government". However; that is exactly the same as Reagan. Reagan also failed on spending and he left government larger than he found it. In fact every president leaves with government larger than he found it and spending more than when he entered office. If Bush is abandoned because of one leg on that stool then the nation truly will get the government it deserves with all 3 legs sawed off.

[spodefly]

it's not over the top, is it? ...

[WOSG]

... Economic freedom/conservatism (low taxes, small Govt); national security ("peace through strength"); cultural pro-family values ("faith, family and freedom"). Bush is aces on everything you listed except spending and "small government". However; that is exactly the same as Reagan. Reagan also failed on spending and he left government larger than he found it. In fact every president leaves with government larger than he found it and spending more than when he entered office. If Bush is abandoned because of one leg on that stool then the nation truly will get the government it deserves with all 3 legs sawed off.

Reagan had the excuse of a Tip ONeill run Democrat Congress passing spending bills. Bush has a Republican Congress - it was a GOP Congress that under Clinton cut the deficit by $100 billion in one year.

The problem is that Bush is actively undermining fiscal restraint. It's not that he is forced into this through compromise on other issues ... he's just throwing away opportunities to cut ... tell me why didnt he veto the Farm Bill and demand that they cut down the cost, give nit was far more expensive than he claimed to want? Why hasnt he vetoed anything?

On the other side of the coin, Bush is the best tax-cutter since Reagan... If G W Bush would only keep the spending and welfarism in check, he'd be another Reagan.

[WOSG]

"There's not much I can do beyond sending emails/faxes to the Republicans except withhold my vote and make sure they know why. Unless I deem some or all of the Georgia races to be too close to risk it, I'll vote 3rd party or write in where possible. At this point, the GA contests look to be comfortable for the R's."

Dont be so sure - no race is a sure thing... look at 2000.

Besides, we need you in the GOP GA PRIMARY, to vote for Herman Cain!!

[Texasforever]

tell me why didnt he veto the Farm Bill and demand that they cut down the cost, give nit was far more expensive than he claimed to want? Why hasnt he vetoed anything?

That is a no brainer. The farmers make up a very powerful "conservative" voting bloc. That bill was applauded by many right here in FR. The problem with "base" politics" especially GOP "base" politics is that the base is much like the population, in that it contains many and sometimes conflicting interest groups. The PJB contingent swooned over the Steel tariffs while the traditional fiscal conservatives were outraged. That has happened with EVERY issue that has come up around here for 3 years. One portion of the base or the other is always “outraged” by anything Bush does. That is just the nature of what we loosely call “the base”.

[WOSG]

Your hyperbole far outmatches the facts on the ground.

We do have a nation. It does have its sovereignty. Indeed we are the worlds #1 economic and military power.

"The Supreme Court of What? "

The USSC determines many legal questions that profoundly affect our lives. Do you want Scalia, who's opposed the worst example of judicial activism, or an ACLU liberal like Ginzburg making those important decisions?

It's utter nonsense to pretent these issues dont matter just because a lot of mexicans are crossing here illegally. It' a problem but not the end of the world.

[trussell]

Book Mark

[TomasUSMC]

Some are encouraging people NOT to surrender to the left. They say that it is discouraging when the Republicans don't do what we wish they'd do, but to not give in and not give up.

I ask you the question, who is doing the surrendering?



Do we continue to encourage the Republicans with our votes and yet try to discourage them with our talk? I say now is the perfect time, while there still is time, to change the Republican Party by withholding our vote and money. The Polls show that the President is losing to Kerry. ----It is as simple as this:
-----We will not vote for the present President until he secures the border. We could ask for much more. This is not surrendering to the Left. Matter of fact, it is not surrendering to anyone, including the GOP leadership. We fight to protect our Country. If the President wants our vote, all he has to do is secure our borders during wartime, which is Now. That would be expected of any President during peacetime, for goodness sake. And why the border, because without a border you don't have a country.
And without a country all these other political issues are moot. There is still time for the President to burn away this fog of War, and get back on the Right road.

It is unbelievable what this President is doing.

He is risking losing the White House
so that he can continue to keep our borders unsecured - IN A TIME OF WAR.



And here then, is the real question, Why is a republican president surrendering, giving in and giving up this presidential election, to the left? That is the question that needs to be answered.

It is not US, that is surrendering. Our duty is to vote for who will represent US. If the President decides he does not want our vote, and enacts laws to prove he does not want our votes, then of course, ......we should not give our votes to him. And without our votes he is losing now to Kerry and will lose on November 2nd.

It is not the conservatives who are giving up.

It is President George Bush who is giving up. WHY?


There, it has been said. The President has shown, not just by words, but by his premeditated actions, again and again, that he does NOT want our votes. So...

Maybe the GOP will win with Rinos and without the conservatives, good for them. But ruinous for our Country. I for one, will not be part of it.

And yet I feel the President needs our help. I want to help my President. I have served many Presidents before. But now I fear for him and our country and my best efforts are not to be a yes man on the Titanic.

Mr. President. I urge you to get back to the helm, and steer clear sir. Steer Clear. See with your own eyes. Listen alone to the storm that is ahead. Try and find your loyal crew. They have been separated from you sir. Look now how you are surrounded by strange new faces. None who fought for you in our great victories. No, these newcomers are the Rinos who would turn our Warship into a barge carrying trash.

Mr. President, Call for US! We will rise up and again surround and protect you. We will drive the scurrying rats back into the dark and make our ship again - a Light that shines above the Seas.

[NittanyLion]

Disagree... Bush and a *conservative* Congress that wins on his coattails will cut spending. They have already cut the taxes and now the pressure is on to cut the deficit to match. 2 choices: A. Undo the tax cuts. B. Cut back on spending.

We have a "conservative" Congress and pressure to cut the deficit right now, and it's yielded no reduced spending. What will change between 01/31/04 and 01/31/05 that will produce this benefit?

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

As to the education question, I don't know who will pay for their education. Who says that I believe in public education? Uncovered medical bills? I guess they will pay for it if they want service. Or, they will have to find a privately funded charity. As far as the prison question, we will have to pay. Prisons wouldn't cost so much money if they were properly run. I believe in open borders, but that doesn't mean allowing criminals or people we have deported to enter. Downward pressure on wages that means less tax revenues? So the objective for our country should be to take steps to increase tax revenues? There should be no federal income tax. Taxes, would be more or less user fees. You can't get out of the socialist mindset, can you?

[George W. Bush]

Even the "wartime conditions" example is just an "Argument from Necessity", George.

Admittedly. It's a stretch now, given our success in the M.E. and against Al-Qaeda, to call it a war. A guns-n-butter war just isn't a real war. So it isn't relevant to the current spending.

Admittedly, if the Canadian Hordes ever come rampaging over the Northern Frontiers in an orgy of rapine and pillage, it might be a justifiable necessity to run up the balance on the USA National Credit Card for the necessary Tanks and Bombs to drive the Canuck sons-of-whores into the sea...

Actually, I'd let them invade. Except the frogs. Longtime advocate here of statehood for the provinces, especially the western ones.

But that is a long way from claiming that such Fiscal Profligacy is "economically beneficial".

Actually, it's questionable if it's even politically beneficial which is the real Rovian objective.

I remain utterly unconvinced that running up a $500-Billion Dollar Deficit, per year, can ever be considered "economically beneficial" if one truly measures the short-term gain of Inflated Economic Growth against the long-term drain of a few hundred billion Government Bonds which require an additional 5% Debt Service per year, every year, for the next 30 years.

Even given our central position in the world economy and the petrodollar strategy (which subsidizes our oil consumption), it's difficult to overcome the stark numbers.

The next half-century in East Asia threatens to be very interesting.

Got that right.

[petercooper]

This is just common sense!

[citizen]

If America implements a guest worker program that actually works, closes abusive loopholes such as anchor babies (How about "You are only born a U.S. citizen if your parent is a legal U.S. citizen."), federally-mandated welfare for illegals (How about "We'll help you until we drop you off at the border."), etc. etc....somebody actually has to...do something about it, and that is what our President is doing, like it or not.

When I see elements such no anchor babies & no welfare for illegals in the Bush proposal then we can talk about it.

Not likely, though I will do my part to agitate for such policies to be enacted -- or WRT anchor babies, the repealing or revision of the 14th Amendment, Section 1, granting citizenship to anyone born inside our borders.

[hoosiermama]

Couldn't agree with your desire to eliminate welfare and anchor babies more.....BUT contact your congress critters and ask for the legislature....Bush, by virture of his office does not/cannot write the laws.....GO directly to GOV101, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

[AuthenticLiberal]

What is a conservative judge, really? Is it someone that opposes abortion and other little programs or someone who rules that the interstate commerce clause does not grant congress the authority to regulate everything? Bush isn't a conservative and he won't appoint conservatives to the bench. He'll appoint leftists with a tendency for keeping their pants on.

[AuthenticLiberal]

What does it matter if neither side gets you what you want?

[Bush2004]

Welcome to Free Republic.