Stick With President Bush In November (Good Reasons NOT To Stay At Home) (My Title)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 01/31/04 | Henry Lamb

[goldstategop]

The most serious threat to President Bush's second term is not a Democrat; it is the growing mass of disenchanted Republicans who are accepting the proposition that there is little or no difference between the two major parties.

"Where are they going to go?" says a well-placed Bush operative. "You know they'll never vote for Dean or Kerry. And there's no Ross Perot on the horizon."

Where will they go? Nowhere. And that's the point. Republicans, especially the more conservative variety, are likely to stay home in droves. So far, the Republican strategists appear to be oblivious to this possibility.

Perhaps conservative Republicans expected too much too soon from a Republican administration. The Democrats had eight years to fill the agencies of government with activists from their special-interest groups. It is true that President Bush quickly dumped the most egregious of these types, whose positions are political plums. The underlings hired by the political appointees, however, are protected by civil-service regulations and cannot be fired, or even reassigned, without non-political justification.

The disappointment of conservatives goes much deeper and questions the fundamental philosophy which guides the administration. After eight years of watching the Clinton-Gore team march the United States directly into the jaws of a global socialist government, Bush supporters expected a screeching halt and a major course correction.

Conservatives cheered Bush's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol – a screeching halt and a major course correction – while socialists abroad and Democrats at home condemned the president.

When Bush defied the U.N. Security Council, and created a multi-national coalition to eliminate Saddam Hussein, conservatives split, some cheering the action, some joining the Democrats at home and socialists abroad who condemned the action.

The Patriot Act, the prescription drug program, the "guest worker" program, the so-called "free trade" programs and a half-trillion dollar deficit have left conservatives reeling, wondering why a Republican administration and Congress have produced results that look so much like what they would expect from a Democrat administration and Congress.

Consequently, many, many Republicans have thrown up their hands and have decided to either join some doomed third-party movement or simply stay home.

While this reaction may be understandable, it is not only self-defeating, it violates the first law of true believers: Never, never, never, never give up!

It is true that Republican hold the White House and a razor-thin majority in Congress. It is also true that the nation is divided, almost down the middle, between people who want to continue the Clinton-Gore path toward global socialist government and those who want to abandon that path and move the United States toward more individual freedom, free markets and voluntary cooperation among sovereign nations.

Rather than give up and stay at home, a better strategy may be for conservatives to realize that the election of President Bush in 2000, and securing a slim majority in Congress in 2002, is just the first step in a long journey. Conservatives should realize that it takes 60 senators to prevail over the Democrats' filibuster.

Rather than throw in the towel, conservatives might throw their effort into the campaigns of conservative candidates for the House and Senate, and for the state legislatures and county commissions.

The global socialist agenda moved into high gear after the fall of the Berlin Wall, aided dramatically by the progressive Democrats in the United States. The Bush election in 2000 disrupted that agenda, and to them, nothing is more important than removing the Bush obstacle. Conservatives who decide to give up and stay at home will be aiding and abetting the enemies of freedom.

A return to progressive Democrat leadership in the United States is a return to the Kyoto Protocol and U.N. control over energy use in the United States. It is a return to subservience to the United Nations – as Howard Dean says, to get "permission" from the U.N. before defending our nation. It is a return to total government control over land use, education and every other facet of life.

In 2000, conservatives barely got a foothold on the bridge of the ship of state. In 2002, conservatives began to get a grip on the wheel. In 2004, conservatives have an opportunity to bring on more hands and to permanently discharge some of the progressive Democrats who continue to fight desperately for control.

Democrats alone cannot regain control. If conservatives give up, throw in the towel and fail to show up for the November battle, the Democrats will win by default. Conservatives who truly believe that freedom is better than socialism, those who want freedom for their children rather than a world socialist government, will never, never, never, never give up. They will show up in November.

[kAcknor]

"Where are they going to go?" says a well-placed Bush operative. "You know they'll never vote for Dean or Kerry. And there's no Ross Perot on the horizon."

kAcknor Sez:

 In short: Barbra Streisand.

By choosing, today, so early in the election to vote for W without regard to his actions or policies we are effectively telling him there are no consequences.

He can do anything he wants to do any time he wishes to do it.

I was called last week for a donation to the Republican party and said "No". I let them know that W had pushed me to the stay-at-home edge with his immigration policy and and out of control spending. I also said if any part of the assault weapon bill remained in effect after September I would do just that.

If we don't let them know how we feel, using the only tool or leverage we have over them, the party will sit back and allow anything to happen and help to do it.

I'm not one of those people who think that both parties are the same by any means, but they are alike in one respect: they wish to remain in power. The only way to get their attention is to ensure that there is more of a chance of retaining that power by doing what we wish than there is by doing what they wish.

"bISovbejbe'DI' tImer" (When in doubt, surprise them.)

Have you checked the *bang_list today?
Get your daily dose of Newslinks!

[ilovew]

How, pray tell, would your children be pushed out of the country? And remember, it's not amnesty. President Bush is against blanket amnesty. Does it really matter if our politicians are Hispanic? I always thought that was part of what made this country great; that people can come here and be whatever they want to be. This country is still relatively new. Most people can look into their ancestry and see at what point their relatives came over here. If there weren't any immigrants, this country wouldn't exist.

[George W. Bush]

didn't you hear how 6 million Christian conservatives stayed home in 2000?

After election 2000, the figure Rove used was 3 million. I read the other day that now the figure being used is 4 million. I've never heard it claimed that it was 6 million.

But this year, it could be. Or even higher.

[beckysueb]

1 thing going for the prez. War on terror. Thats the big one

[Jonathon Spectre]

Perhaps conservative Republicans expected too much too soon from a Republican administration.

Yes, I can see how conservatives probably should not expect President Bush to veto a spending bill in his first four years. That would be expecting far too much far too soon.

[Batrachian]

"After election 2000, the figure Rove used was 3 million. I read the other day that now the figure being used is 4 million. I've never heard it claimed that it was 6 million."

Even the lowest figure is a very high number. It's 3.3% of all voters in that election, and they all would have voted Republican if they had voted at all, and they don't all live in red states. As you say, the figure this year could be higher. I still don't see how a Massachusetts liberal can beat Bush, but politics aside, the Bush domestic record is a disaster.

[beckysueb]

My husband would disagree with you there. I am such a conservative fanatic I drive him crazy. LOL. To me plain and simple its the war on terror and sovereignity of our beloved country that is more important than anything else. The rest can be fixed.

[Trteamer]

OK FReepers, lets do what FReepers do best, lets FReep the GOP!

I'll FReep Colorado's Republican Convention, how about the rest of you! 49 states to go. Lets organize and give the RINO's a real hard time.

Or would you rather let the RINO's control our party?

[Fawnn]

Vote for the Constitution Party or you'll just be part of the problem. People who refuse to vote for a true conservative party are the ones that reinforce this sort of mindset among the Bushies.

You couldn't be more wrong! And you're at the wrong place if you feel that way. Free Republic isn't the forum for promoting your misguided agenda.

Please refer to what Jim Robinson has to say about the purpose of Free Republic in the 2004 election on this thread.

[AuthenticLiberal]

Bush isn't protecting our sovereignty. We are still in the UN and he has actually aided the illegals that have entered our country. It is time that we hold him accountable for his actions.

[AuthenticLiberal]

The Dems aren't the ones spearheading the drive for a $600B deficit in peacetime. The Pubbies are. Face it, the Republicans have moved so far to the left on domestic issues. People with your views are intellectually dishonest on this. Your man is a fascist and doesn't care about limited government. How many times does he explicitly have to say that the government is often the best solution for you to accept that about him? If I should vote for him it'll be to let him spend until he's caused the socialist system to collapse under its own weight.

[George W. Bush]

I still don't see how a Massachusetts liberal can beat Bush, but politics aside, the Bush domestic record is a disaster.

Barring a successful terror attack on American soil, I don't think Bush can lose.

And the Bush domestic record, as you call it, is merely what he proposed. It's the congress-RINOs who wrote the hot checks and didn't give us the judges.

Who cares what Bush proposes? What about all those budgest that Reagan or Bush or Clinton sent up the Hill that were declared DOA by Congress?

Bush is just a convenient distraction. Rove is using him to divide us so we won't focus on the real big-spenders, the GOP congress. They have the checkbook, not Bush.

Still, it's a clever strategy by Rove. Rove thinks he can afford to lose the stay-home and third-party votes. It's not a bad bet. And the candidates most likely to pay the price for big-spending congress-RINOs is the GOP congress. Not Bush with $250 million and the WH apparatus for his campaign.

[hoosiermama]

The link was great but this needs to be posted (remember we are currently at war):

The President’s budget proposes spending $390.4 billion on defense related activities in FY 2004. This amounts to 17.5 percent of all spending and 3.5 percent of GDP.
-This level is roughly the same as defense spending was in 1996, which amounted to 17.0 percent of all federal spending and 3.5 percent of GDP.
-Defense spending in 1987, the height of the Reagan build up, was 28.1 percent of all federal spending and 6.1 percent of GDP. The President’s budget proposes a fiscal year 2004 budget deficit of $307.4 billion, which is 13.8 percent of all spending and 2.8 percent of GDP.
-This level is roughly the same as the deficit was in 1994, which amounted to 13.9 percent of all spending and 2.9 percent of GDP.
-Deficit spending in 1983, the highest point during the Reagan administration, was 25.7 percent of all spending and 6.0 percent of GDP.

[George W. Bush]

I'll FReep Colorado's Republican Convention, how about the rest of you!

I'll check mine too. This might be the year to give those worthless RINIs a wakeup call.

If you can get a number of people to do it with you, don't forget to call the media. They'll show up.

[Miss Marple]

Politics is the art of the POSSIBLE. NO serious candidate is going to advocate withdrawing from the United Nations. President Bush has, however, ignored them when the nation's interest was in conflict with the UN.

And exactly how do you think the Rats will handle the illegals? For goodness sake, their proposals are far worse than Bushs!

Giving the White House to the democrats will also give us a complete new cabinet. You want that? You want a Cohen instead of Rumsfeld? A Sandy Berger type for NSC? Another Janet Reno? Another Madeline Albright?

That's ridiculous. Anyone who doesn't understand the stakes in this election is willfully uninformed.

[Neets]

Rove is using him to divide us so we won't focus on the real big-spenders, the GOP congress.

Didn't you say you were at one time heavily involved in politics? An elected official of some sort?

Your obvious hatred of Rove leads me to believe there is some sort of history there.

[DollyCali]

Don't let the door of reality and freedom hit you in your "principled"(meaning unappeasable, love to whine,can't wait to get my kudos from the DNC/LP {same thing}) posterior on the way out. You're not a loss,you never were a gain.

Ditto, Gaitborbait, Ditto

It is time for all the "Not gonna vote for him, wa, wa, wa" crowd to pack their FR bags & start their own forum or go to those where Bush bashing (as opposed to considerate discussion of issues) is considered Kewl.

It isn't cool here & most of us need to just ignor you as you take your marbles & go play somewhere else

[swampfox98]

Have you ever heard of the word, now listen to me, legal immigrants? Have you ever heard of obeying the law? If our president and congress continue to allow for open borders you will learn very quickly how our children will be pushed out.

Why have so many Americans fled from California when they saw their streets being taken over one by one. They see their hospitals close for lack of money to treat every Mexican in California.

Good gosh, I can't believe the naivety of Americans.

[George W. Bush]

Your obvious hatred of Rove leads me to believe there is some sort of history there.

I have never concealed my contempt for him. We've essentially lost the entire wing of conservative education activists that once rallied to the GOP. These people were movers and shakers where I live. Now, no one running. I won't. We've got a few days left to sign up but don't have anyone yet.

Yes, I blame Rove. And he's trying to Rove the rest of the conservative base now.

[cc2k]

beckysueb wrote:

---

But please, when it comes time to vote please please vote! Our kids future depends on it! I don't think anyone really understands how very important it is not to let a liberal in the white house!

---

Unfortunately, it's going to be a choice between a Liberal from the Tax party (possibly Kerry) with a "D" after his name, and a liberal from the Spend party, George W. Bush, with an "R" after his name.

The problem is that there are no viable choices that aren't liberals when it comes to domestic issues and discretionary spending.

I'm not advocating staying home, but there has to be a way to get the message to the Republican Leadership.

Black voters turn out in large numbers for Democrats and get nothing in return. If Conservatives don't want the same fate, we need to find some way to get the message to Republican party leadership.

Either that or we need to vote Republican until the Democrats are totally crushed, and fund the development of a more conservative alternative to the Republicans that can fill the void when the Democrats finally Whig out. That last alternative might be the best, but it will take some real conservative leadersihp to pull it off.