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.

[Batrachian]

"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."

What you're forgetting is that Bush proposed the $520 billion Medicaid prescription drug benefit. It wasn't something that Congress foisted off on an unwilling president. I blame Bush and the RINOs in congress. Besides, I don't think you can rightfully say that the president is just a distraction. He leads the party, and his party controls the government now, so the blame has to fall mostly on him. He could have led them in a different direction, but this was the easiest thing to do politically, but the worst thing to do for our country. He has led, but he led in the wrong direction.

[Trteamer]

48 states to go!!

Which state are you going to represent?

[joesbucks]

Here's the rub. Had most of what this Presidnet has either supported, advocated or signed into law as legislation been supported, advocated or signed into law by Al Gore had he become president, there would have been a wail so load, from yourself included, it would have been heard clear out here in flyover country.

I'm a moderate. And yet much of what I see coming from this President's ink pen or thrown out as trial balloons (and I thought this was going to be a White House making decisions without polls ala the last one) makes me wonder where he's coming from. I believe in a certain amount of government in our lives and yet this President supports more than I'm comfortable with. I believe in the we should be kinder to those who have jumped the border, but what he has proposed makes me quiver. I believe in a certain amount of CFR, but what was signed into law (and subsequently held as "it will be struck down") goes beyond my wildest imagination. Oh and yes, it was signed to placate those of us who wanted CFR, but then this was a White House that wouldn't put style over substance ala the last one.

[AuthenticLiberal]

just what do you stand for? Bush handling the illegals has so far been exactly what the Democrats would do. His attorney general has shown the same lack of concern with application of the law as Janet Reno on most issues (note: most, he isn't QUITE as bad). Rumsfeld has consistently attacked the Army and acted like he's too good to be advised by people who actually know how to run the Army. Powell is a flaming lefty on most domestic issues. I am informed, that's why I look at Bush and think that either way we're going to collectively get screwed as a nation. The man is an enabler on domestic spending. He has not vetoed a single bill yet and that has sent a message to every spender in his party: if you pass it'll sign it, no matter what. You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but barring Edwards or Clark winning the nomination I'll vote for a Constitution Party candidate. I want my vote to remind that prick Rove that the Conservative and Right-Libertarian vote does get out and go to parties that reflect instead of sitting at home and crying to mama.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Amen.

[hoosiermama]

The immigration problem DID NOT begin two years ago when Bush took office....It's another "mess" he has inherited. Since the 1960, our laws have become more lack and less enforced.. (Not just the immigration laws).

Bush has simple laid the cards on the table....He has brought the issue forward. (It had been ignore/used-for political gain, by his predecessor.)

He's a chess player. He has taken a position that the liberals if they go to the left of will look extremely foolish. Since he knows and trust the right, he can count on them to raise a ruckus and let their congress critters know exactly how they feel. (Hope you've been making those contacts). Then congress will parse and bargain until we get a solution that is more to your liking.

When he suckers the "D into moving, it'll be check and checkmate....Personally I wish "W" weren't holding the lightening rod, but he's got BBs!
I'd hate to play poker against him. PS I don't buy "It's all Bush's fault" mantra! More knowledge than that!

[DollyCali]

Our pres PUT SOMETHING ON THE TABLE to get things addressed.

Other CIC's have ignored the situation.

Funny thing is, that it did NOT go away.

I would like to hear YOUR proposal..

It is very easy to be continually bashing & tearing things down.. it takes some thoughtfulness to present an alternate BETTER plan that is workable

Lets hear your plan instead of attacking GWB with a verbal machete

[dread78645]

But I honestly believe this is our LAST CHANCE! If a lib gets in the white house this time, we'll never have another chance. Can't everyone put their anger aside. In 4 years we can all work to try to get a more conservative pres elected but if we let a lib in this time I think that will be it. No more chances.

I think we lost it with Herbert Walker Bush. Once in office, he continued a rather hard line foreign policy but stepped to the left domestically (sound familiar?) and left room for Ross Perot, who hopped all over the place,--right left, & center; and split the party.

Ya' know, I've been a solid Republican since I could vote:
Reagan. At first I thought RR was a bit of a flake, But we just had to get rid of JE Carter
Reagan again. This time with feeling.
Bush the elder. Maybe some of Ronnie rubbed off on him?
Perot was tempting but I pulled the lever again for GHWBush.
Bob Dole, although he didn't deserve it.
Wholeheartedly for GW Bush.

So I've been mostly a straight ticket GOPer for the last 20 some years, and I don't regret my past votes. But GW Bush (& his policies) isn't in the GOP anymore; Or at least not my GOP. He's a big-government Republicrat.

"Would you like big-government(R) or big-government(D) with your socialism?"
No thanks, I don't want either. I'll give my vote for someone that's anti-big-government.
If that means a Democrat wins, well that'll suck, but maybe the Republicans in Congress will grow a pair and fight some of the worst of the nanny-state proposals. With any luck, the GOP will rally against a Demican pres. and can find a candidate with policies a little to the right of a New York Times editor.

Until then, I'll vote for Paul and at least know I didn't vote for either evil.

[Fawnn]

Any FReeping of political conventions is only a FReep if the puprose is to keep the Democrats out of power, which in the 2004 election, means re-electing George W. Bush as president. Anything else is counterproductive.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067935/posts

My understanding is that a FReep is done to represent publically what we stand for here.

[DollyCali]

You are wrong IMNO & the opinion of the majority of posters at FRee REpublic.. You are "new" enough to NOT know what Miss Marple stands for ... nor do you care that this is NOT a forum to push Right-Libertarian mentality.

[George W. Bush]

Have you ever heard of the word, now listen to me, legal immigrants? Have you ever heard of obeying the law?

These are the kind of immigrants we have here in my town. Law-abiding, hard-working, wanting their kids to get ahead. Just like my cousin's husband's family is.

I recently noticed two of them posting here at FR.

I'm just pointing out that we need to remember the large number of legal immigrants who did obey the laws and who are good immigrant stock, like anybody else's forbears. Like my own German grandfather. Their story is our story.

Go read hispanarepublicana's home page. Great stuff.

[Fawnn]

People with your views are intellectually dishonest on this.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Your man is a fascist....

You obviously have very little understanding of history.

My president is an honorable man. I'm proud to have him serving my country. I may not agree with him 100% on all matters, but I have enough intellectual honesty to understand and appreciate that politics involves compromise, team playing, and diplomacy.

[hoosiermama]

Lets hear your plan instead of attacking GWB with a verbal machete


Really have not heard any plan....Here's a summation of what is being said:

It's all Bush's fault! It's all Bush's fault! It's all Bush's fault! It's all Bush's fault! It's all Bush's fault! It's all Bush's fault! ad nassssseau!

[Miss Marple]

In case you didn't realize it, the military is under CIVILIAN control. Carping by generals who always want things done their way (see Wesley Clark) is the norm. Powell has done a pretty good job on the diplomacy front (as in his dealings with North Korea and speeches before the UN). To say Ashcroft is only a little bit better than Reno is the indicator to me that you are a fringer who is so far out of mainstream thought that I probably shouldn't answer you.

[George W. Bush]

What you're forgetting is that Bush proposed the $520 billion Medicaid prescription drug benefit. It wasn't something that Congress foisted off on an unwilling president. I blame Bush and the RINOs in congress.

Doesn't matter who proposed it.

Presidents propose.

But Congress spends.

That's the key fact, the one Rove doesn't want you to think about, the one that your congress-RINO hopes you'll forget about.

They want to let Bush take the heat for all the spending so we conservatives end up fighting over Bush, just like you see on all these threads. That is Rove's strategy.

It's not Bush. It's the Congress. Because the Constitution says so.

[DameAutour]

You couldn't be more right Miss Marple, but it doesn't matter. It's hard for people to see.

On domestic issues, President Bush is not a conservative dream. At best, he is a moderate, and he campaigned as a moderate ("compassionate conservative"). He campaigned on guest-workers and prescription drugs for seniors. He didn't lie, he didn't deceive. Maybe conservatives lied to themselves, and the biggest lie of all was telling themselves that it would be easy to counteract the 60 years of socialism that have been inflicted on this country.

But on foreign policy, Bush is absolutely the best conservatives can hope for right now, and again he is not perfect, but it would be a disaster to have anyone else. The War on Terror is REAL and he is the only one who will fight it. But if conservatives don't act like they believe it is real, how will they ever convince the rest of the country?

Bush is not going to move much more to the right than he is right now, unless he has strong reason to do so.

Conservatives must face this reality. If you want a more conservative president, you must wait until 2008, and then conservatives will have a hard battle on their hands because the country is probably going to be drifting left (because that's how the pendulum swings).

Conservatives have to take the Congress, that is the only hope. If you want more conservative justices, the repeal of CFR, a decrease in spending, to fight illegal immigration, take Congress. If you want to do anything about the quickly eroding social values of this country (Bush is an ally here, don't forget, unless you want this to turn into Rome), take control of your states.

Don't abandon the "big tent" Republican party, learn from the Socialists and TAKE IT OVER. This has to be done on a grass-roots level, starting with your mayors, your governors, your state legislatures. Your next President will probably be a governor. Wouldn't it be prudent to get more conservative governors who can be potential presidential candidates?

And ultimately, most importantly, conservatives must control Congress. This is how the Socialists did it. This is the only way to fight them. They are fighting amongst themselves, now is the time to STRIKE. Not fight amongst yourselves.

[Fawnn]

take your marbles & go play somewhere else

That's one way to put it. LOL

In my opinion, it's like the whiners have run out of chalk, so now they just scratch their fingernails on the blackboard ... repeatedly! (I, for one, wish they'd find another hobby.)

[ryanjb2]

"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."

No we won't. I'll only vote on principles. Unless a candidate is willing to end all foreign aid, the drug war, remove ourselves from the UN, drastically reduce spending, taxes, and the scope of government, then I WON'T vote for him.

I believe in the slipery-slope. If you give the Republicans your vote while they are making a mockery of Conservative principles, they realize they can get away with a little more next time.

[Neets]

And ultimately, most importantly, conservatives must control Congress. This is how the Socialists did it. This is the only way to fight them. They are fighting amongst themselves, now is the time to STRIKE. Not fight amongst yourselves.Now here we have yet again, another sensible poster, highlighting what the fight is really about.

[AuthenticLiberal]

You are wrong IMNO & the opinion of the majority of posters at FRee REpublic.. You are "new" enough to NOT know what Miss Marple stands for ... nor do you care that this is NOT a forum to push Right-Libertarian mentality.

Conservatives and Right-Libertarians support most of the same issues. Most of FR have no principles. I ask, "just what do you stand for?" Because many here say that Bush is some sort of great leader of men who will pave the way for a rebirth of limited government if only we give him more time. Bush doesn't believe in limited government and there is no evidence for you to base any position that he does because the sum total of his administration's actions has been to increase federal size and power. He has done more to consolidate federal power than any Democrat since FDR.

Conservatism will head into a death spiral as movement if this keeps up. The more compromises that are made and not fought with every means availible, the more each new generation of "conservatism" will just accept big government. I am starting to come to the conclusion that every single Bush supporter could care less about the size of the government so long as he keeps his pants on and tells the French to fsck off. Which is fine with me, I'm part French and even I dislike the French. But that's not what makes a (Goldwater) conservative (which I'm starting to think is the only real conservative, since it resembles a somewhat consistent philosophy other than f$%^ the hippies).

I think I will actually vote for Bush. I'll help him get reelected. If he doesn't change like all you Bushbots say he will then by all means... post your mailing addresses. I'll send you some freshly killed crows for you to feast on for four years of socialist governance.