Posted on 01/31/2004 4:55:14 AM PST by 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.
That's your choice.
I'll vote for Paul. That's my choice.
You are right, but it doesn't mean diddly squat when we are discussing the massive influx of illegals that our children are going to have to deal with in the years to come.
Make no mistake about it: The national politicians are not going to close the borders. It will be up to each state and its people to protect themselves. Some will have the courage to do so, others will not. That is the American way, I guess.
Bush Versus Illegal Immigration --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From President Bush's weekly radio address:
"This past week, I proposed a new temporary worker program that would match willing foreign workers with willing American employers, when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs. If an American employer is offering a job that American citizens are not willing to take, we ought to welcome into our country a person who will fill that job."
The actual number of illegals in the U.S. is somewhat higher than the 8 million typically reported, and the number is growing.
I favor enforcement of our laws, which has definitely NOT been happening due to a variety of factors, mostly a combination of corruption and the apathy upon which corruption thrives.
However, the reality is that mass deportations are simply not possible short of a declaration of martial law. Attempting to deport even just 100,000 people would clog America's courts so thoroughly that we would be facing chaos. Make it ten million, and it's literally not doable.
That's not even considering the political backlash that would probably unseat the party that tries this, as well as direct opposition from Congress and the Supreme Court. Anyone who thinks they would not intervene has not been paying attention for the past few decades. While it is certain that America's court system and laws of civil procedure also desperately need revision, it would be folly to expect that to happen any time soon.
A solution dependent on other solutions is not a solution. I'm not happy about it, but that's the way it is.
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.
The cat is already out of the bag, mainly because having a class of easy-to-exploit cheap labor is the equivalent of crack cocaine to many U.S. business interests, who in turn funnel money into political war chests and lobbying to maintain the status quo on this issue. While I prefer to stand firmly on principle myself, those who think money -- lots of money -- isn't at the root of this problem have no concept of what the problem really is.
The grim reality of illegal immigration is that it is a very real and complex issue that will never be resolved with tautologies, blind reductionism or mendacious sophistry.
Instead, somebody actually has to get off their duff and do something about it, and that is what our President is doing, like it or not. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capt. Tom wrote:Actually, it's the socialists who value national sovereignty vs. the socialists who want international governances.
Well the republicans aren't running in the next election. It is the Bushies vs the Socialists.I'll go with the Bushies. - Tom
You are on the side of the socialists who value national sovereignty.
With only those two choices, I tend to agree with you. The problem is we need a non-socialist, conservative alternative. If it can't be a Republican, we need to see the Democrats completely defeated (or Whig out), and establish a conservative alternative to the Rove/Bush Republicans.
My first plan is not to believe a word GW says about illegal immigration. My second plan would probably have to be done state by state. Withdraw benefits to illegals, and make it stick.
And when governors like Arnold liarburger, or however his lying name is spelled, is elected - re call them.
Bush may be using strategery again to root out the aforementioned infiltrators. YES, STICK WITH PRESIDENT BUSH or buy a gas mask that may not be sufficient if we're blown to smithereens instead.
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.