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.

[hchutch]

Unfortunately, I thin the ideological purists have a chance to pull enough support away from Bush through either a stay-at-home decision or Constitution Party/write-in that Bush could lose and John F***ing Kerry gets in.

I can see where the Stupid Party label comes into play here. Conservatives just can't take the long view.

[hchutch]

I heard it was 4 million back in 2001.

Quite frankly, when one expects 19 million (I think that was Rove's expected figure) and gets 15 million, one has a right to wonder if they might be better served to try to add more votes elsewhere.

[George W. Bush]

Quite frankly, when one expects 19 million (I think that was Rove's expected figure) and gets 15 million, one has a right to wonder if they might be better served to try to add more votes elsewhere.

But they haven't added any votes anywhere.

Every attempt by Rove to bribe or flatter minorities actually makes it worse. They hate the GOP even more. Even Dole did better with blacks without even trying, for instance.

This pandering to minorities has been a uniform failure. Without any signs that the new WH pandering strategy will help one bit.

[hoosiermama]

Did you see this?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1069072/posts


WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush (news - web sites) said he would place a legal block on overspending by the US Congress as he hit back at critics who have accused him of being reckless with US finances.



Looks to me like he's addressing CONGRESS's problem with spending too much!

[NittanyLion]

Unfortunately, I thin the ideological purists have a chance to pull enough support away from Bush through either a stay-at-home decision or Constitution Party/write-in that Bush could lose and John F***ing Kerry gets in.

I think Bush's policy decisions have predictable consequences. He's essentially trying to convince a bloc of independent voters to come to his side, and he realizes that will come at the cost of some conservatives. The gamble he's willingly assumed is that he'll pick up more votes from the middle than he'll lose from the right. We'll see if this calculation pays off.

My point, however, is that if conservatives leave the fold that's a consequence of Bush's actions rather than a reflection on conservatives. If he loses the gamble, the blame should properly be placed on him for a bad political play - not on conservatives for their choice.

[hosepipe]

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

AND its exactly that attitude that pisses me off...
Glad to hear it from "the top" or a well placed alleged operative... even if the quote is bogus you know its the attitude or why the illegal alien stance or the seniors drug fiasco... sure I'll vote for GW-2004, no choice... BUT what about 2008... many maybe even MOST might not vote republican again.. even if Hillary runs.. About the ONLY way GW could redeem himself to me would be to defund federal education or other some massive drop back(s) in federal power.. I've about had it with the Bush's and Doles and the 2004 vote is (probably) a parting gesture.. unless some grand Machiavellian scheme is in gear that I know nothing about..
If we're destined for socialism LET THE DEMOCRATS DO IT CORRECTLY... because eamerican men don't enough balls left to revolt... the women have all the balls, like Ann Coulter.

[hoosiermama]

DId you see the link at 264? Maybe he's throwing out a carrot or two to the conservatives too!

[Fawnn]

You really need to seek help about your Rove paranoia/fixation. Get a grip!

W is the first president to put minorities in key positions! (Clinton had to make sure he was called the "first black president," the "first woman president," etc. because that was the only way minorities were represented in his administration!)

[NittanyLion]

DId you see the link at 264? Maybe he's throwing out a carrot or two to the conservatives too!

I've posted on that thread, to the effect that this represents hypocrisy at it finest. President Bush has proposed massive entitlement increases, and now says Congress must be legally restrained from spending? Perhaps the force of law should also apply to the Presidency, to the effect that he must veto anything that falls under the President's description in this case.

[hchutch]

I think some of his reaching to the middle is due to the stay-at-homes referred to by Rove - 4 million.

They do not think conservatives are reliable, and in politics, the LEAST reliable supporters are the ones Bush will be LEAST likely to stick his neck out for.

And it only gets worse when he is attacked for pandering whern it may be an honest disagreement with his base (say, on immigration reform).

[NittanyLion]

I think some of his reaching to the middle is due to the stay-at-homes referred to by Rove - 4 million...And it only gets worse when he is attacked for pandering whern it may be an honest disagreement with his base (say, on immigration reform).

These two appear to be mutually exclusive theories. Either he's honestly a moderate or he's reaching to the middle due to supposed stay-at-homes.

Either he's an honest guy who does what he thinks is right, or he's a calculating politician who is moving to the middle to pick up votes. Can't have it both ways...

They do not think conservatives are reliable, and in politics, the LEAST reliable supporters are the ones Bush will be LEAST likely to stick his neck out for.

I suppose we're back to the chicken and the egg. Are conservatives his least reliable supporters because he isn't sticking his neck out for them, or is he not sticking his neck out because they're unreliable?

I guess we'll each have to make our own calculation on that question.

[George W. Bush]

W is the first president to put minorities in key positions!

And it's failed. The Republicans most hated by blacks are Rice and Powell. It's a failed strategy by any measure.

The reason it didn't work is that the liberal leadership in black political circles (primarily the Jackson machine and the Sharpton machine) do not want to let any votes slip to the GOP. Their hold on the black vote is the entire basis of their power. If they cannot deliver the black vote for Dims, they've over and done with. And libmedia, recognizing how essential the black vote is to the Dim success in many localities, is happy to give these hate- and fear-merchants plenty of publicity, in order to help them control their little 'plantations'.

No signs yet that anything will change based on a politics of racial symbolism. We didn't get any black voters that we didn't already have with us before. And Bush's appeal to blacks in 2000 was much greater than Dole '96 but Bush got 8% out of it. I think Dole got something like 12%-13% and didn't even try for their votes.

Pandering doesn't seem to work for Republicans.

BTW, W. is not the first president to put minorities in key positions either. These aren't the days when Reagan appointing a woman to the SC or Bush I appointing a second black to the Court means as much as it once did.

[ilovew]

I hardly think recalling every governor you don't like is a feasible solution. You can express your concerns to them without trying to threaten to take away their positions.

[George W. Bush]

I think some of his reaching to the middle is due to the stay-at-homes referred to by Rove - 4 million. They do not think conservatives are reliable, and in politics, the LEAST reliable supporters are the ones Bush will be LEAST likely to stick his neck out for.

Generally, it's said that these millions are the most conservative of the evangelical vote. Rove has made remarks about this back in 2001. So I think your premise is wrong. Rove knows he can't get them because he did even worse with them than Dole did. And the number of conservative Christian evangelicals in this category is likely to grow in '04. You can see it right here at FR if you look around.

You can't get conservative votes if you repudiate conservativism. And, just like Rush and others have said for years, the GOP can never out-pander the Dims. They'll just raise the ante.

[Final Authority]

I understand your answer, but please think through it. In an ideal world what you say makes tons of sense but our world is not ideal as it is fraught with interests, some more powerful than others, that will not allow true, retail, politics. Parties are like a team where the group is more forceful than the individual and can overcome adversity that the individual cannot. The individual cannot be at all places all the time but a party can project influence where the individual cannot be.

In NH all one needs is a check for $1000 that does not bounce to be considered a candidate for President. Many have paid for the privilege. Unless that person is affiliated with interests within a party they get little or no recognition. Perot was the exception. Sometimes, a Libertarian has received nearly 5% or more of the vote. That is the exception as well. When Steve Merrill was Governor the Libertarian party was an official party as recognized by the Secretary of State of NH because of voter preference. (BTW, look for Steve Merrill to be in national politics soon as Mitt Romney of MA will be)

In essence, in order to strike a blow for freedom, and that is what it is all about after-all, one has to be organized, funded, affiliated, and supported, in order to make a real and functional difference.

[Fawnn]

Pandering doesn't seem to work for Republicans.

I do not consider any of W's appointments as "pandering."

I stand corrected as for the minority appointments in "key" positions. (There are already enough disagreements going on on this thread to waste time parsing the word "key.")

[dread78645]

Looks to me like he's addressing CONGRESS's problem with spending too much!

"To assure that Congress observes spending discipline, now and in the future, I propose making spending limits the law,"

Bush doesn't make the law, congress does. But he can veto.
He hasn't done it yet. Nor is he likely to, because this is *his* big spending budget.

The White House announced Friday that the 2005 budget deficit would hit 521 billion dollars, a record in dollar terms. ...

Under the Bush plan, defense spending will increase seven percent, including a 3.5-percent pay increase for the military, homeland security spending will rise 10 percent to 30.5 billion dollars. ...

The Federal Bureau of Investigation budget will rise 11 percent, including a 357 million dollar increase in counterterrorism spending. ...

An extra 600 million dollars will also go toward assistance for the elderly to buy drugs and more money for public schools. ...

The president has proposed that overall "discretionary spending" will grow at less than four percent and non-security spending would rise less than one percent ...

Flipping a quarter sez Bush is just whispering some soothing words into the conservative's ear.

[ilovew]

I don't believe that anyone is trying to take over America. I think people just recognize that this is the best country in the world and it is, therefore, the best place to come if you want freedom. There are a lot of foreign students here at my college and of those that I have talked to, they love America because we are a free nation, not because they wish to take over.

[jpsb]

You know I could stick with Bush and the GOP exxept that I know in 08, yall big governemtnt GOPers are going force another big spending liberal elite with an R next to his name on me. With the GOP the "fix" is always in. You only want conservative votes you don't want conservative candidates. Show me I'm wrong and I'll stick with the GOP.

[hchutch]

If they will not, at a minimum, give George W. Bush their votes, why should be stick his neck out for them?

Answer THAT question.