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.

[Final Authority]

There is a recent development that has been discussed quite throughly of late and that is that conservatives fearing the Hillary candidacy should vote for the Democrat this term to stave off her campaign. What do you think about that? After all, could Kerry disregard the Constitution any more than GWB? Could he spend more money? Could he welcome any more criminal aliens?

I think it is operative to vote for the Democrat because Hillary is even left of Kerry. Not kidding, this is exactly what was discussed of late on the Jay Severin program, 96.9 FM, out of Boston just last week. Serious folks, very conservative, trying to see the best of a bad situation. GWB, as it is now, will end his Presidency like his dad, and Clinton will have surpassed both of them for his ability to be reelected. Hard to believe.

[dread78645]

"You can't get conservative votes if you repudiate conservativism."
bump

[NittanyLion]

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.

There's an inherent difference in our perception of roles. I believe a politician should inform the electorate of his/her beliefs, and individual voters should then cast their vote based upon whether they agree with the vision or not.

You believe voters should cast their vote without regard to principles in hopes that they will get into the good graces of a politician, who will then pander to their wants/needs.

You see, it will be difficult for us to reach agreement when the very essence of how we perceive politics differs so radically.

[sangoo]

I don't believe that anyone is trying to take over America..

Ever heard of Atzlan? Live for a while in the Southwest, and you'll understand what I mean.

[George W. Bush]

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.

Because they need the votes, like always. Their problem is that they want the votes but won't deliver (judges, smaller government, lower spending).

These stay-homes, a natural part of the conservative base, are basically saying that they don't believe the GOP intends to deliver on its promises. And these are people known to be living and were once solid registered Republican voters in multiple primaries and elections. And now they aren't showing up. Their number has been growing noticably since '96.

Top GOP leaders like Dole have for many years complained about the Religious Right and the conservative base in general. Dole went so far as to declare his own party platform dead on arrival. They've always wanted to dump us and they've made it very clear. But they simply cannot win without us.

It's not our fault if you have a tin ear.

[TruthNtegrity]

Souter was a surprise because Republicans don't force their Judges to pass a Litmus test.

From his past rulings, it was assumed that he would be a Conservative but when he got to the Supreme Court, he apparently decided to put on new thinking along with the new robe. Unfortuante.

But with the possibility fo 2-3-4 Supreme Court openings, and with Pres. Bush's choices being those who are strict Constitutionalists, while also being men/women of faith grounded in strong principles, we HAVE to see that Pres. Bush is re-elected.

The future of our Country rests in how the SCOTUS makes ruling. It's our children's futures we're playing with if we don't keep Pres. Bush in office.

There are other issues, I'll discuss them in a minute.

[DollyCali]

I don't believe Condi nor Powell were put in positions to "pander" ..nor do I think his proposals to investigate the immigration problem is Pandering.

And BTW there is a large support group of blacks supporting the fine work of Condi/Powell just as there are distract ors.. of them & every other position.

I think it is wrong to pull the racial card here. I would be very pleased to see condi rice as Pres candidate in 2008

I think there is an awareness of picking the right people for the right job ... at the right time. He could have made all key positions any race/creed etc. he is AWARE of striking a balance which I feel is different from Pandering.

Perhaps I have a stronger use of the word PANDER than you do Freeper GWB.

He proposes the immigration ideas now because it is the right thing to do! It is a problem that needs to be addressed.

.. do you really think he has this all out to MAYBE grab a few votes??? commonow.. I am the blonde!!!

(well maybe you are also!!!)

[Peach]

If you choose not to vote in November, I certainly hope you do not show up on this forum to complain if we have a Rat president. YOu will have lost all right to complain.

Sometimes the choices we have to make in life aren't the choices we want to make, but reality dictates and grown ups make choices, they don't just choose not to choose.

We will never have a president we agree with 100%. But President Bush has protected the nation in a way that no Democrat ever will. Without a strong national defense, everything else is just frosting.

[ilovew]

No, I've never heard of Atzlan. But I'm certainly not moving anywhere just so you can make your point. Why don't you try explaining it to me?

[sangoo]

Figures

[Peach]

Can you name me one Democrat or conservative Republican who is speaking out on this issue of immigration AND stands the slimest chance to become president?

Didn't think so.

There are a few proposals of the president that I don't like either. I've written my representatives urging them to choose another path with regard to immigration and the Medicare prescription plan. Have you written anyone to complain?

We will never have a president with whom we agree 100%. Never. So decide what your priorities are and go with the best man or woman.

President Bush is strong on national security. Everything else is just window dressing.

[ilovew]

That didn't explain anything.

[TruthNtegrity]

Will everybody please remember that the immigration thoughts put out there by Pres. Bush is a PROPOSAL?

In case you're worried about how far it will go, Hastert has announced it will be DOA when it hits the House.

But it has gotten people talking about our growing problem, for the first time in 30 years.

I wish I had the URL's to Sabertooth's reasoned approach to solving immigration with some very innovative ideas. I actually copied out several of them and his arguments for them and wrote them in a letter to the White House. That's how much I think he has some approaches that are workable.

Second, if you hate amnesty, wait until you see what a Democrat President will do to ya. Every one of them, repeat, EVERY ONE of the (D) candidates for President, are in favor of amnesty. They will make every illegal already here, a US citizen, and if you think our borders are overrun now, wait until you see it after one of the (D)candidates takes office in the WH. (God forbid. Phhhfffft! Pitouie. Splat. Argggh, Gag. Choke. Air, I need air.)

Staying home and not voting for Pres. Bush is not an option to my mind.

One word. Islamofascists.

Islamofascists who still want to see us dead, murdered, mained, nuked, ricin'ed to death or anything they can possibly make happen.

I am typing this on a day when flights to the US are again canceled for fear of terrorists getting onboard and blowing them up near a building or turning them into missiles and flying them into our buildings.

Here's the thing.

Who is going to finish the War on Terror?

Pres. John Botox Kerry? Not a chance.

Pres. Sue'em All Edwards? You have to be kidding me.

Given the War on Terror, the only person we can vote for in November is/has to be Pres. Bush.

Everything else - the deficit, social plans, education, has to become background noise.

We, as voters, don't make any statement by staying home.

We don't send any signal by voting for some 3rd party candidate.

All we do with any of those approaches is allow some Dim-witted Democrat to take office and then, we really get to see how much they hate America, how they will pull the troops home, go to the UN for permission to breath and the whole probem with terrorists becomes a bad joke. They, the terrorists will have free reign to do whatever they want. Home security, when they're flaming globalists, doesn't matter. (Remember all the attacks by bin Laden during Clinton's horrible 8 years in office, and the "no response"? Gave binnie courage to come here, because we didn't fight him over there.)

Another thing (among many, but I need to leave for work) is, do you like how your 401K looks like right now? Like how you're making money in the stock market again? Kiss them both Goodbye if a Dem. is elected. No growth, no economic incentives, rolling back the tax cuts, businesses will get killed just as they are ready to expand and hire people. The country will most likely slide right back into the recession that it is just recovering from.

I don't mean to hit and run but I need to get ready to leave for work.

I will check back in, but later.

[Krodg]

When I was young and foolish I threw away a vote on Perot

I must admit to helping elect Clinton, too. Never again will I waste my vote on a third party and help elect a Dem!

[George W. Bush]

I think it is wrong to pull the racial card here. I would be very pleased to see condi rice as Pres candidate in 2008

I see no particular merit. Serving as an appointee in a very strong national security environment (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) is not a particularly strong resume. And I can't recall the last time we elected anyone president without prior elective office. Grant and Eisenhower are the only two I can think of and their administrative and leadership qualities were unquestionable. Ms. Rice doesn't have such a background. Furthermore, she supports abortion rights and, I think, at least some form of affirmative action. So does Powell.

Perhaps I have a stronger use of the word PANDER than you do Freeper GWB.

Like the word 'amnesty' perhaps?

The Reagan amnesty didn't bring new voters to our party. And didn't stop the flow of illegals.

We won't be fooled by that same rhetoric again.

[TruthNtegrity]

I've heard that globalist argument before.

And your proof is?

[Tamzee]

When I was young and foolish I threw away a vote on Perot....then I matured a bit! (Realized my vote did count...Didn't like what we got! And realized it was partly my fault!)

I'll vote for someone who can get elected. Call it the worse of two evils. If I want to protest it'll be with phone calls, emails, signs not with my precious vote~

Ditto!!! It was a very bitter lesson learned :-(

[TruthNtegrity]

If Democrats should seize sufficient power, the United States will be destroyed. It's that simple.

I agree with you but the naysayers here don't get it.

The world "glabalism" seeks an end to the identity of the US. "We" all become one. Ugh. God save us from that.

[Tamzee]

This election charade in the US is becoming so blatantly obvious that a mentally challenged paramecium can see through it.

Yep, I agree. The mentally challenged paramecia in the Green party see right through this one, too....

[Krodg]

If Bush loses to a real conservative candidate in 2004 taking 20-25% of the popular vote, it'll send shockwaves through both parties, not just the RP. Your vote isn't going to change the election, don't waste it on what you don't believe in.

You really aren't making sense here. You encourage people to waste their votes on a third party to send out 'shockwaves'....then you say their votes won't change the election?

I don't have a problem with people who vote third party because they truly support the candidate. I do have a problem with people handing the WH to the Dems just to teach Bush a lesson.