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.

[chris1]

Yes it does, immensely. If you lived somewhere where you had to experience the results of these invaders, you would understand the huge negative impact that they are having on this country.

[beckysueb]

Looks like he can't win for losing. Is it possible we are overreacting? Just a thought.

[Peach]

It really isn't adding anything to the conversation to say that people are delusional.

I believe that if we have another 9/11 sort of attack or worse, which took the heart out of America for a long time and over $500 billion out of the economy, that that is a far worse scenario than having immigrants working and paying into the tax base.

We will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

I still challenge you or any other freeper to tell me a Democrat candidate who is for stopping illegal immigration. Can't name a candidate? I didn't think so.

So by having freepers and others stay home on election day we may be saddled with a Democrat candidate who not ONLY will make the immigration matter WORSE, but will ALSO be soft on terrorism. Kerry has already stated he would treat terrorism as a law enforcement and prosecutorial matter AND has a plan to make illegal immigrants citizens immediately.

[Peach]

Not liking the immigrant proposal myself, we need to remember that it's just a proposal. How about writing your congressman on this matter, or calling? Ask them to vote against it.

If you stay at home and elect not to vote at all, you will likely be helping elect a Democrat president. Kerry has already stated he is for immediate citizenship for illegal immigrants and dislikes President Bush's proposal because there is a waiting period.

Any Democrat president will spend more and be more liberal with regard to immigration. How will staying home help anything?

[chris1]

No one is saying that Kerry is the answer, but we are gnerally much more concerned about issues than about solely achieving power. For so long we voted for people in order to get the House, Senate and White House, and for what? You know when they say - Just watch what you ask for???????

[RnMomof7]

You do not reward a run away president with another term..

[Peach]

I don't like the Medicare bill either. But you do realize that the Democrats are going to spend more and they don't like the bill because it doesn't spend ENOUGH?

How is not voting going to help the spending situation?

[Peach]

The gross domestic product (GDP), which forecasts the amount of money taken in through taxes by the government versus the amount of government spending, is best looked at in percentages as the nation's economy continues to grow each decade. A comparison of administrative deficits for the last 20 years is as follows:

Reagan 1983 $208 billion deficit 6% GDP
Bush 1992 $290 billion deficit 4.7% GDP
Clinton 1993 $255 billion deficit 3.9% GDP
Bush 2003 $374 billion deficit 3.5% GDP

What the majority of articles bemoaning the national deficit do not remind people is that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 cost our economy a minimum of $500 billion including $150 billion in reduced GDP. This does not include the cost of fighting the war on terrorism. The cost for that is approximately 3% of GDP versus approximately 10% GDP during the height of the Cold War. Considering two years ago our nation endured its largest attack at the heart of its financial center, as well as an expensive war on terrorism, two tax cuts and numerous corporate scandals, a 3.5% deficit in GDP does not seem unreasonable and on a percentage basis is still lower than we’ve seen in 20 years.

Contrast the Bush tax cuts with the money the Democrats would spend if they had the majority. In the last 3 years, the Democrats, who say they want to reduce the deficit, have tried to add nearly $2 trillion in budget bills, more than all of Bush's tax cuts combined

[chris1]

You say it was only a proposal. Why couldn't he propose stronger enforcement of existing law?????? Why couldn't he propose stricter employment enforcement against corporations? Why couldn't he propose deportation for all illegals who commit crimes in the country and cost us $$$$. No, he proposes an unworkable, naive, unenforceable, program that acts as de facto amensty because no one is getting deported. That is why we are so upset over this.

[George W. Bush]

Boortz's argument is weak.

And it's ignorant.

Bush does not spend. Congress spends.

It's not about Bush, who can only propose a budget and possibly veto budget bills (like that would ever happen!).

It's the GOP Congress who is writing the hot checks, not Bush.

It is Rove's tactic to focus all of this on Bush so that he takes the 'heat' and the GOP Congress slips by us and writes more hot checks.

Unfortunately for Rove, we aren't that dumb. We know the Constitution and we know who signs the checks: Congress!

Bush's re-election is completely irrelevant to the entire matter. Doesn't matter a fig either way. It's about the wild spending of the GOP Congress.

So support Bush for re-election by all means. But don't think the GOP Congress isn't the one writing the checks.

Ya know, he isn't Stalin with dictatorial control over the entire party apparatus. And in America, your vote for your congressman actually does mean something. You need to put the fear of the voter back into your congresscritter.

[Peach]

I understand why you are upset. I'm upset about it too. I cannot defend his immigrant proposal because it's indefensable in my view.

But that doesn't mean I will not vote for him. The Democrats will make any proposal we don't like under Bush even worse and more liberal.

I will NOT hand the Rats the office by staying home and letting their completely socialistic agenda become the law of the land. What we are living with now in terms of judicial activism from the liberal judges is bad enough it has changed our culture to a course culture that was unimaginable 10 years ago.

If ONLY for the judges, I will be voting for Bush again and urge you to do the same.

[George W. Bush]

If they ain't voting, they ain't the base. The GOP's tired of delivering COD.

These people were solid base voters.

That's what Rove was wailing about. He's lost them for the time being.

[Libertina]

"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."
I feel much better now ... /sarcasm

[beckysueb]

Oh well, the whole thing is probably moot anyway. If a democrat gets in we won't have to worry about posting on this site anymore. Cause believe me they are out to stop things like this!

[swampfox98]

I still challenge you or any other freeper to tell me a Democrat candidate who is for stopping illegal immigration. Can't name a candidate? I didn't think so.

And I challenge you to tell me if Bush is going to propose closing the borders, withdrawing goodies from illegals and sending millions back home. NO? Then you are no better off than I. You have no one to vote for either, if you love America.

Anyhow, I can't answer any more insults today, I'm pooped. I was just in the hospital and feel like crap. You Republicans can pray that I'll go to that big Freeperville in the sky over the week end, and like Nixon you won't have swampfox98 to push around anymore.

[NittanyLion]

Looks like he can't win for losing.

Well, when I continue to see a person say one thing and actually do another, how many times must the cycle be repeated before I react with cynicism?

Is it possible we are overreacting? Just a thought.

No - not possible.

[NittanyLion]

The gross domestic product (GDP), which forecasts the amount of money taken in through taxes by the government versus the amount of government spending, is best looked at in percentages as the nation's economy continues to grow each decade.

Such an approach does not take into account performance against previous years; hence the reason this is an incomplete metric. A better metric accounts for net increases or decreases against previous years, because a President who was ushered into office when spending as a % of GDP was low, and allowed it to increase, is a worse performer than one who entered when spending was high and decreased it.

What the majority of articles bemoaning the national deficit do not remind people is that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 cost our economy a minimum of $500 billion including $150 billion in reduced GDP. This does not include the cost of fighting the war on terrorism.

Point well-taken. However, discretionary spending after Homeland Defense expenditures has increased by approximately 6-7% per year since Bush took office. An unacceptably high figure.

a 3.5% deficit in GDP does not seem unreasonable and on a percentage basis is still lower than we’ve seen in 20 years.

Well, we actually ran surpluses in the 90s.

Contrast the Bush tax cuts with the money the Democrats would spend if they had the majority. In the last 3 years, the Democrats, who say they want to reduce the deficit, have tried to add nearly $2 trillion in budget bills, more than all of Bush's tax cuts combined

First, I'm not sure I understand where this $2 trillion figure is derived. But regardless, I'm not interested in comparing what Democrats would have done; I'm interested in discussing what Bush and the GOP actually have done. Their track record on domestic spending is...shall we say...distasteful.

[NittanyLion]

Oh well, the whole thing is probably moot anyway. If a democrat gets in we won't have to worry about posting on this site anymore. Cause believe me they are out to stop things like this!

I hope that statement was tongue in cheek...sounds an awful lot like those stories I hear of Republicans kicking Granny to the gutter and stealing her drugs...

[kitkat]

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

Dolly C. is right, Swampfox. How about letting us stupid Freepers in on your plan to "close the borders" and then give us the name of a candidate who claims he can do that.

[jocon307]

Yes, we must all vote for W in November, and try as hard as we can to increase our majority in both houses of congress, and then bust their chops over the amnesty and other failures.

But the commie dems cannot be let back in the hen house.

Goldstate, you are correct, it will take a generation or two to right this ship of USA. But the outlook on college campuses is very promising. The worst thing that could happen would be for Bush II to be a one termer. Think of the ammo that would hand the left.

Yes, he's been pandering on domestic issues. And no, he hasn't been tough enough against the dems. That "changing the tone" stuff doesn't work, but it DOES play in Peroria. Let's get him in as a dead-duck and see if he doesn't do better. NONE of the current candidates are acceptable in any way. I actually think Dean is the best of the lot as a person. And he's an abortion loving (and maybe providing, who knows but it's hard to think not, and lying about it would be the only way to go); draft evading, gay agenda enabling, governor of a state with less than a million people in it. So how bad are the rest of them? And the other alternative, Hillary!

Wow, I just convinced myself at least. W, still Love'ya!