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.
Simply amazing.
Me too. It has to be, at this point.
Certainly, there are other important issues as well. Most of those issues I tend to agree with President Bush on. There will never be a politician with whom I can agree on everything. But on most of the issues that are important to me, I agree with President Bush.
Okay, let's have a look...
I believe Saddam, at the very least, was a threat to his own people and we are all better off without him.
Me too, but I tend to categorize that as foreign policy/WOT. I already agree with virtually everything he's done in that regard.
I believe that it is very important that children gain basic knowledge at a young age because it becomes increasingly difficult to learn as you get older.
Who doesn't? I suspect every singly American agrees with that; the difference in opinions come when determining how best to meet that goal. My personal opinion is that school systems run at the local level fare best - hence my disagreement with the No Child Left Behind Act. Federal money hurts the education system, because beauracrats in DC don't know what kids in the 50 states need. What do you think on that account?
I believe that President Bush's tax cuts have worked since the economy is continuing to grow.
Again, I suspect virtually every conservative believes that as well - it's a pretty basic tenet of economics. I want to see more tax cuts long-term, because they'll have the same effect. But how will that happen when we continue to experience unrestrained growth, and have a deficit of $500 billion? That provides liberals with ammo to defeat tax cuts, and that's the problem I have with this administration. Do you agree?
I believe that life starts at conception and that abortions are murder.
What conservative doesn't? But again, that doesn't account for the details. Anyone can agree on very generic statements of policy, but when we get down to actually implementing them, that's where disagreements surface. Know what I mean?
If this "proposal" is what the president believes, he is a big part of the problem.
If it is not what he believes, he is a lying sack of poop.
Based on history, what makes you think the federal government will succeed where local government has failed? Can you cite instances where removing the decision-making power from the people most impacted has EVER ended in success? The answer lies in revamping the system - not trying to take control of it at the federal level.
As to the mechanics of the NCLBA, do you realize how contorted the process is for complying with the Act and receiving federal grants. Administrators are beginning to devise workarounds rather than comply with the bureaucracy the Act has created. You see, it sounds good on the surface, but in practice the Act has created unintended consequences. That's what happens when you centralize government power and allow lifelong bureaucrats to run the show.
Since President Bush has a plan for cutting the deficit in half over the next five years, I am not currently concerned about the deficit. If his plan does not seem to succeed over the next few years, then I would be concerned.
Given his inability to exert any control to this point, what makes you think he'll suddenly be able to halve the deficit? For that matter, can you cite some specifics of The Plan? I've seen some generic throwaway statements concerning control of spending, but nothing of any substance. I have a hard time taking this administration at its word after seeing three years of action to the contrary.
After three years of chances, we've seen the largest increase in entitlement programs since LBJ. How long is it appropriate to wait before voicing skepticism, in your view?
The local governments refuse to take responsibility.
In what regard? Local governments all over the nation take plenty of responsibility. I need some examples if you're going to make overly general assertions of this type.
President Bush is stepping up and taking responsibility. He has a plan. I think it's too soon to be able to tell precisely how it is working.
This is The Plan he's releasing tomorrow? Presumably, it isn't working at all if it hasn't yet been proposed, right? You're obviously counting very heavily on The Plan - have you heard anything whatsoever about what The Plan might contain?
That's hardly President Bush's fault. Perhaps the Act should be revised to rid itself of these loopholes.
Federal legislation has a long history of creating massive bureaucracies. Workarounds and loopholes are an easily foreseeable consequence of a centralized, one-size-fits-all approach. Centralization never has and never will work when it comes to governmental power. Show me an instance where it has...
I don't believe you can blame the President for the aftereffects of 9/11. A large portion of the deficit has come from fighting the War on Terror and homeland security, not from any lack on President Bush's part to control spending.
Discretionary spending has increased 6-7% annually since Bush took office, and that's after the impact of Homeland Security endeavors is removed from the numbers. Certainly you'd agree he shares the blame for that, right? We also have a brand new Education Bill, Farm Bill and Prescription Drug Bill advocated strongly by this administration. New entitlements that will cost trillions over the next 10 years. Whose fault is that? Those initiatives surely aren't fighting terror, are they?
I believe the plan is being released tomorrow. We will have to wait until then to see the specifics.
I can hardly wait to see how The Plan will save us all, Dr. Ferr...err...ilovew.
When I see a real conservative candidate, that will put America, and American's first, every time, all the time, I'll go vote for him.
I guess I'm unclear on your expectations. Am I to let your assertions go unchallenged by fact? Say something with which I agree, and you'll get no argument.
I do not have infinite patience, I'm sorry to say.
Oh. Okay.
My support for President Bush will not change, regardless of what you say.
That's certainly your prerogative. I only hope my comments here have helped some other folks to challenge their beliefs that this administration is right on domestic policy, even if you're unconvinced.
Obviously your disdain for him will not change, regardless of what I say.
Why do you believe I "disdain" the man? Because I haven't simply accepted all his actions without any critical response? I still support him, but that doesn't mean I support 100% of his positions...surely you can see that distinction?
I believe we are at a standstill and going nowhere fast.
I'm perfectly happy to continue the discussion, starting with The Plan. You're holding this out as Bush's saving grace, yet I've heard absolutely nothing about it. What should I expect when it's unveiled?
They always make out it is the apocalypse;it's how they function.If they can destroy themselves and everyone around them, so much the better.They can't even tell, or refuse to see, the difference between a proposal and a law. They are either willfully ignorant or suicidally malicious.One thing certain,if Bush were to be seen next to Jesus Christ, they'd bitch and whine because the Father and Holy Spirit weren't there, too.
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.