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.
There are a number of far-reaching implications. Allow me to list a few out:
1. In the short-term, an indication that growth of government spending is outpacing the growth of tax revenues, and therefore, the remainder of the country. A good rule of thumb would be to restrain government growth to that of the private sector (ideally to contract government).
In times of recession, when tax revenues fall greatly and government spending remains the same, this is understandable. (There's a school of thought that says increased government spending stimulates the economy in economic downturns, but conservatives believe tax cuts are a more appropriate remedy for stimulating the economy) Regardless, that's not the case here. Growth of government has contributed to the deficit to a greater degree than tax cuts or the economic downturn.
2. Also in the short-term, a deficit makes the argument to reduce taxes far more difficult. Opponents point out that it's foolish to reduce tax revenues when we have a deficit, and right or wrong, their case is persuasive to many.
3. In the long-term, the deficit increases the size of the national debt, which in general damages investments in private entities. There is some argument about whether the national debt is actually a problem or not, but the general perception is that it is.
The fact of the matter is that deficits ARE bad, for the reasons I listed above. If you can't understand them, I don't know what else I can do, aside from suggesting you do some research on the subject to figure out for yourself what you think of deficits. It would be a shame if you gave politicians a pass on bad behavior simply because you don't understand the issues involved. Good luck in your learning.
"If you truly believe that, I wonder why you stay in America at all." was what you said. I was only commenting on your remarks.
I thought that was being rude to someone else's beliefs.
(There's a school of thought that says increased government spending stimulates the economy in economic downturns, but conservatives believe tax cuts are a more appropriate remedy for stimulating the economy)
Regardless, that's not the case here. Growth of government has contributed to the deficit to a greater degree than tax cuts or the economic downturn.
Supply-side economics, which is what Pres. Bush has invoked, involve both increased spending and tax cuts (as advised by Larry Lindsey and Lawrence Kudlow) feeling that the economy needed a jump start. Just for the record, Kudlow was the major architect of Pres. Reagan's economic policies along with Jack Kemp.
The economy was starting to slide 5 months before Pres. Bush took office, as shown by the retrofit of numbers that Clinton's Cabinet Members cooked the books to make everything look peachy keen when they weren't.
But one has to take into effect the cost of 9/11 - the set back to the economy was massive. So, Pres Bush has called for cutting taxes as well as government spending, in the hope of goosing the economy. Deficit spending doesn't bother supply-siders as they believe that when growth is stimulated, new jobs, new companies, expansion of business, increased trade - all mean more taxes (revenue) coming into the Government coffers.
I forget the numbers I heard last week but I believe it was estimated that the deficit we are running up will be paid off in 4 years. So the deficit is definitely short-term - as was Pres. Reagan's. While Reagan was cutting taxes and spurring the economy with Gov't spending, the Democrats who controlled Congress were spending more money on pork barrel projects and in order to get his tax cuts through, Reagan had to turn a blind eye. Sound familiar? In order to get his tax cuts through, Bush has had to play the "game" because he doesn't have a majority in the Senate and they can make any bill immediate road kill, if they choose to. And most of them, choose to. Witness what they've done with Pres. Bush's Judicial nominations.
I'd like to see what would happen if we gave Pres. Bush the majority in the Senate so that he didn't have to sign any bills with riders loaded with pork, and he could actually hold them on fiscal spending by the Senate (AND the House) and refuse to sign a bill - veto it or send it back for re-work.
But mostly, I'm scared to death of any Democrat becoming President for what they will do to our Defense. I planned to look it up today but I was busier than I thought and I didn't get the chance. I wanted to look up the exact bills that Kerry vetoed besides the Apache and Chinook helicopters, the 2 tank projects, and many others. The guy was a one-man killing machine for Defense.
As was Clinton.
Clinton hated the DoD and the Military so much, he moved the clearance process out of it's own agency and into OMB with no money and no people, thus killing the process. A simple Secret that used to take 6 months now takes 2-1/2 years. TWO AND A HALF YEARS.
DHS has put in for 20,000 Secret clearances. I don't know why they need that many but I can tell you, something is going to have to break wide open because they can't afford to wait 2-1/2 years for those clearances to come in!
If you think the Secret process is bad, wait until I tell you about the agony of getting a Top Secret. Well, the truth is, you don't. Unless you are Military because no company can afford to pay you for 4-5 years while the extensive background investigation is performed. That means that those in the Military are the only ones getting any clearances right now.
It occurred to me that perhaps someone might not understand the importance of the time to get a clearance. It means that a person sits, twiddling their thumbs, doing nothing for the span of time it takes to get a clearance because everything on the project is classified. It's not like they can be productive in some other area and then moved in to where the clearance is required. The entire project requires a clearance and there is NO work anyone can do without it.
Here's another tidbit. We've all heard about our "intelligence community" failures with regard to WMD and Hussein. We all know that we don't have any HUMINT and we know why. But do you know that Clinton forced 40,000 Intelligence folks out of work and he did it during his first 4 years in office? 40,000
AND he cut back on the development of expert systems, information processing systems and new detection systems.
Our IC is operating blindfolded with both hands tied behind their backs. They have more information to process than ever, and fewer people to process it and fewer expert systems to aid in the process.
OK. Sorry. See? Everyone has their pet project, their pet peeve. Mine is Democrats, in general, (Clinton) and clearances and the intelligence community, specifically.
Others think that immigration is THE seminal topic. For others, it's the economy, defense, education, Medicare, and on it goes.
I know that I don't trust Democrats when it comes to defense spending, protection of America, and taking the war on terror to them instead of letting it hit here at home, saying an empty "we will find them and make them pay" and doing nothing, as Clinton did with every occasion of terrorism.
I believe in Pres. Bush and his determination to keep us safe, and for me it is the reason that I don't have any other dog in this race.
More than that, I've heard discussions on the elimination of the IRS. Since I think income taxes have become punitive in this Country and as a Virginia taxpayer and the owner of a small business, I have been just about taxed out of business, I want to see what Pres. Bush and his economic advisers can come up with that eliminates the IRS.
There are in fact lots of things that I want to see what Pres. Bush does about them, when he has a second term.
Do I like his immigration proposal? No. Emphatically no.
In fact, I think some of the ideas that have been proposed by some very creative people here on FR would be exciting to see put in place. A bounty on illegals for example. I honestly believe that if a $50 bounty was put on any illegal alien brought to the authorities, they would start a rush to cross the border, the OTHER WAY. They would go home in droves, just like the Pakistani's did when it became known that the INS was going to pay particular attention to getting them out of this country.
I'm sorry I've gone for so long. I think I've done a multiple-part answer to multiple posters here. But have now forgotten all the names I wanted to address.
Bottom line for me.
The war on terror.
I have lived and traveled abroad and I know what it's like to live in a Country where there is a very uneasy feeling over one's safety. We, in essence, had to experience that here, following 9/11. I lost 17 friends in the WTC in New York, and 11 in the Pentagon. The destruction was very, very real for me.
There is no way I can vote for anyone besides Pres. Bush and I'm going to be as active during the election campaign as I possibly can.
I feel my life depends on re-electing Pres. Bush and I hope to convince as many local people of that same necessity as possible.
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.