Posted on 02/10/2004 4:59:23 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
February 8, 2004
TEN REASONS FOR REPUBLICANS TO SIT OUT THE 2004 ELECTION: Conservatives are in a lather over various domestic policies of the Bush administration, and many are threatening to sit out the 2004 election and not vote at all. And who can blame them? After all, it’s been a decade since New Gingrich and his merry band of reformers won control of the House from the democrats who dominated that body for the previous 40 years. In the decade that republicans have controlled the House (and most of that time, the Senate also), our federal government has grown bigger and more intrusive than ever. George Bush has been president for nearly four years, and our government is still growing by leaps and bounds (and a half-trillion dollar deficit). It turns out that Bush isn’t a “true” conservative after all (that “compassionate” preface he appended to “conservative” in the 2000 campaign should have tipped us off).
But republicans are missing the big picture by focusing on “the issues”, which will matter less in this election than ever before. Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Bush’s National Guard service, Kerry’s complaints about underfunded intelligence agencies and his Senate record of voting time and again to cut funding for the intelligence agencies, the economy, the budget, jobs, special interest pandering – none of these will decide this election. Whoever the democrat candidate turns out to be, and no matter what his record on “the issues”, democrats will turn out in massive numbers with one overriding goal in mind – defeating Bush. Conservatives, so archaic in their fidelity to principle, simply don’t understand the reality of modern electoral politics, where principles are irrelevant and attaining power is the only thing that matters. So by sitting out the election, conservatives can help return us to the good old days of complaining about the outrageous conduct of a democrat president, rather than the outrageous conduct of a republican president.
The war against terrorism really isn’t a war at all; even though our enemies declared and have been waging war against us for a decade, culminating in their strike that killed 3000 people on 9-11. All of those past attacks against America over the last decade were really just crimes, and we need to have a properly humble president who will ask Kofi Annan and Jacque Chirac to pretty-please assign Inspector Clouseau to arrest the bad guys, so they can be taken to the International Criminal Court where they will have limitless opportunities to explain to everyone why America is so evil. We need a president like John Kerry, who had the good sense, less than one year after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, to introduce legislation to rescind $1 billion from U.S. intelligence-related activities; who, less than two months before the 1995 bombing of the U.S. barracks at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, had the foresight to seek to cut the intelligence budget by $300 million each year from 1996 through 2000; who, nine months after Osama bin Laden declared war against the United States, wondered why, with the Cold War over, “our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow”. And in case we find out that some poor misunderstood terrorists are on the verge of attacking us, we need a president who will ask permission from the United Nations before we deploy our military in self defense.
A democrat president will be able to examine any complaint against America, by any nation on earth, from the sensible perspective that America is, of course, always wrong. Remember all those apologize-for-America tours that Bill Clinton took, jetting around the world to all those foreign garden spots, doing his mea culpa for all of the world’s ills which, as the truly enlightened know, were always America’s fault? Now those were the good old days!
As long as democrats keep control of the federal bureaucracy, if any U.S. airlines single out “too many” young Arab males for extra security screening before they board airplanes, those airlines will be properly chastised – and if necessary sued by our federal agencies – for racial profiling. What was the big deal about 9-11 anyway? Yes, 3000 people died, but we have to learn to properly interpret those events as our own fault, as the great minds of our era – Michael Moore, Naom Chomsky, Ted Turner, Ramsey Clark – have taught us. Those great minds must get back to their proper role of advising a democrat president and, along with their friends in the media, telling us all what to think. Since these people and most of the media desperately want to defeat Bush, republicans can help them by not voting.
Then there are the intelligence failures leading up to the 9-11 attacks, and the apparent absence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Hearings are demanded, but if republicans keep the majority in Congress, they will control the witness lists and the hearing agenda, and information might come out about how badly democrats have gutted our intelligence services over the last 30 years. But with republicans sitting out the election, democrats could regain control of the House and Senate, so they will then be able to control the witness lists and the hearing agenda, and we won’t be bothered by any disconcerting information about their own 30 year record on intelligence. And then with democrats in control of the government, and with their friends in the media whipping up hysteria with one-sided reporting, democrats might even be able to indict Bush and members of his administration for war crimes. Granted, relying on mistaken intelligence (even though the same apparent mistake was shared by the entire world, but never mind that) isn’t nearly as bad as allowing nuclear weapon and ballistic missile technology to fall into the hands of the communist Chinese. But with a democrat president and congressional majority, the hard work of democrats over the last 30 years to eviscerate our intelligence agencies can continue. Oh, sure, CIA Director Tenet has said that politicizing intelligence “may well result in an intelligence community that is damaged and a country that is more at risk”; but politicizing every issue is what democrats and leftists do best, so why shouldn’t republicans and conservatives help them to advance their ideological agenda by sitting out the election?
The economy stinks and companies aren’t hiring; we can fix that, of course, by electing a democrat who will turn a blind eye toward frivolous lawsuits that bankrupt companies and who will raise taxes to punish evil corporations and drive them overseas. Even better if we can elect a man who is himself a trial lawyer. This will help to paper over the rampant proliferation of medical malpractice lawsuits that are driving up the costs of health care, and the growing burden of government regulation and paperwork that are driving doctors out of the medical profession entirely. If the lawsuits continue to proliferate and the burden of government regulation and paperwork increases, the cost and availability of medical care will become even more difficult for people to obtain, and democrats will have another issue to demagogue – and maybe even an excuse to give us socialized medicine. And that’s what we all want, isn’t it?
Then there’s the federal judiciary. If President Bush is re-elected he will continue nominating judges who are so extreme that they actually think their job is to follow the Constitution as written and the laws as enacted. Naturally, we can’t have any of that sort of extremism clogging our federal bench; otherwise, how would progressive judges be able to make up new laws and discover new Constitutional rights to make our society function as they think it should?
Bush’s proposal for a new guest-worker program for illegal aliens really brought out conservative anger with his domestic agenda. But this guest-worker plan is just a half-way measure (virtually every Hispanic spokesman tells us that Hispanics don’t like it because it doesn’t go far enough – so much for sacrificing the interests of citizens in order to pander to Hispanics). But the democrats will really solve the problem of illegal immigration, by skipping right over the “worker” part and proceeding right to full American citizenship, with all of the entitlements that go with it. As guest-workers, after all, illegal immigrants would still have to go through the tedious citizenship application process. But with the amnesty plan democrats are floating, illegal immigrants can sign right up for the full range of our nation’s social service programs. And with the broad family re-unification provisions that the democrats will probably enact, tens of millions more tired, hungry, and poor immigrants from around the world can come here to benefit from our tax dollars.
Nor can we forget the social issues. With the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that gay marriages deserve all of the legal rights of heterosexual marriage (civil unions just won’t do), we can see the direction in which enlightened society is heading. Certainly a republican president and a republican-controlled Congress would obstruct such progress, so by sitting out this election republicans will help move us towards enlightenment and progress.
Then there’s the opportunity to re-live the days of foreign campaign contributions. Remember Johnny Chung (“the White House is like a subway, you have to put in coins to open the gates”) of foreign campaign contribution scandal fame? In Newsweek, Michael Isikoff reminds us that John Kerry also knew the ubiquitous Mr. Chung: “In July 1996 the Massachusetts senator was locked in a tough re-election fight, so he was more than happy to help when he heard that a generous potential contributor wanted to visit his Capitol Hill office. The donor was Johnny Chung, a glad-handing Taiwanese-American entrepreneur. Chung brought along some friends, including a Hong Kong businesswoman named Liu Chaoying. … Federal investigators later discovered that Liu was in fact a lieutenant colonel in China's People's Liberation Army… . And Chung…went on to become a central figure in the foreign-money scandals of 1996. Chung eventually pleaded guilty to funneling $28,000 in illegal contributions to the campaigns of Bill Clinton and Kerry.” (a “straw donor scheme”, the Washington Post called it in 1998). In a 1998 National Review article on the Government Reform and Oversight Committee investigation into Chinese campaign contributions (impeded by many witnesses who refused to testify pursuant to the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination or fled the country), then-Senator Fred Thompson wrote, “The Democrats on the Committee issued a minority report which minimized and denigrated the significance of our findings. Now Johnny Chung has gotten everyone's attention. However, Chung is describing events that are two years old. One must wonder if the trail has gotten cold while we have been arguing. … Now that we also know that President Clinton was loosening restrictions on technology transfers to China at the same time that Chinese money was coming into his campaign, everyone is jumping to the question of quid pro quo, something that is almost never provable by direct evidence.” On another, not necessarily relate front, the democrat candidates have made it clear that they want to mend fences with our European “friends” who stiff-armed us over Iraq (including France), and France is currently pushing to have a European ban on selling weapons to communist China lifted. Foreign campaign contributions – technology and weapon transfers to communist China – congressional investigations – now admit it: won’t it be fun to get back to all that again?
Finally, there’s the “Hillary Factor”. As President Bush looks increasingly weak as he alienates conservatives, and if the democrat field looks disorganized or the convention dissolves into chaos, the odds of Hillary jumping into the race at the last minute – that is, being “drafted against her will” to “save the party” – increases. Bill is already deeply engaged in counseling democrats how to take back the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. And since our country has already gone four years without the beneficent presence of a Clinton in the White House, conservatives need to do their part to help return the Clintons to the White House, so they can guide the nation into the future as only they can. For all of these reasons, conservatives and republicans should let principle guide them and sit out the election.
========================
“Cash and Kerry”; Newsweek (dated 2/9/2004): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4121890
Kim Weissman at
kim@congressaction.infoKiss my pasty rump. Bush gives me plenty of indigestion. But Kerry scares the crap out of me.
If you are seeking intellectual purity in 2004 on the right wing, you're not going to find it. But intellectual purity is alive and well on the left wing, and it's leading the Dems to electoral oblivion.
Then there are the intelligence failures leading up to the 9-11 attacks, and the apparent absence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Hearings are demanded, but if republicans keep the majority in Congress, they will control the witness lists and the hearing agenda, and information might come out about how badly democrats have gutted our intelligence services over the last 30 years. But with republicans sitting out the election, democrats could regain control of the House and Senate, so they will then be able to control the witness lists and the hearing agenda, and we won’t be bothered by any disconcerting information about their own 30 year record on intelligence.
I wish Kim Weissman would have chosen a different title.
"So by sitting out the election, conservatives can help return us to the good old days of complaining about the outrageous conduct of a democrat president, rather than the outrageous conduct of a republican president."
Dear Fellow Conservatives: If you sit out the election then America as we know it will go down in flames. Think Supreme Court Appointees.
"And since our country has already gone four years without the beneficent presence of a Clinton in the White House, conservatives need to do their part to help return the Clintons to the White House, so they can guide the nation into the future as only they can. For all of these reasons, conservatives and republicans should let principle guide them and sit out the election. "
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.