Posted on 02/12/2004 7:32:47 AM PST by quidnunc
Let's just be blunt: The North Koreans would love to see John Kerry win the election. The mullahs of Iran would love it. The Syrian Baathists would sigh with relief. Every enemy of America would take great satisfaction if the electorate rejects the Bush doctrine and scuttles back to hide under the U.N. Security Council's table. It's a hard question, but the right one: Which candidate does our enemy want to lose? George W. Bush.
And some conservatives will be happy to help, it seems.
Woe and gloom have befallen some on the right. Bush has failed to act according to The Reagan Ideal.
The actual Reagan may have issued an amnesty for illegals, but the Ideal Reagan would have done no such thing. So unless Bush packs freight cars full of gardeners and dishwashers and dumps them off at the Mexican border, some voters will just sit this one out.
The Ideal Reagan would have eliminated the National Endowment for the Arts; the actual Reagan proposed a $1 million increase in his final budget. But Bush increased NEA funding. So angry conservatives might just sit this one out.
And if a Democrat takes office, and the Michael Moores and Rob Reiners and Martin Sheens crowd the airwaves on Nov. 3 to shout their howls of vindication? If the inevitable renaissance of Iraq happens on Kerry's watch, and the economy truly picks up steam in the first few years before the business cycle and Kerry's tax hikes kick in? If emboldened Islamist terrorists smell blood and strike again? Fine. Maybe the next Republican president will do everything they want.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
I don't see any feasible way to defend the border with today's technology and resources. It maybe possible to prevent people from sneaking across the border in the future but I fear that would require a government with so much power that the problem of big brother would be far greater than illegal immigration. If I wanted to stem the flow of illegals who desire free healthcare and welfare, then I would get rid of the welfare and free healthcare. If I wanted to stem the flow of illegals seaching for work, then I would eliminate the jobs and vote democrat. If I wanted to stem the flow of illegals because I hate Mexicans then I would erect a 20 ft electrified fence with armed guards around the "land of the free and the home of the brave," give government complete control of my life, call myself a "real conservative," and say something truly stupid like "I'm writting in (congressman) Tancedo for President." Since I do not fear people coming to America to work I will support Dubya.
From DU
Given that Kerry supported PATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, the Bush tax cuts, the creation of the Homeland Security Office, etc., Nader probably decided a real left candidate was needed in the election.
After Democrats lose the presidential election AGAIN, it won't be because of the Democrats' own candidate. Oh no. It will be because of Nader and Dean and those evil, evil librul voters. Oh, and the homosexuals for bringing up marriage during an important election season. Everyone's fault but our own, damn it!
another poster responded
don't forget NAFTA, "Free Trade Agreements", the WTO and the rest
Except for the taxcuts The left fringe Naderites sound EXACTLY like the right fringe. They are complaining about the same issues
Most of the people who are complaining about Bush now weren't Bush fans in 2000 either, if they were even here then.
Heck, I wasn't a Bush fan myself - I voted for Keyes in the primary, and supported the Constitution Party when Keyes didn't get the nomination.
Believe me, I know. Other families watch football games on holidays, my family argues about politics. We're about evenly split between conservatives and liberals, but the liberals have had a slight edge lately because my conservative brothers have been deployed.
At least since the Patriot Act, the liberals in the family have been making the exact same arguments as the "true conservatives" on this board. It's uncanny.
Which is why I'm posting so late on this...but just wanted to add my own two cents anyway...
Lileks writes an excellent article, IMHO. I'd like to point out that the President of the United States doesn't have the authority to control the borders any more than any Governors of States do; it is the legislatures who've written the policies that are the cause of the current problem. Realistically speaking, the U.S. Senate today is gridlocked, although the GOP holds a one-vote edge, and that includes the East Coast "RINO's" who fairly represent their "RINO" constituencies, although every once in a while they throw in a "conservative" voting position, just to keep their GOP credentials in order. Nevertheless, IMHO any conservative-thinking person, whatever their issue(s) would fare far worse if these "liberal Republicans" were replaced by even more liberal Democrats.
Again IMHO, I don't feel there is any possibility, at least at the federal level, of affecting a "bloodless coup" and installing a Constitution Party or Libertarian president. Are there even any "third-party" members of Congress, yet??
The President is not the "King", he does not rule by "fiat" (contrary to the Clinton model) and his (her) moral obligation is to govern all the people. He also must be elected, or he can do nothing for any of the people except shout his opinions about. I personally have no problems with President Bush's integrity and ideals, although I would wish he were more able to accomplish them. Thanks to Congress, and the general state of the electorate, he cannot. But I think he has good plans and "strategeries" (do not "misunderestimate" him...LOL!) to work towards his goals, which I believe to be fair and conservative...
And something else to consider, just on the one issue of "borders/immigration policy"...Tancredo is a fabulous Representative, but he could never be elected President in '04 as a GOP or as any other "alternative party" candidate. He's doing a great job right where he is, as he seems to recognize, and he'll continue to be a force to be reckoned with in future. I'd rather he be keeping President Bush on his honest toes than wearing himself out tilting at the windmills you'd have in a Kerry administration (except off Cape Cod, of course) or going off on a third-party tangent, which most of the voters in either "main party" are not ready to "split off" and support.
Read the first paragraph of the Lileks article again...remember Janet Reno and whoever it was the Clinton administration had as the head of INS...not to mention their Secretaries of State and Defence, and their Attornies General. That was a "slow slide" that 3 years into a Republican presidency we are actually starting to climb up from, despite the last minute "starting in 2004" executive orders and agency policies that the previous administration left to extend their "legacy". There will never be a "Phoenix" moment, folks...who do you trust?
( / series...! )
To take a speech where President Reagan described an idealized vision for the world based on the freedoms we have here in the USA, and then use that as an argument that President Reagan was in favor of dismantling our system of immigration control is stretching it a more than a bit. It is completely over the top.
The shining city is America, not the world, and Reagan said "the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get there." Reagan was the first President to offer amnesty to illegal immigrants. His words reflect the words on the base of the Statue of Liberty. I repeat... I don't think you know very much about Ronald Reagan.
That's why Al Gore almost became your president. Geez.
In the end, I didn't want a repeat of 1992, so I voted for George Bush.
And so you are now replying to me for what reason? You don't want to argue so you post an transparent and insulting implication comparing me with a mental patient. Do you even understand the words you write?
Whoopie you're 50. Age does not equal wisdom. Neither does working for the state or working in a mental hospital. Voting for Reagan twice does not make you an expert. It makes you one of over 40 million people. I do not need to offer my credentials because my logic speaks for itself.
I have given you sound reason to back up my opinions, you have failed to refute anything and you now scrap the bottom of your shallow intellectual abilities with a clumbsy slur. Up until this point, this has not been an arguement. It has been you offering your opinion and me correcting you. If you truely do not wish to argue, you need simply choose not to respond. I would think a man of your age would know that by now.
My, my! swampfox98 has become the victim of a search and destroy effort funded by her enemies on Free Republic. Wonder who has been given the torch to bait me? Yeah, I wonder......
I may shed a few tears at finding out that I am not considered a part of the "mainstream Republican", whose idol is Orin Hatch. Then again, I may not.
Get used to it. I am a part of a huge conservative movement. It is so large that they won't need my vote either, but they'll have it.
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.