Freeper Grassroots Movement to Re-Elect Bush

July 24, 2003 | nwrep

[nwrep]

I want to kick off a grass-roots movement to educate and inform discerning Democrats about the real nature of their party and am soliciting suggestions from Freepers. The reasons I am doing this are several, as listed below:

* I have several conservative Democrat friends who have always voted D, but who disagree with the stance of their party on issues like AA, tax-cuts, and regulations.

* These people do not understand that regardless of the "moderate" local Dem candidate they vote for, the party agenda is driven in Congress by an extremely liberal faction of the party.

* Case in point #1: I alerted one friend to Rep. Rangel's remarks about the death of Hussein's sons yesterday (Rangel said it was "illegal" for the US to kill them). The friend said he disagreed with Rangel, and the majority of the Dems would similarly disagree with the Congressman. I asked this friend if he knew who Rangel was. He had never heard of him. I informed him coolly that if the Dem regain the House, Rangel would become the Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Cte., where all spending bills originate, and that he is one of the most influential members of his party in the House. The friend was shocked.

* Case in point #2: I asked another Dem friend what he thought of Kerry. He gave me a canned response about his Vietnam service, etc. I then asked him if he knew about his anti-Vietnam war stance. He said he did not, but that his parents (lifelong Dem voters like himself) hated Jane Fonda and everything she stood for. I then forwarded him the NewsMax expose of Kerr's Vietnam stance, his anti-war book, his rallies with Fonda and Ramsey Clark, and his statement to the US Senate in 1971. After reading all that, he said he was disgusted, and would forward it to his mother. He conceded that if Kerry were to be the nominee, he would vote for Bush.

* The problem is that these Dem voters are blissfully unaware of the voting records of their candidates and representatives. All they go by are finely crafted campaign statements issued during the last few weeks before the election where they pay homage to FDR, Truman and JFK. As a result, these dopey Dem voters (like my friends and their parents) continue voting for these candidates thinking they are voting for FDR/JFK-like candidates.

We need to educate these people and keep them as well informed as we Freepers are about the real day to day legislative agenda of the Rat Party. We need to highlight how they continue to vote against the best interest of these conservative, patriotic Democrats (like my friends) and how they continue to display hypocrisy by constantly changing their stance on major issues.

How do we do this?

[Willie Green]

Karl Marx also claimed that every capitalist system would grow poorer over time as workers were "exploited," and that every socialist system would grow richer.

Marx was much better at predicting socio-economic upheaval than he was at formulating a utopian alternative. Heck, even Adam Smith warned us of the same consequences.

Excerpted and condensed from: Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations, Book 4, Chapter 2

The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation, how far, or in what manner, it is proper to restore the free importation of foreign goods, after it has been for some time interrupted, is, when particular manufactures, by means of high duties or prohibitions upon all foreign goods which can come into competition with them, have been so far extended as to employ a great multitude of hands. Humanity may in this case require that the freedom of trade should be restored only by slow gradations, and with a good deal of reserve and circumspection. Were those high duties and prohibitions taken away all at once, cheaper foreign goods of the same kind might be poured so fast into the home market as to deprive all at once many thousands of our people of their ordinary employment and means of subsistence. The disorder which this would occasion might no doubt be very considerable....

[MtnMover]

Haven't you heard the rumor that Bill Clinton is privately taking Spanish lessons so he can move to CA and enter the race for Governor in time to send its electoral votes to the Hill (ary).

[Sabertooth]

On the other hand, I trust that you acknowledge that it's also a popular tactic to abuse the above said card, even going so far as funding a Green or Constitution or Libertarian Party in order to merely syphon votes away from your competitor.

I do think it gets abused, and I think the above scenario is just one motive. Some folks get off on the ego-ride of playing politics. Some are just ornery. The latter is the reason I was a Libertarian for ten years, but I put that aside long ago.

There are also those folks who entertain the fantasy that they can grow a third major party, failing to realize that in democracies (and democratic republics), party systems are molded by electoral systems. Communist systems nurture one party; parliamentary systems nurture many; and ours, uniquely, gets two.

[MeekOneGOP]

hehe ! Yeah, I did. In fact, it seems I saw an article posted about something regarding that too . . .

Uh, haz anybahdy
seed hillary ??

Uh, nevah mind!
Ah found 'er !!

More bump images HERE !

[MtnMover]

Interesting response Willie. Perhaps you will include this in your repetoire.

In the context of a free and civil society at work
to all
according to their needs
and to each
according to His will

. . . pipus willabi . . .

[EGPWS]

How do we do this?

First of all, talk to Jim Robinson for he has done an excellent job of doing so with his efforts!

I'd lay good odds that he would be an asset to your endeavors.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Willie, you can't be such a political ingenue that you throw Marx at me?

I can see that you've gone into the name calling already, so I'll make it brief so that you can get back to your researching of Marx.

Marx was a liar, most communists are liars by nature. Marx apoke in favor of free trade while setting up a society that was anything but free, he did it for naifs such as yourself.

Even strong National Socialists like yourself should have seen through that claptrap.

Thanks for the answer by the way; it appears that as I suspected, you are all about political ideology over the will of the governed.

See you around Willie.

[Willie Green]

Willie, you can't be such a political ingenue that you throw Marx at me?

What's it matter to you, Luis?

Seems to me that YOU'RE the one babbling a lot of incoherent nonsense about "the will of the people" and ideology not making any difference because social engineering is going to happen anyway.

Heck, I could quote Winnie-the-Pooh to you and you wouldn't know the difference.

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

"Yes, when did Bush unsign the ICC? Once Bush knew the treaty was a done deal, anotherwords enough nations were committed to signing on by a
certain date, he voiced disagreement. Once again, it was too late."

It wasn't too late. Bush has taken the U.S. out of the ICC, and Bush has convinced numerous other ICC nations to give us immunity from the ICC when Americans are on the territory of those other nations.

In my last post to you, in response to you calling my assertion that Bush waited too late to unsign the ICC treaty rubbish, once again stated you were wrong.   On this subject I mentioned that the ICC is a reality today in no small part due to the failure of the United State's leadership to condemn it from day one.  Clinton and Bush deserve the blame for this.  Neither of them took a firm stand against it until it was known to a certainty that it would be ratified.  Once again you ignore this fact to rant on.

Now granted, taking on the ICC that Clinton signed wasn't Bush's very first Executive Action.

Nobody expected it to be his first action.  I'm not sure how long it took you to realize the plan to create an  ICC was wrong, but it took me less than 15 months.  Here is an article from NewsMax that was still urging the President to unsign the ICC as late as April of 2002.  Here's the link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/670218/posts

Here's a CNSNews article from April 2, 2002.  It's titled UN Poised To Ratify International Criminal Court http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/658123/posts

Bush finally unsigned the treaty on May 06, 2002, over fifteen months after taking office, and over one full month after it was known to be a done deal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/679031/posts

I will be waiting for your appology.
 

[putupon]

I might have to vote for JFK because he would be the better conservative???

Coin toss.

As for me, W would the vote because on personal character and party affiliation.

Outside of that, there isn't too much difference.

[VadeRetro]

I don't see where you have proposed anything that can be viewed as even a semblance of a solution; other than having the Feds step in and ban the outsourcing of jobs by private industry.

I already conceded not having the answer. I hope to know it when I see it.

By this time next year, someone will be running hard on the issue of jobs for Americans. It's likely to have a real resonance with the voters by then.

[Fearless Flyers]

It was grassroots conservatives and leftist extremists who got Bush elected. It's a mistake not to recognize this.

Had it not been for the grassroots conservatives who united with the GOP to defeat Gore, and Nader taking the traditional Campus Democrats’ votes, Bush probably would not have won Florida.

Bush has eaten up much of that grassroots support here and if the race is as close as it was in 2000 he better hope the Democrats contest a different State. Of course, there is the possibility he could siphon away enough ignorant Democrats to make up for the loss of our support, but that would only confirm the theory that he’s a liberal in the right clothing.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Seems to me that YOU'RE the one babbling a lot of incoherent nonsense about "the will of the people" and ideology not making any difference."

Well Willie, I have my reasons for that, and I will readily admit my advantage over you, mine is not a "chance of birth" citizenship, I had to earn mine.

I had to earn it by understanding it, and the underlying principles...specifically that principle which commands the Federal government to acquiesce to the will of the people.

You see Willie, the first three words of the U.S. Constitution arer the single most important words in that venerable document: "We the people...", and that's never changed.

I realize that you believe that this idea of government by the will of the people is nonsense, I disagree, as did my role model:

"From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden." -- Ronald Reagan

Maybe you should read considerably less Winnie The Pooh.

[Sir Gawain]

Many independent factors came together to allow a Bush win. The country was more liberal in 2000. 9/11 has changed that.

[VadeRetro]

My 191 was intended as a reply to your 128. Didn't exactly happen that way.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"It was grassroots conservatives and leftist extremists who got Bush elected. It's a mistake not to recognize this."

Excuse me?

I will not argue with you.

C ya!

[floriduh voter]

I don't think Bush is going to lose. Being strong on defense is key to our future. We can't blame the porous borders on Dubya anyway. It's been like that forever but illegals in Florida get aid from churches and charity organizations. Maybe Florida has got it right and we don't even have a state income tax.

Pres. Bush is blamed for everything that's not been addressed to each critic's satisfaction. We are millions of people after all seeking instant gratification from one man it seems. (The fast food president was x-42 and in addition, he was a robber barron along with his wife.)

If the better off question comes up, I am "better off" than I was when bubba was president. Isn't that a standard that the average American relates to every Prez election? Free Republic registereds are not average America we must consider.

"Bush will lose if he does this or doesn't do that" what kind of talk is that? And, globalism is a big topic in itself that has many dimensions. The idea is to get the economy moving but folks on this thread are obsessing over immigration problems. FV

[Southack]

"Marx was much better at predicting socio-economic upheaval than he was at formulating a utopian alternative."

No.

Simply, no.

Marx's core innovation over **all** other socialists before him was that he criticized and attacked all utopian visions of socialism. He said that pushing for utopia was unrealistic, and that expending energy and efforts for an unrealistic goal was therefore counterproductive, and therefor an **obstacle** to incrementally implementing socialism worldwide.

Likewise, Marx's core weakness was that he claimed that capitalism would fail in every instance where it was tried, making the working class poorer and poorer each year, leading to the working class rising up and overthrowing every form of government that embraced capitalism. Marx further weakened his argument by claiming that socialism, if it did not pursue unrealistic utopian visions, would make the working class richer and richer, but this claim pales in comparison to Marx's claim about capitalism, and Adam Smith duly kicked his ideological butt on this issue.

[Willie Green]

Yeah, yeah, whatever you say, Calypso Louie.
Bubba Klinton could put on a majestic display of superficial patriotism just as easily.

[Southack]

"You stated that the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty was killed. Hmmm, if something is dead, does it still live on? What further steps has our leadership taken at the federal level to block implementation of the Kyoto Treaty across this nation? Bush did renounce the Kyoto Treaty and state he would not sign on. At the time I saluted him for doing so. Now, what good will that do us if the Kyoto Treaty is implemented across this nation anyway? Has Bush defunded a single NGO that you can name? Has he stopped them from drawing up legislation that the fifty states will rubber stamp and pass into law?"

Yes, Bush killed the Kyoto treaty.

But Bush is not going to trample all over states' rights in order to prevent misguided states from implementing their own **aspects** of the now-dead Kyoto treaty.

Bush stopped Kyoto at the national level, and I dare say stopped it at the Texas level while he was governor there, though with a Democratic legislature back then who knows if he was really able to stop every back door aspect of Kyoto.

If you want to prevent various aspects of Kyoto from being implemented at the state level, you'll have to recognize that such actions aren't going to be labeled as "Kyoto" anything, but rather that other stealth names will be given to such actions...and you'll have to get involved at a local level. Bush can't be everywhere for you.