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?

[MissAmericanPie]

When anyone can waltz across our borders whenever they want to and acquire not only the rights of lawful citizens but also special rights, then you only have an illusion of a sovereign border and not a very convincing illusion at that.

[nwrep]

Do you even know his stated positions on important subjects?

Yes mam, I do know his positions, and I will honestly admit that they coincide with mine only about 75% of the time. I am happy to live with that, because I know there is no one in either party who will give me the other 25% (such as abolishing the Dept. of Education, the Welfare State, Dept. of HHS and other sundry Depts., and rolling back around 80% of environmental regulations).

[Southack]

"Your being deliberately ignorant..."

No, quite the opposite.

You first implied that I was uneducated on the **official** federal government definition of a Free Trade Zone supposedly being "no soveriegn borders."

I simply called you to the carpet on your lie, and that's what it was, an outright fabrication on your part in a feeble effort to prop up an argument that can't survive on its own merits, apparently (why else lie about it).

I have given you numerous chances to either substantiate your claim on that official definition, or barring that, to gracefully withdraw your claim (and if you did, I noted that I would drop this entire issue).

But rather than substantiate your claim (which you could not do because you fabricated it), you chose instead to call me names, engage in tireless insults, and post rants that were completely off the subject entirely and had nothing to do with your claimed federal definition.

Nor would you recant your claim. This could have been a long forgotten issue had you merely recanted, as I had promised to drop the matter entirely if you did recant your claim about that definition.

But you are clearly not intellectually honest enough to even drop such a wild-eyed claim, even **after** you've been caught red-handed.

You have ZERO credibility on this issue. You have tossed aside your reputation like a cheap drunk date to her first senior prom night dance.

So you don't want to back down?! Fine. Continue your rants. Continue your baseless attacks on me for **daring** to insist that you substantiate your claims. Continue to live in a world of lies and denial, where you are right and I am the bad guy.

Go ahead. I'm sure that you can find even more ways to trash your reputation.

You certainly didn't back down even when you knew that you had been caught, so why would you stop now?!

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

LOL

I suppose I could be like "Iron Eyes Cody".

That "crying Indian," as he would later sometimes be referred to, was Iron Eyes Cody, an actor who throughout his life claimed to be of Cherokee/Cree extraction. Yet his asserted ancestry was just as artificial as the tear that rolled down his cheek in that television spot -- the tear was glycerine, and the 'Indian' a second-generation Italian-American.

(The spurious use of Native Americans to promote "save the Earth" messages was not limited to this one instance. A moving exposition on the sanctity of the land and the need for careful stewardship of it is still widely quoted as the bona fide words of Chief Seattle. Though the chief was real, the speech was not -- the words came not from the chief's own lips in 1854 but flowed from the pen of a screenwriter in 1971.)

Iron Eyes Cody was born Espera DeCorti on 3 April 1904 in the small town of Kaplan, Louisiana. He was the son of Francesca Salpietra and Antonio DeCorti, she an immigrant from Sicily who had arrived in the USA in 1902, and he another immigrant who had arrived in America not long before her.

Here is my dramatically cropped photo! All I need is a name! LOL

[Sabertooth]

Talking points. You've addressed none of what I said.

[Southack]

"The Democrats are bereft not only of ideas, but also of character. They are ripe to be broken."

No, not talking points.

I pointed out that the Democrats are being beaten by an oblique attack instead of by way of a full-frontal assault.

Had Bush taken them head on over too many issues, they would have put aside their internal disputes and circled their wagons.

But now instead, they've got their unions fighting their greens over drilling in the ANWR, their teachers unions are fighting their Blacks over private school choice vouchers, and other such internecine warfare is erupting in their midst as well (ala Dean versus Lieberman over the Iraqi War).

You want Picket's Charge.

I want to win.

[hchutch]

I'm with you. Bush might not win pretty, but he wins.

If you don't win elections, you don't get to put your principles into practice.

[Mark Felton]

"I am dismayed by these so called conservatives who are oblivious to politics

You are sounding like the kool-aid drinking Clinton democrats who are always "saddened" that nobody is as smart as they are.

Only the truly ignorant can be as smug as you.

[Mark Felton]

" You want Picket's Charge. I want to win."

You want to avoid conflict because you are a coward.

I'm sure Ronald Reagan, U.S. Grant, Patton, Schwartzkopf and Franks also agree with your "join them, don't attack them" policy.

Your appeasement approach is not strategy it is avoidance, delay and deferment. It has been proven a failure throughout history.

I want the Cold War. Where we promote openly the benefits of free societies versus soclialist societies. Where we deny them an inch of ground anywhere, and where we are prepared to go to maximum warfare if they begin to gain too much.

Stand fast, build strength and take and keep every inch of gain we can. NEVER concede ground as Bush has done.

"Perestroika" was the USSR's gradual political movement away from socialism. It was the incremental partial acceptance of more liberal policies because the stalwart Ronald Reagan opposition (in the face of nuclear annihilation) had driven his country into the ground.

Bush's policies are "perestroika" in reverse.

[Sabertooth]

You want Picket's Charge. I want to win.

I think that's the wrong metaphor, honestly.

The Democrats are no sons of Anak, and we are not the grasshoppers so many Republicans believe themselves to be.

Giving the Democrats incremental victories for an ever larger and more rapacious federal government is by no means "winning."

[Southack]

"Stand fast, build strength and take and keep every inch of gain we can. NEVER concede ground as Bush has done."

If you look at failed military history campaigns of the past, it was orders such as Hitler's to Manstein to not yield an inch of ground that cost first a city, then an entire Army, then the Reich itself.

In contrast, it matters not that the U.S. temporarily gave up some meaningless French countryside during the Battle of the Bulge, as we soon made it up in spades...all the way to Berlin.

Likewise, what Bush has given up in spending pales in comparison to what he has gained, including winning two wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, renouncing the U.S. - CCCP ABM Treaty without any meaningful liberal backlash, actually constructing our first 10 ABM silos in Alaska (due for completion next year), killing the Kyoto Treaty with hardly a peep of enviro-nazi nonsense gaining any traction against us, pulling out of the liberal-wet-dream-International-Criminal-Court, two income tax cuts, killing the estate tax, killing the dividend double tax, getting a partial birth abortion ban passed by both the house and Senate (waiting only to be rectified between the two chambers), and a host of other such conservative victories.

And it is **victories** for Conservatism that count, not hanging on to every possible inch of ideological ground even if it means utter defeat for us in the end, as you would have us attempt.

Let's not repeat history's major blunders by giving Bush Manstein's failed orders of the past, shall we.

[hchutch]

Heck, look at how Ray Spruance handled things at Midway. He did not rush headlong into a trap. Instead, he knew when to call it a day.

There is no doubt as to who won the Battle of Midway.

[Southack]

"Giving the Democrats incremental victories for an ever larger and more rapacious federal government is by no means "winning."

Correct, and if that was all that we were doing, then I'd have reason for concern.

But the other half of the coin is that Bush is getting something for what he is giving up.

Yes, the Left got more money for their Educational Department, but in exchange Bush got the right to finally fire bad teachers, test all teachers, insure that all children can at least read and achieve basic levels of fundmental skills, as well as the ability to completely close failing inner city public schools, something that in the past was completely off limits for us to do.

Yes, we're running a deficit, but we've killed off the estate tax, dropped the dividend double tax, cut income taxes at least twice, given two raises to our military, and fully funded our ABM defenses (just in time for a sabre-rattling north Korea, I might add).

I've said it before and I'll say it again here: If you just want to make the case that Bush has spent too much money, you'll get no argument from me. He has let Congress spend too much. But that's only half of the argument. Bush's spending has bought us important victories.

How much are you willing to pay, for instance, to stop partial birth abortion?

How much is too much to spend to stop a North Korean ICBM from vaporizing LA, San Francisco, Seattle, and San Diego?

And there is something else to consider: Bush hasn't been doing all of this in a vacuum. He's been opposed and fought by both the media and the Democratic Party at every turn. To win these victories he's had to pay the price in both blood and treasure.

Such is war.

[Sabertooth]

Sacking the ABM treaty is good. Missile defense is good.

Tax cuts are good.

Steering clear of the International Criminal Court is good.

Killing Kyoto is good, but mostly symbolic. Not even a single Senator from either party voted for it's ratification.

Winning the War on Terror is very good. But...

The folly of the Road Map plan in Israel is very bad. We should butt out, and quit being on the side of the terrorists there.

Any federalization of education is bad.

Any federalization of prescription drugs is bad.

CFR is bad.

The farm bill is bad.

Foreign Aid is bad. $15 billion to generate new AIDS cases is bad (more incentive for AIDS diagnoses than ever before).

The fetal stem cell research hairsplitting was bad. Other non-aborted stem cell sources are just as promising. This is just another example of why the politicization of science through government grants is bad.

Failing to address the problem of Illegal Aliens is bad. Failing to deal with the widespread acceptance of foreign IDs is bad. The recent bill standardizing their acceptance is bad. Trying to penalize law-abiding immigrant candidates with a Section 245(i) Amnesty was bad. Rewarding the criminal behavior of Illegals is altogether bad. Flouting the will of the American people in doing so is bad. Government hubris is bad.

These bad things are incremental victories for the big-government Democrats. Unless, you want to claim them as victories for big-government Republicans?

The conservative cause is not advanced by glossing over the negative aspects of President Bush's tenure in office. Taking note of them does not necessarily preclude a vote for him in 2004.

Politicians build coalitions to win elections. Selling one's affiliation cheaply by declaring one will support a given politician "no matter what," is a clear invitation to being ignored by the politician while he bids for the ballots of swing voters with your money.

There is certainly nothing wrong with trumpeting the President's accomplishments. Some of them are Historic. Nor is there anything wrong with pointing out his flaws and errors, in the hopes that doing so will nudge his Administration towards a correction of the same.

[Scenic Sounds]

I am dismayed by these so called conservatives who are oblivious to politics

Politics can be very frustrating for folks who are not comfortable with change and compromise.

Instead, they would much rather vent, and make gratuitous comparisons between Bush and Nazi Germany!!

It's clear to me that a lot of these folks need to vent. Very few of them are as delusional as some of their hyperbole suggests. For the most part, they see the same changing world that you see, but they see the changes as chaotic and very frightening. Why can't this President (or any president, really) make things more certain and predictable?

Most of these good folks just need to know that their concerns are being heard.

Thanks for the ping, nwsrep. Your thread was/is a terrific idea. ;-)

[Scenic Sounds]

All I need is a name! LOL

OMG, you're even more lovely than I imagined!!

As for a name, well, I still can't help but think of you as Little Bo Peep. LOL. ;-)

[Reagan Renaissance]

"We need to educate these people and keep them as well informed..How do we do this?"

Invite the computer literate to participate in the discussions on the linked series below. For those who aren't computer literate, print copies of the series as they appear and then offer to answer their questions or objections.

Then report back to us if anything works. There are Democrats who become staunch conservatives. I have had personal experience with only one. He had first-hand life experiences outside the realm available to most Americans that convinced him to do a complete 180 on his political views. His experiences were unique and will not have application to changing the views of most Democrats.

Rush has had some luck with listeners who have tuned into his show and eventually become conservatives. But I am guessing that the numbers are small and most of the time he sounds frustrated when he tries to use logic in debates with liberals. It is not possible to be a logical liberal. Here is the link, bring your friends and anyone else: Returning Republicans to their Roots and the Education of Democrats

[Reagan Renaissance]

The fickle finger of fate strikes again.

[Sabertooth]

It's clear to me that a lot of these folks need to vent. Very few of them are as delusional as some of their hyperbole suggests. For the most part, they see the same changing world that you see, but they see the changes as chaotic and very frightening. Why can't this President (or any president, really) make things more certain and predictable?

Most of these good folks just need to know that their concerns are being heard.

You're playing a dangerous game here, with all of your high-falutin sense-making.

Can we get back to building a conservative coalition by calling them all malcontents and unappeasables now? Don'tcha just love it when the door hits them in the butt? That's so hugh. LOL! BTTT!

Votes? We don't need their stinking votes!

Lets go find some Democrats and steal their issues.

[Sabertooth]

Well, thank you all for your responses. Obviously there are people here who have something against Bush.

You're welcome, though I want to pick a small bone here.

It's not a matter of having "something against Bush," it's a matter of political disagreement.

As a man, I quite like this President. I like having someone of honor and character has Head of State.

However, I can never lose sight of the facts that President Bush is a politician, and that he leads our government, which should always be viewed as a necessary evil. I do't go in for hero worship and personality cults, and I find such trends disturbing, even when they coalesce around a President for whom I've voted, and intend to vote.

There is creative chaos in dissent, and the process can only make an honest poster stronger.