Maybe so.
Posted on 11/29/2003 6:16:23 PM PST by Republican Challenger
I am a nationally published journalist who has been drafted to challenge George W. Bush in the Republican Presidential primaries, beginning in New Hampshire on January 27. My aim is to prompt legitimate debate and genuine new ideas, but I start with a question:
HAS GEORGE W. BUSH BETRAYED TRADITIONAL GOP VALUES?
He has failed in his promise to control spending. Nondefense spending has skyrocketed under Bush. The Congressional Budget Office reported that for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003, nondefense spending rose 7% – nearly double the 4% discretionary spending caps Bush promised to enforce (Source: Washington Times). Since Bush took office, nondefense spending has leapt 13% -- 21% if spending on the war on terrorism is included. “My impression of Bush,” says Chris Edwards, director of fiscal policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, “is that I’ve never seen him give a speech in which he says government is too big and we need to cut costs.”
He has failed in his promise to keep America strong. Under Bush, U.S. foreign policy and international esteem have reached historic lows. After spending hundreds of billions of dollars since 9/11, the Bush administration has failed to catch Osama bin Laden, failed to find Saddam Hussein, failed to defeat Al Qaeda, and failed to stabilize Iraq after an invasion that his own Pentagon policy adviser, Richard Perle, now admits was “illegal.” As a result, the geopolitical balance of power has been jolted, traditional allies have been severely alienated, and as a result, the European Union – led by Great Britain – is now conducting secret talks about the formation of an EU military force outside NATO.
He has failed in his promise to be a “compassionate conservative.” Perhaps never before has a U.S. President so divided the country, according to a recent Time cover story. Despite Bush’s promise to be “a uniter, not a divider,” he has turned Republican against Democrat, rich against poor, Christian against Muslim. He has eroded our civil liberties and Constitutional rights in the name of “national security” and aided and abetted a corporate elite class in the theft of the Republican Party and the two-century-old values that made it the Party of Lincoln. “Corporations have been enthroned,” Lincoln said presciently before he died. “…An era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people…until wealth is aggregated in a few hands…and the Republic is destroyed.” Under Bush, Lincoln’s ominous – and accurate – prediction might find its final manifestation unless he and the “neo-con” corporate juggernaut are stopped.
DO YOU AGREE? Please let me know your thoughts. There will be more to come from me, including a detailed platform and agenda for ending the corporate reign in this country, shrinking the federal bureaucracy, and restoring Constitutional freedoms to pre-9/11 levels. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your comments and questions.
I once had an office in the Sacramento Union Building and sat at the same desk that Samuel Clemons used... but that does not imbue me with any of his talents or writing abilties. That affiliation did not bestow upon me any laurels or kudos. It did not change me.
In addition, my 10th great grandfather was the first English Governor of Massachusetts and the founder of Salem. That fact along with a dollar and a half MIGHT buy me a cup of coffee. What it does NOT do is create in me any guilt for his sins or benefits from his good deeds; a fact that seems to escape you vis-a-vis Prescott Bush and our current president.
Your vaunted New Hampshire Gazette is a bi-weekly with 7000 subscribers. Whoop-de-do!
Just because John Adams once had his name on an article in that august periodical does not bestow upon YOU the mantle of his presidential greatness... unless, perhaps, like Hilary's communing with the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt, you have been channeling old Samuel?
Maybe so.
In an average year, about 220 people file the necessary papers with the FEC to become "candidates for President." Of course, they are delusional nonentities, like most of the 135 candidates for Governor of California.
In 1976, because my name was in a lot of papers as an expert on election law, I got a call from one of those delusional presidential candidates. It was AFTER the election, but the Electoral College had not yet met. This gentlemen called me from a Texas mental hospital, which was his current residence. (I am NOT making this up.)
His question was, "If God touched the hearts of the Presidential Electors, can't they elect me, even now, as President?" I informed him that the Electors were bound by state laws to vote as pledged, and the attempt to vote otherwise would cause them to be replaced. I was gentle, because I knew he was crushed that his chance to be President had just slipped away.
There is, sadly, an ample suppply of such people in every Presidential election -- and more than a few others in all other elections. Candidate self-delusion is so common that it ought to have its own definition in the PDR textbook. LOL.
John / Billybob
The burning question is: Will John Buchanan get as many votes in the NH primary as posts to this thread?
How wager ye?
Yeah, but it's nice to enjoy the idea that we're in a position, not only of having all three Houses, but of having a chance* in the primaries of trading up even higher than our current position. We DO have a very strong and decent President, but you must admit there is quite a bit of room for improvement on several domestic issues, from a Constitutional Conservative's point of view.
* Of course, it's Auburn's chance of winning the Sugar Bowl next month, but it IS a chance!
By all measures, Afgahnistan was a success. Anyone that beleives they can convince the American voter otherwise is sadly mistaken.
Iraq is an example of strong leadership and resolve. There is nothing embarrassing about this undertaking except for
(1) prewar demonstrations directed at Bush instead of where they would have been more properly focused, against Saddam the butcher.
(2)Post war protestors that do not realize that if they would get on board (rather than trying to create sentiment against) the effort in Iraq they would end up with exactly what they are seeking, namely, peace.
North Korea was the doings of Clinton. Warnings about his course there went out at the time Clinton made the deal with North Korea not as Monday morning quarterbacking. We are seeing exactly the result that was predicted. This problem can not be laid on Bush. Do your homework. On this one, you are grossly uninformed.
Your comments on "perception of might" sound like you long for the days of Clinton when all that mattered was perception. Might is perceived by the rest of the world when we take action, something we most certainly have done.
What you do not realize is that the rest of the world views respect in a leader when a leader acts like one, put his foot down when necessary. Only in the twisted logic of U.S. liberal politics do people think that turning belly up will earn you respect.
Naturally, I assumed you were dead. I was going to loot your gear. ;^)
Naturally, I assumed you were dead. I was going to loot your gear. ;^)
And Lincoln did serve in the House of Representatives prior to his presidency. I don't know if he was a member immediately before taking office, but he was most definitely a member during the Mexican War, as he was the war's leading opponent in the House. See "Spot Resolutions".
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.