If not Bush, then who?

12-28-2003 | agitate

[Agitate]

I've noticed several threads where people say they will not vote for Bush if he supports certain causes. Some include:

Memogate:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1045476/posts

Broad Amnesty in immigration:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1046165/posts

(Please don't see this as an attack on those threads or any comments in them, it's not.)

While I agree with the conservative position on both of these threads, I don't understand how a person could not vote for Bush even if he does some things that are inexplicable from a conservative point of view.

My belief is nothing could be worse than a democrat in office in 2004. I know that is the lesser of two evils vote, but it is true.

Even if Bush gave amnesty to immigrants to pander to hispanics, which would be disgusting, is that reason enough to allow a democrat a greater chance to get in office? Wouldn't the dems likely do worse?

[terilyn]

Nice screen name.

[janetgreen]

I agree with your comments. We already have a liberal in office.

[Tim Osman]

He might try, but I do believe that if it were Dean doing it, and not a fellow Republican, the Repubs in the legislature would stop it. I could of course be wrong.

But who passed the last major amnesty? A Republican. Who wants to pass one now? A Republican. Who signed CFR and the medicare entitlement? A Republican.

There are things that Bush is doing that, were they done by Clinton, would have conservatives both in the legislature and on this site in an uproar. It's because it is "Their guy" in office.

If Dean won, GOP would still have majority, and might once again remember whose side they are on. Again, could be wrong.

[pctech]

I will not thrown away my vote on the likes of anyone from the Democratic party, but if there was a third candidate that was more along the lines of a Ronald Reagan than GWB that could beat either him or Dean/Clinton, I would vote for him. As much as I've supported and stood up for this president, some of his policies are so "democratic like" in nature it really scares me. Of course, he's just following his father's lead and helping to bring on the "one world government" that GHB started.

[Consort]

It's time to bring out the guidelines again. Until the Democrats are diminished as a serious threat, then:

• If he/she has an "R" after his/her name, vote for him/her.
• Yes, in politics, winning is everything.
• Republicans running against Democrats have earned your vote.
• If the choice is between two evils, vote for the lesser evil, even though they are both evil.
• No matter how big or small government gets, never allow Democrats to control any part of it.
• The GOP "base" is much broader than just Conservatives.
• Common sense trumps principles, morals, personal views, and conscience because even the bad guys have them — but they don't resemble yours in any way, shape or form.
• Don't confuse whining with ranting. If big, umlimited government makes you unhappy, then you will be unhappy for the rest of your life.

There is too much at stake to play games with your vote. (These guidelines will be modified over time).

[Agitate]

I think Bush is doing certain things that many conservatives don't agree with as an attempt to mollify the swing voter. By doing so, he helps lock in a second term, with an eye toward a gradual rightward shift in governing for the following four years. The gradual (and relatively pain-free) weaning of certain groups off of the government teat will help to further solidify the rightward swing that the general public has been displaying as of late, thus making the '08 GOP candidate appear much more mainstream than and Al Gore or Hillary Clinton.

At least I hope so. :-)

That's pretty much my thinking also, I hope you're right.

[Tim Osman]

Thank you, I like yours too!

[terilyn]

It's an interesting choice. I wonder if most people know who Tim Osman is?

[Tim Osman]

They will know if they ask Jeeves...

Of course I'm not THAT Tim Osman - I'm his polar opposite!

[DLfromthedesert]

I work at the OTHER hospital, but I haven't heard much about it yet. I know the administrator was on Lou Dobbs, but I missed it.

[John Robertson]

Back at ya!

[woodyinscc]

Here is a post I saved by Common Tator from a couple of weeks ago. It dove tails and extrapolates on the common sense of your post.

---

To: Jim Robinson
There are two basic rolls for political activists.
The first is to elect the people most in tune with their views. Nothing happens until someone is elected. That means effective activists have to support candidates the voters will elect. Voting for losers to send a message sends the message that your vote and support is of no consequence.

The other and most important thing to recognize is that this is a nation of the people, for the people, and by the people. Thus to effect change one must get the support of the people.

The reason to run for office is to win. Running for office with the intent to lose has no meaning. So viable candidates will always try to appeal to a majority to voters. If a majority of the voters share your positions politicians will fight to do your will. IF they do not, politicians will fight to deny your will.

Activists in a minority position, as conservatives are, must first move enough voters to their position to effect a majority at the polls. When that is done candidates who agree with you in nearly all particulars will come out to the woodwork to run win and enact your agenda.

Winning candidates in the US always learn the views of the public first, and then adopt them to gain support.

As long as conservatives long for a leader who will buck public opinion to do "what is right" they will only endure defeat.

The key is to not try to run for office or even influence those that run for office. The key is to change public opinion.

While the right was putting its faith in the words in the constitution, the left was gaining control of the media, education, and the courts. They were able to do this because they gained majority support among the voters. Once they control the media, the schools and the courts the constitution is a worthless document. If you don't believe me ask Sandra Day O'Conner how that works in the case of CFR. She understands it perfectly.

The only way to reverse that is to gain public support, then take back the media, the schools and the courts. There have been just two oportunties in the last 20 years. The good news is we are using them both.

The first was the total decline in AM radio, such that those who control the media thought it was not worth anything. The right gained control of that medium and used it to garner millions to the cause. The second was the advent of the internet finally taking the monopoly of information control away from the left.

As these two media are used to change public opinions, things will change. No government can stand without public support. The absolute power fo the Soviet Union could not stand up to its weak, poor, and unarmed citizens when they refused to accept its authority. It fell. You would not think the Soviet Union's power would have collapsed when it lost the support of its lowly citizens, but it did. All nations governments exist and exercise power at the pleasure of its citizens. Goverments try very hard to hide that fact. But it is true. All governemnts get their power from the governed. When the governed take their power back, the goverment falls.

Here in the United states we have a representative republic. We can change the way our government rules with votes. Until we convert a majority of voters to our views, we will only fail.

So the goal must be two fold. First ELECT the best candidate we can ELECT. Not the one we like best... The best we can elect. But that is just a secondary goal. The primary goal is to change the minds of the bosses of this nation. The real rulers of this nation are the voters. Once we have a majority of them in our corner the fight is won.... until someone changes their minds again.


559 posted on 12/12/2003 6:07:53 AM PST by Common Tator (I support Billybob. www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[tj005]

I agree with your position. I do not agree with everything that Bush does or has done, I doubt that anyone would agree 100% with any president, but I disagree with virtually the entire liberal/democrat agenda. I cannot fathom voting for anyone but Bush.

I believe that the liberal agenda will indeed sell out America to the EU and UN, which I certainly oppose. I hope I never live to see the day that the USA becomes a socialistic liberal America.

[Qwinn]

"Regretfully we may have to give up the white house, the congress and or the Senate in order to send the message that we are GOING to be heard, or the Republicans are GOING to be out of office.. Again."

Here, I'm afraid, is where your argument falls apart.

You seem to think that if the Republicans lost, it would be seen as a message that he wasn't far enough to the Right. Are you kidding? Look at the vast majority of the national debate going on right now. If Bush loses, it will be interpreted (with the media's help, of course) as a message that Bush was TOO FAR TO THE RIGHT to be electable.

A vote for the Dem says "Move to the Left". A vote for the Republicans says "Move to the Right". Not voting says "I have no problem with the way things are going." Regardless of what your intentions when voting are, that's how it will be interpreted, and that's what the party will do in response. That's pretty much what it boils down to.

If you want to get your message heard -without- aiding the shift leftward, you have options ranging from voting for the most conservative candidate in Republican -primaries-, to getting involved in politics yourself. But simply not voting and letting Republicans lose office will mean only one thing to Republican politicians - "A dem won again. We tacked too far to the right. Guess next time we'll -also- have to raise taxes and give up on the fight against abortion - that was apparently a big mistake.".

Qwinn

[RightWinger]

Dubya will win, even if I don't vote for him.

I want Dubya to understand that real Conservatives are not happy with his moderate stance.

If I vote for him, I'm no better than some of the Democrap groups (I criticize) who vote for their candidate regardless of how their candidate treats them.

If Dubya loses, it's his fault, not mine.

[tj005]

the problem with voting for that 'conservative third party' is that you are voting against the president AND will split the votes perhaps enough to elect a democrat... heaven forbid!! Remember George Sr... and the Perot fiasco

[inquest]

Interesting theory set forth in that post. By electing Republicans, we'll take back the media... I think there's a missing link in there that needs explaining.

[Qwinn]

"I want Dubya to understand that real Conservatives are not happy with his moderate stance."

Ping to 154. No one will interpret Bush losing the way you think they would.

Qwinn

[inquest]

Unless they vote for somene like the Constitution Party.

[Consort]

Dubya will win, even if I don't vote for him.

If Dubya loses, it's his fault, not mine.

Geeze.