Republicans: Don't give up on 'W' now! {Henry Lamb}

WorldNetDaily / Commentary ^ | Posted: January 31, 2004 | Henry Lamb

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

WorldNetDaily / Commentary
Henry Lamb

Republicans: Don't give up on 'W' now!

Posted: January 31, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

The most serious threat to President Bush's second term is not a Democrat; it is the growing mass of disenchanted Republicans who are accepting the proposition that there is little or no difference between the two major parties.

"Where are they going to go?" says a well-placed Bush operative. "You know they'll never vote for Dean or Kerry. And there's no Ross Perot on the horizon."

Where will they go? Nowhere. And that's the point. Republicans, especially the more conservative variety, are likely to stay home in droves. So far, the Republican strategists appear to be oblivious to this possibility.

Perhaps conservative Republicans expected too much too soon from a Republican administration. The Democrats had eight years to fill the agencies of government with activists from their special-interest groups. It is true that President Bush quickly dumped the most egregious of these types, whose positions are political plums. The underlings hired by the political appointees, however, are protected by civil-service regulations and cannot be fired, or even reassigned, without non-political justification.

The disappointment of conservatives goes much deeper and questions the fundamental philosophy which guides the administration. After eight years of watching the Clinton-Gore team march the United States directly into the jaws of a global socialist government, Bush supporters expected a screeching halt and a major course correction.

Conservatives cheered Bush's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol – a screeching halt and a major course correction – while socialists abroad and Democrats at home condemned the president.

When Bush defied the U.N. Security Council, and created a multi-national coalition to eliminate Saddam Hussein, conservatives split, some cheering the action, some joining the Democrats at home and socialists abroad who condemned the action.

The Patriot Act, the prescription drug program, the "guest worker" program, the so-called "free trade" programs and a half-trillion dollar deficit have left conservatives reeling, wondering why a Republican administration and Congress have produced results that look so much like what they would expect from a Democrat administration and Congress.

Consequently, many, many Republicans have thrown up their hands and have decided to either join some doomed third-party movement or simply stay home.

While this reaction may be understandable, it is not only self-defeating, it violates the first law of true believers: Never, never, never, never give up!

It is true that Republican hold the White House and a razor-thin majority in Congress. It is also true that the nation is divided, almost down the middle, between people who want to continue the Clinton-Gore path toward global socialist government and those who want to abandon that path and move the United States toward more individual freedom, free markets and voluntary cooperation among sovereign nations.

Rather than give up and stay at home, a better strategy may be for conservatives to realize that the election of President Bush in 2000, and securing a slim majority in Congress in 2002, is just the first step in a long journey. Conservatives should realize that it takes 60 senators to prevail over the Democrats' filibuster.

Rather than throw in the towel, conservatives might throw their effort into the campaigns of conservative candidates for the House and Senate, and for the state legislatures and county commissions.

The global socialist agenda moved into high gear after the fall of the Berlin Wall, aided dramatically by the progressive Democrats in the United States. The Bush election in 2000 disrupted that agenda, and to them, nothing is more important than removing the Bush obstacle. Conservatives who decide to give up and stay at home will be aiding and abetting the enemies of freedom.

A return to progressive Democrat leadership in the United States is a return to the Kyoto Protocol and U.N. control over energy use in the United States. It is a return to subservience to the United Nations – as Howard Dean says, to get "permission" from the U.N. before defending our nation. It is a return to total government control over land use, education and every other facet of life.

In 2000, conservatives barely got a foothold on the bridge of the ship of state. In 2002, conservatives began to get a grip on the wheel. In 2004, conservatives have an opportunity to bring on more hands and to permanently discharge some of the progressive Democrats who continue to fight desperately for control.

Democrats alone cannot regain control. If conservatives give up, throw in the towel and fail to show up for the November battle, the Democrats will win by default. Conservatives who truly believe that freedom is better than socialism, those who want freedom for their children rather than a world socialist government, will never, never, never, never give up. They will show up in November.

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.

THIS article at WND

[hilaryrhymeswithrich]

I can't help but wonder if there are any DU trolls here encouraging conservatives to stay home in November. Hmmmmm........

[S.O.S121.500]

SEE #22

[sauropod]

Well he happens to be right. So is the Republican strategist quoted in the article.

They're sitting fat and happy right now.

[HankReardon]

Very funny! Would someone diagnosed HIV positive in 1978 still be alive today? I really don't know, my intially thought would be to doubt it. Syhyllis is curable, AIDS is not. I do not know what you think, you do not know what I think. Whether someone deserves to die has not a thing to do with what I said. Fact is, there is no cure, people are dying, people are spreading this highly contagious disease. What is the solution, tolerance and understanding? Good luck with that. Amazing, I told you all this with no personal attack, proves it can be done.

[sauropod]

Actually, I'm upset over all of it.

Get US out of the UN and the UN out of NY!

[Bombard]

If what is happening is so bad why don't you all end it all. Go ahead and stay home or vote for someone else. Two to five years down the road when New York or Los Angles are nuked by terrorists who were treated as criminals like the Dems belive they are then you will see how petty you are. Do you folks believe that a Kerry government whould do what is needed to protect the USA? A Republican congress can harp all it wants and can do nothing because it is the executive branch that controls the defense of the country. Even the things you complain about show that President Bush is looking towards the future. The border problem needs addressing and deporting illegals is not only impossible in a practical sense, it also would destabilize Mexico and that is a can of worms we don't want to open. Like it or not most of the people in the USA illegaly are here because many of the jobs they do are not wanted by Americans. We have to figure good way to control the influx and meet the needs of the labor market. President Bush has started the discussion like a leader should. Drug benifits for seniors is needed and cost effective. If seniors have access to a affordable drug plan health care costs will be reduced. Modern drugs are important to maintain the health of seniors, reduce the affordability of such drugs and the health of seniors is affected and thus costs for sick seniors increase. Like what President Bush is doing or not at least he forward looking and that is what is needed in todays America. BUSH 2004!!

[swampfox98]

Yep. Those, along with scores of other annoyances, will be swept off the problem plate in one fell swoop because he closed the borders and deported the illegals.

You finally got it right, kid.

[S.O.S121.500]

"Reasonable conservatives can differ on this. "

RESPONSIBLE conservatives cannot.

[HankReardon]

Most people coming across our borders want to work for what they get, more than I can say for some Americans.

[Mr Rogers]

I believe the negative result - a Supreme Court nominee who supports abortion - is a certainty regardless. Therefor, I see no down side on this issue.

I would be more likely to support GWB because of our war against terrorists. On any other issue, I'm not seeing much difference. And I prefer gridlock to the unopposed slide towards socialism.

[sauropod]

I respect you for writing it. Good job.

[RiflemanSharpe]

I have given up on him.

[S.O.S121.500]

"Any other procedure, ANY other procedure, condemns you and your family to life under the opposition. "

Si senior.

[Essie]

If you think that George Bush is so bad, please try to think and think very hard where this country would be if Al Gore had been president for the last four years. Think not what George Bush has or hasn't done. Think what Al Gore would have done. Unlike Clinton, Al Gore is a true believer.

Any person who doesn't vote for Bush is giving tacit support to Kerry or Dean, etc. The person is the White House wields enormous power. Who do you want to have that power? Is there any choice???

[swampfox98]

And most people obey the law, which can't be said for the illegals.

[dmzTahoe]

Bush takes one step forward and two steps backwards.
We need a true conservative who is not afraid of offending interest groups, voting blocks and the opposition party.

Unfortunately, it is going to have to get a lot worse before enough people get fed up with the situation and take the action needed to right the course. Sure, the true, hard-core conservatives are upset enough to react, but the Bushbots aren't there yet. It'll take a few more liberal acts by Bush, perhaps, but eventually they will see the light.

Bush is leading us to the eventual "bottom" where enough people can no longer take it, albeit he's leading us there slower than a Democrat President would.

So are we better off in delaying the inevitable? I'd rather deal with this problem than having my kids try to right the wrongs.

[arasina]

What this "kid" got WRONG is that she thought people would be smart enough to digest the contents of her post without need a /sarcasm at its end.

[sauropod]

Unfortunately, Peroutka's platform says that the War in Iraq was unconstitutional (it wasn't).

If the CP is going to hang that position on whether or not the Congressional authorization to go to war was in fact a Declaration of War, and say that it was not, then the CP is obviously not up to the job.

I speak as one that voted for Howard Phillips in the last two presidential elections.

[dmzTahoe]

>i>"Any person who doesn't vote for Bush is giving tacit support to Kerry or Dean, etc. The person is the White House wields enormous power. Who do you want to have that power? Is there any choice???"

Supporting Bush is a slow and painful death. Supporting Kerry or Dean is a much quicker path to the bottom, where then enough people will be fed up and react as they should.

You want the quickest way to recovery? Let Shrillary win...then we will see the inevitable revolution occur swift and furious, and we will rebound with a better society.

[arasina]

without the need for a /sarcasm at its end.