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

[dmzTahoe]

"I think you misunderstood my post."

You're right...I took your post wrong. My dad was the same way, a man of few words, though he meant well.

My apologies and regards to you both.

[Owen]

>
GWB thanks his lucky stars everyday that he hasn't had to nominate a Supreme before this election. I wish it would happen. We would then see his true colors...if he appointed a true conservative, he'd upset the Dem's and not be seen as "compassionate". If he selected a moderate, he'd further alienate his base. My guess is he'd go for the appeasement, especially in an election year.
>

You see, you don't think it through. You offered two possibilities. The third tells the tale, not the first two. If he DOES NOT nominate an overt liberal, that tells you what you need to know about him -- that he fled the liberal option. THAT is what is definitive. Not a wise choice to avoid nominating an unconfirmable conservative. What defines him is getting the rightward most he can get successfully. Probably a right leaning moderate. It would be his decision to nominate a mildly conservative justice that would be cause for joy for us and despair for the left.

Extremists will NEVER get what you want. It's not GWB that defines this or any conspiracy by the GOP. It is timeless truth. GWB would nominate a conservative moderate justice who could be confirmed. We would rejoice. And we should look forward to his opportunity to do so.

[dmzTahoe]

"Not a wise choice to avoid nominating an unconfirmable conservative. What defines him is getting the rightward most he can get successfully. Probably a right leaning moderate. It would be his decision to nominate a mildly conservative justice that would be cause for joy for us and despair for the left."

The exact same strategy that Bush I used in nominating Souter...that was a real winner, huh? Bush I went to the mattress for Clarence Thomas, and even though we all went through hell with Thomas during the hearings, he was confirmed. That's what it takes in this political climate>

To settle for anything less just to appease and avoid a battle is selling out your principles.

[alnick]

You know, you're blowing smoke. You're not someone who can be reasoned with. That's a shame.

[dmzTahoe]

"You know, you're blowing smoke. You're not someone who can be reasoned with. That's a shame."

Ouch!! Rush is right, When those leaning to the left no longer can back up things with facts, they resort to emotions and name calling...am I wrong about Souter? about Thomas?

Rather than spout off, state your case.

[Owen]

>
To settle for anything less just to appease and avoid a battle is selling out your principles
>

He does not settle for "anything". He settles for the best he can get confirmed. Period. Hard stop. No equivocation. The best you can get.

You will NOT get a justice confirmed who walks out on the capitol steps and announces "I am virulently Pro Life and I Can't Wait to get on the court and overturn Roe v. Wade."

There is no way in hell such a justice will not be filibustered to death and Bush Wisely Will Not Nominate Him just so you can run around and beat your chest.

Bush will nominate the rightward most candidate who is viable -- just like WF Buckley. The Democrats would nominate the leftware most candidate who is viable, and with a gutless GOP Senate, a lot more leftward than you would believe possible.

Without Bush, more babies will die than with him. That's unavoidable and reality and there is NOTHING you or any of us can do about it.

[dmzTahoe]

If that was correct reasoning, Bush I should never have nominated Thomas, as he was openly Pro-life. Scalia as well, would never have been nominated.

You fight for what is right, and then if you have to settle for a little less, you do so. You do not start the fight with the candidate who is most acceptable.

As in any negotiation startegy, you have your best case/strongest outcome and then you have in your mind the least you will accept. You should not go into negotiations with your least best outcome on the table.That is what you are saying Bush should do.

[Mr Rogers]

He nominated conservatives, but couldn't get them thru. He won't pick a fight with the Senate - at least, he never has before. He'll nominate a moderate republican with no background on abortion.

I grant GWB is better on the war & judges. He is doing worse than clintoon on domestic issues. On balance, it seems a wash to me...

[HankReardon]

I'm not sure what you are questioning? Is it whether Perot's voters would have been Bush voters if Perot was out of the race? Clinton won with only 43% of the vote. Or are you questioning that the election of Clinton led to the very bad things happening that I mentioned? When the future of mankind is in the balance, it is not the time to send messages via 3rd party votes.

[Owen]

>
If that was correct reasoning, Bush I should never have nominated Thomas, as he was openly Pro-life. Scalia as well, would never have been nominated.
>

Incorrect. Thomas was NOT openly Pro Life. An openly pro Life nominee will get filibustered. I don't have details on Scalia, but I would venture to guess that he also refused to answer any such question about Roe v. Wade. Thomas was instinctively attacked by the Left because he was a GOP nominee. The left never filibustered him. They would have if he had been overtly, publicly Pro Life. They didn't filibuster him on a he said/she said issue without any further evidence. It had nothing to do with Pro Life issues.

The correct procedure is to nominate a confirmable right leaning moderate and hope. You can't do better. Repeat: You Can't Do Better. You can do worse, far worse, and that is defined as taking any action which might increase the odds of electing a Democrat and getting left leaning moderates who will be confirmable and who will advance the cause of killing more unborn babies.

You can be a part of that agenda, and then try to look in the mirror, if you so choose.

[sauropod]

I was trying to draw a distinction between voting 3rd party to "send a message" and voting 3rd party because one examines the parties' platforms and positions, analyzes them, and votes accordingly.

My apologies if I was not clear. 'Pod

[sauropod]

Glad to see you in the fight.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "Never, never, never, never, not ever, never give up." (I'm not sure how many "never"s the quote is supposed to have ;-).

[rebel]

You wrote, "If you vote against Bush or stay home, you vote to kill unborn babies. Go look in the mirror the next day, if you can."

Did you think this when Reagan nominated all those "conservative" judges that now say there is a RIGHT to sodomy in the constitution and that Congress CAN make a law restricting the freedom of speech?

Did you think those "conservative" Reagan appointees would overturn Roe vs Wade?

If so what do you think now?

If you think Bush's appointees would do diffrent than Reagan's...well, I hope you are right but I fear that you are not.

And get off your self-righteous perch! You have no idea of what I and my family do for the pro-life movement...in the trenches! It is wrong not make such blanket statements about people you do not know.

[onyx]

May I keep your post #100? I think I'd like to drag it out for a re-post now and then. You know there'll be opportunity galore. :)

[spodefly]

I will do my duty, to God and country, and vote. And I will, again, vote for the lesser of two evils.

Lamb seems to believe that re-electing Bush will further the conservative cause and help us overcome the intractability of ingrained socialists. I am not convinced of this. I believe voting for Bush will slow the slide to socialism, but the course is still the same.

[arasina]

Vote 3rd party like I did in 1992! Here's what I got for my trouble.

[Neets]

You'll still be eating s****.

Nice to see you are back spewing your lovely tid bits of happiness and joy, Joe.

[mountainfolk]

Some republicans worry about being taken for GRANTED by their party. As much a perception as a reality. Of one thing republicans can be absolutely sure, they most definitely will be COMPLETELY IGNORED by the RAT party and branches thereof. George Bush cannot accomplish in one term or in a lifetime, the wish list of each and every voter. Some who claim to represent the religious right have declared they will sit home if he doesn't produce for them. Some conservatives are so self-absorbed they vow to do the same. If all of the self-indulgent groups succeed in placing the communist, socialist RATs in control of America, they do so at their own peril. The communist party sticks together come hell or high water and they will control this country for generations to come if they are allowed to win this November.Those who believe that sinking the republican ship is going to teach anybody a lesson, gain brownie points with God, or do anything but destroy this republic, are deceiving themselves. I will not accept that those who claim to be conservatives will choose to abandon ship rather than fight. Conquest by an enemy is one thing, self-defeat is worthy of hell.

[antaresequity]

This guy makes a critical mistake.

He uses Republican and Conservative synonamously...

Hint: Republican != Conservative

[NYC GOP Chick]

Actually, I'm upset over all of it.

So am I, but what am I to do? The left is a sick joke, and there's no credible challenge from the right. And after 8 looong years of the Clinton Crime Syndicate, sitting out the election just isn't an option for me.