Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Republicans: Don't give up on 'W' now! {Henry Lamb}
WorldNetDaily / Commentary ^ | Posted: January 31, 2004 | Henry Lamb

Posted on 01/31/2004 6:16:33 AM PST by 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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: electionpresident; gwb2004; henrylamb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-191 next last
To: dmzTahoe
Thomas, as he was openly Pro-life.

No, before he went on the Court, Justice Thomas said that he had "no opinion" on Roe v. Wade and had never "given it {abortion} much thought." He may have been bluffing. He is about the best of the nine justices in my opinion, with strong, forceful, consistent conservative decisions, but he said that he had no opinions on abortion when being considered for Senate confirmation.
161 posted on 01/31/2004 12:36:15 PM PST by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: arasina
Thank you for defending me and using a roundabout way to call arasina the L word and at the same time accusing HER of resorting to name calling. You're my clever hero

Oh my. I think I am going to have to hit the abuse button. I didn't write this post. Ummmmm, it all depends upon how handsome my protector is, that maybe I will kiss him.....or her.....or not...

Listen, dmzTahoe knows that swampfox98 needs no help in defending herself. And you'd do well to learn that, too.

162 posted on 01/31/2004 12:48:08 PM PST by swampfox98 (Californians: re-call your lying governor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Neets; arasina; PhiKapMom
What is the matter with some of these people today? At times, FR reads like the dolts on DU.
163 posted on 01/31/2004 1:02:21 PM PST by onyx (Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Neets
Next time just for you, I'll apply the sugar coated version.
164 posted on 01/31/2004 2:34:16 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf (I failed anger management class, they decided to give me a passing grade anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: rebel
>
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.
>

You cannot predict the future. You can only do the best you can and the best you can do is to support nomination of right leaning moderates. You Can't Do Better.

As for perches, when extremists stop advocating backstabbing GW Bush by staying home or voting third party, in an obvious attempt to kill more unborn babies by electing a Democrat, then I'll abandon the perch.
165 posted on 01/31/2004 2:35:08 PM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: dmzTahoe; All
>

>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.

>

Listen to this person. Reverse this and try to sell it on DU. Here's how it would go:

Hey all, I've decided the best path to our victory is for all of us to support the GOP and Bush. That way they will rise to power beyond the ability of filibuster to stop, society will collapse and turn to us for its salvation.

How far do you think that would get over there? The fact it gets further here is testimony to tolerance and free thought, but that makes it no less absurd.

I support the rightward most candidate who is viable. -- WF Buckley
166 posted on 01/31/2004 2:40:08 PM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
When I voted for Perot in '92 I did not vote for him to "send a message", I wanted him to win. I'm wiser now that I know us Perot voters put Clinton in the White House and endangered greatly the survival of mankind's last best hope for Individual Freedom and Liberty, the USA. Bush/Cheney in 2004!
167 posted on 01/31/2004 3:06:18 PM PST by HankReardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
I have to say that I am very disappointed in Bush. I sent him money for his first presidential campaign ($1000). However, I have no intentions of sending him any money for this one. I will be going to the polls for the next election but I probably won't be casting a vote for a presidential candidate. I could change my mind between now and then but these are my current plans. A number of my conservative friends have similar feelings about Bush.

I find it very interesting how many liberals despise Bush. If I were liberal, I'd be absolutely delighted with the guy.

168 posted on 01/31/2004 3:13:16 PM PST by johnwayne (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bombard
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1069214/posts
169 posted on 01/31/2004 3:18:43 PM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Obviously, Dubya and Cheney haven't been listening either since neither one of them think these issues are even worth mentioning.
170 posted on 01/31/2004 6:40:27 PM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: HankReardon
No Hank you *don't* understand my argument. I never said that we should go to war only after the enemy kills Americans. We should go to war if an "imminent" threat of attack exists even if no Americans have been killed. Thus, your premise is entirely wrong. Not even Dubya is making the claim that Iraq posed an imminent threat, at least not anymore and you, most of all, should remember what Mother Ayn said: "check your premises."

What is your alternative to the imminent threat standard I propose? A blank check for the president, be he or she Hillary, Bill, or Dubya, to attack any "evil" dictator willy nilly?

171 posted on 01/31/2004 6:46:46 PM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

Comment #172 Removed by Moderator

To: wolf24
A new kind of war? No, just a plane old utopian Wilsonian attempt to establish "democracy" in a hell-hole. Been there done that. Check out what is happening in Haiti and Kosovo if you don't believe me? As to Salman Pak, you better contact Dubya because not even he is mentioning it.
173 posted on 01/31/2004 6:52:03 PM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
No, there is no right to get high and endanger other people's lives. What perverted view of "freedom."
174 posted on 01/31/2004 8:07:06 PM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Regarding the judges: imagine how nauseated you will be if "President Kerry's" Supreme Court nominees sail through, probably 94-6, with the active support of Chairman Hatch. That's what Hatch did in 1993 and 1994 as the ranking member on Judiciary for B. Clinton's nominations of the leftists Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Of course, we cannot be sure that Bush would name a conservative to the Supreme Court if an opening does develop. But we can be absolutely certain that Kerry would name a clone of Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, or Souter, all socialist peas in a liberal pod.
175 posted on 01/31/2004 8:32:50 PM PST by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
I believe that I read that Hatch is term-limited as Judiciary chairman, and we will instead have Arlen Specter to guide the Kerry nominees through the committee were the popular MA leftist to become president. Not a good sign for conservatism, is it? I'm afraid we cannot count upon either PA or the whole USA. Of course, Specter is well acquainted with Mrs. Kerry, probably not his favorite former Pennsylvanian. As I recall, John Heinz, Mrs. Kerry's late husband, defeated Specter in the 1976 GOP Senate primary, and Specter never forgot the loss even though he came back four years later to win in that liberal state.
176 posted on 01/31/2004 8:37:58 PM PST by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Did you see this one? I thought it was very positive for the president.
177 posted on 01/31/2004 9:08:03 PM PST by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HankReardon
"I wanted him to win."

And do what, precisely? All I saw was him shaking his voodoo claw at some pie charts.

178 posted on 01/31/2004 9:11:28 PM PST by sauropod (Better to have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
thought Rove believed that a million conservatives stayed home last time.

2 million to be exact and that is why Bush and Rove aren’t too worried about them doing it again. They have already been factored out of the equation. Tough luck for "conservatives".

179 posted on 01/31/2004 9:14:55 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Owen
"As for perches, when extremists stop advocating backstabbing GW Bush by staying home or voting third party, in an obvious attempt to kill more unborn babies by electing a Democrat, then I'll abandon the perch."

Hi Mr. Kettle. I'm Mr. Pot. You're black.

180 posted on 01/31/2004 9:15:33 PM PST by sauropod (Better to have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-191 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson