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 last
To: Austin Willard Wright
Mebbe, jus mebbe W. and Cheney don't know how to debate real well?

Still, your answer is no excuse for not knowing WTF is going on Austin.

181 posted on 01/31/2004 9:17:55 PM PST by sauropod (Better to have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
No, there is no right to get high and endanger other people's lives. What perverted view of "freedom."

Thus you must support another try at alcohol prohibition. Nothing less would be logically consistent. Alcohol intoxication makes you very dangerous to others if you are so foolish as to drive but probably does no harm if you do so in the confines of your home. Long run health effects make alcohol much more dangerous on many counts. Short run health effects again make alcohol much more dangerous. You can actually consume a lethal dose of alcohol (or Heroine, cocainc, etc) at one sitting. That is not possible with MJ. No lethal dose has been identified since no one, in all history, has ever died of an overdose of marijuana.

Most substances are dangerous in some large dose and useful in lesser doses. It is just NOT the business of government to make mere possession or responsible use of some, politically selected, substances a crime since no one is hurt.

182 posted on 02/01/2004 5:37:49 AM PST by Mike4Freedom (Freedom is the one thing that you cannot have unless you grant it to everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Yeah, I agree, you see, in hindsight I'm wiser now. Do you really think when your father voted for Perot he did not want him to win, he just wanted to "send a message"? Conservatives voting for a 3rd party candidate brough death and destruction to America.
183 posted on 02/01/2004 5:57:56 AM PST by HankReardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: HankReardon
Yeah, I agree, you see, in hindsight I'm wiser now. Do you really think when your father voted for Perot he did not want him to win, he just wanted to "send a message"? Conservatives voting for a 3rd party candidate brough death and destruction to America.

I don't think he had thought it through to that point.

BTW, I do not agree w/ your last sentence. That leaves no room for adhering to principles. That leaves us no better than them.

184 posted on 02/01/2004 6:01:14 AM PST by sauropod (Better to have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
When the threat against America is immenent, it's too late. After 9-11, any nation that proclaims itself the enemy of the USA and wishes Americans any kind of harm should be taken at their word and dealt with.
185 posted on 02/01/2004 6:02:21 AM PST by HankReardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
What's there not to agree with? The Clinton presidency brought politicization the intelligence agencies, would not allow info to be gathered from criminally associated sources, they did not take the terrorist threat as seriously as they should have, treated attacks as a criminal acts that needed to be addressed as such. Death and destruction, the attacks of 9-11 happened to America because Clinton was President. Clinton was President because many of us voted for the 3rd party candidate, Perot.
186 posted on 02/01/2004 6:07:57 AM PST by HankReardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
The best men for that job don't want anything to do with it.
187 posted on 02/01/2004 6:46:07 AM PST by Piquaboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
It is unimaginable that Saddam would pass off chemical or biological weapons to terrorists and they put them into a container on a ship bound for New York harbor! Unimaginable! It was also unimaginable that terrorists would fly commercial arliners into the WTO, the Pentagon and where ever else the other one was headed. There's not a thing wrong with president Bush sending the miltary in to take Saddam out, it is NOT proven everyday.
188 posted on 02/01/2004 7:00:27 AM PST by HankReardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Comment #189 Removed by Moderator

Comment #190 Removed by Moderator

To: HankReardon
Mother Ayn would be dismayed at your failure to address my questions head on and your failure to check your premises. I never said that these things were "unimaginable." You are arguing with a straw man.
191 posted on 02/01/2004 10:23:32 AM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]


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