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.
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.
15 billion of American taxpayer money for Africa for a disease that usually can be prevented. Support for a campaign finance bill that was signed because the Supreme court would oveturn it but then didn't. Supporting a government paid (that's us) for perscription drug plan for people that didn't really care about it. Nor mostly need the socialist plan. More money to the NEA? Blech! And spending money like it's water? Without any explanation of WHY "W" thinks it's OK to sling borrowed cash around like it grows on trees. Yea, I understand the "war" stuff but I expect him to keep his eye on the general ledger. That's one reason I voted for him.
Allowing Mexicans to invade this county. To daily pour across the border and leach off the taxpayers. Plus change our language and culture with an invasion that did not require firing a shot. And it gets worse every day. I like to listen to the radio at night. In Houston, other than a couple of stations they are all Spanish language. The public airways?
George W. Bush, who I have always considered a great poker player and Karl Rove better damn well get their heads on right when it comes to conservatives. Because when you have people like me getting to the point where I have lost my passion for George W. Bush he has a problem. And he and Rove better start paying attention to people like me. If they don't then I'll pay the same amount of attention to them.
This has been difficult for me to write.
That is the old "lesser of two evils" story. It doesn't fly anymore. Bush is spending wildly and growing government wildly. It just isn't true that he is the lesser evil.
When both major parties are evil, it is not patriotic to just stay with the party your father voted for. Start looking at the Libertarians with an open mind.
In order to support this pronouncement you have to assume, incorrectly, that the Republican Congress will roll over and encact any new initiative that Kerry dreams up.
Remember when Clinton was President and the Congress majority was Repubican and almost a Republican majority in the Senate, there was gridlock and nothing got done. It was prosperous times, as well.
There is something good to be said for gridlock.
It is obvious that a Republican majority in the Congress and a Republican President is not about rolling back the leviathan federal government, as Newt Gringrich promised me if I voted Republican, but the modus operandi is doing whatever it takes to keep the position of majority at the expense of the constitution, liberty, and private property.
A winning strategy:
"Where are they [leftists] going to go?" says a well-placed Bush operative. "You know they'll never vote for Bush anyways, so it doesn't make any sense to court the left. And the left can divide its vote on far-left candidates like Ralph Nader."
See, there really IS a difference between the two parties. The Democrats know how to stick to an agenda and keep fighting away until they win. They are even willing to sacrifice their politicians, as Clinton sacrificed some of his people to get more socialist gun control passed. For them, a socialist America (under the U.N.) is THE agenda.
The Republicans (with a few exceptions) seem to have no other agenda other than getting elected (and hoping, pathetically, for a kind word from the leftist media). Once in office, they meekly say, "we are for the same thing the Democrats are for, only we can do it more efficiently." Then they wonder why their base is alienated and the Democrats laugh at them.
I hate it, but I can't support appeals to sit out elections in protest, or waste my vote on 3rd parties/independent candidates. IMHO, not only is that a complete waste of time, but is also counter-productive. That strategy puts Dems in office, (Presidential elections of 1992/1994, Washington State US Senate election 2000). Let's remove ourselves from childish emotions and examine the facts. 1) We will either live under a Dem gov't or GOP one. With that in mind, you might as well invest in the Republicans, and other than $$$ contributions, the only way to do that for the ordinary person is to vote in the primaries. 2) Independent candidates are not electable most times, (Perot), and when they are, (Ventura), they are nut cases, who can't accomplish much in ofc, if anything. 3) Don't vote LP. They are not conservatives, and if you investigate them thoroughly, and are of the Christian faith, you will find out they are the only party to vote for that is worse than the Dems.
If you are one of those who are so heavenly minded that you are no earthly good, then vote for the Constitution Party. Just as wasteful, just as counter-productive as anything you can do, but at least it can be argued that this as an authentic "conscience vote." There's no way in hell, heaven, or anywhere in between that can be said about sitting out the election, or worse, voting for the anti-Christian LP. And trust me fellow believers, any party that says gay marriages are ok, that legalizing drugs is ok, is NOT the party who want to vote for. The LP and its cult-followers are supreme propagandists, but the truth ain't in 'em, and there is no way to overstate that fact.....
The only way Bush and the Republican will stop expanding govenrment and get back to a conservative agenda is if it is clear to them that they will lose elections if they don't.
Bush and Rove don't give a rat's behind about conservativism. Both care about getting reelected no matter what policies they have to implement.
It is irresponsible and causes tremendous harm to conservatism to vote for Bush or any Republican who is advancing left-wing, big government policies.
The base doesn't need to change. Bush needs to change. He needs to realize that to win, he must implement a conservative agenda, one which helped Ronald Reagan to two landslide victories.
Gridlock is far superior in many ways to what has occurred during the Bush administration.
Tolerating the destruction of conservatism in this country by Republicans is the most ridiculous suggestion I've heard. The only thing worse than a Democrat advancing a socialist agenda, is a Republican doing with conservative help.
The ONLY solution is for Bush to change, not those dedicated to the principles of limited government. And, it's absurd to suggest Bush can win implementing Reagan-like policies as the country is more conservative now than it was in the 1980s.
... and people who want to continue the George W. Bush path toward global socialist government.
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.