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.
Bush Speech to Congress Contains 11 More Initiatives Than Last Year
President proposes 31 new or expanded initiatives, Cato analysis finds
WASHINGTON— In his State of the Union address, President Bush proposed 11 more policy initiatives than he did last year, according to a Cato Institute analysis of the speech.
Tonight, the president outlined 31 new or expanded initiatives, up from 20 initiatives he proposed in last year's address to a joint session of Congress, and significantly fewer than the 104 initiatives proposed by President Clinton in his 2000 State of the Union address. Bush made his 31 proposals in 55 minutes—10 minutes less than last year. This is the sixth year the Cato Institute has tabulated the number of new initiatives proposed in State of the Union addresses. Cato Executive Vice President David Boaz offers the following additional analysis:
"President Bush reaffirmed his commitment to giving younger workers a better deal for their Social Security taxes and allowing all Americans to own real assets as their retirement security. I hope he will make that a key element of his reelection agenda.
"Unfortunately, his proposal for real retirement investments may be the only thing in his program that will reduce the long-term fiscal obligations facing the federal government. Once again, the president has called for fiscal restraint while presenting a laundry list of spending programs and recommending no spending cuts. It doesn't look like there's any real intention to cut back on the fastest spending pace since the Lyndon Johnson administration.
"President Bush declared that 'the American people are using their money far better than government would have'--but in fact his administration has taken 24 percent more of our money than the Clinton administration did. The most striking hypocrisy during the evening was members of Congress giving a standing ovation when Bush called for limiting federal spending and cutting wasteful spending. Congress and the president have cooperated to produce a 24 percent increase in spending in just three years. And the president praised Congress for 'great works of compassion' in creating a huge new prescription-drug entitlement--but it's not actually compassionate to spend other people's money.
As to the claim that a tin-pot Mussolini, like Hussein posed a viable threat, I think that the evidence is speaking loud and clear on a daily basis.
Conservatives would accept this - IF there was any indication either the senators or the President were actually fighting.
Instead, I see a President who actively fights for increased federal spending on education bureaucracy. A President who actively fights to increase spending on the 'Arts'. A President who actively fights to increase spending on seniors with no regard to their ability to pay. A President who, domestically, has accelerated every spending goal of Bill Clinton! A President who not only doesn't veto, but who twists arms to get the additional spending!
My wife & I gave $1500 to Bush's campaign in 2000. We've been betrayed. At least the Republican Congress acts REPUBLICAN if they have a democrat President. But with GWB, they have a republican President who campaigns against the Republicans in Congress!
I want GWB to win for the foreign agenda & judges. I want him to lose because a democrat president & republican congress will result in more conservative government. I may sit this one out. And I'm not giving a penny to GWB.
Worth repeating!
May I suggest FReepers do the same? Do not contribute to or support congressional campaigns that are really not contestable. Support the razor-thin contests where a little additional money for the conservative candidate might tip or keep the balance in favor of the conservative. Begin by looking at races in your own states, but also look nationally. Encourage friends, family, and associates to do the same.
Do not waste money or support on symbolic third-party candidates.
I will send no money to assist Bush in his reelection bid. I will not vote for him in November.
If Kerry or some other Democrat dimbulb gets elected, I will be pushing the Republican-controlled Congress hard to tie him up so tight he can't breathe. We will essentially have NO president for four years--just a caretaker.
I have found that individual members of Congress are far easier to pressure to do the right thing than Bush and Rove are.
The last and perhaps most important part of the strategy is immediately to search out an electable conservative to groom and support for the 2008 presidential election run. That may be Governor Owens of Colorado. It is not Rudy Guiliani. He belongs in the Senate where his liberal tendencies can be moderated.
I didn't give up on "W".He gave up on me.Unfortunately,he can't change his stance now even if he wanted to.He would be ripped to shreds if he tried to turn around these crazy proposals he's throwing out.
I don't know President Bush and he doesn't know me,so I don't take it personal.He shouldn't take it personal when I don't vote for him this time.
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.