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

[beckysueb]

Lol

[motzman]

"I intend to vote in 2004 to reelect President Bush," he declared. "I will do so despite the fact that I do not agree with him on any major domestic issue, from tax policy to the recently enacted prescription drug law. These issues, however, pale in importance beside the menace of international terrorism, which threatens our very survival as a nation. President Bush has earned my vote because he has shown the resolve and courage necessary to wage the war against terrorism."

~Ed Koch

So, Ed Koch, a real liberals' liberal gets it, but the "purist conservatives" don't.

WAKE UP and GROW UP.

[Mr Rogers]

I support the rightward most candidate who is viable.

But a republican congress can and will successfully oppose a democrat. They cannot win a fight with a republican president who, on domestic policy, seems somewhere left of Bill Clinton. So why not vote for a republican congress, and write in "Joe Conservative" for President?

If GWB lost a close election because 500,000 people voted for "Joe Conservative", while republicans in Congress won - we would see more conservative government & the next republican President would NEVER! say, "Who else can they vote for?"

The very fact they are asking questions like that reveals they care NOTHING for principle.

[joesbucks]

I understand, but as I said, when a moderate becomes concerned, what does that tell you?

[joesnuffy]

Sadly ...I think your observations are correct ....

Clintons are Mr & Mrs Filthy...GW is Mr Clean

Mr Clean can pretty much convince conservatives that any policy he pushes is the correct one
simply because compared to Clinton his persona is so clean..

Clinton was needed ...by the cabal ...because he made any conservative alternative look so darned good...like a cool drink in a dry hot desert of morality

The two party cabal has a stranglehold on the USA...they are imo simply two heads and four claws of the same beast...

One takes its time and chews us up thoughtfully ...the other is a rapacious gobbler....

The ultimate destination is the same...the difference is time...

Killing us softly...the iron fist in the velvet glove...

[beckysueb]

Where you going to find a conservative Republican in Congress to vote for? LOL

[Owen]

>

But a republican congress can and will successfully oppose a democrat. They cannot win a fight with a republican president who, on domestic policy, seems somewhere left of Bill Clinton. So why not vote for a republican congress, and write in "Joe Conservative" for President?

>

Why? Because extremists are absolutely, ABSOLUTELY obligated to be consistent. That is the basis of rational thought.

Extremists have been saying for . . . over a year that the republicans in the Senate have no guts. They say the Senate GOP is devoid of all courage. The GOP Senate won't do the awkward and uncomfortable things needed to defend conservatism.

Given that as true (whether or not it is does not matter, what matters is the unalterable obligation to be consistent), then you CAN NOT expect the GOP Senate (assuming we retain control of such a narrowly divided chamber) to oppose stealth Pro Choice USSC nominees. They won't oppose. The nominees will be stealthy, will cleverly refuse to answer any direct questions on the subject, and the GOP Senate, being gutless, will have the necessary cover it needs to roll over and acquiesce.

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.

[Alamo-Girl]

Buuump!

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

From what I've seen in his first term, there's no way I'm going to trust him to a second.

[HankReardon]

Are you saying the only justified time to go to war against evil is AFTER they kill Americans? Very scarey. And we have to take out all the evil regimes all at the same time? We can't do one at a time, each in the different manner it requires for each one? I never understood that argument. As is most often the case, your point against going to war has no alternative. Nobody is pro-war. Peace cannot be proclaimed, peace can only be obtained by taking out those with evil intent, often times this requires war.

[Mr Rogers]

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.

I won't have any difficulty. Why? Because there is no indication that GWB will make a fight to get a conservative on the Supreme Court. The dems have proven they can stop any nomination they want. GWB will submit another O'Conner (sp?) type.

Republican or Democrat, we aren't going to get a decent Supreme Court nominee during the next 5 years. Sorry. But it will be the fault of the Republican President I passionately supported who betrayed me.

[tahiti]

"After about 1997, they signed on as co-conspirators. After the "government shut-down" cave, they lost the will to fight or to even care (if they ever did care in the first place)."

I agree.

Thus, I support and cast my vote for third party candidates because the only way a third party will become viable is if, we the people vote for them.

[dubyagee]

Good post...I feel the same way. 8 * (

[winker]

I am a Conservative first of all! If you or anyone interested in Freedom & Liberty who has his ear let him hear this LOUD & CLEAR! Start listening to the people who elected him and never forget.... We are watching what he does not what he Says! The Conservative Base of America is searching its heart and soul wanting desparately to find someone worthy of their vote; not some socialist lackey trying to whistle up courage in a darkening corner. Tell him if I don't see him first to shape up or ship out! America will not stand for pandering to every Tin Horn Dictator that comes along. Stop all this nonsense on Illegal Immigration and take care of our Border situation or the United Conservatives in America will elect someone who LISTENS and is Answerable to "WE THE PEOPLE"!

[HankReardon]

Third party voting brought us Clinton in '92, Clinton brought us economic recession, terrorist attacks, corporate dishonesty, sensitive miltary secrets sold to our communist enemies, and much more. I voted for Perot in '92, I'll never be pursuaded by a third party again, the consequences or too dire, as I just pointed out.

[Owen]

>
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.

I won't have any difficulty. Why? Because there is no indication that GWB will make a fight to get a conservative on the Supreme Court. The dems have proven they can stop any nomination they want. GWB will submit another O'Conner (sp?) type.

>

This is not a matter you are allowed in *consistency* to reverse. Having no evidence does not trump having evidence of the converse. You *know* the Dem candidate will nominate a stealthy pro Choice nominee. The extremists have said they *know* the gutless GOP Senate will not obstruct the stealthy pro Choice nominee. You therefore *know* that taking action or inaction against Bush is done with the explicit intent of killing unborn babies. This is iron hard and concrete. It is uncontrovertible.

You rebut it by trying to lean on an absence of evidence you will get what you prefer. That is not an equal reality. Uncertainty of positive is always preferable to certainty of negative.

If you are an extremist, you will NEVER get to vote FOR anyone in a general election. The political spectrum forces this. Not the GOP. Not me. Not you. It is universal, timeless truth. You will NEVER get to vote FOR anyone. All you will ever get to do is vote AGAINST the least preferred option. You will hate every minute of it, forever. That is what timeless truths are about.

WF Buckley already thought all this through. We won't out think him on this matter.

I support the rightward most candidate who is viable.

[raloxk]

"They found a cure for aids, it's called abstinence. If quarantine would have been initiated from the onset, this disease may have run the course by now."

i havent heard ignorance at at that level since 1983. Since the AIDS virus wasnt detectable until 1985 and people had been dying since at least 1976 in Africa in large numbers and since those who spread AIDS are mostly HIV positive not sufferers with full blown AIDS and since the virus takes years to incubate, quarantines would ahve been absolutely useless.

I cant believe we are even having this duscussion. Feels like 1983. I have to go listen to 99 Luft Balloons now.

[HankReardon]

Nothing you said refuted my statement, what's up with that? Quaranting incurable, contagious diseases is very practical. And it works.

[TatieBug]

PLEASE hang in there conservatives...Our President has so much on his plate and I honestly believe he's working for us every minute of the day. Just remember how the D's backed their dirtbag President no matter what and those were illegal and immoral things. I'm happy the immigration issue is "out of the way for now" so we can concentrate and realize Homeland Security is working hard to keep us safe. Just looked at my will and realized "who needs anything when you're dead?" Bless our President and our Country please.

[joesnuffy]

And there's no Ross Perot on the horizon."

Who needs Perr Rot when you got ROVE The spoiler in this election just may be a GW Bush signed ...McCain-Feingold aka CFR aka "Campaign Finance Reform"aka Incumbent Protection Act aka muzzle everyone but mainstream media act

And ...Since the mainstream media is a socialist/Marxist dominated circus... Any counter about the time most folks make up their minds about who they are gonna pull the lever for...will not be allowed...

The difference between the Rove Republican Party and the McAullif RAT Party is the size of the increments...

imo