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

[raloxk]

We arent talking about syphillis. And yes, everything I said earlier refutes everything that you said.

How do you quarnatine someone in 1978 who is HIV positive and spreading AIDS? There is no recored AIDS deaths at that time and and no HIV test until 1985. You need to read "And The Band Played On", especially the early years 1976-1981.

Did you just get off a time machine from 1983???????

That's besides the point I guess, since you think those with AIDS, even from rape or medical procedures deserve to die.

[Ol' Sparky]

No, the choice is between gridlock and Bush, who has been expanding government faster than any President since Lyndon B. Johnson. Gridlock, in many ways, is the superior option.

[Mr Rogers]

Let's see..."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."...and you call ME an extremist?

Sorry - but I think a person can oppose GWB and not contribute to the death of a single child. We obviously disagree - but you have NO RIGHT to say my opposition is done with "the explicit intent of killing unborn babies".

[B4Ranch]

You left off the differences in the loan interest rate during the Reagan years. Rog, if you're going to play with the numbers do it properly to get a correct comparison. No need to fool yourself, is there?

[Ol' Sparky]

Good analysis as usual, Kevin. But, Bill Owens, is a Reagan-like conservative?

[TatieBug]

Thanks ever so much for this chart...will share and continue to support my President who keeps me safe.

[pfflier]

likely to stay home in droves. So far, the Republican strategists appear to be oblivious to this possibility.

An imprortant lesson needs to be learned from the last two primaries. The demoncrats are voting in record numbers. While there are now more registered Republicans, if they don't vote, it is academic.

The demoncrats are motivated to do anything and will run anyone, to get President Bush out of the Whitehouse. One Republican not voting due to apathy doubles the effect of a vengeful demoncrat who votes.

[Charlotte Corday]

If you are an extremist, you will NEVER get to vote FOR anyone in a general election.

Actually, the extremists on the other side do get to vote "FOR" someone (note the tiny vote that Nader finally got). Why? because they know that even a "centrist" Democrat will move the country incrementally in their direction.

Now limited government types like me (and I am no more "extremist" than was the 1994 GOP platform) really do "NEVER" get a vote, because a "centrist" Republican such as GWB will acquiesce in every incremental move to the left.

I am voting for my local GOP congressman who voted against CFR. I will vote third party in the Presidential election.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I love the President, but will be holding my nose when I vote.

Holding your nose, wont help. You'll still be eating s****.

[Ol' Sparky]

I'd trust Kerry to defend the country as much or more than I would trust Bush to create a budget.

Bush better make some more conservative recess appointments in the judiciary if he wants to have any kind of case that he is better than the gridlock option.

[WFTR]

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.

This statement is excellent, and I appreciate your highlighting it. If a conservative's disappointment with President Bush won't allow him to support the president, he should find another conservative at some level to support. I'm disappointed with President Bush on a couple of issues and discouraged on others. I don't know whether I'll be an enthusiastic supporter of him through the campaign. I don't want to harm him, but I probably won't do much to help him. However, I'm going to find other races where I can enthusiastically support conservative Republicans. I'll give money in those races and try to volunteer for the campaigns. Republicans need help at every level anyway, and plenty of people will volunteer for the presidential campaign because they are drawn to the high profile of that campaign.

WFTR
Bill

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The leftists get three choices, the Nader splinter, the socialist dem, and the socialist republican.

We don't get any.

[glock rocks]

I just posted the chart as a favor. See post #9.

[Consort]

The Disruptors, the Gullible, and the Misguided are out in force today. Misery loves company.

[Mike4Freedom]

You may as well vote for Nader since your throwing your vote away.

It would appear to me that voting for Bush is throwing my vote away. He is not someone I want to be president any longer. Of course I don't want Kerry or any of the other Democratic boobs either. I certainly don't want a socialist like Nader. I guess that I should vote for the best man for the job. Don't you think?

[Mike4Freedom]

I'll start looking elsewhere, but not to a group of people that want to legalize drugs and destroy the nation in other ways.

Enforcing the Bill of Rights can hardly be descibed as destroying the nation. It is the willingness of the Republicans and Democrats to ignore our founding principles that have gotten us into this situation of all powerful government. Even our free speech has been attacked by the Bi-Partisans.

[ckilmer]

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.
////////////////////////////////
I don't know the bush amnesty program for illegals and failure to control the borders-- is pure Pure Davos. This policy more than any others advances the agenda of the global agenda...and fyi it is not a globalist agenda rather it is an agenda for subjugating the west.

[motzman]

I'd trust Kerry to defend the country as much or more than I would trust Bush to create a budget.

Grow up.

[Owen]

>
Sorry - but I think a person can oppose GWB and not contribute to the death of a single child. We obviously disagree - but you have NO RIGHT to say my opposition is done with "the explicit intent of killing unborn babies".
>

If a negative result of your action is known a priori and you take the action nevertheless, there are few if any who would contort their thinking into a belief that negative intent was not present. You need to closely examine your thinking on this. You have spiraled yourself into a very bad place.

[arasina]

President Tancredo will surely be able to handle your demand for "deportation of every illegal who is here," because he would have a filibuster-free Senate, right? ALL the Dims would support a No Amnesty policy, right?

And with President Tancredo in office we will no longer have to worry about the War on Terror and the bothersome Middle East because they will just go away, right?

The millions of senior citizens who have been brainwashed since the days of FDR will just shut up so President Tancredo won't have to worry about their demands for prescription drugs or Social Security, right?

President Tancredo won't have to fight to make the tax cuts permanent because he'll surely have the support of allies like Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, right? I'm sure they'll back all his judicial nominees too, because he's not President Bush, after all.

As long as voters continue to re-elect the righteous Senate powerhouses Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, with their strong advocacy for keeping government spending down, President Tancredo will not be bothered with any outcries about budget cuts for big ticket social programs and pork barrel projects.

There won't be any Independents in the Senate switching parties because Jim Jeffords showed us that the political makeup of the Senate doesn't affect anything important. Nor will there be election integrity headaches for President Tancredo, because Senator Frank Lautenberg proved that people pay no mind to little things like ethics.

Nope. President Tancredo won't have to deal with a Congress that represents constituents who make up at least fifty percent of the electorate and who claim the election of 2000 was stolen from Al Gore. Oh, and he'll certainly have the backing of the media and celebrities. They wont be pushing a leftist agenda and smearing his good name.

It'll be a breeze for President Tancredo, and we can all just get back to enjoying ourselves. No more worries about partial-birth abortion, Kyoto treaties, World Court rulings, the United Nations, education, AIDS, gay marriage, outsourcing, racism or unemployment. Yep. Those, along with scores of other annoyances, will be swept off the problem plate in one fell swoop because he closed the borders and deported the illegals.