Posted on 10/09/2004 10:21:02 PM PDT by CJHughes
BY BOB BARR
Voting for president used to be so easy, at least for a conservative. There was the Republican candidate. You knew he generally stood for lower taxes, less government spending, giving fewer powers to the government, lower deficits and a zealous regard for individual privacy.
Then, there was the Democrat. You knew he generally stood for higher taxes, more government and deficit spending, and a zealous regard for civil liberties.
Throughout my own presidential voting history, the choices have rarely, if ever, been agonizing. Nixon vs. McGovern? Carter vs. Reagan? Reagan-Mondale? Dukakis, a Massachusetts liberal? Clinton? Al Gore? Ah, the good ol' days. Each of those races presented clear choices, easily resolved.
Now we have the election of 2004. For the first time in my voting life, the choice in the race for president isn't so clear And, among true conservatives, I'm not alone.
What's making the contest so difficult? It's certainly not that both candidates are so conservative that we have a choice of riches. It's not even that John Kerry is sort of right wing compared to George W. Bush. The incumbent clearly is the more "conservative" of the two.
But the concerns for many conservative voters -- concerns that may cause them not to vote for Mr. Bush on Nov. 2 -- fall generally into three categories: fiscal, physical (as in the physical security of our nation) and freedom (as in protecting our civil liberties).
When Bush became president Jan. 20, 2001, he inherited an enviable fiscal situation. Congress, then controlled by his own party, had -- through discipline and tough votes -- whittled down decades of deficit spending under presidents of both parties, so that annual deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars had been transformed to a series of real and projected surpluses. The heavy lifting had been done. All Bush had to do was resist the urge to spend, and he had to exert some pressure on Congress to resist its natural impulses to do the same. Had he done that, he might have gone down in history as the most fiscally conservative president in modern times.
Instead, what we got were record levels of new spending, including nearly double-digit increases in nondefense discretionary spending. We now have deficits exceeding those that the first Republican-controlled Congress in 40 years faced when it convened in January 1995.
The oft-repeated mantra that "the terrorists made us spend more" rings hollow, especially to those who actually understand that increases in nondefense discretionary spending are not the inevitable result of fighting terrorists. It also irritates many conservatives, whether or not they support the war in Iraq, that so much of defense spending is being poured into the black hole of Iraq's internal security, while the security of our own borders goes wanting.
That brings us to the second major beef conservatives have with the president. He's seen as failing to take real steps to improve our border security. In many respects, because of his apparent desire to appease his compadre to the south -- Mexican President Vincente Fox -- Bush has made matters worse. More people are entering our country illegally than ever before, more than 3 million this year alone -- and most of them are stampeding across from Mexico.
It seems as if every time an effort is made to implement measures that would crack down on illegal immigration, Fox complains, and the White House tells our enforcement folks to back off. Perhaps that is why intelligence reports indicate al-Qaeda is actively recruiting in Central America.
At the same time, here at home, many law-abiding citizens accurately perceive that their own freedoms and civil liberties are being stripped. They are being profiled by government computers whenever they want to travel, their bank accounts are being summarily closed because they may fit some "profile," they are under surveillance by cameras paid for by that borrowed federal money, and, if the administration has its way, they will be forced to carry a national identification card. That skewed sense of priorities really rankles conservatives.
Those are but three tips of the iceberg that signal the deep dissatisfaction many conservatives harbor against the president. Thus far, however, with Bush's political gurus telling him he's ahead and to just lay low and not make any major gaffes, he seems unwilling to recognize the problems on his right flank. Or he seems to have concluded that he doesn't need to address those concerns because the ineptitude of the Kerry campaign hasn't forced him to.
But the race appears to be tightening again. It's likely to remain tight until Election Day. Those dissatisfied conservative voters will become increasingly important, but it's going to be impossible for the president to pull them back in with hollow, last-minute promises.
Bush's problem is that true conservatives remember their history. They recall that in recent years when the nation enjoyed the fruits of actual conservative fiscal and security policies, a Democrat occupied the White House and Congress was controlled by a Republican majority that actually fought for a substantive conservative agenda.
History's a troublesome thing for presidents. Even though most voters don't take much of a historical perspective into the voting booth with them, true conservatives do.
Hmmm. Who's the Libertarian candidate again?
Lifelong Republican Bob Barr represented parts of Cobb County and northwest Georgia in Congress from 1995 to 2003.
I am not implying a no-vote for Bush. I will vote for him myself. But as conservatives/libertarians we should be making a concerted effort to promote candiates who advocate limited government.
Simply put, America's very existence is on the line and Barr wants it allways to be about him.
Hmm. Far greater chance of big government attempting to take your property than some terrorist.
He's a RINO -- or a Libertarian wolf in Republican's sheep's-clothing.
If Barr can look at Kerry and then say the choice isn't clear he is from some other planet. In my opinion there are only two major issues right now, the war on terrorism and taxes. I may not agree on everything Bush does or says, but on those two issues he is absolutely the right man at the right time.
I may not agree with the President on fiscal issues, and want less spending, but I BLAME it on the congress. THEY are putting the spending in the bills and holding them hostage to their whims and districts for more money. In good conscious while we are at war with our military in harms' way YOU would not want such a bill vetoed for a 'principle' So, make your choice, keeping in mind you cannot say I didn't vote so it's not my fault. We have been attacked. Remember 9-11? Remember people having to choose between burning alive or jumping? YOU have that responsibility to vote. And, look at the better side. If you work and elect enough Republicans to have a majority grrrrr [60] in the Senate YOU can stop all these pig spenders holding necessary bills hostage to their whims.
It is congress that spends and allocates the money. Every conservative is complaining because Bush hasn't vetoed any bill. Unfortunately, the POLITICIANS keep adding in spending for the troops in almost every bill so if he vetos it then that is fodder for Kerry in the election. But more than that Daschle obstructs so many of the bills so that the only way they get through is at the end of a session in an omnibus bill that once again has priority aspects to them. They keep saying with a Rep. Senate and House that Bush should be able to do what he wants so he gets the blame but those pesky Dems in the Senate have gotten filibustering down to a science.
And our choices would be...?
I keep hearing about these rock-ribbed conservatives willing to refuse to vote this time because Bush isn't sufficiently ideologically pure, but I never seem to meet any of them. These mythical purist Libertarians aside, real-life conservatives know that this election is about the war, and it isn't about anything else.
I'll be voting for Gee Dubya, but I'll hold my nose whilst doing it.
There are only two viable winners in November: Bush or sKerry. There is NO question that sKerry is BY FAR the worst of the two.
It is a shame that the two parties have stacked the deck so heavily against a third party, because neither is doing what is best for all Americans.
Why don't some of us run? That's always a possibility.
Exactly. People like Bob Barr need to grow up. No one is ever going to agree with any politician 100% of the time, or even anything close to 100%. When disagreements happen, grownups don't pick up their marbles and go home, or write snippy and petulant essays like this one during the heat of an election campaign, an article which may be used as campaign propaganda by the Kerry campaign. If Barr is going to try to stab Bush in the back, at least he should have the guts to admit that he is really a kool-aid chugging Libertarian and not a Republican.
I'm too busy to run, but I'll vote for you if you do. Deal? *chuckle*
I agree that no one will agree 100% with a candidate. But there is such a thing as letting an issue, like expanding government, get out of control due to neglect.
Deal :)
There are problems with Bush, but not one of these would be solved by Kerry. They *might* be solved by a second Bush term.
For example:
1. We should have followed through in Fallujah
2. We should have ceased negotiation with Al-Sadr the first time he broke his word
3. We should go after Osama wherever he is, Pakistan shouldn't be off limits
Kerry will just surrender all over the world, he has the sleaze of Bill Clinton coupled with the loser nature of Carter and Dukakis.
It seems then that we have children in office on both sides of the aisle.
If they wish to write this stuff and disagree with their party, that's fine with me. Just don't expect me to give their opinions more weight because they're from the other party. That proves nothing to me.
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.