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.
When the debt comes due, you'll understand.
I happen to believe that a citizen's relationship with his banker should be private. The PATRIOT Act has undermined that privacy.
I happen to believe that a citizen should be able to travel domestically unhindered.
I happen to believe that a citizen should be able to own a rifle without worring about the shape of the piece of metal at the end of the barrel.
I happen to believe that encompassing the myriad of "federal law enforcement" agencies under the "Department of Homeland Security" is a BIG mistake. They now fancy themselves as the "National Police." This is a bad thing, and I have seen it with my own eyes.
I happen to believe that America's greatest strength is not its military, nor its Constitution, but the freedom of its citizens. When government grows, freedom is weakened.
Man, you would thinkyou would think a former member of Congress woul know that Presidents do not write the budget
Bush can't spend a dime without Congress can he?
I guess his plan is for that to start in the NEXT administration.
...works for me. Why give the next one more ammo (revenues)?
Spend all that can possibly be spent on defense now, then let the next Democrat try to come up with enough to break all of the remaining marriages, violate more property rights, more closely surveil all citizens, grow the government big enough to get a permanent Democrat majority, etc.
I would rather starve than be messed with by bureaucrat busybodies.
Bob Barr? The name sounds familiar. Didn't he used to be someone important?
Whoa. Reading that required me to downshift a couple gears. Let me try to decipher what you are trying to say....
First off, no democrat or republican is going to break up my marriage. I am sorry for you that yours is so vulnerable.
W's inflation of the Department of Education, Medi-care, and the now-national homogenous federal police force collectively known as the Department of Homeland Security (don;t we all feel so much more secure) is growth of the bureaucracy you claim to dislike. Guess the next administration will have to undo what W has done.
And as for Barr's stated choice with his begging the question about the "Libertarian candidate," the Libertarian Platform is in favor of unlimited, unregulated immigration, among other things that don't sit well with almost all voters.
Runaway non-defense spending.
The islam is a religion of peace thing and consequent resulting paralysis.
The southern border-is-no-biggie thing. Or the other idiocy: The problem is now so big it's too late to fix it.
Here's a sample of my level of respect for our current choices in third parties.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1239744/posts?page=31#31
from
"BADNARIK & COBB ARRESTED (attempted to disrupt debate)"
Just say no to the liberals and Marxists! John Kerry must not be allowed to take the presidency!
I can't see any reason whatsoever to abandon all hope and turn the government back over to the liberals. We've worked too hard and come too far to surrender in spite. The spending can be controlled. The Patriot Act can be tamed. The CFR can be repealed. The borders can be tightened. Reelect President Bush and allow him to appoint judges that will uphold the constitution rather than legislate from the bench and much of the damage that is so repugnant to we conservatives can be reversed.
But what can't be so easily reversed will be the serious damage to our national security, our national sovereignty, our freedom and liberty, and the damage to the entire free world that will transpire if we allow John Kerry and the liberals to take charge of our government.
The time is for choosing and the choice is always obvious. The choice is freedom.
And that brings us to the optimism and wisdom of Ronald Reagan:
I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.
It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government."
This idea that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told we must choose between a left and right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."
The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.
Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.
Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always "against," never "for" anything.
We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments....
We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world.
We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him.... But we can not have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure....
Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . Today in our country the tax collector's share is 37 cents of -very dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp.
Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.
If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.
They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits-not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.
I haven't been following news about the borders very much, but here are a couple of things that popped up, lately. There was also some news a few months ago that UAVs are being used over the borders, IIRC.
Feds launch border air patrols from northern NY
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--terror-borderpatr1008oct08,0,4193438.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire
And President Bush said during the first debate, "We got a thousand extra Border Patrol on the Southern border, more than a thousand on the Northern border. We're modernizing our borders."
Doubt it, my fellow American.
It is obvious that you would rather have Kerry for President.
Gee. Yes, we who love freedom and are witnessing its steady erosion under republican leadership would rather have the federal government under control of the democrats. You have me pegged. I see you have a problem standing by your ill-thought-out posts. "democrats...break [up] all marriages" (except your own, of course).
No, Jim, I will never be a ward of the state. Nor will my children as long as I am responsible for them. That is where you and I differ. I understand freedom - beyond the fictitious boundaries that have been erected by those in "power." "Liberal" "Conservative" "Socialist" "Libertarian" I know freedom when I see it, and I don't see it in the actions of the current American government.
Right. Sounds like you have no idea what Kerry and the liberals are up to and the long term designs they have for America (or what used to be America).
Any so called conservative who does not vote for Bush because of their pet issue, or issues and helps elect that communist traitor Kerry is not paying attention. Yes, I know you are against the president, but before you vote you should really search your heart and mind and really understand that there is so much more at stake here than just fiscal/ social issues. You know what I mean. This is a different world.
Yeah, I understand freedom. And Liberty. And self-government. And all the other wonderful things God created for us (including marriage and children and family) and what our Founding Fathers fought a revolution for and created a new constitutional republic to defend. And I know what has transpired in the last two centuries to erode it away. Why in the world do you think I started FR?
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.