Account banned/suspended Bump.
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.
Yeah mister ACLU lawyer...like I am ever going to listen to ANYTHING you have to say about ANYTHING ever again....What a classic jerk..If he can't figure out who to vote for then it is a good thing he ain't in Congress anymore...now if we could get rid of Lugar, et al
That's because we are talking about the PROPER rile of the government as it is trying to fight a WAR or have you also forgotten...
Nah it is the rumor of the moment Terry McCauliffe stareted it awhile ago and now some idiots like Barr think it makes for a good column....
Again, we have a different view of freedom.
I don't care if Pol Pot is elected and his minions gain the majority in both houses. I will not be a ward of the state!
I understand my freedoms. I am willing to fight for them.
Most will denigrate me when I am lying on the walk in front of my house, bleeding from government bullets, giving the last of what I had for my childrens' true freedoms.
Most will think I should have just voted republican and gone along to get along, taking what they dish out because it's "better than the democrats."
Sorry. Not me. My vote is for freedom. Real freedom.
I don't understand; what "vote" would that be.
My vote.
Amen Mr. Barr.
No you probably won't be, you will be dead. As I will be and probably the majority of the freedom loving people here on FR. Strange you bring up Pol Pot as he viciously murdered millions of his own people and, coincidentally, he was aided and abetted by cowardly traitors like Hanoi Jane and Hanoi John Kerry. The very same John Kerry whom you are now indirectly supporting for the office of President of the United States.
Sorry, pal, but Free Republic will NOT be used to help usher in President John Kerry! You obviously could care less, so now you are gone (again). Buh bye. Enjoy yourself over on LP.
What I miss most is "leadership." Many of our problems would be somewhat alleviated by a true leader, who had a good understanding of our founding principles. For example, I would love to hear some form of the following from our President:
"Your parents cared for you for twenty years; open up your wallets to help them purchase drugs...it's the moral thing to do. Those of you who expect your neighbors to pay for your parents' drugs should be ashamed.
Those (including businesses) who fail to fully understand what made this country great; and who continue to undermine it should be literally called out and shunned; and that goes for MANY issues. Reagan did a pretty good job of it...he understood the bully pulpit and used it well.
The American people continue to send good conservatives to the House of Reps; but the liberal Republicans at the RNC have the $$ and, seemingly, control over the executive branch. We need an alternative national group to the RNC, to support conservative House, Senate, and Presidential candidates..that's the only way to get control back from the "establishment"....whatever THAT is.
Account banned/suspended Bump.
I'll bt ten thousand dollars that when Bob Barr punches the chad in that little voting booth in a few weeks, it will be the chad for President Bush. Yeah, he's venting. But he's playing an awful risky game. IMHO
Yea, and quite pointless. It's definitely not an appropriate time for such dissension. It's hard for me to criticize Mr. Barr.
A small-picture, small thinking idiot.
like Rush- you are speaking the Truth. Thanks
As sharp as Bob Barr was during Clinton Impeachment, that's how twisted he is in his logic against President Bush.
If he can't understand that the economic bubble burst six months before GWB came into office, if Bob Barr can't see the $200 billion in annual capital gains tax (federal) revenues that were lost due to the halving of the NASDAQ bubble burst - (check it out - a 47 percent decline from its high) in the NASDAQ prior to Bush even taking office, if Bob Barr can't see the priority to upgrade our military after the utter decimation (19 Divisions to 11 divisions) under Clinton, if Bob Barr can't see the negative impact of the economy due to the corporate crimes which Clinton and Rob Rubin literally allowed to take place -- then BOB BARR IS NOT CREDIBLE.
I don't care if he has a 100 percent rating from the NRA, if he is ProLife, if he is a fiscal whatever. He is not playing with a full deck if he is blaming these things on President Bush. End of story.
Thanks for Free Republic and holding the line!
April 2002, Georgia Republicans Bob Barr and John Linder are also facing each other. Barr, a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, recently announced grants for his district, including $120,000 to prosecute crimes in Douglas County, $300,000 for more police officers at Georgia Perimeter College, and $625,000 to hire and train police officers in Forsyth County. He also requested $459,000 to improve a local airport, $30 million to improve State Road 316, $500,000 to study possible improvements for State Highway 78, and $13.5 million for another airport. reference here
They are spoilers. At one time they had power and got used to the power, this is a way to get their sense of power back, forget whether it's a good thing for the country or not, it sure is good for their ego!
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.