One Less Republican in Camp

Sierra Times ^ | 3-29-02 | Colonel Dan

[oursacredhonor]

I can no longer tolerate the GOP's disgraceful lack of principle and outright hypocrisy. I have therefore officially resigned from the Republican Party. Here's why.

Life is a balance scale of choices and few choices consist of all positive or all negative factors. Most are a combination that we must weigh and then make our choice.

Such is my case with the GOP. On the positive side, Bush brought personal morality back to the White House, has been an effective war time President and for now, has slowed the all out assault on the II Amendment. For this, I applaud him and his team.

However, the negative side of the Republican scale is heavily weighed down by serious failures to stand firm on principle, serious dereliction of duty and hypocrisy.

Although my voter registration card indicated Republican, I am much more of an independent Constitutionalist. I could have "un-registered" numerous times and aligned my voter card with my ideology but I just delayed getting around to it.

I delayed in 1995 when the GOP took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years and we heard bold promises of change. Despite the rhetoric about smaller government and replacing the income tax, government expanded and income taxes became even more complex!

I delayed resigning again when a Republican was elected president but look what happened.

A Republican education bill increased funding 11% for the unconstitutional Department of Indoctrination, a.k.a. Department of Education.

A Republican president signed the USA/Patriot Act after it passed the Senate 98-1, and the House 356-66, giving government the power to install the carnivore e-mail snooping system without a court warrant.

Under a Republican administration, airport security was federalized and Gestapo-like screening tactics implemented.

Bush told the world we would go after terrorists wherever they were, yet we pressure Israel for restraint in battling terrorism in their own backyard. That's tremendously hypocritical. Then on 14 March our Republican president committed 5 billion of your tax dollars to the war on global poverty—an international version of Lyndon Johnson socialism. The final burr under my saddle was the GOP disregard for the Constitution in two major ways: Ongoing failure to secure our borders and Campaign Finance Reform.

This Republican administration has failed to effectively enhance border security even after 9.11. Recently, it even prevented the National Guardsmen patrolling that border from being adequately armed because they wanted to avoid sending an "undiplomatic message" to Mexico and Canada. This violates government's constitutional duty to provide for the common defense and sending soldiers on a security mission unarmed is totally unforgivable!

Such neglect clearly says that America's security, even in light of 9.11, takes a back seat to the potential benefits gained from political pandering. That's dereliction of duty bordering on criminal negligence in my book.

Campaign Finance Reform passed both houses and Bush signed it even though it's "flawed in some areas" as he said.

Yes sir Mr. President it sure is flawed! Besides not complying with any of the principles you specified in a letter to Trent Lott, it clearly violates the Constitution you swore an oath to uphold. So why then did you sign it?

Our Constitution was clearly subordinated to political expediency and this "new tone" of yours. 'Politics over Principle' is standard operating procedure with the Democrats but it's also clear that's the theme and substance of this "new tone" as well. 'Go along to get along and to hell with the Constitution' is the same old tone we've seen in Washington for years Mr. President—there's nothing "new" here.

Despite how the Supreme Court may finally rule on Campaign Finance Reform or how our border situation ultimately turns out, when those sworn to uphold our Constitution can't be trusted to do so, it tells me a lot about them and we've been cautioned about such folks:

"If you can trust a man in little things, you can also trust him in greater; while anyone unjust in a slight matter is also unjust in greater." ~ Luke 16:10 ~

Although their rhetoric proclaims more freedom and less government, facts clearly show the GOP isn't really interested in standing firm in defense of and preserving America's constitutional principles—period. As most now realize about our major parties, the Republicans are nothing more than miniature Democrats. While the Democrats are clearly "SOCIALISTS", the Republicans are merely "socialists."

Don't take this as surrender or dropping out on my part. I'll remain decisively engaged and fight for the principles of colonial traditionalism through my writing. After all, I'm still 100% American and a son of my colonial forefathers. I'll just not be officially registered as a member of any party where principles and the Constitution are so easily ignored, blatantly stepped on and repeatedly compromised.

I can accept compromise on style [technique] but I can't accept compromise on principle and our Constitution is the very foundation of America's most basic principles.

As Thomas Jefferson put it, "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

With extremely rare exception, the Republicans never stand like rocks on anything and are thus untrustworthy guardians of America's principles.

Personally, I don't care for any party, Republican or otherwise, where principle is negotiable, lip service is paid to the Constitution, sacred oaths are ignored, and America's security is bargained away. If that means I'm "party-less" and remain an independent irritant in the side of all politicos, so be it. As a "gun slinging columnist", that's probably as it should be anyway.

I've had my fill of disingenuous politicians, ulterior motives, incremental socialism, sacred duties neglected, constitutionality ignored and sworn oaths brushed aside.

The GOP has violated my trust for the last time. Since I will always choose Christ's teachings and Jefferson's wisdom over political hypocrisy and lack of principle, there is now one less Republican in camp.

Note: This isn't intended to persuade anyone to follow me out of camp. This is….

Just the view from my saddle…

The Colonel

DON'T TREAD ON ME

[gitmo]

Sabertooth, I concur. I am greatly disturbed by many of Dubya's actions. I, too, will deliberate about the direction of my vote. However, I don't see any advantage to leaving the elephant party. We can be rehabilitated. If enough patriots get involved.

[Howlin]

I cannot respond until they tell me what to think

It doesn't matter anyway! Remember when Bush signed the CFR we all lost our freedom of speech so I probably wouldn't be able to SEE what you typed in your reply!

[AmishDude]

The dwarves and elves may bicker amongst themselves while the ring falls into the hands of Sauron. The common enemy must be fought.

The problem is that the government offices will always be there. Always. We cannot pretend they don't exist and we cannot destroy them. The only thing that is possible is to devolve power from them and that cannot be done as long as those offices are held by those whose ideology demands the use of power. They will simply accrue more power to themselves.

[exmarine]

Point well taken. But this is not 1860. The Whigs are long gone. We have Dems and Reps and that's it. If one party is weakened, the other party rules with an iron fist.

People always get what they deserve in a Republic like ours. If the majority wants to vote for the likes of a socialist liberal anti-american democrat, then one can only conclude from this that our nation is morally corrupted, and there is little hope left for it. It's not about the elected officials, it's about the worldview of Americans.

I do not think that America is a great nation any longer. Greatness is measured in moral values, not in dollars or power or military might. Americans have shown through the last 3 elections (Clinton elected twice and Gore given the majority of the vote) that most Americans have no clue about moral principle. They support Bush right now because they are scared for their lives, but it's only a reprieve.

[rdb3]

These threads remind of a Clinton mindset, like Clinton, the focus is on them.

True. But you know that this is our fault, right?

[Howlin]

Oh big bump!

[Sabertooth]

Well, the fact is you cannot advance your political principles unless you have power in the political arena.

Like it or not, that's the way it is. I'm not a fan of those rules, but to protect my principles, I will play by them. A principled loser is still a loser.

You can't score points if you're not on the field.

Which is why I'll remain in the GOP but keep my vote in play.

Blind, unswerving loyalty is taken for granted. If you want leverage over the politicians, remind them whom they work for and make them earn your vote.

If Loyalists want a big conservative colation to retake the Senate and consolidate the House, they'll need a better rallying cry than "Don't let the door hit you in the ass."

[uncbob]

For the most part, it is better to get a GOP Senate elected, which will get the nominees to the floor. Recess appointments would be like putting a band-aid on malignant melanoma.

1. It is better than doing nothing

2. I agree we need the senate BUT where is it axiomatic that Bush signing this unconstitutional bill is going to get the senate back.
3. Are all the GOP memmbers of congress that fought against it DOPES ?
3.Bush is as high as he is going to get in the polls. Now is the time to strike VETO
4.The public could care less about CFR .His veto would have been a non issue
5. Comes election time I think there are going to be a lot bigger issues than this and meanwhile it is the law of the land and prevents campaigning ads
6. It has angered a lot of his supporters and will not get him one more democrat vote
7.Time and effort and $$$$ will have to be expended to win the court case
8. Bush's DOJ will now have to spend tax money and time defending it in court instead of doing something useful

[hchutch]

I attribute the division to a failure to understand how the Dems play, and a lack of will to use their own tactics against them.

Byrd was already blocking the border security stuff in a seperate bill, if you will recall. So, they send it up a second time with the 245(i) extension, and now, you have a ready-made two-way pincer.

Furthermore, I bet the average Joe Six-Pack does not know about Senator Byrd's KKK connections. That opens up a lot of other possibilities, too.

Is it playing dirty? Probably. But the Dems would be doing no less, and quite frankly, I make big gains in other areas if I can fracture the Dem coalition more than it fractures my own.

The principle I think a lot of folks on the right need to learn is the principle of calculated risk. Risk a little political damage on our side to inflict much greater political damage on the opposition.

I have yet to see someone tell me politics was pretty, and that one could always avoid the mud. Sometimes, you have to play a little rough, and you will sometimes face Hobson's choice.

[Sabertooth]

And conservatives generally expect to be given everything from the GOP by Divine Right, and will "punish" the GOP if the majority of the GOP disagrees with them.

Is it your impression that most of the GOP favors Amnesty for Illegals?

Where's your evidence?

If you have none, as I suspect, then how can you blame members of the majority of the GOP that actually opposes Amnesty if they're unhappy and divided from President Bush on that issue?

[Walkin Man]

If Loyalists want a big conservative colation to retake the Senate and consolidate the House, they'll need a better rallying cry than "Don't let the door hit you in the ass."

Hopefully some Republicans will read these words of wisdom and stop slapping their base about the head and shoulders!

[Skooz]

I don't want to agree with your post. I really don't. But, it is difficult not to. I had tremendous faith in the populace of the US in 1992 when I confidently told my wife: "There is no way Clinton will be elected, people see right through that shyster." And also in 1996, when I was sure Dole would come from behind and defeat our disaster-in-chief.

The choice in 2000 was so obvious: an easily-refutable liar spouting meaningless platitudes and condescending vanities VS. a decent, honorable, honest man who had demonstrated great competence as governor of a large state. I confidently told friends it would be a blowout of Reaganesque proportions. I guess my opinion of the voting public was just too high.

After the last 3 elections, my confidence in the American voter is shot. I fear for our nation, I really do. They would elect President Hillary, President Gephardt, President Daschle or President Gore. All that is required is a slick marketing campaign and some glib sound bites.

[ProudEagle]

"I do not think that America is a great nation any longer. Greatness is measured in moral values, not in dollars or power or military might. Americans have shown through the last 3 elections (Clinton elected twice and Gore given the majority of the vote) that most Americans have no clue about moral principle. They support Bush right now because they are scared for their lives, but it's only a reprieve."

Amen and well said. And our enemies know this and are playing for time. This nation will not be conquered by foreign armies or nations. It will be destroyed by our own lack of moral fortitude. We'll do a fine job of it all on our own.

[uncbob]

Remember when Bush signed the CFR we all lost our freedom of speech so I probably wouldn't be able to SEE what you typed in your reply!

Well I guess you don't agree with Bush who said the bill contained abridgements on free speech just before he signed it that is

Free Republic is NOT THE ONLY venue for free speech

[tpaine]

FYI, the 'Sierra Times' is a loony ideologue rag run by a self-avowed Libertarian.

-- 'Bashing & baiting' is against FR rules.

[hchutch]

I've never said that. I've urged people to think strategically, though, and to recognize that politics is pretty far from the ideal world.

Let me give you a hypothetical: If you were running a campaign, and knew that your could beat Barbara Boxer by having the candidate go on Howard Stern's show for fifteen minutes, would you have your candidate go on the show?

I'd book my candidate on without hesitation. Yeah, I'll probably have Bozell and Bennett throwing a hissy fit, and one or two folks here might run off and go third party, but when you see the results George Pataki got in New York with HIS appearance (going from 20 points down to winning by 6 in a week).

I bet that among the thousands of Freepers here, you'd have some view that candidate's appearance on Howard's show as a betrayal (much like some folks here view the 245(i) extension and CFR). But then, if the results are like the results Pataki got, we now have another vote that goes for good judges and a lot fo the other stuff we like.

That's how we have to think about some of this stuff, IMHO. We have to be willing to score runs however we can, and not wait for the three-run homer.

[Sabertooth]

I attribute the division to a failure to understand how the Dems play, and a lack of will to use their own tactics against them.

Even if true (and I don't believe it is), isn't it a failure of the master strategist to not take this "failure to understand how the Dems play" into account? Wouldn't that indicate a flaw in the strategy?

This is the problem I have with the "Bush is a genius" Loyalists... a palpable unwillingness to place responsibility on the shoulders of the President if his supposed master plans don't pan out as they conceive they should.

Byrd was already blocking the border security stuff in a seperate bill, if you will recall. So, they send it up a second time with the 245(i) extension, and now, you have a ready-made two-way pincer.

It's simply not a pincer to give Byrd political cover to oppose the domestic security bill with a silver platter issue that puts President Bush in opposition to 70% of the American people.

Plug your ears to the Loyalist sloganeering for a minute and think about that.

Furthermore, I bet the average Joe Six-Pack does not know about Senator Byrd's KKK connections. That opens up a lot of other possibilities, too.

Doubtful.

Republicans couldn't exploit Byrd's KKK past when he said the "N" word on national TV...

And Joe 6-Pack opposes Amnesty.

Is it playing dirty? Probably. But the Dems would be doing no less, and quite frankly, I make big gains in other areas if I can fracture the Dem coalition more than it fractures my own.

It's playing fairy tales.

The principle I think a lot of folks on the right need to learn is the principle of calculated risk. Risk a little political damage on our side to inflict much greater political damage on the opposition.

There are also the principles of avoiding unnecessary risk and not alienating one's allies.

If the President takes a "calculated risk" and alienates some of his supporters, whose fault is the alienation?

I have yet to see someone tell me politics was pretty, and that one could always avoid the mud. Sometimes, you have to play a little rough, and you will sometimes face Hobson's choice.

Who's claiming it's pretty?

A willingness to face Hobson's choice is not a guarantee you've made the correct one.

There are the brave, and there are the foolhardy.

[Howlin]

I never said I didn't agree with him; I'm quoting all you gloom and doomers.

[uncbob]

I do not think that America is a great nation any longer. Greatness is measured in moral values, not in dollars or power or military might. Americans have shown through the last 3 elections (Clinton elected twice and Gore given the majority of the vote) that most Americans have no clue about moral principle. They support Bush right now because they are scared for their lives, but it's only a reprieve.

Unfortunately you are correct
I am 65 and pity the minority in this country who are going down the tubes with the majority of idiots.

I persoanlly believe Bush's lack of a veto on this matter for what he WRONGLY believes is a necessary political strategy is symptomatic