April 11, 2006
Dear Republicans: YOU NEED MY VOTE!
Dear Republican National Committee and any Republican running for elective office:
Sirs, you need my vote! My name is Joe American and I've been very worried about and losing sleep over the current state of governance you have displayed. You need to know that I proudly voted for Ronald Reagan 1980 and in '84, I voted for Bush the elder in '88 but he lost my vote in '92 because after saying his "Read my lips..." promise, he broke it. Yeah! That had some very real consequences in '92 didn't it? I voted Republican again in '96, '00 and '04 and in all the in-between elections. But I may very well not vote for you in '06 and you will have no one else to blame except yourselves.
In '94 Newt Gingrich ran for a congress strongly behind the "Contract for America" and it was roundly derided by the Democrats who had controlled the congress for so damn long. Everyone expected the Democrats to gain power one more time. But guess what fellows? America voted the bastards out, and they did so for a number of very cogent reasons.
Oh, I know, the MSM would like to have had you believe at the time that it was the vote of the "Angry White Male" but that was so much B.S. It was folks like me and Maria down the Block and Hans over at the German Deli and Mabel at the bar. It was Juan at the vegetable packing shed and young William flipping burgers between classes at the University. It was Dr Yang over at the hospital and Dr. Grayson my personal doc. It was Betty at the bowling alley and Jennifer who teaches at the local elementary school. It was James at the fish market and Oskar at the dry cleaners. It was America! And America is now upset with you.
When we put you in office, you had high ideals. You seemed to be committed to the idea of fiscal restraint. Instead, you have spent like a tax-and-spender (usually called Democrats) except in your case; it's been a cut tax but spend anyway. Our President Bush has not had the guts or the wisdom to veto some of those profligate spending bills, even when it was obvious he should have done so. Trent Lott the former Majority Leader of the Senate recently stated that he was tired of hearing from the "so called porkbusters." He is also on record as having said "“The way I do it is, I fold them into bills where you can’t find it,” Lott said. “I’ve been around here long enough to know how to bury it.” Is that what you think we elected you for?
Then there are the scandals. Oh, I know that Democrats (and it was apparently about pork money too) and Republicans are prone to scandals, but golly folks, you seem to be reveling in the ability to upset the status quo.
Money and Scandal - John Shadegg said it pretty well:
Republicans promised the American people two things in 1994. First, we promised to rein in the size and scope of the federal government. Second, we promised to clean up Washington. In recent years, we have fallen short on both counts. Total federal spending has grown by 33% since 1995, in inflation-adjusted dollars. Worse, we have permitted some of the same backroom practices that flourished in the old Democrat-controlled House. Powerful members of Congress are able to insert provisions giving away millions--even tens of millions--of dollars in the dead of night. The recent scandals involving Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff have highlighted the problem, but this is not just a case of a few bad apples. The system itself needs structural reforms.
Most of all, I resent you spending my money and the money of my children, my future grandchildren and maybe my great grandchildren as well. You did one good thing by passing a significant tax cut. Because of that, the economy is doing well, but if you don't tie spending restraint into this picture, you won't like it when the picture changes.
You have failed miserably at reforming the way government works. And, I'm not sure you even think we have noticed. You are going blithely about your business as though we were too stupid not to notice. Well, you are wrong. Further, you are wrong on so many counts. We expect good government and we are not getting it with you in charge. If we wanted all this scandal, spending like there is no tomorrow etc., we would have kept the Democrats in place in '94. But, we wanted change. You started off right but quickly lost your way.
So, I'm putting you on notice. You will have to EARN my vote this year, and you have damn little time to do it. You need to clean up your act and you need to start now. Not next week, not next month, not next year. Now!
Remember, I don't need you, I can get some Democrats to do the same thing you are doing (and probably increase my taxes too.) But you need me in a most desperate way. You need my vote!
INSTALANCHE: Thanks Dr. Glenn. Welcome Instapundit Readers. Hope you enjoyed this and come on back any time. Dr. Glenn's readers are always welcome.
I just hope you're not expecting them to earn your vote. I don't see it at the federal level this year at all (with a couple exceptions).
Posted by Ogre at April 11, 2006 09:00 PM
Don't forget the disdain with which John "I'm a hero" McCain treated the American worker recently.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12155322/
Posted by DADvocate at April 11, 2006 09:24 PM
I realized some time ago that I usually vote against a candidate rather than for a candidate.
I tell you, GM, that I see nary a soul right now that deserves my wholehearted vote.
I fed up with both political parties.
I suppose that this disrespect of the voters who elect them is the result of politicians' caring about nothing except lining their own pockets and pandering to various lobbies. The vast majority of our politicians have no moral or patriotic conviction.
I hope that you can find a candidate who is worthy of your vote, GM. Any worthy ones are few and far between.
Posted by Always On Watch at April 12, 2006 06:05 AM
I had the same voting pattern as you, GM. And am thinking the same way...the Democrats as a whole are worse, but I will vote to create a stalemate...give the Dems control of something so that at least there is gridlock. If the R's act (not talk) they could get my vote back, but I don't think it very likely.
Posted by blanknoone at April 12, 2006 06:15 AM
I, for one, will be voting "None of the above" this year, and I suspect that I will not be very lonely. Goodbye all you RINO's ... your are now known as Democrats.
Posted by Vulgorilla at April 12, 2006 06:20 AM
Yesterday my area had an election for the PA House seat of a corrupt Republican Representative. The Democrats put up a 44 year old lawyer who wants to cut property taxes. He is also the son of a former mayor. The Republicans put up a 26 year old grandson of a local millionaire.
For forty years this area has been represented by a Republican. I voted for the Democrat. He won by about 100 votes.
The Republicans don't seem serious.
Posted by John Davies at April 12, 2006 06:38 AM
but I will vote to create a stalemate
Well, since both parties now spend like drunken sailors, the stalemate probably won't have anything to do with spending. Unless there isn't enough of it.
Posted by Mark Flacy at April 12, 2006 06:39 AM
I have been a full ticket guranteed republican voter. But now, they have made it clear that they want the Mexican illegal swing vote more then my vote. So this election day, I'll make tacos and sit at home. Republicans have no principles. Democrats have bad principles. I'm waiting for a third party.
Posted by mike at April 12, 2006 06:44 AM
The budget is forecast to be back in balance by 2008.
Posted by AARON at April 12, 2006 06:44 AM
GM:
I suspect that regardless of your claims about past voting record that you are a Democrat at heart and for some reason are looking for an excuse to vote for them.
I am a Republican and a conservative and I am extremely disappointed with some of the baloney the Republicans are pulling right now too. I am especially livid over that stupid "compromise" in the Senate over immigration. That is nothing less than a total surrender to amnesty factions - when they have the majority.
But voting for a Democrat? The party of Ted Kennedy, John Murtha, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer? The party supported by Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and their ilk?
The party that worships abortion as a sacrament? The party that thinks Saddam Hussein should still be in power?
You are either not serious, or you are basing your decisions on emotion - a Democrat trait. Suck it up, man.
Posted by Michael at April 12, 2006 06:49 AM
There is a reason that Congressional approval ratings are even lower than the president's. Both parties are corrupt. There are a few honest people in Congress, Coburn comes to mind, but not many.
None of the above would win in a landslide, most districts. Would that we had a choice.
Posted by MarkD at April 12, 2006 06:57 AM
Both parties stink to high Heaven right now. We have the best government money can buy, and most of those in Congress were bought and paid for long ago.
I'd be counselling my grandchildren to choose another country, but, sadly, we are just a little way beyond everyone else on the road to perpetual serfdom.
It's sad beyond words. Out of control spending, illegals with more rights than we have, wars being fought with one hand tied behind us, etc.
Posted by Ralph at April 12, 2006 06:57 AM
AARON: If the federal budget is balanced by fiscal 2008, I'll eat my straw hat.
Posted by WVH at April 12, 2006 06:59 AM
I'm going to have a taco party on election day in Nov and not vote with my friends.
If W has to deal with a Democrat Congress, then maybe he'll become a conservative. The reverse worked on Clinton.
Posted by mike at April 12, 2006 07:02 AM
Don't stay at home on election day!
The repubs have failed what they set out to do, but the dems won't even try. Have you ever seen a dem show the honesty and candor that Shaddeg displayed here?
You're angry that the chance of reigning in spending in the next few years is less than great. You're dashing that chance if you stay home.
Posted by Anon at April 12, 2006 07:04 AM
I return all contribution requests explaining why I am not giving. Maybe some hired juvenile opens and discards but when the money stops, they may open their eyes. They are bowing to business and the liberals on immigration but they don't carry the votes for republicans anyway.
Posted by gene Hall at April 12, 2006 07:11 AM
I'm with GM. I don't give a damn about labels like Democrat and Republican and, while I've mostly voted for Repubs over the past 8 years I see a vote for them this November as a reward for bad behavior.
As bad as the Democrats may be on taxation, the long term need isn't for Republicans - it is for alternatives. If you reward the Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility then you are really voting to have two irresponsible parties. Punish them - make them change so that we'll actually have a choice in 2008 or later. While I *won't* vote for a tax and spend Democrat, I'm sure that I'll have better things to do on election day than to visit the polls just so I can throw away my vote on a party that is really no better.
No choice = No vote
Posted by WildMonk at April 12, 2006 07:20 AM
"Well, since both parties now spend like drunken sailors..."
Mark, while both parties do spend like drunken sailors, there is at least a chance that the inevitable drunken compromise absurd spending bill might get vetoed. That's better than what we have now.
Posted by blanknoone at April 12, 2006 07:23 AM
I'm with Gene Hall. Every solicitation from the RNC goes back with a comment about the current situation - on their postage. The local situation is not much better in Indianapolis with the parties working to outspend each other on sports stadia and subsidy of for-profit businesses.
Posted by Fred McCarthy at April 12, 2006 07:24 AM
Politicians always spend like drunken sailors, because that's what the most people ultimately want. In short, we get the govt we deserve.
Spending has always risen...it has risen during Reagan's time, it rose during the 90's when we ran some year over year surpluses. It was just that during that time the economic boom, which included a stock market bubble and some fraud, produced so much tax revenue coming in that no one cared about increasing spending. Indeed, that time allowed politicians more free reign over spending than ever before. Also, during that time the one area that was cut was defense spending by Clinton; well, looking back, we see that wasn't so wise.
Merely sitting out an election is just plain stupid and equivalent to a child throwing a temper tantrum. There are numerous ways to get involved with grassroots politics with every party, including the Republicans. You'd be surprised how much they willingly accept any volunteers with a desire to contribute, and how much influence you can have. But of course that takes time and energy, and not mere griping.
Sitting out an election simply preserves the status quo or worse. And if you think the Democrats can't be worse, you are soooo wrong. You obviously don't remember the Carter years. Even the Clinton years, looking back, were disastrous from a national security perspective, given the neglect of this issue from the Clinton administration.
But of course, it's so much easier to just gripe.
Posted by Thought at April 12, 2006 07:47 AM
GM:
I suspect that regardless of your claims about past voting record that you are a Democrat at heart and for some reason are looking for an excuse to vote for them.
I am a Republican and a conservative and I am extremely disappointed with some of the baloney the Republicans are pulling right now too. I am especially livid over that stupid "compromise" in the Senate over immigration. That is nothing less than a total surrender to amnesty factions - when they have the majority.
But voting for a Democrat? The party of Ted Kennedy, John Murtha, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer? The party supported by Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and their ilk?
Michael, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. If you read more of my blog you will find total disdain for what currently passes as the Democratic Party. Not voting for a Republican does not mean voting for a Democrat at all. There are other choices including write in. Hell, I'd vote for me before I'd vote for someone with no ethics, no sense of fiscal responsibility, no sense of being elected to represent their district/state but responsible for the effective governance of this wonderful country. For your further information, I'm an AMERICAN first, a conservative second and a Republican a distant third. There are a few conservative democrats (small d) in Texas and I have voted for a few (damned few come to think of it - most of the so called conservative dems talk conservative but totally vote with the Liberal dems.)
So, not voting Republican does NOT mean voting for a Democrat.
Posted by GM Roper at April 12, 2006 08:01 AM
Sittng it out isn't the answer: punishing the party failing you is the answer. There are plenty of Republicans who are just as bad as the Democrats -- so why support them? At least with the Dem you know what you're getting. Or you can register a large protest vote to the Libertarians. *They're* not going anywhere, but it'll be obvious why it happened.
Michael, I'm sorry, but your prescription is to bend over and keep taking it. If all my vote here in gerrymanderland can convey is my deep disappointment, then let it do so -- and if they don't have the house cleaned by '08, guess what? I just might vote for Hillary, and tell everybody I know to do the same thing. THAT's how mad I am.
Posted by Boxing Alcibiades at April 12, 2006 08:08 AM
If you want to punish the Republicans, vote for a third party candidate, Constitution or Libertarian. Then they'll know the voters are there, but they aren't getting them. If people serious about immigration reform and limited government don't vote at all, the politicians will just assume we don't exist. Then '08 will be worse than '06.
I, however, will be holding my nose and voting for mostly Republicans this fall. There is at least a chance--slim, but real--that the Pence/Shadegg wing of the Republican caucus can influence a majority. With the Democrats in power we have no chance at all of any worthwhile reform.
Posted by Nathan at April 12, 2006 08:29 AM
The last Democrat that I voted for was John Kennedy, but that was when I was in my 20's, before I started paying exhorbitant taxes, and was no longer under the influence of unhinged liberal educators. I am now retired. For years now all I have seen, whether at the national, state, or local levels are politically correct and spineless legislators interested only in their own political well being and financial future.
The majority of them have lost sight of the fact that, as our elected leaders, their job is to protect the viability of our way of life and provide our country with the necessary security so that our children may enjoy the same. Instead these so called "leaders" have violated not only our trust, but many of the laws we deemed necessary to protect us and our children, and their children.
They try to fool us by proposing laws they claim will strengthen our country when, after a brief read of those rules, their lies to us are obvious. They lack the courage of the men of the greatest generation.
After the masses of illegals in our streets are given a free (ok, almost free) pass on citizenship, will our non-farm jobs, homes and other possessions be their next demand, or will they just make the compassionate demand that their brothers, sisters, mothers, father, uncles, aunts, etc., be next, so that they become are the sole determiners of our country's future. Immigration is justified, but not at this pace or in this fashion where the illegals are treated with preference.
It shows how the elite (the Democrats and Republicans already too long in office) pander to an illegal class in preference to the citizen voters who, unfortunately, placed them in office as their trustees.
America, as a nation of law, and not a nation of men, is dying before our very eyes. The lack of repect for law now will produce and even greater tendency to ignore it in the future.
Posted by Stan Smith at April 12, 2006 08:32 AM
Don't forget about McCain-Feingold. One more gutless congressional vote followed by one more gutless non-veto.
Posted by jeffus at April 12, 2006 09:00 AM
NOT voting will send a message . . . the wrong message. One problem we have now is that most officials are elected by a minority of the people, those who just happened to go and vote. Listen, winning an election by a majority of the vote of only 38% of the number of registered voters is NOT representative government.
The solution here is to get your elected representative on the phone and TELL him or her what you expect from them. Or overload the telephone circuits with faxes. Or start a letter writing campaign. Or flood his or her mailbox with emails.
And when you get the idiot's attention, say, for example, "if you do not support x y z, not only will you NOT get my vote in the next election, I will go out of my way to campaign against you."
Or words to that effect.
Otherwise, it will be "business as usual" in American politics and we are left with smelly people as our elected representatives. It is true, folks ... we deserve who we get.
Posted by Mustang at April 12, 2006 09:03 AM
Oh, well if the Democrats are not going to run Hilliary, maybe it'll be this guy . . . HT to FlightPundit:
http://www.therazor.org/saddam2008/
Posted by Mustang at April 12, 2006 09:08 AM
"I, however, will be holding my nose and voting for mostly Republicans this fall. There is at least a chance--slim, but real--that the Pence/Shadegg wing of the Republican caucus can influence a majority."
You need to think beyond the next two years. The Shadeggs of the party will have a much better chance of transforming the GOP if the party is ousted this year. If we put them back in office even after they spend like drunken sailors and oversee the largest expansion of the welfare state since Johnson (i.e., the Medicare drug bill), they will conclude that there is no need to change business as usual. OTOH, getting ousted might introduce a bit of soul-searching and change.
True, with Democrats in power, the "Republican agenda" will not get enacted -- but as far as I can tell, there is no Republican agenda anyway these days. And maybe Bush will veto a bill for a change if a Democratic majority passes anything particularly bad.
Posted by Dana H. at April 12, 2006 09:09 AM
So, not voting Republican does NOT mean voting for a Democrat.
Hahaha! Every vote for someone other than a Republican is a vote FOR a Democrat. Not voting at all is a vote FOR a Democrat. Who are you trying to kid?
Try a different approach. Want a Democrat to win? NO? Vote Republican.
Posted by Michael at April 12, 2006 09:47 AM
GM,
You are right as rain. My voting record is exactly like yours, including sitting out the 1992 election that elected Bill Clinton. If Congressional elections were today, I'd stay home again or vote for a libertarian candidate. I know of 20 solid Republicans who feel the same way I do and, given that I live in a very conservative town with a strong record of giving to Republican candidates, that's not good news for the GOP.
If the GOP wants my vote they need to listen to people like Tom Coburn instead of George W. Bush, Trent Lott, Arlen Specter, Bill Frist, etc.
Posted by DRJ at April 12, 2006 09:57 AM
When people do not vote they give consent to whatever happens. I always vote but there are times when I participate more with helping candidates etc. This year I won't help any of the candidates because they look the same. I predicted that would take about 20 years for Republicans to turn into Democrats. It just happened sooner than I expected.
Posted by Dale S. at April 12, 2006 10:02 AM
Michael,
Don't you get it? I don't care if Democrats win, just like I didn't care in 1992. I'm a loyal Republican and I'm proud of my no-vote in 1992 because it helped get the GOP back on track. The GOP needs to end its tax-and-spend love affair and take a serious position on border security and immigration. In my opinion, the Republican Party needs a dose of reality and I'm ready to pitch in with my version of tough love.
Posted by DRJ at April 12, 2006 10:08 AM
Staying home and not is voting is the equivalent of voting "none of the above." It is a perfectly valid choice when there is little difference between the two parties and gasoline prices are closing in on 3 bucks a gallon.
Posted by Anthony in NYC at April 12, 2006 10:40 AM
Guess I should be proud of myself. I've only had one political plug in my yard in my life. That was for Tom Coburn in 2004.
Reads from the board like I have good taste. Of course, if you were to read the piece of trash called the Tulsa World, you would think Tom Coburn was just this side of the devil.
Posted by B. Taylor at April 12, 2006 10:56 AM
They came to change Washington, and Washington changed them.
They also discovered that Newt's largely hypothetical "revolution" was scary to many voters and stoked media hysteria about "mean Republicans." So with Bush and "compassionate conservatism," they reverted to Nixonism - attack liberals on patriotism and moral values, but spend wildly and buy middle class votes. Induct an army of ex-Democratic politicians who haven't kicked the spending habit. What you see now is the result.
Posted by Dallas at April 12, 2006 11:01 AM
Don't you get it? I don't care if Democrats win...
I get it just fine but I wonder if you do. Think of what putting the nut-job Dems into power would do:
1. ACLU-friendly SCOTUS appointments leading to homosexual marriages mandated across the land, Roe v Wade endorsed, more affirmative action, no more laws against illegal aliens.
2. Headlong retreat from Iraq and the war on terror - Dems don't even think there is one. The message that would send to bin Laden and his crowd would be, "You were right, binny boy. America is a paper tiger. Step up the attacks in their homeland."
3. Tax cuts - gone.
4. Universal Health Care for all - just like they have in Cuba.
5. Oh, goody, whole new rounds of affirmative action, race pimping, and "special interest groups."
That's only the beginning. Some tough love that. Some message you send. Who suffers? Me and you, that's who. Your logic reminds me of the old saying, "I hit myself on top of the head with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop."
Posted by Michael at April 12, 2006 11:12 AM
My first vote was for Goldwater. I've been taking a "rash of sh**" ever since. We should all recall, he wouldn't have gone to Nam. I had already served two short TDYs to install radars, by that time. It was obvious, even at that early stage, that the US of A WASN'T IN IT TO WIN.
Forty-two years later, we've enabled 97% re-election rates for incumbent pols, so it's not likely we'll be able to make even minor inroads in 06 or 08, and the pols just keep getting more evidence of our inability to influnce them. Most of us must make a living, and cannot therefore congregate as fast, nor scream as loud as the special interets.
Then, these pols get to retire on our dime; most receiving much more than the average "living wage" for life. Their taxation rules are different than ours. What's not to like?
I've concluded that our politicians can act as they do; only because they believe they will be the last folks standing.
They've orchestrated a situation wherein, during times of great upheaval (such as our looming crisis over defending the border...and, in light of the fact that the President now calls the Minutemen- vigilantes), they have at their immediate disposal, all the law enforcement resources and militias of the fed, state and local govt's to protect them and their families from civil unrest. Defending any official will come before protecting any citizen.
That notwithstanding, their salaries won't go down, nor will the rest of the govt's employees, no matter how uncivil the unrest becomes. We'll just need more troops, and more gov't management of the BATTLE SPACE.
Such a deal; and it's not like we were't warned repeatedly.
Posted by Geoffgo at April 12, 2006 11:17 AM
Ugh. Such a dilemma. Here in Kansas, the Republicans will vote for any government program that a) expands farm subsidies or b) expands the role of the local government into the rural areas or c) expands the role of the state government into private lives.
Why bother with fiscally conservative government when you can pave yet more roads? Or help farmers buy more machinery? Gah. The idea of actually cutting government gets a lot of talk in Topeka, but absolutely no action.
Posted by BadLiberal at April 12, 2006 11:40 AM
If you feel that you cannot vote Republican voting 3rd party sends a more useful message than not voting.
If you don't vote the politicians can't be sure why not or what you are looking for. They can look at vote changes and make a guess but it may be that you have dropped out and will not vote even in the future. In that case you don't matter.
If you vote Libertarian, Constitution or something similiar then the politicians have a pretty good idea of what you want. This is especially true if the Republican vote has dropped and the non-left 3rd party vote has gone up. That sends a message to potential Republican primary challengers that there is an opening for then to appeal to those people.
I don't see much hope of the Democratic party moving in the direction I would like to see. That is in a more pro personal liberty, smaller government direction. There is more hope of moving the Republican party in that direction but doing so will require good candidates to win in the primaries.
I understand that putting the fear of the voters in Republicans by letting them lose might also force good change. However I am concerned that getting the Dems in for a while could cause even more harm than the Republicans now are. There is a valid argument for having the two elected branches split between the parties. If nothing else the conflict will tend to cause them to go in a bad direction more slowly.
Posted by Tony Lekas at April 12, 2006 12:08 PM
I'm with most of you, but instead of sitting the election out, vote Libertarian! It may be a "vote for Dems", but you have to believe that if enough do it, we might convince our current crop of Repubs to wake up and look around.
Posted by Aaron at April 12, 2006 12:19 PM
Vote, don't vote, vote for a 3rd party candidate, whatever.
None of that will matter. What we need from the grassroots is the DEMAND for reasonable term limits. Who are the biggest pork kings? The so-called "representatives" that stopped representing their constituents in favor of representing their own self interest decades ago. Pig, thy name is Byrd.
Posted by Daveg at April 12, 2006 12:49 PM
1) I am disgusted with most congressional Republicans on a number of levels.
2) Losing their majority in the House might or might not get their attention. They might just as easily draw the wrong conclusions as the right ones from a loss. Still, it's one way to communicate with them.
However,
3) Five words for you:
Nancy Pelosi, two heartbeats away.
Now if that prospect doesn't make your blood run cold... Apart from the actual possibility of needing to tap Pelosi as president, do you really think that a party that elevated someone like that to a position like that at a time like this can be trusted with governance?
The need to reform the Republican leadership isn't the only consideration here. There's also what's going to happen to the country in the mean time.
Posted by jaed at April 12, 2006 02:31 PM
I love it. :>
Kudos and cheers and praise and all that jazz. I envy your ability to just write it out so plain.
keep it up!
Posted by Meg Black at April 12, 2006 02:38 PM
Fact: Discretionary spending within the Federal budget in terms of current dollars has decreased during the tenure of President Bush and the Republican Congress.
Fact: Non-discretionary spending (i.e., entitlements, etc.) in the Federal budget has not been controlled, reformed or reduced because Democrats have enough members in Congress to stop such changes through filibusters and procedural blocks. Democrats have also been quite successful at fear-mongering when it comes to lobbying key voting groups within the American public who choose to believe in the lies and propaganda that the liberals peddle instead of listening to the Republicans who propose reasonable changes to the non-discretionary spending programs.
Fact: Balancing budgets is far less important than making sure that our long-term security is protected. War often requires deficit spending in order to make sure that our long-term security is preserved. This is where we find ourselves at the moment. So, some deficit spending is justified to prosecute the war against terrorism in the near-term.
Fact: It is the growth of non-discretionary Federal spending programs that is eating up an ever-increasing chunk of our Federal Budget and resulting in most of the unnecessary deficit spending.
Fact: The President has no ability to control non-discretionary spending unless Congress acts to change the laws that govern such spending.
Fact: Illegal immigration has not resulted in double-digit unemployment in the U.S. In fact, at a healthy 4.7 percent unemployment rate, Americans are close to achieving full employment. Until that picture starts to change, undue attention to the illegal immigration problem is not very productive. Furthermore, allowing this issue to open the door to the Democrats is pure folly.
Fact: Republicans who abandoned President Bush Sr. (including me) did a disservice to this country by allowing the accidental tourist (Bill Clinton) to be elected; thus placing the security of this country in a state that paved the way for the 9/11 attacks.
In spite of the many failings within our current Republican leaders, they are still the best hope for the future of this country and the rest of the world. What we need now is more grass-roots lobbying of these leaders by rank-and-file Republicans like ourselves. What we don’t need is to open the door to those who would weaken our country, by staying home on Election Day or wasting our vote on third-party candidates. Americans want results. They do not like or enjoy grid-lock. Presidents who preside over a grid-locked Congress often suffer the fate of having the public blame them and soon find a candidate from the other party sitting in their seat. Creating even temporary grid-lock within our government does nothing to solve the problems that we are facing in our country; it only serves to open the door to liberal philosophies that nearly ruined this country in the past.
Posted by NuclearPhysicist at April 12, 2006 02:48 PM
NuclearPhysicist:
Amen. Amen. Amen. As a former nuclear reactor operator, I feel a kinship with you - but I am heartened by our kindred thoughts. Amen, brother, Amen.
Posted by Michael at April 12, 2006 02:56 PM
Michael, voting for Republican "Labels" on Democrat
clones does no good. Either the Republicans want and value _CONSERVATIVE_ voters, or not. At this point it appears that they are more interested in Mexican proto voters than in American conservatives. I can live with that if the Republican party can. Like another poster said, I am an American first, a conservative second, and a Republican only as long as that is a meaningfull and
usefull choice. The Republican party appears to be _leaving_ me, rather than me deserting it. I will not
follow blindly where thay are going. Sorry.
I do not want a Democrat to win, but calling a Democrat by the Republican label is not going to be a better result !!
Gray One
----------------------------------------
MICHAEL said:
So, not voting Republican does NOT mean voting for a Democrat.
Hahaha! Every vote for someone other than a Republican is a vote FOR a Democrat. Not voting at all is a vote FOR a Democrat. Who are you trying to kid?
Try a different approach. Want a Democrat to win? NO? Vote Republican.
Posted by Michael at April 12, 2006 09:47 AM
Posted by Gray One at April 12, 2006 05:11 PM
Let's face it-the 'Pubbie oligarchy has the rest of us by the shorts. As outraged as I am, I still have to vote 'Pubbie because of the horror of Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, and so on.
But when the 'Pubbies send me campaign solicitiations I send 'em back a lot of outrage and no money.
Posted by eugene at April 12, 2006 05:33 PM
One of the things I thought about when putting up this post is the possibility that a Democratic House may well vote out articles of impeachment against President Bush. That would be a political catastrophe I thought, but then I thought, it would also hurt the Dems that they might never recover. But, then I thought that if they never recovered, then the current crop of Repubs (95% of whom will probably be re-elected) will continue as they have been. So, putting principle before party, I wrote this post. Integrity really is important. I wish the Republicans would learn that.
Posted by GM Roper at April 12, 2006 06:23 PM
I do not want a Democrat to win...
But if enough people think and act the way you suggest, that is exactly what will happen. There will be no Libertarian victor nor any other party but Democrats. They are salivating at being handed the one thing they cannot otherwise earn - a victory.
Do you really think it will make a big difference to you when they go on their rampages that you didn't "want" it to happen. Get real. Get behind the Republican party and demand changes. Work from within. At least start making some sense. The approach suggested by this post and several commenters will result in a Democrat victory. I have already indicated what that will mean, only it will be much worse than that, I just hit the high spots.
If you are OK with Democrats having their hands on the levers of power and pushing abortion, homosexual marriage, open borders, and bowing to the UN and our "superiors" in Brussels and Paris, I wonder what kind of Republican you claim to be. None I would recognize.
Posted by Michael at April 12, 2006 06:57 PM
An open letter to the RNC:
Dear Sirs,
My name is not Joe American, it’s Scott, and I’m here to tell you about the rule of 250. The rule of 250 was coined because almost everyone knows at least 250 people. If you piss one person off enough, his opinion can affect 250. Let’s think about that.
How much do you spend on advertising to convince just one person that you have the right message? They may or may not tell others about it. If you piss them off, they are going to tell everyone they know—twice!
There is a blog in this town, put there by one pissed-off person. It had 30,000 hits the first two months that it had tracking in operation. That’s the rule of 250 on steroids.
My point is: I know what you’ve promised, I know what you’ve done, and they don’t match. You spent too much time worrying about staying in office to do the job you were put in office to do.
If you can’t convince me in very short order that you can do the job, I’ll either find someone that can, or make sure that you don’t. And, the Dems might feel excluded…don’t. I do remember when you popped up for a tour of Oklahoma during a vote. Personally, I think you should have been brought back strapped across a hood, emulating the deer-in-the-headlights end result.
I’ve voted Republican since Jimmie Carter showed us how badly we can screw up, but that might come to an end, and I’ll find and take plenty of like-thinking folks with me. Read the following post and see if the shoe fits. There were 49 comments in less than a day, and that does not count all that had a nerve touched by that post.
Tell us what you’re going to do, then do it, and do it soon—or we will.
Scott, Paris, TX
PS, do any forwards by using bcc:. It eliminates the value of data-mining, and you really don’t want to give away your address book. People sell lists, and if you hate spam, you’ll thank the next person that takes your email address off the forward.
Posted by Scott at April 12, 2006 10:39 PM
Scott: Outstanding Letter. Just Outstanding!!!
Posted by GM Roper at April 13, 2006 05:18 AM
"Hell, I'd vote for me before I'd vote for someone with no ethics, no sense of fiscal responsibility,"
Why did you vote for Bush in 2004? Clinton balanced the budget.
Are you saying Pres Bush and the Republican dominated Congress have been fiscally responsible in the last five years?
In general: You and many commentators seem to regret that the United States is basically a two party democracy rather than a multi-party democracy like Canada and all European countries.
If you want to punish one party (Rep) and abstain from voting, you are supporting the other party (Dem), which you dislike even more.
Not much choice...
I think in the end you will vote for the Republicans no matter what they do, because you want to prevent the Democrats from gaining power.
If I were Republican National Committee I would not be concerned by your open letter because you expressed strongly you disdain of the Democrats. I would interprete you letter in such a way that you are unhappy about Republicans and will probably not donate any money to them, but you dislike Dems even more and therefore you will grudgingly vote for the Reps. Of course, I could be completely wrong...
Posted by Jorg at April 13, 2006 05:41 AM
Clinton balanced the budget.
The Cato Institute says: No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget:
And 1993 -- the year of the giant Clinton tax hike -- was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president's own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.
Yea, Ol' Slick was sitting in the big boy seat, but it was Newt and the Republicans that forced him, kicking and screaming all the way, to a balanced budget. And don't forget:
Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan -- a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as "pure demagoguery." It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities."
As far as the Euros are concerned, their vaunted "coalition" governments end up in total grid lock all the time. And every time you turn around, they're "dissolving the government" and headed for new elections and chaos. Must be why they've never been able to be credible on the world scene - just a bunch of tut-tutters with their aghast looks as the big boys take charge and action.
Posted by Michael at April 13, 2006 07:09 AM
Michael, It always takes two to balance the budget: Congress and the White House.
You say, the Republicans have been the driving force in balancing the budget in the late 90s. Okay, but why did they reverse course, when Pres. Bush took over?
I fear, you are going to reply with some stuff about promoting the economy after 9/11.
Still, I think the tax cut is not fiscally responsible. You are borrowing from your children and the evil Chinese.
Anyway, I just want to know from George: Are you saying Pres Bush and the Republican dominated Congress have been fiscally responsible recently to earn your vote in 2004?
Michael, first you talk about US budget wars, but then you say it is Europe that is in "total gridlock all the time."
And you continue with to many generalizations to count.
Big boy, have fun taking charge and action alone. Just don't blame us for your failures.
Stop whining! Get out of NATO and the UN, if you have so much disdain for allies.
You should not be a member of any international organizsation if you want subordinates rather than allies.
Posted by Jorg at April 13, 2006 07:28 AM
Jorg, if you will read my post you will have the answer to your question of what I think Bush and company have done to spending. By the way, Michael is absolutely correct. Clinton gets credit (but only from lefties and the MSM) for balancing the budget, but as Michael noted, he had to be dragged "kicking and screaming" to sign the legislation.
You are also quite wrong about taking two. Under normal circumstances you would be correct, but under this circumstance you had Clinton "forced" to acknowledge and sign because he wasn't going to get anything otherwise. Making it out to be a bi-partisan deal is mistaken, it was not. Clinton was forced into his approval.
Posted by GM Roper at April 13, 2006 12:37 PM
"Jorg, if you will read my post you will have the answer to your question of what I think Bush and company have done to spending."
I did and I wondered why you voted for Bush in 2004 although you wrote this:
"Hell, I'd vote for me before I'd vote for someone with no ethics, no sense of fiscal responsibility,"
"Clinton was forced into his approval."
How did they "force" him?
More info and sources please.
Posted by Jorg at April 13, 2006 01:15 PM
Jorg, you have more questions than a 4 year old. I voted for Bush in 04 because at that time Kerry was the Democratic nominee and quite scary in terms of what he wanted and his Vietnam history which I viewed (and still do) as dispicable. Do you NEVER change your mind about anything? If so, then you must still eat only baby food since that is what you started with or perhaps formula.
Please, if you are going to ask questions, at least come to some kind of grip with someone with a different political philosophy than yours and quit trying to always force someone into your frame of reference. That behavior is decidely troll-like (and please note, I am not calling you a troll.
If you want more on the '95 budget, look it up. I'm not blogging to do research for you. As I have noted, this blog is my personal political journal and I'm not beholden to anyone for my opinions. They are mine. Get it?
Posted by GM Roper at April 13, 2006 03:03 PM
Jorg, I apologize for the tone of the immediate comment above. I'm cranky from the chemo-therapy.
Posted by GM Roper at April 13, 2006 03:04 PM
Sorry about chemo!
I just see plenty of contradictions.
"Hell, I'd vote for me before I'd vote for someone with no ethics, no sense of fiscal responsibility,"
But you nevertheless voted for Bush in 2004. That's why the Republicans won't be scared by your open letter. They can always count on you, because your dislike of Democrats seems to be stronger than your preference for fiscal responsibilty.
You just write so much that brings the curious four year old out in me. It's good to be curious. Nothing wrong with that. Four year old kids are much more open-minded than old folks.
Another example: Kerry's "Vietnam history which I viewed (and still do) as dispicable."
Difficult to understand for me. He served honorably in Vietnam, while George Bush and Dick Cheney did not serve at all. Thus what you write sounds like another contradiction. I know, I should just ignore you.
Posted by Jorg at April 13, 2006 04:34 PM
Michael, It always takes two to balance the budget: Congress and the White House.
That is total hogwash. Clinton had no choice with the Republicans in charge in congress. If he would have fought them, they would have stopped anything he wanted from happening. They may well have shut down the government. Wait, they did - twice during Clinton's term. They can override his vetoes, reject his bills, and generally make life miserable for him when they are of the opposite party. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole proved it time and time again. Clinton had to give in or the pain inflicted on him would have been unbearable - he knew that and he finally did, after 5 bogus attempts of submitting his budget.
You say, the Republicans have been the driving force in balancing the budget in the late 90s.
Only because its true.
Okay, but why did they reverse course, when Pres. Bush took over?
I wish I knew. The have been irresponsible with the fiscal behavior - as bad as if not worst than Democrats.
I fear, you are going to reply with some stuff about promoting the economy after 9/11.
You'd be wrong, but that wouldn't be new.
Still, I think the tax cut is not fiscally responsible.
See, wrong again. Tax cuts - giving taxpayers back their hard-earned money is very responsible. What is irresponsible is continuing to spend at record levels and borrowing money to do it. The two are only tangentially related. I know that's a difficult concept for a liberal, but do some reading.
Michael, first you talk about US budget wars, but then you say it is Europe that is in "total gridlock all the time."
The budget was balanced and we did not have to dissolve the government to do it. In most European governments, that would have to happen first - followed by hastily-arranged elections. Coalitions are build which guarantee gridlock. Or even worse, look at what is going on in France right now - and a year ago. Riots, burning cars, violence. Over what? A law that allows companies to fire unproductive employees in the first two years? And the Oh-so culturally sensitive French having burning cities over their cultural insensitivity? And a Chiraq giving in to a bunch of marauding teenagers? Yea, that's a good system alright.
Big boy, have fun taking charge and action alone. Just don't blame us for your failures.
Just stay out of the way. Hide and watch as they say. We can't blame you unless you start giving aid and comfort to the terrorists in which case you'll be visited by the 101st Airborne soon. Why would we blame Europeans? They do absolutely nothing except whine and criticize. Their militaries are third-rate. As Patton once said, and its even truer today, "I'd rather have a German Division in front of me than a French one behind me."
Stop whining! Get out of NATO and the UN, if you have so much disdain for allies.
Believe me, if it were my call, there would be no NATO and I'd love to relocate that bunch of thieves and mass-murderers called the UN to Brussels where they'd be welcomed and more comfortable. They can be just as useless over there as they are here.
You should not be a member of any international organizsation if you want subordinates rather than allies
We'd love allies. Just can't seem to find any. Spain? Germany? France? Hahaha!
He served honorably in Vietnam, while George Bush and Dick Cheney did not serve at all.
Multiple purple hearts in 4 months - just enough to qualify to get out of combat and none needing anything more than a band aid? Shooting some Vietnamese kid in the back as he was running away? Almost everyone that served with him thinks he lied about his service, his medals, his phony exploits, and consider him a dishonorable man. I served in Viet Nam for 3 years and thankfully was never wounded. I knew lots of people who were in combat and I never met one that even got two purple hearts - even after a year or two tour. Kerry was a phony - what do I mean "was?" Nothing's changed.
BTW: in which branch of the service did Slick Willie serve again? Oh, that's right, he was a draft-dodger. And how about Gore? He served in the Army as a reporter - a reporter? - in a rear-echelon base called Bien Hoa. I know about Bien Hoa because that is where I worked as a civilian contractor for 19 months until South Viet Nam fell to the Communists. It was 20 miles outside of downtown Saigon. Cushy duty for a combat soldier - a real vacation for a "reporter." Oh, and Al Gore petitioned and was granted early release from the Army. Because Gore served as a journalist, he was never exposed to front-line combat. Both things were likely due to the influence and string-pulling of Al Gore Sr.
You have to go all the way back to LBJ and JFK to find a real, combat-seasoned Democrat president or vice-president. Carter served on nuclear subs - no combat. And I'll bet you there will never be another one.
Posted by Michael at April 13, 2006 05:01 PM
Actually, George Bush DID serve, honorably, and even volunteered for service in Vietnam, which was denied.
There are many who would dispute Kerrys honorable service claim, an they were there.
Any veteran who would say and do the despicable things Kerry did, after being discharged, is a liar, a scoundrel, and a traitor!
Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at April 13, 2006 05:05 PM
Jorg, no one can "always count on" me. That is a conclusion that you have made based on your own thoughts. I have also voted for a significant number of Democrats over the last 36 years. The Democrats I have voted for were all pretty conservative (except for Herbert Humphry in 68 and Bill Clinton in '92.) In retrospect, my vote for Clinton was a mistake but hindsight is always 20-20. I'll never apologize for voting for Humphry, Nixon was a dispicable human being then, and I've seen nothing that will change my mind. I did NOT vote for McCarthy in '72 because he, like Kerry scared the hell out of me.
Jorg, as a point of order, you chastise me for having NYGirl on my blog roll and question me apparantly for not reading my blogroll every day (this was in the Zinni post). Yet, on your site you have By Dawn's Early Light on your blogroll and it hasn't posted since December of last year.. months ago. Don't you read your blog roll choices daily? I also note that many of the bloggers have articles that are as long or as longer than this the one on Zinni, yet you made an opening statement
Jesus what a long post."Yet, I cannot find any current (let alone frequent and challenging) "questions" you have in their comments sections. Too, some of those blogs are as conservative as mine. What gives?
Posted by GM Roper at April 13, 2006 05:06 PM
George you rascal... with your busy schedule, how on earth did you wiggle yourself into a Kodak TV commercial???
I think all of your readers should see you! Here it is: A Portrait of GM
Tom
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Note from GM: The above comment was from a very dear friend who is one of the world's best practical jokers (but not the mean variety).
My comment to him was that I loved it. I'll also note that in the commercial, there was a phrase something along the lines of "...they'll live forever..." and being a cancer survivor that has a special meaning for me. Thanks Tom!
Posted by Tom at April 14, 2006 09:05 PM
GM,
Just letting you know that your letter inspired me. Shortly after reading it, I fired off a letter to my House Rep, who is a big supporter of open borders.
Posted by Always On Watch at April 15, 2006 03:27 PM
