Well, KAC556, looks like it’s down to you and me.
In response to my question about Ron Paul, the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988, you wrote: “You, I'm sure are aware that Dr. Paul is and has been a Republican Congressman, and as such has endorsed GW Bush for President, for many of the same reasons I have previously outlined.”
I’m aware that Dr. Paul is a Republican congressman, whom you praised in your previous post as one of the Republicans who “work from the inside.” My point remains the same. What you call working from the inside has included seeking office on the Libertarian ticket, so apparently Paul doesn’t share your view that supporting Libertarians aids the Democrats. And by the way, I spent some time on the Web this afternoon unsuccessfully trying to verify your claim that Paul has endorsed Bush for president, which I had not heard before. Nothing on Paul’s web site mentions this, and Paul is conspicuously absent from the lengthy roster of congressional supporters listed on the Bush campaign web site. Can you provide a citation for Paul’s endorsement of Bush?
You also said: "If you carefully re-read any of my previous posts, you will see that I've never presumed to tell anyone who ‘they’ should vote for. I've merely attempted to point out there are no ‘perfect’ candidates running for President, and if enough third party conservative voters choose to take an uncompromising, ‘all or nothing,’ position, and vote for a candidate who will not win, it will play into the hands of those who are dedicated to the destruction of our Liberties.”
I’ve re-read your first post on this thread, where you say those of us who support “any no-chance 3rd party candidate” instead of Bush will be giving the presidency to Gore. I guess the great semanticist Bill Clinton might agree with you that that’s not the same as telling people who to vote for, but I think your intent is pretty clear. You’re urging people to vote for Bush.
Finally, regarding my statement that the Republican Party as a whole does not want to preserve the freedoms we enjoy, but only to eliminate different ones, you wrote: "I would like to hear you factually substantiate that claim, in terms of actual freedoms that you believe the Republicans wish to 'eliminate.' I always love to learn something new.”
Glad to oblige. First and foremost, the so-called “War on Drugs,” which has gradually metamorphosed into a war on all property rights and most civil liberties in this country, is fully a Republican creation. It had its roots in 1981 when Nancy Reagan’s handlers, concerned about her negative image resulting from her collection of contributions for White House china and furnishings, urged her to find a pet social issue upon which to crusade. She chose drugs. The Bush administration picked this ball up and ran with it, declaring a formal “war on [certain] drugs” in the late 1980s. Bush also made the previously ceremonial post of “drug czar” a high-profile job with his appointment of chain-smoking moralist Bill Bennett to the post. Other threads on TFL and in abundant other places on the Web detail some of the civil rights abuses, frame-ups of innocent citizens, and outright murders that are direct results of this war on the citizens of our country. The Clinton administration has certainly not been reluctant to continue this ill-advised war, but the fact remains that in doing so they are using a tool fashioned and implemented by the Republicans, and Republicans (and recently lapsed Republicans like Pat Buchanan) are still among the war’s loudest cheerleaders.
Other posts here on TFL have already drawn the parallel between the war on the drugs and a war on guns, and while the Democrats are the leading enthusiasts of that particular form of oppression, many Republicans don’t lag far behind. For example, KAC556, check a few direct quotes from the web site of your preferred candidate for president, George W. Bush. They tell us that Bush:
-- “Supports banning juveniles from possession of semi-automatic ‘assault’ weapons” (Bush doesn’t describe what those are, nor does he explain why it’s undesirable for juveniles who can legally possess other guns to posses semi-autos.)
-- “Supports increasing the minimum age for possession of a handgun from 18 to 21” (Hey, that’s great. Bush, like Clinton, trusts you 20-year-olds in the Army to possess handguns when you’re in Bosnia. Just don’t expect the same freedom here in your own country.)
-- “Supports banning the importation of foreign made, ‘high-capacity’ ammunition clips. (Wow, now HERE’S a real difference in position between Bush and Clinton. Right.)
Bush’s web site goes on to say: “Governor Bush supports voluntary efforts to equip all handguns with child safety locks. If Congress passed legislation requiring mandatory trigger locks for all new handguns, he would sign it.” Yeah, Bush sure sounds to me like a guy who will take a firm principled stand on behalf of gun rights. Is this an example of the kind of incremental gains we can look forward to under a Bush administration?
Since Bush will clearly be the Republican nominee, let’s look at a few more of his stands on the issues, and see what effect they have on our rights. He’s waffled enough on the abortion issue that I won’t beat him up about that one, but his web site also says that the Texas governor calls for “strict enforcement of anti-dumping and other unfair trade laws.” The protectionist myth of dumping has resulted in a ridiculous labyrinth of laws and a complex bureaucracy with no real accomplishments other than depriving American workers of jobs, reducing the choices available to American consumers, and increasing the costs we pay for goods. For documentation and examples, see “Lost Rights” by James Bovard, pp. 60 ff. Bush wants this to continue.
A check on the matrix of candidate’s positions provided at the MSNBC web site indicates that some of Bush’s other stands are for:
-- mandatory sentencing (Why not concentrate on getting better judges who will keep dangerous criminals in jail but give a defendants a break when circumstances call for it? Isn’t that why there’s a human element in the judiciary process?)
-- full background checks on drug use for all appointees (Can you say “guilty until proven innocent?” I knew you could.)
-- tort reform to make it harder to sue corporations. (We need a less restrictive regulatory environment for corporations, and my guess is that Bush would support that, but we also must retain full rights to sue those corporations when they cause actual damage.)
KAC556, I understand that you support Bush for president, and if you are comfortable with that for whatever reason, that’s fine. I have close friends that I expect will vote for Bush, too. I agree that Bush would be a better president than Gore. But that’s not a good reason not to support a candidate I believe would be far better than either of them. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and we who want our civil rights restored won’t see that happen by saying “Keep taking my rights, just do it more slowly.”
