What Can Small Government Conservatives Do?
by Sylvia Marshall

Editor: First off, thank you for having a forum where we can respond to what is going on in our country.

Second, while I agree with part of what was said in your editorial, What Bush Must Do to Win, this isn't really the entire crux of the matter. I think what President George W. Bush and most conservative leaders don't realize is that conservative voters (his base) are well-educated and up on their politics. Most of us true conservatives are almost to a man lovers of America and what she stands for -- patriots, Constitutionalists to the bone. In other words we are Americans first and foremost and lastly.

I have been a political/news buff for quite a few years now. I also keep up with what people (conservatives or wannabes) are saying and feeling. The Lucianne.com site's viewers who post statements are 95% conservatives and Bush lovers to boot. But they are growing increasingly unhappy with this president. Just about everywhere I look, all the 'messages' and replies from people around the country show the same thing.

The reason is not the war, contrary to general opinion. The number one complaint in regard to President Bush's performance is illegal immigration; failing to protect our borders; attempting to legalize millions of illegals. Did you know that up to 20% of the prison population who commit violent crimes in this country consist of illegals?

Have you heard the latest? President Bush's nephew, George P. went to Mexico in search of "overseas votes and condemned the U.S. policy of arming our Border Patrol agents with plastic pellet guns," according to the AP. "If there has been American approval for this policy, that is reprehensible," George P. said.

The guns were first made available to agents to protect them against violent confrontations in California and Arizona in 2001. George P. Bush calls it "barbarous" that we arm Border Patrol agents with plastic pellet guns. The true disgrace is that we have rendered our border guards defenseless, handing them toy guns instead of real weapons. The criminals in Mexico who traipse across our border have no problems with "macho" displays of barbarism. Park Ranger Kris Eggle was murdered by an AK-47 wielding Mexican drug smuggler two years ago this month.

What is really "reprehensible" is a prominent American citizen criticizing our federal immigration enforcement officers on foreign soil while scraping for expatriate votes. Our Border Patrol agents on the southern border put their lives on the line every day to protect us from harm. They should be thanked, not trashed. If George P.'s views were merely his own, they might not be worth anyone's time. But homeland security officials in Washington have been doing their fair share of undermining rank-and-file Border Patrol agents as well from the comfort of their air-conditioned offices. When a mobile unit of border agents in Southern Cal made a series of high-profile mass arrest of illegal aliens in June, prompting the ire of Hispanic Democrat activists, Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security Asa Hutchinson iced the agents' efforts and publicly criticized the arrests. Instead of backing his own men and women, Hutchinson assured the open borders lobby that his department would bow to the "sensitivities" surrounding interior enforcement.

The retreat has had a devastating effect on border agents' morale -- and our safety. A new survey of border security personnel by the National Border Patrol Council revealed that almost two-thirds of the work force are demoralized and nearly half of these employees have considered leaving their job within the last two years. The council noted "Almost three years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, despite the expenditure of billions of dollars and endless rhetoric from the top about anti-terrorism as our foremost priority only about half of these officers believe that our nation is any safer from terrorist threats."

Al Qaeda plots murder with dirty bombs, truck bombs and airplanes, while we arm our border guards with chile powder.

Some very astute conservative journalists are not to happy with the President, either. In particular, his assault on free speech with campaign "reform"; run-away government spending; not standing up for his nominations in Congress; allowing Norm Mineta to run amuck and unchecked. Average conservatives don't know who the president is anymore, certainly not who we thought we had voted into office. He has waffled on most of his promises. He has moved far left of his base, pandering to those like Ted Kennedy on education, for starters.

Most real conservatives are for smaller, less intrusive government which cherishes the right of average citizens to participate in electoral politics. Free speech is a principle to be defended. even when the speech is ugly. McCain/Feingold was and is a constitutional abomination. Shame on the Republican Congress who passed it. And even more shame on President Bush for signing it, despite his oath to defend the Constitution and his admission it was a bad bill. And double-shame on the Supreme Court which upheld it. One pundit said "Apparently all three branches of our government believe political free speech should only apply to the elected and appointed elites in government, not to working people - such as the President's conservative base.

With the major parties locked in a straight-jacket as far as accepting "soft" money contributions is concerned this year thanks to McCain/Feingold, that money began flowing into independent "527" Organizations, just as everyone and their uncle who followed this issue knew it would. So the president (foolishly) tried to put a stop to these citizen groups and prevent them from participating in the 2004 election. The FEC said "no."

The left raised a ton of cash and launched its political attacks on President Bush. Reluctantly, supporters of the president finally joined the Battle of the 527s. Here's the ironic part. All those liberal 527s, such as Moveon.org and the Media Fund, with their millions of dollars from fat-cat donors such as George Soros, were pretty much ineffective. Then all of a sudden, a group of Vietnam War veterans raised a few measly hundred thousand and started airing an ad calling into question John Kerry's version of John Kerry's Vietnam experiences. Anyway, those swift boat veteran ads were extremely effective. The Kerryites squealed like stuck pigs. So what's the president do when Kerry demanded that Bush condemn the ads? Does he say, "Hey, this is a free country and these men are free to speak their minds. In fact, these guys EARNED that right on the battlefield."? No. He tells these Vietnam veterans to shut up. He said the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are "bad for the system" and condemned their ads and said they have no place in the race for the White House.

Can true conservatism stand four more years of this kind of "compassionate conservatism"? Can our constitutional republic stand it? Can free speech, even for newsletters such as this one? The only thing that seems to be saving the president in this race is that his opponent is so much worse, especially in this post-9/11 world. No wonder so many people are threatening to just sit this one out. Will I be voting. Yes. I won't be voting for a Democrat for they have
become too corrupt and anticivilizationist. That would also be voting for big media. I have to tell you, if a viable Republican candidate who loves America's people and the principles she was founded upon were to run, he would have my vote.

If Kerry wins we're doomed to socialism. If Bush wins we will be on our way to becoming a third world country. Either way, the forces against American values would have won the battle for the soul of this country without having fired a shot.

Sincerely, Sylvia Marshall, Gardiner, Montana

Email the Editor