Readers on Big Government Conservatism

Editor: Your lead essay on Big Government Conservatism was excellent, following the maxim of Alfred Sloan (the founder of General Motors): "A problem well defined is a problem half solved." And so diplomatic too! J. Campaigne

Editor: There is no such thing as a "Big Government Conservative". That's an oxymoron. Jack Coughlin, Member, Suffolk County Conservative Committee
Deer Park, New York

Editor: Re: We're all Big Government Conservatives Now, these bullying tactics will continue as long as those Republican leaders who disregard the grasssroots do not pay a political price for it. Apparently defeat on election day is the only way to get their attention. Pete Barbour

Editor: I am with you it is very disturbing that our federal spending is out of control. I have said as much to those heading up the Bush campaign, to my Senators and Legislator from Montana, pretty much anyone who will give me a chance to say something. It is like talking to a wall. Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie is especially of concern to me because of what he said to the Manchester Union. Alas he will not answer my correspondence neither will my ex-governor, Marc Racicot.

Editor: They pretty much have us by the short ha--s though. The alternative to Bush is unthinkable. Bush is my man like it or not; I have no choice. As for those who intend to stay away from the polls or those who are foolish enough to go for a third party candidate I hope you reconsider. Either choice is a vote for Kerry and that is just as irresponsible as actually voting for him. Let's all go to the polls, vote for Bush, encourage our friends and neighbors to do likewise and then put the pressure on those in office to take the conservative road. Yours, Bob Solum

Editor: If we're We're all Big Government Conservatives Now, I will take no part in electing this president. Thanks Robert Loe

Editor: Ms. Marshall's letter exactly mirrors my thoughts and beliefs about this up coming election. If a true Conservative came forth prior to election day, he/she would probably be my choice as a write-in candidate. Steve Forbes is looking very good. Kathleen M. Appell

Editor: My meager understanding of the situation is that President Bush intentionally grew government during the last three years primarily to combat two major events of his tenure: 9/11 and the Clinton recession. Actually, Paul O'Neill said there were three, but I just don't remember the third. He was interviewed either on talk radio or FoxNews earlier this year, explaining what has happened. It was my feeling from this interview that this policy of "Big Government Conservatives" was a temporary, necessary evil that would eventually be eliminated. Now, of course, this upstaged any movement by those pesky big, money spending liberals, but this may have been an ancillary effect of the policy. What say you sir? Heard any of this? Best regards, Chuck Yarling

Editor: Is it true, what Pat Buchannan said on Meet the Press regarding your article on us all being big government conservatives? Are today's conservatives really yesterday's Liberals? I would hope my conservative base has not turned or modified itself from the past, I would hope ConservativeBattleline.com has some research on this hypothesis. Where are the True Conservatives that made this country the shining light of freedom and prosperity? Best Regards, Jeremy

Editor: Thank you for staying on top of crucial issues like the platform.You could have mentioned the voting down of the in-state tuition for illegal aliens at public universities. Good for CSPAN coverage. You could mention that because of all the mis-labled "free trade" agreements, there is a $500 billion trade deficit. That is, $500 billion in cash leaves America and does not come back here to buy anything. No wonder the economy is lagging.

You could also mention that the Bush Administration has used its membership in OPEC (via the ongoing occupation of OPEC- member Iraq) to assist in doubling the price of oil in the world. It was $20 a barrel in January 2002, prior to the invasion. The U. S. government has been enforcing the oil cartel's production quotas so that the price has zoomed to $45+.

In this regard, how about demanding a revision to U.S. antitrust laws to prohibit the U.S. government from helping any cartel anywhere in the worl? Right now, the law does not prohibit this. We are working on this issue. Sincerely, Carl Olson, Chairman, State Department Watch statedepartmentwatch.org

Editor: This will be my first time this fall. It's past due time for a 3rd Party.
Thanks for the dismal report on the platform and for pointing out the truth. It hurts but it's got to be told. Vote Libertarian and Badnarik is all I can say. Nedd in Chicago

Editor: How correct you are! We're being asked by many GOP groups to support the Republican Conservative agenda but what do we get? BH

Editor: I've always been a conservative small government Republican and I think Bush's proposals regarding the illegal aliens are great. I also don't understand, why you would want to abolish the US Department of Education. What would you propose we replace it with? You don't sound like a Republican to me -you sound like a Libertarian. [Editor: Was Ronald Reagan a libertarian?]

Editor: Your report from the platform committee has convinced me to sit out this election. Screw the damned RINOs! John Dooley

Editor: I just read the article on "Big Government Conservatives" and must insist that we all have a real and viable alternative to Bush and the pseudo-conservative/neo-socialist Republican Party. It's called the Constitution Party. These are real people with a true desire, motivation, and agenda to reform the Federal government back to it's original republican ideal - free of cumbersome, expensive, social programs of bondage. I strongly urge you to objectively consider their case. Their candidate is Michael Anthony Peroutka, who is on the ballot in at least 41 states with enough electorates to win, God willing. Does he have a chance? That's really up to you, isn't it? Thank you, Dewey Cooksey, Nashville, TN

Editor: Both Bush and Kerry are Big Brother government frauds. Bush puts the CON in conservative. If you seriously seek limited govt as the founding fathers( who would never back Bush except to impeach him)meant it to be then vote for it with the Constitution or Libertarian party or be part of the problem not the solution to take back America now. Carla F

Editor: If it wasn't for the fact that George Bush is an honest, Christian man and John Kerry is such a dishonest, ultra, far-left liberal, I would be very much tempted to stay home on November 2nd. After all, there are no choices in the Peoples' Democratic Republic of Massachu-setts. God bless, Albert P. Bushey, Longmeadow, MA

Editor: If you are dissatisfied with both Presidential candidates and are considering not going to the polls, then your non-vote will just be considered "voter apathy". Let me propose that you go to the polls, yet vote for no one. Therefore it will be reflected that you went to the trouble to show up and were unhappy with all choices, so voted for none. At the end of the evening when the voting machines are tallied, your non-vote will be reflected since the total number of voters will not equal the votes cast. Diana Sherry, a not-yet convinced Conservative

Editor: Not a very pretty picture on limited government. What it is coming down to for the voter is the selection of lesser of two evils. Founding fathers are screaming for the pepto-bismal. A sad day for any conservative movement, gentlemen. Phillip Shroyer, Kentucky

Editor: Do you perceive a constituency for small government? I don't. Bush is trying to give the electorate what he thinks that they want. Donald W. Bales

Editor: I think most of us know Bush is raising Medicare, education, and loosening immigration laws right now to please the Democrats. Just like Kerry, if Bush can please Democrats like Kerry can please Republicans, that means more vote for the Republican sweep. And we all know that Democrats are controlled by their party. Kerry might mean what he is saying but it could as well get reversed by powerful Democrats. It's a good thing Bush isn't controlled by the GOP, that he isn't really a strong GOP. I'm a Republican-Libertarian and if the GOP is Republican-Authoritarian, practically just as bad in my eyes as a socialist! When a politican does something outside of the nature of there party and it's not close to electons, it just shows to you that person isn't controlled by their party, that they are just not a puppet that will do anything their party stands for. We don't elect Republicans or Democrats because they are a Republican or a Democrat, we elect them for the issues they believe in. Instead of crying every time Bush does something left for the swaying liberals. Why not just watch? If he wins, we know he is lying and do mostly conservative things just like Kerry. If he is doing really left things after the electons, I'll be afraid. For now, I'm not because the only news that was on about Bush before 9/11 was cutting taxes down --- and I believe he will do that in his second election as well.

Editor: And that's how it went here in New York. I guess it's true: We're all big government conservatives now. Speak for yourself. Bush = Kerry = Tyranny. Unlike 2000, I will not vote for Bush in 2004 and I live in a battleground state (Michigan). Bush is going to lose - a distinction he has earned. Jim Kress

Editor: Many thanks for your insightful critique of Bush's platform, especially his stance on the "amnesty" of illegal immigrants. This will surely compromise the security of our borders. It is hoped that President Bush will consider amending this. Likewise the Patriot Act.

Editor: Thanks for your analysis of the GOP platform, I would go further to say that the GOP has to affirm Bush's tax cuts and that they be made permanent, especially the onerous "Death Tax" There should be a concerted effort to repeal the current tax code and the IRS by substituting a fair and low flat tax. Finally, we should emphasize that our borders must be better protected and a strengthened border patrol be implemented immediately. All illegal aliens should be made to register (like the military draft) and if found guilty of violating our laws be immediately deported, without possibilty of reentry. Best regards, and God speed, Fred Guardabassi

Editor: You are too critical of President Bush. Thus, you are far too left of me. Remove me from your mailing list asap!!!!! I countenance no criticism of Mr. Bush. CG Erickson

Editor: We totally agree with the analysis of your view of the President's draft of his platform. Each and evry one of the points that you bring forth we have written to him and to our Senators and Congressmen repeatedly. It seems to mirror the sentiments of every one of the Republican voters that we speak to daily. Why can no one get this through to him? It is going to be very pertinent to the final voting in November. We are praying that he will see the light here. Keep plugging! Bravo! Lucille and Arthur Fricke

Email the Editor