Doug Lambert

Once again dear reader, be forewarned that this column is going to cover several topics. Please read it through to the end — you wouldn't want to miss something!

It has often been said that almost all of today's real political discourse and debate takes place within the Republican Party. In most instances, Democrats simply repeat the "scare-phrase du jour" designed to frighten voters into accepting more and more socialism and less and less freedom. Genuine debate is a scarce commodity among Democratic circles. Whether it is the life question, taxes, socialized health care, social security reform, hating all things Bush — you name it — the Democrats march in lock step with each other on these issues. One needs to look to the Republican side of the aisle to hear competing points of view.

Consider the issue of free trade. When it comes to NAFTA, GATT, and America's overall place and role in the world economy, you will find Republicans spanning the spectrum from one extreme to the other. This argument is nothing new. From America's first settlers right on up to the present, the notion of open and unfettered free trade versus that of "protectionism" has vexed all who ponder the question. From "Buchananites" favoring tariffs and closing certain markets, to National Review/Rush Limbaugh "NeoConservatives" willing to place near total faith in the ebb and flow of market forces, the battle rages on. This debate is a good thing. The result will probably, in the end, be a blending of the best ideas from both sides.

In proving that this really does take place among fellow Republicans, please join me, as I engage in a lively debate (Round 2) with my good friend and fellow Party traveler Niel Young this Saturday on the radio. Tune in to "The Advocates" on WEZS 1350AM (or on the web @ www.wezs.com) starting at 8:00 in the morning. Discover how complex this question really can be. When thinking about trade and the economy and the implications of the recent trend towards globalization, don't forget to consider the roles played by the labor unions and environmentalism as well. I would contend that those crying the loudest about lost manufacturing jobs have not looked at all of the root causes of the problem — maybe some have reaped what they have sown?

Another difficult subject is that of border security. In the post 9/11 era, it is simply mind boggling that the U.S. continues to leave its borders seemingly unprotected. I have maintained that in the near future, the major political party that seizes the illegal immigration/border question is going to become the majority party as many people come to realize that almost every major Homeland Security concern begins with knowing who is here in our country and repelling those who wish us harm. It is my hope that the Republicans co-opt this issue before the Democrats.

Contrary to what some of my fellow conservatives think, I believe that the Bush Administration is, in fact, taking some low-key, yet meaningful steps in this area. Buried inside the July 22nd Union Leader was the following headline: "7 illegal immigrants arrested at NH Border Checkpoint." The article reports "A U.S. Border Patrol checkpoint in Interstate 89 in Lebanon netted seven arrests of illegal immigrants." Among the charges were illegal entry and traveling on fake passports. Border agent John C. Pfeifer commented on the activity and arrests, "It seemed average to me."

What struck me was the fact that this occurred some 100 miles south of the Canadian/Vermont border. While the ACLU might not like such checkpoints in the quest for illegals, I do. This is EXACTLY the sort of thing that the Federal Border Patrol SHOULD be doing. The Union Leader piece finishes by pointing out that, "Three years ago, the nation's northern border from the Atlantic to the Pacific had only 317 Border Patrol agents. By the end of this year, there will be 1,000. The Border Patrol will use some of its increased manpower to carry out more random checkpoints." This is one area of government growth that this Conservative wholeheartedly supports!

Parting Shot: It was reported this past weekend "Democratic Presidential candidate Howard Dean backed away from his pledge to adhere to spending limits, saying some advisors want to explore opting out of the Watergate-era public financing system because of his sudden fundraising success." Where are the howls of outrage from all of you "principled" Democrats? What about campaign finance reform? Five months ago, Dean committed to spending limits in order to accept public monies to finance his campaign, and vowed to attack any Democrat who did not do likewise. The Union Leader reports that Dean "did not recall promising to accept public financing and the limits that go with it." I just love this guy!

Doug Lambert is a Gilford businessman. He has an opinion on practically everything. His column appears every Thursday.