Bush-Bashing Conservatives Should Focus on the Big Picture

GOPUSA.com ^ | Januray.26,2004 | Bobby Eberle

[Cubs Fan]

--And if you need further encouragement, his judicial nominations have been stellar. Those alone justify conservative support for his re-election.---

The problem is other than pickering he's done nothing real to help them.

And Yes he does very well on foreign policy, just like his father, but just like his father he is also big spending moderate, always "reaching out" (pandering) to those who didn;t put him where he is (and most likely will not vote for him this time either.)

Most of us will probably vote for him despite our LEGITIMATE taking him to task when he comes up short. But at least for right now he's the lesser of two evils and nothing more.

[Sabertooth]

3)Immigration (and W's "proposals" when enacted will be quite different then the hysterics would make you think)

Really?

How so?

These 5 are just examples of what need to be changed or reformed by popular support, not by edict. What I really like about W is (for good or bad)that he is very responsive to the people (not just those who voted for him). He's doing what he said he'd do, and he's giving the elecorate what they want, responsibly.

Please explain this statement with regard to the Bush Amnesty.

Neither Republicans nor the American people in general want Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.

If Republicans and conservatives don't understand or refuse to admit that the only way to defeat "liberalism" is incrementally, we're doomed.

Fair enough.

President Bush, however, runs into problems when he incrementally advances liberalism: CFR, AIDS in Africa; Prescription Drugs, Education Bill, and Amnesty for Illegals, for example.

How does incrementally advancing liberalism incrementally defeat it?

The Democrats have been incrementally advancing liberalism for years; why haven't they incrementally defeated it?

[Columbine]

Thanks for posting this and pinging me on it!

Glad to seethat some others like it too. There are some hard truths in it and I'm glad Bobby Eberle had the courage to tell them.

[Atlas Sneezed]

...which Congress will kill. Non-issue.

---

Just like SCOTUS saved Bush from his support of an admittedly-unconstitutional (oath-of-office, anyone?) CFR law?

[My2Cents]

Your complaint, then, is about tactics. How best to ram through judicial appointments when the Dems have adopted the strategy of filibuster? We can talk about this all day, and not resolve anything. Frankly, I blame the Senate Republican leadership for not being able to craft a strategy to break the deadlock. The fact is, his nominees have been perfect. Rather than nitpick, we need to re-elect Bush, and work to increase the GOP margin in the Senate. That will effectively end the filibuster.

As to being the "lesser of two evils," I respectfully submit that this view is the result of very narrow thinking. I'll put my conservative credentials up against anyone on these threads, and I say George W. Bush is one of the greatest Presidents of my lifetime.

[skip2myloo]

No, you misunderstand – I couldn’t agree more.

It’s just that Eberle reiterated my points right down the line from another thread below.

Its one of the longest Bush/Bash-Bot threads I’ve seen, just passed 2,000 posts.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1062893/posts?q=1&&page=1#1

So you think George W. Bush is not a conservative?

To: gatorbait

Somewhere on this thread, back about a 1,000 posts or so, somebody said the Dems had a simple mantra - Anybody but Bush, and they mean it. My personal mantra is anybody but a Dem, ANY Dem.

As usual, this election is going to boil down to two candidates, one from each major party - no one else has a chance of winning - that's just the plain old unblemished truth.

The Dems candidate will be either Dean or Kerry. Dean is nuts. Kerry is a lying sack of bananas who will say, or do, anything that, at the margin, might gain him just one more misguided vote. He's told so many lies, he doesn't even understand the concept of truth - his brain and his vocal cords aren't even connected. Plus he's been drinking liberal-flavored kool-aid for so long, he actually believes he's a genetic mutation of King Midas squeezing the Golden Goose taxpayer and Robin Hood redistributing wealth to the huddled masses yearning to be free.

In '92, we allowed Perot, Buchanan and others to dilute our votes and we ended up with Clinton/Rodham/Gore for 8 years.

In '00 is was a damn tight race, and if it weren't for Nader, Algore would be "leading" us in the war on terror (NOT). Algore won the popular vote by 500,000 - thank God for the Electoral College.

Even so, if it weren't for a margin of just a few hundred votes in Florida, and the SCOTUS - we'd still be reaping the benefits of SoreLoserman.

Now, I know how upset some folks are (and I'm one of them) that Bush is running off the reservation with CFR, Amnesty, spending on liberal schemes, Globalization, FTAA, and the Patriot Act plus a few more. I'm outraged too.

But, I believe the country can survive, maybe even thrive - on 4 more years of Bush.

C'mon, candidly you've got to admit, Bush has, in fact, done a lot of things we conservatives can admire.

In its current fragile condition, I'm absolutely certain our country cannot endure either a Kerry or Dean administration, not even for a single day.

Or how about Edwards, would anybody like to have a known greedy trial lawyer running the country ?? Not me !!

Back when I was just a little kid, my grandmother was adamant that I take a spoonful of cod liver oil everyday. Anybody here ever had any of that stuff ?? It is AWFUL.

Like that horrible Kevin Costner movie - there was no way out, I either took it, or grandma beat the bejesus out of me. It all boiled down to one rather practical choice. Even though quite odious, I'd literally hold my nose and swallow as quickly as I could, just to end the misery. To this day, I'm convinced it didn't do me one damn bit of good - but, I don't think it did me any harm either.

We all appreciate how principled some of you are on this issue, and we admire your strong convictions, we really do. And, you certainly have every right to vote your conscience for a candidate who more closely adheres to your conservative ideology, a Libertarian, or a Constitutionalist. Some folks will even vote for Lyndon LaRouche.

No matter the strength of your conviction, nor the depth of your principles, nor your disgust with Bush and political chicanery in general - A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE WILL NOT WIN.

And while you consider that reality, never forget those scum-sucking bottom-feeding liberal Democrats, they're ALL gonna be unified for one purpose, to kick Bush out of the White house.

So, you don't vote, or throw away your vote on someone who has no chance of winning - come 10 November and you're standing there in the ruin and ashes, just how will you feel about Kerry/Dean/Edwards/Clark becoming your next President ??

I know, I can hear it now - "serves Bush right, he should've listened to us,"

I got news for you, it won't hurt Dubya one bit to lose. He's filthy rich, he's just gonna go to Crawford, or Houston or Kennebunkport, or wherever Brahman Bush's go to hang out and enjoy his status as an elder statesmen, traveling around the world saying "I told you so." He'll still be invited to Bilderburg Group meetings and he'll be sitting next to Kissinger developing the Third Way (just kidding).

You and I, and the whole country, will be the ones who are the losers. Yup, Dubya ain't perfect; but, he ain't a maniac loony liberal like Dean; and, he ain't a Hanoi-Jane loving, French-looking UN-kissing lying communist like Kerry; and, he ain't no greedy bottom-feeding Breck-girl trial lawyer like Edwards; and, he ain't no disgraced lying incompetent general who was so bad that even the pervert-in-chief Xlinton was forced to fire him. Take your choice.

Now maybe, Hitlery will get drafted at the Dem Convention - and you think you might be able to tolerate her. Go for it.

So far, its still a free country - vote for whoever you will.

But as for me, based on what I know today - I'm gonna vote for Dubya. He isn't my ideal candidate, but he's a whole lot better than anybody else who is running that stands a snowball's chance of winning -- and I'm gonna do my best to see that he does.

And, I'm gonna work on replacing my RINO congresscritter while I'm at it.

Good luck.

1,851 posted on 01/23/2004 8:06:00 PM PST by skip2myloo

[My2Cents]

Then the biggest problem is with the makeup of the courts. What's your solution? You probably don't have one, because you'd rather bitch. My solution is to re-elect Bush, and to turn enough Sen. Democrat seats over to the Republicans that we can break the deadlock on judicial nominees. I fail to see how stomping off in a snit is going to improve matters.

[k2blader]

How does incrementally advancing liberalism incrementally defeat it?

Please ping me if you get any answers to this one!

[rdb3]

The only part that really sucks about having a DemonRat president is the judicial nominations. :(

You can't leave out foreign policy and, most of all, national defense.

[rdb3]

I want to reelect Bush and see his Amnesty defeated.

Is that wrong?

Not at all. But according to this article (which I totally agree with on this one point), getting this taken care of through the Congress is part of the overall big picture.

That's how I see it.

[mhking]

The Democrat candidates all of them are so far left that I cannot even fathom having any of them in office as President.

Being a true conservative (or a true Republican, even) doesn't mean rolling over and playing dead just because our conservative/Republican President makes a proposal that conservatives think is wrong-headed (i.e., the amnesty proposal) doesn't make us any less conservative.

We have a responsibility to make suggestions that the leadership should take to heart for the betterment of the party/cause.

I have no problem with supporting the Administration on reelection. I want to see the President reelected.

But I'm not about to bare my throat in a submissive gesture just because illegal aliens are now suddenly "guest workers". If the Administration does something that I think is wrong, it's my responsibility to make certain that they know how I feel.

I trust them to do what needs to be done, but I also trust them to listen to the people as well.

Just damn.

If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

[skip2myloo]

That's right -- by putting 60 LOYAL Republicans in the Senate !!

[Cubs Fan]

---As to judges he could have leaned harder, he could have made mnore recess appointments,. He could have told Frist to have a backbone. And that's the short list.--

But that's not nearly the only thing he's done wrong. Spending is through the roof. We have a massive new entitlement likely to grow more massive, legalizing illegals, wimping out on affirmative action, wimping out in gay marriage, campaign finance, federalizing airport security, and again that's the short list.

And the worst part of it all is he will win handily in 04. None of this BS was necessary. But we will be stuck with the mess for years after he's gone.

--As to being the "lesser of two evils," I respectfully submit that this view is the result of very narrow thinking.--

I tend to think the opposite. Example--I love my kids far more then I will ever care for any president, but when I see them do something I think is wrong I tell them. I don't understand this thinking that Bush must never be criticized no matter what he does.

[motzman]

Really? How so?

These "proposals" are being shaped as we speak by popular opinion, and will be beneficial overall. If not , it will not pass. There will be some points that conservatives won't like, but the overall goal of reducing the incentive for employers to hire illegals will be achieved. And just because we're not hearing about enforcement initiatives, don't think they're not being fleshed out as we speak.

There's absolutely NO reason (politically) to talk about this aspect of the plan now. These guys use strategery.

The public will get a resposible solution that it wants, with the added caveat of increased immigration controls built in. Like the Pres. Drug Plan, I don't like the costs, but the MSA's and movemont towards privitization is a really good thing.

Please explain this statement with regard to the Bush Amnesty.

This is not Amnesty for illegal aliens. This is to be a manageble system that will help fix a mess--and help to prevent further problems.

Have some faith.

How does incrementally advancing liberalism incrementally defeat it?

Except for "Amnesty" (I disagree with the premise) all of these "liberal issues":

1) Enjoy the support of the majority of Americans

2) Have, thanks to Bush, have the mechanics of privitization embedded within.

Most people have never seen the benefits of privitization, and when they do, they'll want more.

THAT'S incrementalism.

Plus, you get the very important added bonus of giving sane people no reason to vote for rats on a national scale.

IMHO, of course...

[e_engineer]

Some of us are simply trying to give the learning impaired some help.

I'll ask you a question that has been put to others here:

Why is it that conservative VOTERS are expected to "learn their lesson" from the '92 election, but GWB is not expected to learn from it?

Is it not easier to change one person than to change hundreds of thousands, or millions?

[skip2myloo]

By starting today to focus intense effort on who we're gonna run in '08 and '12 and the out years beyond. We've got to start growing some truly conservative Republicans (or create a 3rd party with enough clout to win) (although that's unlikely for some time).

The Dems are talking about Rodham in '08, they're lining up their ducks now.

Who do we have ??

Nobody.

Pataki, Giuliani, Frist -- they're not conservatives !!

And we need to focus more on congressional races -- start putting some more DeLays, Tancredos and Pauls in the house and Senate ASAP.

That's how.

[woodyinscc]

Germany wants the U.S. to elect a Democrat

France wants the U.S. to elect a Democrat

Canada wants the U.S. to elect a Democrat.

The Palestinian Authority wants the U.S. to elect a Democrat.

The Hamas wants the U.S. to elect a Democrat.

Iran wants the U.S. to elect a Democrat.

Syria wants the U.S. to elect a Democrat.

China wants the U.S. to elect a Democrat.

North Korea wnts the U.S. to elect a Democrat.

The U. N. wants the U.S. to elect a Democrat.

Throw out Tony Blair, and England wants the U.S. to elect a Democrat.

They all want President Bush defeated. A mighty empressive group of allies you have.!!

[jaime1959]

Bottom line: Hold your nose and vote for BushRove because he's better than any Dem.

[humblegunner]

I have no problem with supporting the Administration on reelection. I want to see the President reelected.

But I'm not about to bare my throat in a submissive gesture just because illegal aliens are now suddenly "guest workers". If the Administration does something that I think is wrong, it's my responsibility to make certain that they know how I feel.

I love it when you editorialize.
Good on ya, man.

[Columbine]

Check out Governor Bill Owens from Colorado.

He's a definite possiblity!