Bush-Bashing Conservatives Should Focus on the Big Picture

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

[Reagan Man]

The 2004 campaign season is well at hand. Following the dramatic turn-around from earlier polling results, the strong showing by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and John Edwards (D-NC) has brought renewed focus by the media on the possibilities of President Bush not only facing formidable opposition, but also losing his bid for reelection. A newly released Newsweek poll shows Kerry defeating President Bush if the election were held today. Of course, the poll is meaningless in the sense that President Bush has not yet begun to campaign, but it does add fuel to the fire that 2004 could be as close as the historic elections of 2000. With that in mind, it's time for conservatives across the country to focus on the big picture and realize that a Bush loss is far worse than a Bush victory.

The Newsweek poll garnering so much media attention shows Sen. Kerry defeating President Bush by 49%-46%. The result is understandable considering the endless attacks on President Bush by the Democrats challenging him for the White House. These attacks, levied during debates, stump speeches, and television commercials have largely gone unanswered by the president or the Republican Party. If the public is only getting one side of the story, then there should be no surprise when the president's numbers head south. The true test of public opinion will come once President Bush begins his campaign and America hears both sides of the story. Of course, the ultimate public opinion poll will be the 2004 presidential election itself.

In addition to the hits being taken by the president from the Democrats, President Bush has also sustained damage from those on his side of the political aisle: Republicans and conservatives who vote Republican. The anger expressed by conservatives toward President Bush is primarily focused on two issues: border security/immigration and federal spending.

President Bush's recent announcement of a "temporary worker" program has drawn harsh criticism from conservatives across the country. The volume of feedback I have received on this issue has been almost unanimously one-sided and in opposition to the president's plan -- a plan which conservatives feel is synonymous with "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. Under the Bush plan, illegal immigrants could apply for a 3-year temporary worker designation which would grant them legal status to remain in the U.S. provided they have employment or have a job waiting for them. In addition to the illegal immigrant being allowed to gain the benefits of residency in America, the worker's family would also be allowed to join the worker inside the U.S.

The other "stick in the eye" for conservatives is the massive increases in federal spending which have occurred over the past three years. Increases in the rate of growth of non-defense, discretionary spending in the current Bush administration are double that of the Clinton administration. Republicans have gone on a spending spree, and there appears to be no end in sight. Despite the fact that smaller, limited government is one of the tenets of conservative, Republican philosophy, congressional Republicans have shown over the last several years that they can spend with the best of them. To President Bush's credit, the budgets presented to the Congress by the administration have included modest increases in non-defense, discretionary spending by most observations. However, the budgets returned to the president for final approval have shown no restraint and are loaded with excess pork.

As a conservative, I share the philosophical concerns of friends and colleagues. Following the events of September 11, 2001, border security should be of the utmost concern, and promoting programs that not only potentially weaken security but also reward illegal behavior is just plain wrong. In addition, one of my core beliefs in which I identify myself as a conservative and as a Republican is my belief in smaller, limited government. If one of our core values is no longer being observed by our elected officials, then feelings of anger and betrayal are understandable and justified.

The key question going into the 2004 presidential election is "What is a conservative to do?"

The answer to this question is simple: conservatives must wake up and smell the coffee. The best choice for conservatives; the best candidate to advance our agenda; and the best person in which to put our hope and faith is President George W. Bush.

On the two previously mentioned issues of immigration policy and federal spending, conservatives only need to look at the alternatives to see that President Bush is the right person for the job. Regarding immigration policy, if Sen. Kerry were to become America's next president, there would be no need to debate the merits of granting legal status to a portion of illegal immigrants, because wide spread amnesty would be the policy of choice. Both Kerry and Edwards favor amnesty for illegal immigrants and would open the flood gates on America's already porous borders. According to campaign information, both Kerry and Edwards favor legalizing the status of illegal immigrants who have worked in the U.S. for a certain period of time.

The best hope for the immigration issue and border security is for conservatives to work diligently for President Bush's reelection and to demand sensible immigration reform from members of Congress. The real work on immigration will be done in Congress. Conservatives must push for meaningful reform, while working to ensure that the candidate who most closely shares our views wins in November. That person is President George W. Bush.

In regards to federal spending, one can only imagine the budgets that would be submitted by Kerry, Edwards, or Dean. A score card of liberal votes in Congress maintained by Americans for Democratic Action shows that Sen. Kerry actually has a more liberal voting record (93%-88%) than his Massachusetts counterpart: Sen. Ted Kennedy. Thus, a Kerry presidency means spending restraint by the Executive Branch goes right out the window. Conservatives have a right to be angry over spending, but the way to fight for our cause is to demand that our Republican legislators trim the pork. It is also up to us to push for presidential leadership in this area. We should support President Bush in his call for fiscal responsibility. We should also call on the president to unleash his veto pen if fiscal responsibility is not what he gets.

Much has been written in recent weeks in op-eds, letters to the editor, Internet discussion boards, and so on regarding conservative dissatisfaction with the current administration. The Bush administration should listen to their concerns, and the conservative community should work for positive solutions. Staying home on Election Day is not the answer. Voting for a third party candidate is not the answer. Writing in a protest vote is not the answer. Had just a small percentage of liberal voters stood with Al Gore in Florida rather than voting for Ralph Nader, the entire outcome of the 2000 presidential election could have been different. Conservatives cannot stay home in November. We must be on the ground working for President Bush and advancing our agenda in the process.

The conservative movement needs a voice, and it needs a leader. President Bush is that leader, and he has stood by conservatives on many of the issues we hold dear. The president is a stalwart on life issues and has been unwavering in his support of a ban on partial birth abortions. The president has been equally strong in putting forward judicial nominees who respect the Constitution and who will not legislate from the bench. The president is a leader in the war on terror, and I can think of no one better suited to occupy the oval office in this time of turmoil. The best way to fight for the conservative agenda is to fight for the reelection of President George W. Bush.

---

Bobby Eberle is President and CEO of GOPUSA (www.GOPUSA.com), a news, information, and commentary company based in Houston, TX. He holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Rice University.

[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!