Posted on 01/26/2004 1:47:29 PM PST by 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.
That's what I remember as well. I have the perfect thread to compare names that was up about Kerry and his anti-war activities. This should be interesting!
Using Goldwater as an example, here's what some of those smart Democrats tell their own people about insisting on ideological purity.
Despite the source, its a good read, -- offers sage warning to those unwilling to compromise, from either side of the aisle.
From DU - [excerpts] The Goldwater Syndrome
November 16, 2002
By Mike McArdle
In your heart you know he’s right. — 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign slogan.
In 1960 the Republican Party lost an extremely close election. After 8 years of the party holding the White House a sitting Vice President was defeated by a narrow and disputed margin. Many in the party insisted for years afterward that the election had been stolen. In the mid term elections in 1962 the President campaigned hard for his party’s candidates in spite of an international crisis that dominated the Fall headlines and partly as a result the Democrats gained Senate seats to the further disappointment of the Republicans.
Does any of this sound familiar?
There is a catastrophic mistake that parties make every once in a while and it always results in an electoral disaster. The reasoning that leads to the disaster goes something like this and it comes from one frustrated wing of the Party:
[Emphasis added] The worst mistake any party can make is to conclude that the way to electoral success is to seek ideological purity and drive from the party those who are diluting your message. In the wake of a close, disappointing loss it’s easy to look for scapegoats and point fingers but it’s a catastrophic political strategy. It can euphemistically hide behind words like “our core voters stayed home” or “we need to motivate the base” but it’s still the Goldwater syndrome.
Barry Goldwater enunciated the “we lose because conservatives fail to vote” theme in a speech to the 1960 Republican Convention. It made him a hero to the growing conservative western base of the Republican Party. Barry got a further boost when the party’s most prominent eastern moderate contender, New York governor Nelson Rockefeller, left his wife for a younger woman. When the politically astute Richard Nixon decided to defer another Presidential run the path was clear for Barry’s fanatically dedicated followers to propel him to the nomination.
Barry believed in an aggressive approach to confronting communism backed by military force whenever necessary. He wanted to give tactical commanders the right to use nuclear weapons if they saw fit. He wanted to drastically cut back on government programs and proposed selling the Tennessee Valley Authority. He even suggested making Social Security optional. A staunch believer in states rights Barry voted against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
— famous line from Goldwater's acceptance speech.
That line brought down the house at the Republican convention but it scared the daylights out of millions of voters. The Democrats found it easy to paint Barry as a maniac who could easily bring on a nuclear confrontation, a thought that a horrified a nation that had lived through the Cuban missile crisis only two years earlier.
The Democrats gleefully produced a “Go with Goldwater” button that featured a mushroom cloud and created one of the most famous negative TV ads in campaigning history. A pretty little girl holds a flower in the middle of a field as a narrator in the background intones a countdown. As the countdown reaches zero the little girl and the field are obliterated by a mushroom cloud. The Democrats apologized but only after the networks ran the controversial ad over and over.
In your guts you know he’s nuts. — Democratic parody of the Goldwater slogan.
Hmmmm....you must know a different set of conservatives than I do...all I know DID vote for GW, me included.
They don't. They only care about what they think and nothing else.
Exactly! We need more people who see clearly and stand up for what they believe.
Beginning to think the Bush bashers never were Bush supporters, never voted for him no matter how much they say they did, and now they have their one issue of immigration they are taking every opportunity to bash the President.
I think that is true of some. Others are one issue voters who can't see past their issue.
Which allies? The international community that generally hates us more and more? I haven't seen any good feelings there -
Or allies at home - you mean the liberals who think it's the US's fault for all the ills of the world, including AIDS - who think the same, regardless of our actions.
I'm really not meaning to argue, but I really don't see any real benefits from that program. From all the international community is saying, the AIDS epidemic is still out of control in Africa - cultural differences make education and prevention programs basically useless. And as we know, there is still no cure for HIV/AIDS.
If the money had to be spent, would it not have done more direct good by being used for AIDS research right here in the US?
Main Entry: iso·la·tion·ism
Pronunciation: -sh&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1922
: a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations
- iso·la·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun or adjective
It would appear that you don't know the definition of the word "definition." Honestly, I'm not really surprised...
Building up our troops in our own country along the border of a country that wishes us neither harm, nor bad tidings, is just plain wrong.
That you can't recognize that Mexico does indeed wish us "harm" and "bad tidings" demonstrates the level of your myopia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
