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.
I think.
As I said before, and will say again, the War on Terror is a big part of fortifying our national security.
Giving the illegal aliens the boot, and sealing our borders against illegals, is the other part.
That he would do so well on the first, only to surrender to the aliens on the second, is unacceptable.
I don't care if it's Kerry or Edwards, or even Ralph Nader (by some strange twist of fate) landed in the White House.
If Bush is fired because of this proposal, our Congress-critters will get a very clear, very threatening message: do what we want, or you're NEXT.
With such a clear message, Congress will not dare to try this again...
Just as the Democraps do whatever they want to black voters and still get 90% of their votes, Dubya believes he can do the same and still get conservative votes. Where else are they going to go? They'll hold their noses and vote for him, right? Many on this forum suggest we do just that.
I voted for him in 2000.
If he continues to push the alien-amnesty idea, I'll vote for everything except the presidential ticket...
Five SC Justices said CFR was constitutional -- I say they're idiots and ought to be impeached.
What was it one justice said, Scalia perhaps, 'The constitution is not a living document, it is an enduring document.'
One man's truth is another man's dogma.
When you get right down to it, that's why this election is so important. Bush is appointing the right folks, he can't get them confirmed.
We need to help him get at least 60 loyal folks in the Senate.
If Kerry/Dean/Edwards/Clark/Rodham get to the Whitehouse, it is a sure thing we'll get the WRONG kind of justices and judges.
I gave his campaign hundreds of dollars and voted for him in 2000 but he turned out to be a moderate instead of the conservative I had hoped for.
Ain't spent dime one on this one yet.
Seen you around here lots, no disrespect intended. But I didn't elect Republicans in order to get massive new entitlements. The author failing to directly mention one of two or three key burrs in the conservative saddle is not an oversight, it is sandbagging.
$2,000,000,000,000.00 is a lot of zeroes.
Bush can't win, no conservative can win with only 35% of the vote in their pocket.
So, he's gotta go to the middle, to get more than 50% of the vote. He went a little too far -- he'll come back. They're already thinking hard about it -- re-read Eberle's article.
Morris calls it triangulation -- whatever, its a political fact of life.
Hell, Bush isn't TRYING to offend anybody, he's playing a calculated strategy to win as many votes as he can.
In '00, the country was sick of Clinton and his whole team, yet Gore still WON the popular election by half a million votes.
Thank God for the narrowest of victories in Florida, and a 5-4 Supreme Court for salvation.
Look at the map, there's STILL a $j*tload of Blue states out there.
Bush has GOT to mine the middle for all the votes he can get, and now your making him worry if he can count on you ??
He's only about 25% of what I wanted... His only successes, IMO, are the War on Terrorism, and reducing taxes.
But those two "atta-boys," are erased by CFR, Prescription-Drug "Bill o' Rights," pork-barrel spending that Bubba Clinton could only dream of, $15BILLION to Africa (how much does he think condoms really cost, anyway?), and then- the absolute worst-case example of idiocy I would ever have guessed from a Republican- the alien-amnesty proposal...
The old joke goes, "one 'awe-sh_t' wipes out a lot of 'atta-boys.'" We've got- count 'em- two atta-boys, and an easy five "awe, sh_t" examples....
Bush isn't 100% of what I wanted, not even 50%...
Maybe, on a good day.......? 25%... Certainly no more than that...
Normally, I would agree with your assessment.
But these are not normal times. W. has only done one thing really different in the past month, that could possibly have an effect on his polls and chances for re-election: the alien-amnesty proposal.
Since he started flogging this dead (and decaying, putrescent) horse, his polling numbers are going into the toilet at supersonic speeds...
The congress-critters- knowing full-well that 83% of Americans see this for the bovine excrement it is, are barely discussing it (there are, of course, a few Kool-aide swilling RINO exceptions)... Because they know that there is a new rail of politics. Social Security has always been the third rail, but immigration???
Like a lightening-bolt blasting a tree you're standing under, the message can't help but be understood- you do this (alien amnesty), and you're toast.
They'll get the message, even if they don't want to...
And how well do you think any of them would handle the war on terror ??
They've all said they're gonna repeal the tax cuts AND RAISE taxes on working class Americans (actually THEY said, on the rich -- to me working class Americans are the 50% who are paying 95% of the taxes - to the Democrats, these are rich people.)
The Democrats are trying to get the other 50% to vote for them, I call them beneficiaries.
VOTE DEOMCRAT - IT BEATS WORKING
He is successful at only one facet of national security, yet is proposing to destroy any semblance of sovereignty, and walking away from any facade of national security...
There have been plenty of "awe, sh_t" moments with W., and I would still have happily voted for him. But THIS???
No. To be victorious in the War on Terror, only to hand our country over to Mexico...?
This is UNACCEPTABLE.
His idea will have long-term, disastrous effects on this country, as anybody with a decent understanding of economics will explain to you.
Loyalty is earned. He has lost my support, and can only get it back by promising to ENFORCE the immigration laws on the books.
If he doesn't make this promise??? Then he'll rot in hell before he gets MY vote...
Look, there's no question he's trying to garner some of the Latino vote -- this thing still has to get batted around in congress -- let's watch it play for awhile.
Truthfully, a well-run, well-documented guest worker program would be a benefit.
But there's gonna have to be some amendments, with teeth, to his proposal, CLOSE the border, only documented folks can come through, no AMNESTY for those who are here illegally, they either go home and come back legally, or they plead guilty and pay a fine for breaking our laws, a baby born to guest workers does not become an automatic citizen.
But, we still gotta compare Bush to the Dems -- ALL of them would've just granted another Reagan amnesty, before the election.
Remember Clinton rushing to swear in half a million new immigrants before the '00 election so they could vote for Gore.
Yes, Dubya erred -- but the Dems would've been (and will be if they win) even worse !!
BUT
It doesn't MATTER.
Bush is no less destructive to the USA, at this point, then any of the other liberal/leftist/socialist/communist candidates.
I just can't see where you're coming from on this one -- we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.
So - how many issues qualifies as reason enough to vote for someone else?
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.