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.
With respect, I must disagree.
Even making the proposal of alien-amnesty, is starting to have repercussions. The pebble-on-the-pond example, ya' know?
The damage this will do, as I said before, will be a disaster.
1. The labor-rates across the entire private-sector will be driven into the dirt, causing
2. Loss of cash-flows to the government, and a general decline in the buying-power of the consumer, causing
3. A general decline in macroeconomic performance, and
4. Budgetary short-falls (a la California, but on a national scale).
5. The absolute refusal of the aliens to integrate will cause social unrest- if they can't speak English, they'll have a tough time getting work, and the real American citizens will resent being forced to learn the language of the invading aliens, just to keep their job (which is suffering from pay reductions, because of those same aliens).
6. Real-estate values will fall as the median incomes go down, and the standard of living declines (coupled with having 12+ people living in the house next door, complete with all their refuse, foreign music and bad manners).
These effects will take hold quickly, soon after the passage of this bill.
You may think I'm exaggerating things, but if you're in a border-state, and see the stuff I see every day...? You'd know exactly what I mean...
I still think Bush is a better choice than any of the Democrats who will be the ultimate nominee.
This bout is between Dubya and probably either Dean or Kerry, but it really is too early to tell.
If all three were running in the same primary, I would still vote for Bush
And, its tough -- because we agree on Amnesty and I feel just as strongly about CFR and the Patriot Act.
But, Bush is still the best option, unless a real conservative is drafted at the convention (and we both know that won't happen).
Since when has "conservatism" meant pocketbook issues alone? Has anyone on FR who supports Pres. Bush actually ENDORSED huge new domestic spending?! No. They've all said there are other issues which trump the fiscal issues.
No disrepect to you, but I see so many conservatives that have their noses so buried in their wallets that they can't see the bigger picture. Some at least have the integrity to say, "I don't care for the spending, but Bush is the only choice considering everything."
As far as the feeble threats of the Trancredoites to write him in to "send a message," I related this to a friend of mine who doesn't come on FreeRepublic, and his response to the naysayers is, "Some say, 'I'm going to vote for _____ in order to send a message.' Translated into English, what they're saying is, 'I'm so stupid...'" Truthfully, the naysayers underwhelm me as very small minded people. I know we're not suppose to get "personal" in our attacks on people, but I can't escape this impression, that they're small-mindedness, and painfully shallow and nearsighted with such huge issues of war and peace overshadowing everything.
I don't anyone is asking you to cave-in and march in lock-stepped silence. As someone who enthusiastically supports Bush's re-election, I will tell you that I have doubts about his immgration proposal. I support the President in spite of my doubts because I think it is foolish and immature to say that one or two issues should cause one to break from the President. I think the mature thing, as you have articulated, is to express opposition to policies one does not agree with, but to realize that there are other policies that are worth supporting, and that these tip the balance in favor of support for the President. What I see from the Bashers on FR is a strident hatred of the President over one or two issues -- not just a disagreement, but a loathing of George W. Bush over one or two things. I just don't get that perspective. And in the intensity of their loathing, I see no difference between them and the Deaniacs.
WTF? I don't know who you think you're quoting, but it's not ME
And, for the record, I didn't get anything from this President, nor did I expect anything...
But I do expect him to do his job. If he doesn't, then I'd expect him to face the consequences, i.e, a pink slip...
translation: ignorance is bliss.
(((shaking head in disgust)))
We've already tried that. They seem to spend more time having more than just their egos stroked over the Oval Office sink.
That is only reality. You are aquainted with reality....right?
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.