Bush-Bashing Conservatives Should Focus on the Big Picture

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.

What's an ultrapurist?

Someone who doesn't want a president who will refuse to shake out the Clintonista filth in the DoD, CIA, and FBI in time to prevent 9/11?

Someone who doesn't want to have a president pardoning 10 million criminal invaders and destroying the nation and rule of law?

Someone who wants a president that might actually side with Scalia and challenge the emergence of "comparativism" in the Federal courts?

Someone who might actually understand why the ICC must be resisted, as opposed to just making sure nothing stood in the way of transforming the ME?

Someone who wants a president that won't refuse to wage war on the only real threat from the Axis of Evil -- North Korea, because China resists action. While his uncle and brother are making too much money from the bloody butcher of Beijing and his son -- in a semiconductor equipment initiative that the CRS and DoD have declared to be a national security threat? The Dems and Commerce were penetrated by Ziang Zemin's spies (he was, and still is, head of the Chinese Military Commission -- chief warlord after all), so now Neil Bush gets to peddle influence and get, like Prescott, unusual wavers from Commerce for sensitive technologies previously embargoed?

Someone who wants a White House that won't hesitate to seal off Tora Bora and end the war?

Someone who wants a White House that won't side with bellicose tyrants in Beijing against the right of a free nation (Taiwan) to express its desire to defend itself? -- and thus go down in infamy alongside his treacherous father who offered the infamous "Chicken Kiev" speech castigating "suicidal nationalism" -- at the very moment of the greatest triumph of nationalism and republican ideals in the history of mankind (after our glorious revolution, of course)!

Someone who doesn't want a White House foreign policy run by a foreign policy Tsar, Condoleeza Rice, who openly proclaimed her support for wiping out Western Civilization reading from the core curriculum at Stanford, and challenges Sam Huntington's thesis about a "Clash of Civilizations" to promote what she calls "global culture," embracing her fantasy of "Islam," and globalist revolution abroad ("spreading democracy in the ME").

Someone who wants anyone, PLEASE, who won't throw $87B into the blowing sands of Iraq (UTTERLY WASTED)?

Someone who wants a White House that will actually support semiconductor research subsidies, instead of cutting them (see above for the likely reason behind the very unusual move), in an era when spending like drunken sailors is the norm?

Someone who wants a White House that might have a sense of balance on domestic spending (threat of a real conservative challenging them in a future election on spending and taxing policies)?

Someone who wants a WH that won't kiss up to Teddy Kennedy, like Bush did when advancing the education plan?

Someone who wants a White House that won't advocate $5K GRANTS to minorities (HOUSING SOCIALISM) to help them buy houses and then pull back quickly, and quietly -- hoping no one would notice (few did), to propose a vague no-go targeted tax cut.

Someone who doesn't want a White House that will declare war and then fight police actions? War, as Clausewitz pointed out, is about targeting the "will" of the enemy -- here the institutions that foment new recruits faster than our global cops can pick them off. We are not fighting a real war. A real war would see regional campaigns to redraw the maps of the world and the utter annihilation of the institutions advancing radical Islam (not just picking off the MINOR axis powers).

Someone who wants a WH willing to wage war on the institutions backing radical Islam (Saudi and Pakistan) -- insteading of embracing "Islam"? Yes, maybe GHWB and brother Neil might no longer get $300K payoffs for speeches in Saudi, but hey, sacrifices have to be made.

Someone who doesn't want the White House to compromise to get "fast-track" authority to ram through an expansion of NAFTA and get what promises to be a massive new SOCIALIST entitlement for wage stabilization/subsidies called "wage insurance?"

The panty-waisters are in the White House..."Compassionate conservatism" is Christian Socialism, pandering to warlords in China, and global democratic revolution at the tip of multi-cultural bayonets (an American Liberal version of the Brezhnev Doctrine).

Real leaders would not hesitate to deal with the North Korean crisis NOW!

Real leaders would not scheme to see James Otis, John Adams, and all of the patriots of old roll over in their graves to give up the 4th Amendment simply because they don't have the guts to enforce VISA law!

The White House is putting real Americans in a very difficult spot -- by design. They seem to think we would never vote for a Democrat. Of course, NEVER for a "Liberal" of the Clintonista mold. Kerry, never. Dean, never. Lieberman, never. However, there is still one outcome the WH seems to have failed to factor in -- massive numbers of Republicans (even in that 49% support column) can still vote -- none of the above. Indeed, that is my prediction: for every one Hispanic vote he gets with his amnesty gimmick, 2 Republicans will stay away from the polls or vote for a third-party candidate. The surprise of this election might be the rise of a third-party candidate from the sub-basement to the basement (marginal, but still enough to make a difference with the popular vote spread so narrow these days).

"Ignorance is bliss" I guess that explains how you're able to throw your vote away, and the fate of this country, over one or two things which bend your nose out of shape.

It was one or two things... and then more, and more and more... And each time, I told myself I'd hold my nose, and still vote for W., even though he barely qualifies as a conservative in any meaningful way (judging by actions, rather than words). But the alien-amnesty, with his in-your-face attitude to 87% of American citizens who support law and sending the lawbreaking aliens home....?

He's gone too far.

A vote for him- as it is for any of the leftists running for the White House- is a vote wasted. Because there is nothing substantially different between him and the rest. I watch actions, and ignore the diplomat-speak (strategery and "religion of peace," for example).

Tell me, when selfishness and narrow-mindedness became such stellar "conservative" values?

When the conservative leader blatantly panders to illegal aliens, by trashing the economy, our culture and the legal system of the entire country...? All in an transparent (and vain) attempt to garner the alien vote???

Yep. Pretty selfish and narrow-minded...

Enjoying your kool-aide???

It was one or two things... and then more, and more and more... And each time, I told myself I'd hold my nose, and still vote for W., even though he barely qualifies as a conservative in any meaningful way (judging by actions, rather than words). But the alien-amnesty, with his in-your-face attitude to 87% of American citizens who support law and sending the lawbreaking aliens home....?

So you like the satus quo? Anyway it is up to congress to make the decision. Clinton would have issued an executive order giving amnesty. I guess you think that is better.

BTW, IMO, you seem to be the kool-aid drinker with your distortion of the facts.

Also BTW, what is your plan to round 10 million.

You may say round up 10,000 and they will go away on their own.

No they won't. The reason they are here is to make a better life for themselves. Put pressure on Mexico to gets its economy in gear and they wouldn't be here, but you seem to be of the ilk that a twitch of the nose and poof they all are gone.

JMO, you are being simplistic, reactionary, and knee jerk.

The White House is putting real Americans in a very difficult spot -- by design. They seem to think we would never vote for a Democrat. Of course, NEVER for a "Liberal" of the Clintonista mold. Kerry, never. Dean, never. Lieberman, never. However, there is still one outcome the WH seems to have failed to factor in -- massive numbers of Republicans (even in that 49% support column) can still vote -- none of the above.

Exactly.

I agree with 80-90% of your assessment. Probably, I fit your definition of "ultrapurist" more than any other...

Ironic- up until the 1992 election, I would have been arguing the same things as the other Bush-supporters, using the same rationales...

But the problem is that the system is rigged, and relies on people thinking only to the level of such arguments, and never further... Realistically, there are no fundamental differences in the candidates to be the next dope to sit in the White House. In every way that matters, there are no real differences. Actions do speak louder than words. Bush may have an "R" behind his name, but it's a little "r." And judging by his actions as of late, I'm reminded of two quotes:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."
--Theodore Roosevelt

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."
--Marcus Tullius Cicero 42B.C.

What Bush proposes, is by definition, nothing less than treason.

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.

Prove me wrong.