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.
So you like the satus quo?
I don't remember saying that. Please post a link to my statement of this. If you can't do it, you're a liar.
Anyway it is up to congress to make the decision.
No kidding! Who would have guessed that I said that back in post #47??? But then, you did read that, right???
Clinton would have issued an executive order giving amnesty. I guess you think that is better.
I don't remember saying that. Please post a link to my statement of this. If you can't do it, you're a liar. Oh, and neither Clinton nor Bush dares to pass this as an EO. It would be political suicide.
BTW, IMO, you seem to be the kool-aid drinker with your distortion of the facts.
Post my "distortion of the facts, or admit you're a liar.
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.
I don't remember saying that. Please post a link to my statement of this. If you can't do it, you're a liar.
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.
Do you have any data to support this claim, or is this just more flatulence? Given your obvious lack of knowledge concerning economics, it seems more flatuelence, than anything else. And don't worry, I won't hold my breath waiting for your citations to economic policy analyses supporting these BS conclusions of yours.
JMO, you are being simplistic, reactionary, and knee jerk.
You opinion- as clearly demonstrated- isn't worth anything.
Yada, yada, yada. If you think there are no differences between Bush and the demos, you are mistaken. I guess you would like to have the UN and Kofi Annan run US foreign policy, which would happen under a demo President. And I guess you like the tax hikes a demo would bring.
I don't remember saying that. Please post a link to my statement of this. If you can't do it, you're a liar.
But you keep on ranting endlessly Eric, that seems to be your strong suit.
I recall an expression about a pot, and a kettle...
As I stated before: I don't feel the need to restate myself over and over, for every bum who is too lazy to read the thread, and suddenly jumps on me because he can't be bothered to read.
Oh now playing the victim card. A democrat card.
You know, you have a real problem with facts. Look towards the top, something about policy being written in Congress, and my referring to that back in post #47, which you obviously were too lazy to read, before trying to put words in my mouth... So now, whenever someone says "don't go there, you'll make a fool of yourself," you automatically assume they're playing a democrat card? How stupid are you???
My words: If you try to harangue me from a foundation of ignorance, then I'll just ignore you- stupid people aren't worth my time.
Sure seems that you spend a lot time with yourself.
The moderators have asked me to be a little more kind to the mental midgets. They don't like it when I slap down some fool... Guys that can't find their anus with both hands, a flashlight and a set of written instructions annoy me, and I tend to be unkind with them.
Especially when I can easily demonstrate that they're just bloviating.
I provided you an answer to your challenge.
It's now YOUR turn to answer my challenge. And I'm still waiting...
JMO, but you are suffering with Wesley Clark syndrome with your hubris.
Any more FReepmails like the above will be construed as harassment.
And as I said, I played your game, I answered your challenge. It's your turn.
Don't worry, though... I won't hold my breath.
Should Bush be tried for treason and if found guilty be subject to capial punishmment?
Should Bush be subject to the death penalty for an immigration proposal?
You accused Bush of treason. That is a capital crime so, yes you did say that. Do you want to retract it now?
Poor baby. Should Bush be tried for treason?
I won't allow myself to be dragged into your asinine argument. It may work with your ankle-biters, to lure someone into a false debate, based on something that you claim was said? That's like debating the local gossip, the he-said, she-said idiocy that passes for social discussion in a little podunk town... What makes you think any of the rest of us are so stupid as to play your game???
And how is it, that you seem incapable of answering my challenge? Is it because the answer is a pill too bitter to swallow???
Do you think you are the Queen of England or something with your use of the royal "we".
BTW, would you rather have a demo who would actually put through amnesty.
I surmise you do with your above rant, but I am not surprised since, IMO, a person like you who depends on pure emotion rather than thinking is prone to using rants.
I agree completely.
Be well...
texasforever and dane are two dyed-in-the-wool kool-aide-drinking sheeple.
Dane is long on the hot air, and short on the fact. Take a look at my "adjustment" of him at post #222, if you have any doubts.
Texas...? well, he's about the same as dane. though, instead of exclusively trying to put words into your mouth, texas tries the rope-a-dope strategy, pulling you into a BS discussion that has no bearing on... anything. texas is quite consistent about this, from what I've seen of his posts over the last few weeks... and he tends to get angry when you point out his inconsistencies and lies.
They're just a couple more lemmings...
Be well.
The mob and the demagogue will triumph in the end. But Reagan held them back for a while.
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.