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.
Deserves repeating!
He IS doing his job. You're just not astute enough to understand what that is.
It's all about YOU, and what YOU want, and how YOU're going to send people messages.
Just like the article says........you, and the 10 other freepers who jump from thread to thread to rant, are missing the BIG picture.
May GOD help us if there are enough of you to send an incompetant, treacherous, lying RAT to the White House in November.
Lighten up! This just proves that Bush can multi-task! Seriously, I thought his SOTU speech was fantastic and it has made me an even stronger advocate for his reelection.
Late 19th century.......NO. Early 20th century.........NO. Late 20th century...........NO.
There have always been Conservative Republicans, but the Republican party has never been entirely conservative.
You are implying that something has changed (and I assume you are blaming Bush for the change), and it is just not historically accurate.
This cute little slam is evidence that you don't have an original thought in your head.
It is the most idiotic accusation you tunnel visioned extremists dish out. Give it up.
The real effect of taking Bobby's advice is that we can drive our country off the socialist cliff at 45 mph riding with the current and future Republican Party as opposed to driving off the same cliff at 60 mph riding with the Dimocrats.
Some choice.
***Reluctantly, an ex-Republican base voter***
In addition, we would no doubt get the appointment of someone like Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the Supreme Court
OMG, Miss Marple. I'm growing faint at the thought! Seriously, that is a very dangerous picture you have just drawn about life under Deom-rat rule once again. Our national security demands the re-election of GWB, and our national morality cries for it.
You really do have me all shook up thisAM.
Yeah........right.
Morality, the sanctity of life, the value of the individual, the importance of honesty, fairness in competition, caring for others in need, American strength abroad, value for the military...........now THAT'S what I call screwed up priorities.......LOL!!!
Or is it that Dane doesn't want more leftist judges on the bench, and you do?
Yeah, I'll say it's sad that you two don't agree. But no thinking conservative will come down on YOUR side of the argument.
I certainly hope you are not serious. And, if you are...I hope you will reconsider. I made the mistake of supporting Buchanan in 1992 and it gave us 8 years of Bill Clinton and all his liberal appointments and executive orders. At least I was smart enough to jump back into the GHW Bush camp before the general election and wasn't so stupid as to line up with the Perotistas!
The Dems are desparate. If they get back in power, the Executive Orders will be flying all over the place -- and what will happen to your "conservative agenda" then? And can you imagine what will happen to the Supreme court? We will be living with the results for the next 50 years -- that is, if we are still a separate nation and haven't been sucked into some one world government scheme by then.
Part of his job is to pay attention to the people. I submit that his amnesty program is wrong-headed, and that we have a responsibility to convey that message to him. Likewise, he has a responsibility to listen to us and do the people's work.
Instead of waiting until November to send a message that will have to be "interpreted" -- why not just click over to their web sites and send them an e-mail, telling them how you feel, directly.
A near-term communique to the White House and to your congresscritters, might actually alter the course of the future.
True, the principals most likely won't read it, but the staffers will, and they'll keep statistics, and if they get enough input with the same message, it will make a difference, they DO listen to constituents.
No need to be rude or verbose: simple messages will suffice.
"I oppose your amnesty proposal for illegal aliens. Instead, I want our borders closed and our current immigration laws enforced."
"I believe in a limited federal government, yet your administration is growing government at an unprecedented rate. Reduce the size of the federal government."
"I believe that the Campaign Finance Reform Law is unconstitutional, I urge to to support legislation to repeal it immediately."
"I support your efforts to cut taxes - but, the cuts are too small and take too long to implement. What we really need, and what you promised was tax reform. The current tax code is indecipherable because it is too complex, it is immoral because it is lopsided and too progressive. The marginal tax rate is too high. I urge you to support meaningful tax reform immediately."
"I believe the Patriot Act is ironically misnamed and unconstitutional, do not extend it beyound its sunset date."
"Federal spending is out of control, this is especially troubling to me during a Republican administration, please cut federal spending drastically. The recently passed appropriation bill contained more than $11B in pure pork, that is ridiculous."
I think you get the picture. Let's see there are about 300 million Americans and 65% of them are eligible to vote. Of about 195 million eligible to vote about 35% are "conservatives." If the White House and congress heard these messages from 68 million conservative voters, believe me -- it would make a difference.
Using the soapbox here on FR is fine, but that's preaching to the front row, we gotta tell the politicians directly how we feel.
If you build it, they will come -- and, if we tell them, they will listen.
I'm not so naive to believe they listen because they want better government, or to serve us better, I'm cynical enough to know its because they want to be reelected -- and, public input is how they sense the pulse of the people.
I know they would rather hear from you directly than try to devine what you are thinking by looking into a crystal ball, listening to the liberal media, or waiting for November election returns.
We can vote for Bush, sure. I may do so. But not simply because he has an (R) behind his name. I've already been down that road. It ended with a Republican President out-liberaling the Dimocrats WRT spending & vote-buying. Not very principled by anyone's standard.
Be so good as to end your comments with Baaaaaa please. :)
***Reluctantly, an ex-Republican base voter***
I apologize if I mischaracterized your comment.
As I said before, there have always been conservative Republicans, but the Republican party has NEVER been entirely conservative.
Those are the facts.
Actually, without "bashing" Bush, a good argument can be made otherwise.
Bush has changed the nature of the debate. Reagan got people to consider the 'government isn't the solution. It's part of the problem.' He changed the question from 'what's the best way for government to handle such and so problem?' to 'should the government be involved in dealing with such and so?'
Bush has walked away from the Reagan approach and returned to the older Republican approach of 'we do it better'. For conservatives, like me, who believe in limited government, for all of Bush's fine character and integrity, he has done serious damage to the idea of limited government.
So, I suppose it depends on what your "agenda" is.
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.