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.
This immigration plan is a PROPOSAL. It is not an edict. I highly doubt that he will ignore the explosions that have been taking place on his right about it.......but then I have a fundamental respect for him that some on this forum lack.
But his primary job is to protect us from being slaughtered by an enemy that despises us, and wants us all dead. And that enemy is licking its chops at the prospect of a weak Dem in the White House.......you can bank on that.
President Bush is DOING that job, and THAT is the big picture, and the reason he MUST be reelected.
Since when has "conservatism" meant pocketbook issues alone?
A: Never. For me to take serious issue with a critical piece of domestic legislation does not constitute focusing on pocket book issues alone. I have a broad history on FR for all to read. For you to assume that money is my narrow focus belies an unwillingness to properly research before posting attacks by inference.
"Has anyone on FR who supports Pres. Bush actually ENDORSED huge new domestic spending?! No!"
Making my point that passing the largest liberal agenda item in over 30 years is a substantial flaw in this administration.
"They've all said there are other issues which trump the fiscal issues."
Agreed.
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."
Like: "Not that your wife is ugly, but..". Thanks for the non-disrespect, and non-attack on my integrity.
"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."
So if communism were implemented "with such huge issues of war and peace overshadowing everything," would we be similarly disallowed criticism by high priests of the Republican Party?
You cannot use the primacy of the war and peace issue to whitewash otherwise horrid policy. We can criticize the President while we support and vote for him. I refuse to be shut up by party hacks (no disresect intended) willing to implement socialism for votes.
However, have you noticed the number of people on this thread who are talking about NOT voting for him? That is my concern. I do not want some Rat creep running the Pentagon, nor do I want to see someone like Bill Clinton as Secretary of State.
You're not Conservative because you're selfish and want to keep your money instead of letting the government spend it for you.
Up is down in bushland.
What I see here on this forum, are those whose ONLY agenda is limited government, and that is what results in the unmitigated hatred they have for him.
As a conservative who wants the government to shrink (but realistically doesn't know if that's possible), but whose main conserative thrust is personal responsibility, the sanctity of life, morality, lower taxes, the rule of law, and a strong military and a strong America, I have been far more pleased than disappointed with the job he has done.
And I submit that most of those whose only agenda is limited government, are not real conservatives at all, if their goal is to be able to do whatever they want to........to have license, and not just liberty.
Agreed. And before I receive some additional non-attacks, I will here post my report card on the Bush Administration:
War on Terror: A- (Saudi Arabia constituting the minus, without which this would be an A+. There's still time!)
Taxes: A-
Trade: B (Some protectionism, trying to trade principle for votes again)
Life: A-
Judiciary: B (Good nominees, not enough fight)
Social Policy: A-
Spending: C (The proximate cause of this chatter)
Immigration: B (Shy of machine gun nests on the border, I'm not sure there's much to do.)
Tort Reform: A for rhetoric, C for action
Education: B (Excess funding, but a great impact of NCLB on sclerotic school management)
The foregoing is posted in case anyone unwilling to do their homework starts thinking I'm afflicted by "small-mindedness, and painfully shallow and nearsighted."
Plus which, I have always said I will support the President in spite of some issues where I hope to hold his feet to the fire. As My2Cents tries to point out, the defense of Western Civilization practically trumps many other issues on which we can voluably disagree with the Administration.
As Michael Jackson says, "That's like cutting your nose to spite your face."
No...this fallacy keeps being repeated, and it couldn't be further from the truth.
A crappy Bush I campaign, broken promises, an unfinished war in Iraq (ala Colon Powell) and the NWO Republicans gave us the first 4 years of Bill Clinton. A joke of a Bob Dole campaign gave us the second 4 years...even when the Gingrich Republicans had momentum to actually facilitate some real change in this country (they blew that one too). The absense of a principled, conservative candidate gave us 8 years of Bill Clinton...case closed.
Now, in a "lets all fear for our lives, accept anybody with an (R) by their name kind of world"(short of a closet liberal like John McCain), you expect us all to give up our conservative principles, our freedom, our hard earned money, our American culture, our borders, our kids future just so we can be safe. In essence, we're giving up our freedom for security with a side of continued socialism. Its despicable...as Ben Franklin said,"People who are willing to give up freedom for the sake of short term security, deserve neither freedom nor security" Call a spade a spade, because thats exactly what it is.
How long do we keep this up? (meaning how long do we vote based on our fears of about security and put conservatism on hold) Till the time when GWB is no longer the POTUS? Till the WOT is declared offically over? Till every radical Muslim is 6 feet under? Till the entire ME minus Israel is a glass parking lot? To these subgroup of Freepers who claim that security>freedom, I ask, when do we go back to eliminating the government largesse?(i.e. NEA, EPA, welfare, etc.), securing our borders?, controlling immigration, getting the coutry's coffers in order, advancing conservatism? Or is the new platform for the Republican party "Vote for us...we'll protect you"?
Its a raw deal to be reduced to this, it is a scenario of the lesser of 2 evils, or as some would put it "life or death". If my vote is about life or death, havent I already pretty much given up my freedom to the mercy of those that we think will protect us? I shudder to think of what America will be like in 20 years if the present course continues.
Consider this, then: President Jimmy Carter was the best thing to happen to the conservative movement in the 20th century. Before Carter, we had liberal Republicans Nixon and Ford in the white house. We had Nelson Rockefeller as vice-president. Reagan lost to Ford for the Republican presidential nomination. Four years of Carter, miserable though they were, made possible two Reagan landslides, and a major shift rightwards in the Republican Party. And then George Bush senior threw it all away.
I haven't yet decided whether to vote Bush or for the Libertarian candidate. In the end, it will be a tactical decision. But I am sure of one thing; Bush Junior has done little enough to earn my vote. For all his rhetoric, he's not much of an improvement over his dad.
At least now the Republican Party has finally defined itself as not only not being entirely conservative, but not conservative in any sense of the word. They just want us to keep voting for their liberalism because we have no place else to go. I prefer to acknowledge that as a conservative I have no representation whatsoever in this nation, and act on that knowledge by just saying no in Nov.
I think you're finally on the right track.
Just as a business uses a Profit and Loss Statement (P&L) to analyze performance, that's what we need to do with this Republican administration and Congress.
There have been profits and losses - but, at the bottom line, personally I see a net sum gain.
Candidly, instead of looking at the big picture, I believe a lot of posters here are selecting hot-button loses and dissecting them with tweezers and a microscope.
Then, the nature of internet chat forces to express ourselves in sentient sound bites, rather that well-developed positions supported by hard fact.
Thanks for preparing a political P&L.
Your hyperbole negates your purpose, and becomes absurdity.
If you are not represented by ANYTHING George W. Bush stands for.......not morality, not a strong military, not lower taxes, not personal responsibility and honor....... then the problem is yours, and not his.
Yes, exactly then. At that point, you, me and a bunch of other proper conservatives need to have a successful conservative candidate in line for the nomination in 2008.
The 2004 elections are essentially over. Bush wins in a landslide as we are all required to support him with his warts against the Dems and their death cult.
In the mean time, we keep his feet to the fire by arguing hard from his right, while we do what we must (vote for him) to ensure the continuance of Western Civilization.
I'm with you in spirit, but practicality calls.
And I don't think that the soldiers who died in that ill-fated rescue mission under Carter would think that he was the best thing to ever happen to them.
Carter didn't do much good for any of us, including conservatives, by giving the Panama Canal away and ignoring the rise of fundamental Islam in Iran.
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.