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.
Would a rose, by any other name, be less sweet?
...but you'll never get there with your arrogance.
you mistakenly consider arrogance and confidence in a position that is demonstrably correct, to be the same. A mistake on your part. Calling me "boy" won't mitigate your errors.
The only way to true wisdom is through the fear of the Lord, and a realization that we are nothing, except through the grace of God. You will only begin to learn what is really important when you stop imagining you have all the answers. And with your ego, only God himself can make that happen......and I would pray for that if I were you....
Excrement. It is the intellectually lazy, who claim that only through religion, can wisdom be found. Wisdom is found by objective observation and objective consideration of issues, ideas and history.
Without seeking, truth cannot be known at all. It can neither be declared from pulpits, nor set down in articles, nor in any ways prepared and sold in packages ready for use, Truth must be ground for every man by itself out of its husk, with such help as he can get, indeed, but not without stern labor of his own.
--John Ruskin
I pray that when you get out of school, you have some experiences that wake you up.......
Hmmm, your bio explains a lot: "I'm an adjunct professor"
You know what they say- those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. I'm sure being in an ivory-tower gives you a lot of useful experiences.
At UC Davis, I went toe-to-toe with the administration on a variety of issues, and on each issue, I prevailed. Why? Because I do have life-experiences, unlike the educrats. Unlike you. And for the record, I've already finished my degree- this, after 15 years of real-world experience, both in the military and in the private sector. Can you say the same?
(And about your accusation that I don't think........that's funny!)
Another mistake. It's not an accusation, but a demonstrable observation.
This explains all I need to know about you.
You'll never be wise until you understand where wisdom comes from. All your knowledge of history, politics, whatever, is worthless outside an understanding of who you are, relative to Who God is, and you clearly have NO understanding of that.
btw, I'm not quite sure why you find my professorship amusing, but you'll have to admit, if you ever have an honest moment, that you don't get there without being able to think.
But, whatever I say is a waste of your time, because of what you, in your 'confidence' have decided I am........an 'old fool.'
May the scales be some day removed from your eyes, so that you see the truth. I am no longer amused by you, but I do feel sorry for you. I pray some day that you find the peace that you lack.
Good-bye, young Eric.
At least in this, you are correct...
btw, I'm not quite sure why you find my professorship amusing
Being a professor, explains your combination of arrogance, and- curiously- silence, in answering a simple challenge:
George W. Bush proposes treason, by definition, with his alien-amnesty proposal. Can you prove me wrong???
A professor would expect me to bow and kiss his/her/its' feet, in homage. But I'm not interested in your ivory-tower arrogance. I expect an answer. Surely someone who is a "profesor" would have a valid response to this....?
((( Crickets Chirping )))
anybody?
anybody?
anybody????
It is not an excuse, MAP. It's the truth.
The Republican party has NEVER been completely conservative.
In my lifetime......was Eisenhower conservative? Was Nixon conservative? Was Agnew Conservative? Was Rockefeller conservative? Was Ford conservative? NO, to all of the above, and they were the standard bearers for the party.
Barry Goldwater was the only nominee running as a conservative before Reagan, and he got tromped in the national election.
I will repeat it because it's the truth. The REPUBLICAN party has NEVER been completely conservative.
NOTHING has changed.
Do the facts matter at all to you?
You remind me a lot of Howard Dean.......self-absorbed, condescending, short-tempered, bloated ego, arrogant, clueless..........
Just wondered if you were short too....... :o)
btw, all kidding aside, I see you've been to my homepage. There's a young soldier there.......my son, who happens to have the same name as you.....Eric. But that's all he has in common with you.
You see, he is mature and wise, polite and humble, strong and courageous, yet sweet and gentle. He is already at the age of 19 what you will NEVER be, barring your allowing the Holy Spirit to begin to work in you.....he is a godly young man.
And a real conservative and patriot, just like his Mom and Dad......
Be good.
EXACTLY. I flatly state that the Bush alien-amnesty is (by definition) treason.
Funny thing, though; the die-hard Bush followers who expect blind loyalty, all seem strangely silent when I challenge them to prove me wrong...
Why is this, do you think?
I am not suggesting that this proposal would be successful if tried (which it will not be), and I am not saying I like it (I don't), but at least TRY to get your facts straight when discussing it.
Lots of them have been on this thread and seen your 'work.' Apparently nobody thinks you're worth the aggravation.
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.