Bush-Bashing Conservatives Should Focus on the Big Picture

GOPUSA.com ^ | Januray.26,2004 | Bobby Eberle

[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.

[ohioWfan]

I am VERY disturbed with the discussions that any illegal should vote for anything......including local school boards, or whatever the illegal advocates are talking about now.

However, regarding this proposal......it's not going to get the Congress at this juncture anyway.

And I honestly don't know enough about what undocumented workers' intentions are to be able to respond to your presumption that they don't want to vote. My assessment would be that they most likely would want a voice in the government, but as I said, I have no stats to back that up.

[ohioWfan]

I was with you until the last sentence, MAP.

I assume it was a not too veiled accusation of me, and those who share my admiration and respect for President Bush.

There is NO way that this Constitutional Republic would be 'better off' without the respect that millions of us have for this President.

It doesn't keep us from voicing our objections to things with which we disagree. It doesn't keep us from working to elect conservatives in our local and state governments.

You make the (silly) assumption that respect and willingness to defend his record in doing numerous things to advance the cause of conservatism means that we don't think for ourselves, or take part in the political process as the conservatives that we are.

It's what this article is all about.......seeing the BIG picture, and understanding that the President we have (whether or not you like him), is a heck of a lot better than any Dem.

THAT'S the problem with you, no one is conservative like I am freepers. You are willing to cut your noses off to spite your face...........and THAT will hurt this Constitutional republic.

Now I must go. Thanks for returning to civility. Please let me know about your husband. I have been thinking about you......

[skip2myloo]

Miss Pie is eloquent in her own right, and can speak for herself, and so are you, but may I jump in here too, please?

I almost resent your inference that my ardor for the Constitution is nearly tantamount to a yearning for anarchy.

"I think some of you here on FR are bordering on anarchists because your distaste of government borders on hatred of it, and anyone associated with it, and your personal fear of globalization amazes me (where do you GET that stuff?)."

Speaking only for myself, I am no anarchist -- I believe we need government at all levels. I believe State governments should play a greater role in the lives of their citizens than they do today, e.g., for welfare and education.

Consistent with the 10th Amendment, I believe the role of the Federal government should be limited to those enumerated powers specified in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-18 of the Constitution.

My fear of globalization stems from those who would relinquish our national sovereignty to the United Nations, and submit our country to mindless treaties like Kyoto and FTAA which are designed primarily to emasculate the United States.

Bush did not support Kyoto, but he does support FTAA, I understand.

The opinions of the four dissenting justices of the SCOTUS confirm my opinion that CFR is unconstitutional, that it abrogates the very core principle of the 1st Amendment, the unabridged right to political free speech.

Similarly, I believe the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, contrary to the 4th Amendment freedom to be secure in our persons, homes and papers.

"Just for the record, anarchists and libertarians are not BY DEFINITION conservatives......"

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean here, but I want to emphasize again that irrespective of how you define conservatism, those who believe the Constitution establishes a limited role for the Federal government are not anarchists.

Indeed, how do you define an anarchist ??

We believe, as one Supreme Court Justice stated, ‘the Constitution is not a living document, it is an enduring document.’

How our adherence and allegiance to those principles expressed in our Declaration of Independence and in our U.S. Constitution have come to be characterized as reactionary or radically conservative (or even anarchistic) is a bizarre example of Orwellian doublespeak.

To us, obedience to the rule of law shouldn't provide wide latitude for interpretation at all; much less complete reinvention based on whatever notion is politically correct from time-to-time.

We understand who the “people” are, and we understand the meaning of “Congress shall make no law…”

How do you define a "conservative" with respect to the U.S. Constitution ??

Is a strict constitutional constructionist an anarchist in your view ??

My ultimate question is, as an avowed conservative - how can you not share these same beliefs ??

Are these men anarchists ??

"Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem" - Ronald Reagan

"When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny." –Thomas Jefferson

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

"No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthen itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." - James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785: Works 1:163

[skip2myloo]

"I am VERY disturbed with the discussions that any illegal should vote for anything..."

Beware that wrascally ol' slippery slope.

"However, regarding this proposal......it's not going to get the Congress at this juncture anyway."

We didn't think CFR would get to Congress, much less through Congress... We didn't think the President would sign CFR... We didn't think the SCOTUS would affirm the Constitutionality of CFR... but, all those things happened.

"And I honestly don't know enough about what undocumented workers' intentions..."

Granted, according to Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, today these people are concerned primarily with fulfilling their security needs (shelter and food).

Tomorrow, they may be more concerned about citizenship and franchise.

[ohioWfan]

Yes, I'm a strict constructionist, and yes I'm a conservative, just as I believe the Bible is literally true.

But....and I risk your calling me a liberal, if you're a name calling kind of guy.......I understand that sincere people can come up with different understanding of each of the two, both basing their opinions on what they see to be true.

There was a big war fought on those differences, as you well know.

What I object to is the lambasting from the far right of those of us who differ with their not-always-objective views.

I share your view that CFR violates the Constitution, intentionally or otherwise, but I do NOT share your view on the Patriot Act, which became necessary because the enemy is within our borders.

I'm really out of time here, skip. I shall seriously consider your views.......

(And I never for one moment thought that you were an anarchist. There are others who are......)

[Capitalist Eric]

You are, in fact, guilty of sedition. You are attempting to instigate the overthrow of the sitting government and are advocating the execution of its head.

You must be related to texasforever. He made the same outrageous claim, so I challenge you to show the link where I say this, provide an apology or simply accept the fact that you're a liar.

Oh, and BTW, sedition is defined as "incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority." If I promote resistance or insurrection, it is against unlawful authority (which again, I can substantiate). Choose your links carefully.

[Capitalist Eric]

Not looking kindly on a government that continues to set itself at odds with the best interests of "we the people" can also make one a patriot determined to call the fed to task and accountability. If more did just that instead of riding band wagons, and hero worshipping the underserving, we would probably be in much better shape as a Constitutional Republic.

Careful... You keep talking like that, and you, too, will be accused of "sedition."

[skip2myloo]

Good folks can have honest disagreemnt, but I'm not sure where we really disagree -- we've just been discussing nuances here, shades of the same color.

But truth and fact are different.

A fact is immutable, but, as you say, truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Some people's truths cause them to distort the facts.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree about the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II.

Our founding fathers had the wisdom to envision that our country could encounter serious threats on our own soil. In fact, they had recently concluded a serious war to expel an occupying army.

In our constituition, they created the framework and they gave us the tools we need to combat a hostile enemy within our borders.

Adhering to those principles we thrived for 225 years, through major wars and a cold war, enduring serious assaults and espionage directed against us.

We can still combat those threats and abide by our Constitutional principles.

We don't need no stinkin' Patriot Act.

[ohioWfan]

Points well taken.

Thanks for your civility.

[Southack]

"I flatly state that the Bush alien-amnesty is (by definition) treason."

You are misusing the word "amnesty" (and way off base on "treason").

You might as well label every plea bargain between every local prosecutor and crook as "amnesty" as to abuse the word so with regard to Bush's illegal alien registration plan.

Bush's plan, while much maligned, would give us something that we *don't* have today: 8 million Registered illegals. Illegal aliens are already here, but they aren't currently registered with our INS and law enforcement. Institutionally, we don't know where all 8 million of them are living and working.

You don't gain such institutional government knowlege cheaply, either. Bush had to give something up to entice illegals to Register themselves. Some posters on this forum even claim that Bush hasn't given up enough to entice very many illegals to register (an interesting complaint, really). "They'll just stay unregistered and illegal," some claim.

Once registered, however, illegals can be dealt with en masse. On the other hand, trying to come up with the resources required to locate, track down, and detain 8 million crooks who are all anonymous and who are all on the lam (as are these illegal aliens) would be quite an undertaking (and rounding them up into internment camps would make earlier European WW2 concentration camp efforts seem small in both contrast and in terms of bad publicity).

But with Bush's plea bargain, illegals can pay their fine, register, and then they get a blue card and the right to work here for 3 years. It's a deal. Prosecutors knock these deals out every day. Of course, they have to deport themselves at the end of that period in order to apply for more time here...and Bush's plan gives them the incentive to do that, as well as establishes a Registry that will aid our law enforcement in rounding up those who don't comply.

That's hardly "amnesty." Sure, there might be better ways to deal with illegals, but this plan isn't all bad...and it isn't a completely free amnesty.

It's a plea bargain, and it gives us something (e.g. a Registry) that we need for Homeland Security...all without spending tons and tons more of our precious tax dollars.

Of course, we *could* go door to door with our military in efforts that would make the SS of 1944 Germany look civilized, and we could round up all 8 million illegals who are already here...but I urge you to consider not only the financial cost, but also the bad publicity of setting up temporary internment camps for housing 8 million illegal aliens (compared to say, 6 million WW2 Jews in Europe).

In that light perhaps you can began to see that President Bush's plan to encourage 8 million illegal aliens to accept his plea bargain is a rather good deal for us all.

The alternative is to continue the current status quo of having them all unregistered, a position that I find difficult to support, much less pay for. Ditto for the publicity of rounding that many people up by force. The scope of this problem is so large that it warrants a nationwide plea bargain in order to make it manageable.

[Southack]

"We don't need no stinkin' Patriot Act."

What's wrong with it? I mean, besides being demonized by the news media, what specifically is so bad about the Patriot Act?

I've read the Patriot Act. It's harmless. What do you see in its actual legal text that bothers you so?

[skip2myloo]

If its harmless, why do we need it ??

Just for one quick little tidbit, how about secret searches without a court order ??

You judge that to be "harmless" ??

[skip2myloo]

Southack, whew !!

To be amiable and diplomatic, usually I search someone's post for something I can agree with, then I can start my reply with something like, 'I agree with you about XXXXX, but, yada yada yada.'

Although I have the will, I just don't have the energy to refute your post point-by-point.

But, I just can't find one thing you've said I can agree with.

[Southack]

"If its harmless, why do we need it ?? Just for one quick little tidbit, how about secret searches without a court order ?? You judge that to be "harmless" ??"

I said that it was harmless, not toothless. We need it because it has provisions that force banks to tighten their monetary security, and we need it because our law enforcement needs to be tracking wire transfers into and out of suspect foreign nations.

Your problem is that you are railing against something that you haven't even read. Someone told you that the Patriot Act is bad, and you dutifully repeated their mantra without checking to see for yourself *what* specifically was bad about it.

And the answer is that *nothing* is bad about the Patriot Act except its bad press.

Come back after you've read it, and if you find a single harmful sentence in its entire legal code, flag me.

Until then, you might reconsider your opposition to it.

Oh, one more thing: law enforcement *still* has to get a court order for "secret" searches, even under the Patriot Act, contrary to the uninformed drivel that gets posted around here...

[nmh]

Bush-Bashing Conservatives Should Focus on the Big Picture


That is what people are doing when they criticize Bush Jr.. They are sick and tired of FAILED policies being redressed to pander to the Hispanic vote.

ILLEGAL aliens should NOT be granted temporary worker status, nor collect social security etc.. Already LEGAL citizens are taxed ENOUGH to support this. We pay for ILLEGAL aliens in public school, health care via the emergency room, crime is PROVEN to be UP with ILLEGAL aliens and after we pay through taxes to warehouse them away, INS does NOT keep track of them. These are FACTS so tax cuts really aren't tax cuts when you look at what you are funding.

In no way shape of form with the concern about terrorism should we be OPENING our borders up MORE. I don't mind aliens coming here to WORK, doing jobs Americans think they are too good for HOWEVER we already have LAWS in PLACE to accommodate that. We should STOP making a mockery of our already existing laws. It sends the WRONG message to ILLEGAL aliens and mocks aliens who DO follow our laws in obtaining citizenship. As far as I am concerned ENCOURAGING ILLEGAL ALIENS is a breach of security. Al Quada WILL take advantage of that to gain access to us. If anything we need to TIGHTEN up precisely on ILLEGAL and other "guests". We don't have enough INS type people now and with the GUARANTEED FLOOD of illegals coming through the border it defies logic to INVITE trouble.

[afraidfortherepublic]

If it is a close vote, of course, I'll vote for Bush. If not, I'll write in Tancredo hoping Bush will get the message. Something needs to wake him up.

And where do you propose to write that in? In the Primary? As far as I know there is no Republican Primary. If you are talking about the General election, you ar eplaying a dangerous game.

Bush's immigration proposal is DOA in the Congress, so it's really nothing to worry about. He needs every vote out there.

"Sending him a message" will only give us 8 more years of immediate grief and, perhaps, 50 years of liberal control of our courts. I'm not sure that our nation would survive.

[skip2myloo]

Southack -- you and I could not be farther apart ideologically. I won't try to change your mind.

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthen[ed] itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." - James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785: Works 1:163

"Your problem is that you are railing against something that you haven't even read... Come back after you've read it..."

You are cautioned not to make such emphatic, declaratory statements about what I have, or have not, read -- or, to make any assumptions about my level of scholarship in general.

Feel free to disagree with me - but do not attempt to attribute my divergence with your own views to any ignorance you may perceive on my part, nor to evaluate or qualify the basis of my own views as lacking in perception of some obvious, fundamental principle.

Howard Dean is an intelligent and highly educated man, and I am at a loss to explain how he comes by his views, and I don't try to do so -- I just disagree with him.

Candidly, I see no basis for your support of the USA Patriot Act.

You don't need to endeavor to rationalize my views for me either.

In short, not only are you mistaken, but I find your accusations insulting.

Starting with the destruction of trees required to print it, then on to its purpose and short title, I find every word of the USA Patriot Act thereafter both odious and threatening. As I say, you are free to feel comforted by its efficacy - I do not.

The title itself bears an uncanny irony to the governmental doublespeak George Orwell wrote of in his prescient 1984.

To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001'.

[MissAmericanPie]

Speaking of the big picture, we keep putting it up for display. International law instead of the Constitution, legitimizing illegals for the ballot box.

What could Bush ever accomplish to offset this damage? No child left behind? Drugs for seniors? And when, pray tell, was the last time the Bush supporters on this site, called him to task on anything? Any phone calls to the White House, to the congress?

We so called Bush bashers are left to fight this battle for conservatism all by our lonesomes. That's ok, if ya'll don't want to contribute. I would just hope that if politics is important enough to spend time on the net that alot of study of the big picture would be the first order of the day. Conservatives have enemies of conservatism in both parties to deal with.

[Capitalist Eric]

You make an interesting case. I disagree with your conclusions, but it is interesting.

Too bad it won't work. There have already been a number of analyses of this plan, which elucidate (in painful detail) the flaws of it, and detail the unworkable nature of the entire proposal.

It is, in reality, amnesty. The reason I flatly state is clear: your entire argument rests on a key assumption: namely, that the government will now enforce immigration laws. If we are to judge the validity of this assumption, our only choice is to examine the past behavior of the U.S. government, especially in the last decade or two. And that examination will reveal a history of not enforcing those laws. Why should we believe they would do so, now?

An even more basic question: these aliens- demonstrated by the very fact that they are here illegally, do not respect the law. Do you honestly think that they will, now? Especially if they have to pay $1000 to "register?" Can you honestly tell me you believe this???

The Bush proposal is a rewarding of illegal behavior, and the ramifications of such a reward will be devastating. I don't have the links handy, but I've seen the analyses of already-documented increases in crime rates (and correlating prison populations), the decline of aggregate wages in areas and the decline of real-estate values, all of which have a high degree of correlation to the increasing population of illegal aliens, esp. Mexicans and Central-Americans.

Such effects- if embraced by the US government, will be a disaster. Again, as already discussed in painful detail. Therefore, since such a proposal will do immense damage to our country, and undercut the American citizens who gave their faith and trust to W., I submit that he is breaching that trust, and therefore he is proposing treachery and treason- by the definition I've already posted.

This conclusion in unavoidable.

Of course, we *could* go door to door with our military in efforts that would make the SS of 1944 Germany look civilized...

Such sensationalism- after your previously lucid comments- degrade your argument. I do not (now will I) propose such odious measures. You cannot, even at the business-end of a weapon- root and out and force out all the aliens. Such notions are naive.

What you can do, is make it so unpalatable for those who don't belong here, that they choose to go home willingly. And that is not a question of armed troops, but simply the enforcement of the immigration laws that already exist.

For the president to shirk his responsibility, and ignore those laws...?

Well, as I said before: an employee who refuses to perform his job gets fired.

[Capitalist Eric]

"Sending him a message" will only give us 8 more years of immediate grief and, perhaps, 50 years of liberal control of our courts. I'm not sure that our nation would survive.

If Bush continues to push this proposal, we, as a nation, won't survive...

That's why there are those of us, who would rather fire Bush, then sell us all down the river...

We may face 4 years of grief under Kerry/Edwards/Dean-iac, for this decision. But better to be embarrassed for 4 years by another feckless leftist, than be sold out by a feckless centrist.