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.

[Southack]

"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?"

We should believe it because Bush's plan *changes* something fundamental to the entire immigration equation.

Bush's plan finally figures out a way to *register* almost the entire 8 million in our already-existing illegal alien population.

Imagine how thrilled Chuckie Schumer and his anti-gun crowd would be if they figured out how to register all 80 million U.S. gun owners under a President Hillary (shudder). Without registration, our government, even under Hillary, doesn't have the pure law enforcement and military *resources* required to locate, apprehend, and detain so many gun owners. But with Registration, sending the cops to the correct addresses is child's play.

That's why we gun owners will forever fight against a national gun registry. Mandatory gun registration would inevitably lead to gun confiscation.

Ditto for the illegal alien world. Right now our INS and law enforcement agencies don't know where all 8 million of them live and work...but that changes if they are all enticed to voluntarily register themselves and their employers. Once registered, they are a much more manageable problem. No longer does it take 20 agents to track down a single illegal alien. All of a sudden we already know where they last lived and who they last worked for, thus limited their options and establishing a very traceable trail even for those who decide to later flee our system.

Look, it's easy to bash each and every sitting President for "doing nothing" on illegal immigration, but until you honestly accept that the *scope* of our immigration problem is too large for sheer brute force (i.e. door to door raids and a round up of 8 million of them), you won't really grasp what each President is forced to accept: that we don't have the resources to be heavy handed in this matter.

What is needed, then, is finesse. We have to out think the problem, and convincing all 8 million illegals to come in from the cold anonymous underworld to register themselves is a brilliant start...

[Southack]

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

Nonsense. Kill Bush's plan and you'll be stuck with 8 million unregistered illegal aliens who are already here in the U.S.

On the other hand, if Bush's plan is passed, in one master stroke 8 million illegals (and their employers) will be registered with our law enforcement agencies.

Now you tell me if it takes fewer law enforcement resources to find someone who has registered with the government, or someone who has always lived here anonymously.

Those are your only two choices after all: registered or anonymous...

[Southack]

"The Bush proposal is a rewarding of illegal behavior..."

All plea bargains offer some form of reward. If they didn't, then no one would accept them.

What they offer is bait. The guilty take said bait. Once on the hook, however, the leverage changes.

Do you want 8 million illegal fish swimming anonymously, or do you want them on our hooks?

[Capitalist Eric]

On the other hand, if Bush's plan is passed, in one master stroke 8 million illegals (and their employers) will be registered with our law enforcement agencies.

Your faith is admirable. Unrealistic, but admirable.

[Southack]

"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's precisely what Bush's plan accomplishes.

First they register where they live and work with our government. Then they pay their fine. In return we give them a blue card to permit them to work here legally for the next 3 years.

They can even get *more* time to work here if they return home voluntarily to their countries of origin to apply for that extension. Sounds like voluntary deportation to me, doesn't it!

And the beauty of it is that those who don't wish to abide by the voluntary self-deportation are registered with our law enforcement agencies. They aren't just some anonymous member of an underground mass movement any longer. Oh no, they've registered where they live and work. Now they are far more traceable than before.

[Capitalist Eric]

All plea bargains offer some form of reward.

Where is the reward for the citizens of the USA? You remember, the people that Bush swore to represent??? And whose laws he swore to uphold??? Where, pray-tell, is the reward for those people whose trust he is violating???

And don't try to claim an increase in national security, because we both know that's baloney...

[Capitalist Eric]

First they register where they live and work with our government. Then they pay their fine.

It'll never happen.

Your faith- as I said before- is admirable, but there is nothing upon which to base such faith, and plenty to dispell such wishful thinking...

[Southack]

"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."

You've clearly not read the harmless Patriot Act to have such wild-eyed opinions about it.

You've cited not a word of its actual legal code that could be construed as threatening to yourself, either.

Nor can you.

I've read it. It provides some useful tools to law enforcement and Homeland Security, especially in regard to monitoring bank fund transfers to and from terrorist-sympathizing nations, but it tramples on not one right of U.S. citizens, and contrary to your earlier wrong-headed assertation, law enforcement and Homeland Security still must obtain court orders to perform seaches, even the so-called "secret" ones.

[Southack]

"Where is the reward for the citizens of the USA? You remember, the people that Bush swore to represent??? And whose laws he swore to uphold??? Where, pray-tell, is the reward for those people whose trust he is violating??? And don't try to claim an increase in national security, because we both know that's baloney..."

The reward for Americans is that 8 million currently *anonymous* illegal aliens would volunteer to register themselves in order to obtain Bush's new blue card.

It's like registering sex offenders. You can support their registration for your own neighborhood, or you can choose to continue to live near them while they remain anonymous.

This point seems very difficult for you. I seem to have to keep pointing out the same answer to your repeated questions, and that answer is *R E G I S T R A T I O N*.

Do you want to conintue the current status quo by allowing 8 million illegals to remain unregistered, or do you want to support Bush's plan to register them?

Those are your only two realistic choices. Will I have to remind you again?!

[Capitalist Eric]

This point seems very difficult for you. I seem to have to keep pointing out the same answer to your repeated questions, and that answer is *R E G I S T R A T I O N*.

Oh, you are mistaken. I did get your point. What you fail to understand, is my response:

You're DREAMING!

There isn't a single, solitary scrap of evidence to even suggest that they'll obey such laws. More, there isn't even a hint that the government will enforce such a plan.

Bottom line: It's BALONEY!!!

Now, do you care to show us why you believe the illegal aliens will be sufficiently stupid to follow this plan???

[Southack]

"You're DREAMING! There isn't a single, solitary scrap of evidence to even suggest that they'll obey such laws."

Plea bargains are accepted every day. There's more evidence that plea bargains are accepted than for anything that you can imgaine.

Further, it isn't a question of illegal aliens "obeying" laws or not.

Either they accept Bush's plea bargain and register themselves, or else they continue to remain unregistered and anonymous (i.e. the status quo). There aren't any other realistic alternatives.

[Southack]

"Now, do you care to show us why you believe the illegal aliens will be sufficiently stupid to follow this plan???"

Why do criminals *ever* accept plea bargains?

They accept such deals because they think it is to their advantage, that they are getting something (i.e. treatment) that they otherwise wouldn't get.

If you think that they *won't* accept Bush's deal, then what you are essentially saying is that Bush hasn't sweetened the pot enough for them...that Bush should give them more.

On the other hand, I suspect that Bush has offered them enough. They'll go for his plea bargain as it stands.

[skip2myloo]

You have read the act and find it to be a useful tool.

I have read the act and believe it to be unconstitutional and a threat to my liberty, especially if it were being enforced by Clinton, Reno and Freeh.

We disagree, its that simple. You have had people disagree with you before, haven't you ?? Do you find ad hominem attacks a persuasive debate tool with your opponents ??

Counterpoint is welcomed. Do not categorize my opinions with your own adjectival embellishments. I state my positions clearly, and you are free to disagree, without additional, colorful characterizations.

No need to toss citations back and forth, its unlikely either of us will vary our opinion with respect to the USA Patriot Act.

[Southack]

"I have read the act and believe it to be unconstitutional and a threat to my liberty, especially if it were being enforced by Clinton, Reno and Freeh."

No, you haven't read the Patriot Act because earlier on this very thread you were claiming that the Patriot Act did away with the need for court orders sanctioning secret searches.

Something that anyone who has actually *read* the Patriot Act knows to be false, much less to claim on an open forum.

You've been busted...with your own claims. Get over it.

[skip2myloo]

A plea bargain conveys an "or-else" ultimatum.

Plead guilty, we'll recommend life without parole or else we're going for the death penalty.

With this proposal, what's the alternative threat ?? We'll deport you, throw you in jail, prosecute you ??

With this "plea bargain," as you characterize it, there is no threat.

The proposal is, please register or we'll do what we've been doing - nothing.

Or, in truth, instead of a plea bargain - its legal sanctuary with a reward.

Please register, and we'll reward you with a three year work permit and social security eligibility.

Instead of a carrot or a stick methodology, this is a carrot or a carrot approach, there is no stick to back it up.

[ohioWfan]

Any phone calls to the White House, to the congress?

Sorry, MAP, but you are revealing your ignorance of a very large group of very intelligent and discerning people.

I guarantee that every member of this group you malign so flippantly has made calls and written letters expressing disapproval of decisions we disagree with.

You are being very arrogant here in assuming that you alone are the Conservative standard bearer, and that no one who supports this President measures up to your lofty ideals.

I don't expect you to admit that you're wrong, but it would be nice if you expect to be taken seriously......

[Southack]

"Please register, and we'll reward you with a three year work permit and social security eligibility. Instead of a carrot or a stick methodology, this is a carrot or a carrot approach, there is no stick to back it up."

Indeed. If having the threat of being deported by a surprise INS raid hanging over your head like a sword of Damocles isn't a stick, or if being unable to get a credit card or a home loan without Registering isn't a stick, then this is indeed a carrot or not approach. Ditto if being blackmailed re: turning you in for deportation if you don't accept lower wages or pay a bribe.

Goodness! Why would any illegal alien want to dispel such innocuous concerns?! They should clearly choose to not Register for Bush's plea bargain.

< /SARCASM >

[skip2myloo]

Yes, you've caught me - I said "secret seaches without a court order."

I should've said secret searches (which require a FISA court order) and other searches (wiretaps) without a court order.

A minor detail, but it was a mistake.

I've read the Act, this mistake was hardly cause to challenge my veracity, don't do it again.

One citation analysis, just one time for clarity - because I made a mistake.

From the Center for Constitutional Rights

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/whatsnew/report.asp?ObjID=nQdbIRkDgG&Content=153

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, the standards for wiretapping have been significantly weakened. Two other provisions of the Act allow the FBI to use concerns about foreign agents as a pretext for conducting criminal searches without probable cause, and to extend these searches, via roving wiretap, to individuals who are not the subject of a warrant. Traditionally, search warrants had to specify the place to be searched, so as to prevent arbitrary extensions of the warrant by errant officers. This limitation applied to wiretaps too, until 1986, when Congress authorized the use of roving taps to track particular suspects as they moved. Under a 1998 amendment, roving wiretaps on a particular telephone may only be monitored when the suspect is actually using that phone. Under Section 206 of the Act, however, the use of roving wiretaps has been extended, but the requirement of actual use is omitted. In addition, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, wiretapping related to the domestic activities of hostile foreign groups was allowed, but only when gathering intelligence was the sole purpose of the surveillance. Information could not be gathered for criminal investigations. Under Section 218 of the USA PATRIOT Act, this restriction has been weakened - foreign intelligence gathering need only be a "significant purpose," of an investigation that may be primarily criminal in nature. Together, these provisions permit law enforcement agents to do exactly what two Courts of Appeal have prohibited. Both the Fourth and the Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act "is not to be used as an end-run around the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of warrantless searches."

I still believe the USA Patriot Act to be unconstitutional.

[Capitalist Eric]

Sorry, MAP, but you are revealing your ignorance of a very large group of very intelligent and discerning people.

Ok... Perhaps MissAmericanPie is ignoring them...

But where do you fit in?

LOL....

[Southack]

"Two other provisions of the Act allow the FBI to use concerns about foreign agents as a pretext for conducting criminal searches [of foreign agents] without probable cause, and to extend these searches, via roving wiretap, to individuals [who are talking on the phone with those foreign agents] who are not the [original] subject of a [wiretap] warrant."

Oh heavens, the unconstitutionality of it all... Gasp!

< /MOCKING >