Bush-Bashing Conservatives Should Focus on the Big Picture

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.

In regards to your post #411, I know you are a deeper thinker than this. The worst parts of the patriot act do not sunshine as advertised, that is my problem with it.

Sure, you can point to different wars in which for national security the bill of rights has been temporarily abused. The internment of Japanese Americans in WW2, and other similar situations in the Civil War and others.

This is entirely different. As a responsible citizen, and a students of history, we know that unrelated events and laws can conspire to produce totalitarianism, and we should be on guard to deny the tyrant any power to be a tyrant. This is what the Constitution does, it's main function in fact. And this is why the Constitution is under constant attack and threat of extinction, it denies power to those who seek absolute power, the kind that corrupts absolutely.

We only need look back a few scant years to the Clinton administration. He used the IRS to destroy innocent opponents. The IRS accused one politician, at Clinton's insistance, of income tax evasion right before the man came up for re-election. The press smeared the guy, it was front page news as they kept the ball rolling.

When the man got the chance for his day in court, the IRS having no evidence against him, didn't show up. By this time the man's reputation was ruined, he was out astronomical court expenses, and he was innocent. But the damage had been done.

A couple shouted insults at Clinton during a handshake photo op, and I'm sure you remember the picture of Clinton in a rage demanding the Secret Service arrest them. They had not threatened him, or broken the law in any way. But by the time they paid the court cost, the lawyers fees, they were hurt.

What would Clinton have done to his enemies if he had enjoyed the powers given him under the Patriot Act. And please don't say that the Patriot Act doesn't give the President powers, given that the IRS broke the law in order to deal with Clinton's enemies upon his demand.

The Patriot Act was to be used on terrorists and only terrorists, yet it has been used far more often on domestic cases. It was to sunshine in four years, yet the most invasive parts live on.

When you begin to compromise on your constitutional protections, when you agree to give and inch, they take a thousand miles to your detriment. If not in your lifetime then in future. A future that is in our hands to protect and guarantee. When you combine the powers of the Patriot Act with the abuses of indiviual rights in the ICC court, which we have by far not seen the last of, you have the ability of government to pick up those who they define as terrorists, which could be anyone who doesn't agree with government, send you, and American citizen to a prison in Calcutta, to await a charge ever being filed against you.

When they get around to charging you, you and your lawyer are not allowed to see the evidence against you, if you get a court date it could be years in the future. If you win your case in court, they can arrest you and recharge you with the same imaginary crime and put you through the process again.

Is that happening now? Of course not, will it happen in the future? Most likely, so therefore any chance of such a case becoming reality should be destroyed at birth.

"But, for the sake of discussion, I will politely answer your questions with one statement. If you're too myopic to get it, then it's not my problem: I expect the President to UPHOLD the laws he swore to uphold. If he refuses to do the job he swore to do, then he deserves to be fired."

Our President is upholding our laws. The INS is rounding up illegals every day. That work continues.

But it could be more effective, especially if there was a carrot to go along with the INS' stick.

And as I told you earlier, if you dared to attempt to answer the direct questions that I put to you in Post #466, your fragile worldview would likely be shattered. The unsaid subtext to that point being that you would almost certainly avoid those 3 questions, and that is precisely what you did in your above post where you pretended to give one fluffly, inconsequential statement rather than directly answer each of the 3 questions that I put to you in Post #466.

Because lets face it, answering those 3 questions will box you in. If you support the Registration of illegals, then you have to explain your opposition to Bush's plan that registers illegals. If you oppose Registering illegals, then you have to explain how 8 million anonymous illegals can somehow be rounded up under your plan when what we have been doing over the past 30 years along that line of reasoning hasn't worked so well.

No, rather than face your obvious disconnect from reality, you are going to continue to avoid, by any means necessary, answering those 3 questions that I directly put to you in Post #466.

"In regards to your post #411, I know you are a deeper thinker than this. The worst parts of the patriot act do not sunshine as advertised, that is my problem with it."

What are the "worst parts" of the Patriot Act? Specifically, what literal lines of legal code in the actual Patriot Act text are even remotely "bad?"

My point in Post #411 is that many people are disparaging a law that they haven't even read.

I've read the Patriot Act. Its actual legal text is harmless, and it is a far cry from how it is portrayed by various ideologues and sensationalistic media outlets. I've seen *nothing* in its actual legal text that would even begin to pose a problem to our Constitutional rights.

So I keep asking the same question of those who I catch demagoging that law: What specifically (i.e. not the hype about it, but what in the actual legal text) is so bad about it?

Usually I get the typical uninformed replies of "sneak a peak." On this thread, one bold poster even managed to claim that COURT ORDERS FOR SECRET SEARCHES were somehow abolished by the Patriot Act...a position so ludicrous that even that poster in question had to recant on this very thread only a few short posts later.

But what I never seem to get are posts of Constitution-infringing legal text from the Patriot Act.

Heck, the Patriot Act is online. Go read it. Tell me what you find in it that has you so "concerned."

I'm here. I'll listen.

But be prepared to cite the actual legal text. I'm not going to be persuaded by mere hype, it will take actual legal facts to sway me.

"On December 13, when U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush not only celebrated with his national security team, but also pulled out his pen and signed into law a bill that grants the FBI sweeping new powers. A White House spokesperson explained the curious timing of the signing - on a Saturday - as "the President signs bills seven days a week." But the last time Bush signed a bill into law on a Saturday happened more than a year ago - on a spending bill that the President needed to sign, to prevent shuttng down the federal government the following Monday.
By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote. Consequently, while most Americans watched as Hussein was probed for head lice, few were aware that the FBI had just obtained the power to probe their financial records, even if the feds don't suspect their involvement in crime or terrorism.
The Bush Administration and its Congressional allies tucked away these new executive powers in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, a legislative behemoth that funds all the intelligence activities of the federal government. The Act included a simple, yet insidious, redefinition of "financial institution," which previously referred to banks, but now includes stockbrokers, car dealerships, casinos, credit card companies, insurance agencies, jewelers, airlines, the U.S. Post Office, and any other business "whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters."

Congress passed the legislation around Thanksgiving. Except for U.S. Representative Charlie Gonzalez, all San Antonio's House members voted for the act. The Senate passed it with a voice vote to avoid individual accountability. While broadening the definition of "financial institution," the Bush administration is ramping up provisions within the 2001 USA Patriot Act, which granted the FBI the authority to obtain client records from banks by merely requesting the records in a "National Security Letter." To get the records, the FBI doesn't have to appear before a judge, nor demonstrate "probable cause" - reason to believe that the targeted client is involved in criminal or terrorist activity. Moreover, the National Security Letters are attached with a gag order, preventing any financial institution from informing its clients that their records have been surrendered to the FBI. If a financial institution breaches the gag order, it faces criminal penalties. And finally, the FBI will no longer be required to report to Congress how often they have used the National Security Letters."

This is, as your probably already know, all over the net at various sites. It encapsulates the changes made to the Patriot Act. I'll be right back with the actual law, so enjoy the appetizer.

"This is, as your probably already know, all over the net at various sites. It encapsulates the changes made to the Patriot Act. I'll be right back with the actual law, so enjoy the appetizer."

Indeed. It's all over the net, and even some talk radio show hosts are ranting as if this new expansion of the Patriot Act somehow was a bad thing.

In reality, the expansion enables our law enforcement to request the records of U.S. bank wire transfers to and from suspect terroristic nations.

On the net and on talk radio, this is portrayed as private data that is being electronically "searched." It's a stretch, but you can almost see how someone could honestly phrase it that way...if you really, really gave them the benefit of the doubt.

But hardly something that ends our rights as we know them.

US CODE COLLECTION

TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 53 > SUBCHAPTER II > Sec. 5312. Prev | Next
Sec. 5312. - Definitions and application

(a)

In this subchapter -

Here you go, this clears up what is going on in section 334. If you need any more information please let me know, I'm glad to help.

(1)

''financial agency'' means a person acting for a person (except for a country, a monetary or financial authority acting as a monetary or financial authority, or an international financial institution of which the United States Government is a member) as a financial institution, bailee, depository trustee, or agent, or acting in a similar way related to money, credit, securities, gold, or a transaction in money, credit, securities, or gold.

(2)

''financial institution'' means -

(A)

an insured bank (as defined in section 3(h) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(h)));

(B)

a commercial bank or trust company;

(C)

a private banker;

(D)

an agency or branch of a foreign bank in the United States;

(E)

an insured institution (as defined in section 401(a) [1] See References in Text note below.

(F)

a thrift institution;

(G)

a broker or dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.);

(H)

a broker or dealer in securities or commodities;

(I)

an investment banker or investment company;

(J)

a currency exchange;

(K)

an issuer, redeemer, or cashier of travelers' checks, checks, money orders, or similar instruments;

(L)

an operator of a credit card system;

(M)

an insurance company;

(N)

a dealer in precious metals, stones, or jewels;

(O)

a pawnbroker;

(P)

a loan or finance company;

(Q)

a travel agency;

(R)

a licensed sender of money;

(S)

a telegraph company;

(T)

a business engaged in vehicle sales, including automobile, airplane, and boat sales;

(U)

persons involved in real estate closings and settlements;

(V)

the United States Postal Service;

(W)

an agency of the United States Government or of a State or local government carrying out a duty or power of a business described in this paragraph;

(X)

a casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment with an annual gaming revenue of more than $1,000,000 which -

(i)

is licensed as a casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment under the laws of any State or any political subdivision of any State; or

(ii)

is an Indian gaming operation conducted under or pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act other than an operation which is limited to class I gaming (as defined in section 4(6) of such Act);

(Y)

any business or agency which engages in any activity which the Secretary of the Treasury determines, by regulation, to be an activity which is similar to, related to, or a substitute for any activity in which any business described in this paragraph is authorized to engage; or

(Z)

any other business designated by the Secretary whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters.

(3)

''monetary instruments'' means -

(A)

United States coins and currency;

(B)

as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation, coins and currency of a foreign country, travelers' checks, bearer negotiable instruments, bearer investment securities, bearer securities, stock on which title is passed on delivery, and similar material; and

(C)

as the Secretary of the Treasury shall provide by regulation for purposes of section 5316, checks, drafts, notes, money orders, and other similar instruments which are drawn on or by a foreign financial institution and are not in bearer form.

(4)

''person'', in addition to its meaning under section 1 of title 1, includes a trustee, a representative of an estate and, when the Secretary prescribes, a governmental entity.

(5)

''United States'' means the States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and, when the Secretary prescribes by regulation, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, a territory or possession of the United States, or a military or diplomatic establishment.

(b)

In this subchapter -

(1)

''domestic financial agency'' and ''domestic financial institution'' apply to an action in the United States of a financial agency or institution.

(2)

''foreign financial agency'' and ''foreign financial institution'' apply to an action outside the United States of a financial agency or institution

I have just been attacked on another thread with lies and slander.
I am SICK of it. I am SICK of its being allowed to continue.

And I am SICK of what it's doing to me personally.

I'm so sorry, OWF.

I pointed out, on another thread, that a poster had made a personal attack on the author of the thread. Regardless of what you think about the person who posted such a vile thread, the point is, attack their ideas, not THEM.

I pointed this out to the poster, who had done an attack job on me, and because other FReepers wrote to him, on the thread and by FReepmail, that he was totally wrong in his character assassination on me, he finally wrote me an apology, by FReepmail. I requested that he post it and he finally did.

But, pointing out the attack on the poster to this same FReeper, not the ideas, put me square in his sights again. And he didn't fail to deliver a barrage of garbage at me. Again. Sigh.

I agree that the personal attacks have gotten out of hand.

When JimRob shows up on a thread, I wish he'd address the "attack the ideas, not the FReeper" and perhaps, now that we seem to be seeing lots of new names, and new posters, he will.

I can only surmise that Rush Limbaugh mentioning Free Republic almost daily, and this week's article on Fox News website about some dubious quotes from FReepers, mentioning FR as "Free Republic Network" - Hey Jim, where's the TV/radio studio? HAR! - have brought a lot of new eyeballs to Free Republic. I would also guess that a significant number of them have signed up with screen names and jumped into the fray.

I wonder what the statistics are with regard to increased visits, and increased nicknames? I'd be willing to bet a sharp increase in the past 2 weeks.

And unfortunately with that increased traffic, we get new vitriol, and a new group of posters who make personal attacks.

I'm considering the same thing you are - pulling back and only visiting the threads that I know to be positive and which are visited/inhabited with like-minded folks. I guess I'm considering taking a personal time-out.

So, I can be presumptuous and think I understand some of your weariness, OWF, but I cannot even for one minute understand the strain that having a son in harms way must place on you and your family. Nor what it must be like to go for a month, not talking to your son when his camp had been mortared twice.

God bless you and keep your famly strong.

Truthy

I understand your sentiments, ohio. I just think it's sad when good, consistent and true supporters of FreeRepublic are being harassed into silence or a lower profile on FR because of a small but loud-mouthed minority of people whose main goal is the defeat of George W. Bush this November.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall seeing Jim Robinson repeatedly make clear that, yes, this is a conservative discussion site, AND that it supports the re-election of Pres. Bush, supports the war on terror, supports the effort in Iraq, supports the President's judicial nominees, supports (in general) increasing the Republican majorities in Congress, all as the most practical means of correcting largely 60 years of leftist tilt in this nation. Why, then, do the folks in charge of FR allow the hate-filled Bush-bashers to run riot through their site? What they don't realize is that many of these folks aren't simply out to destroy George W. Bush...they are out to destroy FreeRepublic. Why? Precisely because FR is THE premier conservative news and discussion group on the Internet. So, if the naysayers can achieve two objectives -- the defeat of George W. Bush, and the destruction of FR by forcing FR's true supporters off the threads through rudeness and venom -- they get a two-fer.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again --

When the Overlords here on FreeRepublic going to start policing their site regarding the over-the-top posts bashing President Bush? Nothing new has been said by the naysayers in weeks, probably months. “We don’t like Bush’s immigration proposal!” Fine. “Bush spends too much money!” OK, duly noted. “Bush shouldn’t have signed CFR!” Given the Supreme Court’s distressing decision on CFR, Bush himself probably now regrets signing it. All of these points have been made over and over and over again, day after day after day, umpteen times a day. We’ve heard it all, and nobody is swayed by the arguments.

The point clearly seems to be to disrupt discussion on FR. We all know the Bush-bashers’ concerns. We all know that a majority on FR also share these concerns, but have determined to vote for Bush regardless because of the bigger picture, and other issues on which he is conservative.

The Bush-bashing posts long ago lost any topical or meaningful discussion value. Nothing new is ever said on them. They’ve taken on the quality of graffiti on buildings in the inner city – they are an eyesore and they degrade the overall “quality of life” of the “community.” They need to be spray-painted over. Intelligent discussion no longer takes place on the bashing threads. As a typical comment in a recent Bush-bashing fest, one intelligent poster informed us all that “Bush makes me puke!” This observation was then concurred in by yet another poster.

Very seriously, when are the Overlords on FR going to take back control of this forum and rein-in the disrupting threads? If a negative post on Bush is placed on FR which actually broaches new territory, then fine. But the never-ending regurgitation of the same old slop every day, dozens of times of day, has decreased the quality of FreeRepublic. The litter needs to be picked up and disposed of.

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.