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.

[nopardons]

I couldn't agree with you more, if I tried.

The Bushbashing has gone on, unabated, since the primary season of '00 and the personal attacks, name calling, stalkings, and horrid HATE mail, perpetrated by a few, has reached the point where DU looks more Conservative and civil, than FR. The hit&run attacks are some of the worst. The continual spewing, by the fringe,who are NOT the majority of members of this site,makes FR look like an insane asylum.

When someone uses any or all of the following ... " off your meds?,drunk again?,missed taking your hormone replacement treatments?,"ect., as refutation, they have NONE !

Jim has long stated that it is the standing policy, here, that our goal is to get rid of as many Dems, holding public office, as is humanly possible. That precluded repeated protestations to vote for a fringe party candidate, write in the name of someone who is NOT EVEN RUNNING FOR A POSITION ,and/or staying home on election day.Ergo, those who vociferously advocate such things,post thread after thread predicated on that, and flood threads, no matter WHAT the topic is, promoting these ideas, are not only wrong, but acting counter to the wishes of the owner of this site, the stated goals of this site,and the opinions of the vast majority of this site's membership!

There ARE other sites on the net, where their opinions are welcome and the norm. THIS ISN'T ONE OF THEM !

Their actions, as you have said, cows some into silence,makes others give up and leave FR,and turns still others, into snarling, angry, uncivil posters, when pushed beyond their tolerance. That adds to FR looking far worse than anything our enemies say about it.

It is way past time that the Mods and owner do something to curtail this situation !

[Sabertooth]

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.

Then, I honestly don't understand why you're on threads like that, if you don't feel they offer you anything new.

For myself, I learn things all the time, not only from other posters, but in researching my answers to them. Also, many times folks will make observations about an old set of information that I hadn't considered.

So, I find them interesting.

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.

I like these threads, and I'm very critical of some of the President's policies.

I'm also voting for him, and have made an effort to discourage the use of "Bushbots" and "Bushbashers" in this forum.

Both terms are inflammatory, and only escalate the ill will.

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.

Well, do threads in support of President Bush have to break new ground every time?

The fact of the matter is that not every poster sees every thread. What might be old news to you might be unknown to some other poster.

Take the Illegal Aliens threads, for example. There are dozens of news stories daily, and many are posted on FR. I doubt I get to 20% of them, judging by the pings I get that I never click. Yet whenever I go to those threads, I find posters I haven't previously seen, asking questions that have been asked in the past.

Naturally, the answers to those questions will be similar to what they were in the past.

To you, it's old. Not to everyone else, though.

Why would you not want them to have the opportunity to find things out for themselves, as you did?

[B4Ranch]

Aw shucks, I was hoping to see you gals get in a real name calling fight just to show how much you are enamored with the man in the White House who is pulling America down as fast as possible.

[nopardons]

Barbra Streisand! The Bushbashing has been going on, since before he took his oath of office and you know that, or should.

There IS a deference between not approving what he's done or said and the never ending, caustic, vile,misleading things posted against him and his supporters and the DNC talking points used here by the Bushbashers.

[B4Ranch]

"Bushbashers"

"The Bushbashing has gone on, unabated, since the primary season of '00 and the personal attacks, name calling,"

Who's continuing the name calling? calling?

[Sabertooth]

threads with titles like "Bush is a dry drunk"

Haven't seen them, and I have no use for them.

Speculative questions about a President's past or private life, etc., are of no concern unless they somehow clearly affect his performance on the job, or reflect on his character.

"Dry drunk" theories are psychobabble.

[nopardons]

They aren't ! Not only are they NOT Conservatives, they don't understand anything at all about politics, government, what a Conservative actually is,and yearn for a government and a nation, that only exists in their imaginations.

[Capitalist Eric]

get the metaphor, Eric?

I see where you're going. Unfortunately, it doesn't hold water (no pun intended).

Check out Illegal Immigration: The Terrorist Connection . A very enlightening aspect of the alien-amnesty plan, regardless of whether you approve or not...

[nopardons]

This is precisely what we are talking about, a baiting post, meant to incite a flame war, with NO validity at all.A smarmy personal attack,couched in what's supposedly to be " humor ", but is, instead, a blatant slap in the face.

[nopardons]

And another such post.

[B4Ranch]

I have NOT called you any names. I just showed that you don't mind calling other people names.

[Jim Robinson]

LOL. Right. It's called politics. It's not often pretty.

[My2Cents]

I honestly don't understand why you're on threads like that, if you don't feel they offer you anything new.

The number of lurkers on FR has skyrocketed in recent weeks, or so I'm told. I don't post for the benefit of the bashers on the bashing threads, because they are unreachable; I post as a demonstration to the lurkers that there is reasonable and solid support for President Bush on this so-called conservative site.

I'm also voting for him, and have made an effort to discourage the use of "Bushbots" and "Bushbashers" in this forum.

You're to be commended, and I agree with you. BTW, I don't agree 100% with Bush, but I am solidly supportive of his re-election, taking into account all issues.

Well, do threads in support of President Bush have to break new ground every time?

Probably not. But how many times do we need to hear that the same umpteen people oppose Bush's immigration proposal? How many times a day do people need to vent? And in my original post on this, I didn't say that new information on any issue shouldn't be posted. New information, positive or negative vis-a-vis Bush, is fair. It's when a thread offers absolutely nothing new, except the same old venom -- those are the threads they should consider yanking.

[Jim Robinson]

Or for the faint of heart.

[goodnesswins]

Ahem....this THREAD was about Conservatives focusing on the BIG Picture.....obviously you don't get it. Buh bye.

[My2Cents]

I hope the Overlords are listening. Well said.

[nopardons]

You don't even know WHAT you do! :-(

[nopardons]

That's exactly what it is, Jim and no, it often is NOT pretty at all. :-)

[Sabertooth]

The number of lurkers on FR has skyrocketed in recent weeks, or so I'm told. I don't post for the benefit of the bashers on the bashing threads, because they are unreachable; I post as a demonstration to the lurkers that there is reasonable and solid support for President Bush on this so-called conservative site.

OK, so you acknowledge that posting for the lurkers is a consideration.

Probably not. But how many times do we need to hear that the same umpteen people oppose Bush's immigration proposal? How many times a day do people need to vent? And in my original post on this, I didn't say that new information on any issue shouldn't be posted. New information, positive or negative vis-a-vis Bush, is fair. It's when a thread offers absolutely nothing new, except the same old venom -- those are the threads they should consider yanking.

Even assuming there's no new information in a given thread or any of the posts, why isn't "for the lurkers" also a consideration in the posting of these threads?

What's old news to you might not be old to the lurkers.

[nopardons]

Nor for politcal naifs ! :-)