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.

[b9]

" 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. "

thank you!!!

[Southack]

"This is a letter of protest from the National Association of Criminal Lawyers regarding the misuse of the FISA search warrant by the Justice Dept."

MAP, I've read their protest letter...but that's not what I asked you for in the way of proof now is it...

I realize that this is difficult for you, but what I asked was for *you* to show me any sample of the legal text in the Patriot Act that supports your *claim* that the Patriot Act does away with court ordered warrants for secret searches.

Please pause and consider that I did NOT ask you for the written opinion of a group of hyper-liberal trial lawyers, nor did I ask you to post large dumps of data.

What I am asking for is something succinct that you would only be able to provide me if you had actually bothered to read the Patriot Act's legal text itself...something that I fully doubt that you have done based upon your wild-eyed claims about it so far to date.

And if you can't find any legal language in the Patriot Act that supports your claims, then I want to know how you are going to handle yourself.

[Southack]

"as I said in #554, the answer to your first question is: YES."

You will fight *ALL* attempts to Register illegal aliens with our law enforcement agencies?!

Good Lord man, that's La Raza's position!

At best that would give you the status quo. In case you haven't noticed, the status quo hasn't been very effective at reducing illegal immigration. Perhaps you naively believe that somehow under your guidance our same laws and same law enforcement agencies will somehow have better success at finding anonymous, unregistered illegals and deporting them, but it's been my experience that such ideas are arrogant fantasies. The Left frequently employs such thinking when they claim that Socialism will finally work if *they* are the ones in power. You seem to be saying that our existing laws will work if only you or your political twins are in power. That's suspiciously similar thinking, and it doesn't seem to have much historical support.

Tell me, why will having *you* being in charge bring a higher success rate to INS deportations?

[My2Cents]

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

Thanks Jim. I'm clipping and saving for future reference, in the event I ever get "banned" for outrageous comments. :-)

[B4Ranch]

Amazing that our opinions of each other are so similar. You are a professional at these personal attacks aren't you? Keep frowning and growling, it does fit the side of your personality that is so well known to "us". Bye, bye :-)

[Capitalist Eric]

You will fight *ALL* attempts to Register illegal aliens with our law enforcement agencies?! Good Lord man, that's La Raza's position!

Time to up your meds.

[MissAmericanPie]

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

The above web address is the amendment to the patriot act, and is the patriot act. I thought you claimed to have read it. If you had read it, you would know that the FISA warrant is the very back bone of the Patriot Act.

Perhaps I have placed you in the position of having to defend your ego which has found itself in an indefensible postion. Perhaps Skip was right that I should not waste my time attempting to educate you. In any case here is the evidence for the whole world to study. If it doesn't benefit you, perhaps it will others.

[Capitalist Eric]

In case you haven't noticed, the status quo hasn't been very effective at reducing illegal immigration. Perhaps you naively believe...

That you're making sensational claims, emotionally-charged accusations and hyperbole, to twist the argument around again.....?

Of course I believe that....

Where are the data to back up your specious claims???

You're quite effective with sophistry, but (to paraphrase Clara Peller) "Where's the beef?"

Could it be you have nothing to support your fantasies??? PROOF, please???

(((crickets chirping)))

(((wind rustling dried-out leaves)))

(((more crickets)))

[skip2myloo]

You describe "alternatives."

1. Unregistered, they stay here.

2. Registered, they stay here too.

What's the difference, either way, nothing changes -- there is no practical difference in your "alternatives," or Dubya's.

In Kerry's plan - even worse, they become citizens !!

The only advantage for being "registered" falls to the illegal alien, making it easier to qualify for Social Security and other benefits.

What you don't understand is, I want them to GO !!

Then, from wherever back home is, they can go to the nearest US Consulate and apply to come here legally, in accordance with our laws.

I'm not opposed to give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free, free at last, free at last, thank God Almight I'm free at last (sorry, I got carried away :-o) -- I just want them to do it in an orderly and legal manner.

[Southack]

"you would know that the FISA warrant is the very back bone of the Patriot Act."

A FISA Warrant?! But your claim was that the Patriot Act did away with the need for court ordered warrants for secret searches. You've thus just given evidence that refutes your own claim.

Confidential Sources and Information: FISA warrants

In 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA),¹³ which created a secret spy court with powers to issue secret warrants authorizing officials to perform wiretaps and searches. After the attacks of September 11, the court's powers were increased with the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. The Act expanded several categories of information that may be obtained by the court and allowed for sharing of information by a broad range of agencies.

[nopardons]

Past time to stop using that phrase or any other like it. :-)

[MissAmericanPie]

You know full well that this is not a warrant issued by a judge that has determined there is probable cause.

The term warrant here is conived double speak allowing the patriot act to circumvent the 4th amendment and judges via a bunch of yes men.

Speaking of double speak, it's obvious that this is how you plan to handle yourself. Maybe you need a break giving you time to pick up your honor from where you threw it down so you can dust it off.

Speaking of dust off, I think that's what I need to do here, dust you off my shoes and move on to communications with those more honest.

[Capitalist Eric]

Past time to stop using that phrase or any other like it. :-)

Ok, ok.........

(((wrist slapped)))

;^)

[nopardons]

Thank you . :-)

[Southack]

"You know full well that this is not a warrant issued by a judge that has determined there is probable cause. The term warrant here is conived double speak allowing the patriot act to circumvent the 4th amendment and judges via a bunch of yes men."

What rubbish.

You made a claim. You claimed that the Patriot Act did away with warrants for secret searches. You are the 2nd poster on this very thread to make that claim, and the other poster has already recanted, admitting that claim isn't true.

You posted to me proof that FISA warrants are indeed still required by the Patriot Act, and now you want to pretend that court issued FISA warrants don't contradict your earlier claim above. That's rich.

Like I told you earlier when you couldn't find any language in the Patriot Act to support your claims, your very character was at stake here.

What is now on display is how you handle being wrong by your own posted evidence.

You could be a good sport, apologize, admit your error, and refrain from making it again in the future.

Or you could go the other way. You could deny that you were wrong, act mad, flee away, or just engage in prolonged (and pointless) denials as if you hadn't posted that court warrants really were still required.

Either way, you won't change the truth of the matter. All that you can impact at this stage is how others perceive you, something that few admit to even caring about.

So which way will it be for you?

[skip2myloo]

Well, of course the word "warrantless" doesn't appear in the USA Patriot Act (USAPA), it doesn't have to because it relies on, amends and expands other relevant law to implement its broader authority.

Irrespective of, and prior to, USAPA, you know there already were limited provisions for warrantless searches in both Title III at 18 U.S.C. §2511(3) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) - 1978, Pub. L. No. 95- 511, 92 Stat. 1783 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1811, 1821-1829, 1841-1846, 1861-62).

In general, the Justice Department may engage in electronic surveillance to collect FII without a court order for periods up to one year. 50 U.S.C. § 1802. There must be no "substantial likelihood" that the intercepted communications include those to which a U.S. person is a party. § 1802(a)(1)(B).

Such electronic surveillance must be certified by the Attorney General and then noticed to the Senate and House intelligence committees. § 1802(a)(2). A copy of the certification must be filed with the FISC, where it remains sealed unless (a) an application for a warrant with respect to it is filed, or (b) the legality of the surveillance is challenged in another federal district court under § 1806(f). § 1802(a)(3). Common carriers must assist in the surveillance and maintain its secrecy. § 1802(a)(4).

In emergencies, the Attorney General may authorize immediate surveillance but must "as soon as practicable, but not more than twenty-four hours" later, seek judicial review of the emergency application. § 1805(e).

The use of warrantless electronic surveillance to gather national security intelligence dates back to 1940, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized Attorney General Robert Jackson to approve wiretaps of persons suspected of “subversive activities.”

Subsequent Attorneys General serving Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon continued the practice of employing warrantless electronic surveillance to combat threats to the national security, both foreign and domestic.

Wiretap procedures during World War II were so informal that according to the author’s grandfather, an FBI agent from 1941 to 1975, agents often would simply ask the switchboard operator at the telephone company if they could listen in on a call.

But, the USA Patriot Act does have certain provisions that allow the government to conduct surveillance without getting a court order. Section 212 allows an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to divulge a customer’s communications or records if the ISP reasonably believes that “an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure.”

There are several provisions in the USAPA that expand the powers of (FISA). Due to FISA being responsible for the surveillance of foreign powers that are within the United States borders, its standard of proof protocol is different than that of regular US law enforcement.

As opposed to the probable cause standard that regular US law enforcement agencies must abide by, FISA must only prove that the intended target of surveillance is “an agent of a foreign power” or a “foreign power.”

This conclusion came about because Congress believed that Fourth Amendment safeguards were not as important in foreign surveillance as they were in the surveillance of US citizens.

Therefore, before the enactment of the USAPA, FISA had to show probable cause in order to conduct a surveillance of an American citizen.

FISA had to prove that the purpose of its investigation was to show that there was suspicion that the specific American was an agent for a foreign government.

Section 218 of the USA Patriot Act expands FISA’s reach by lowering said standard of “the purpose” of the surveillance to that of “a significant purpose” of the surveillance.

A major problem with Section 218 is that it is in direct opposition with prior case law. The court in United States v. Johnson held that “the investigation of criminal activity cannot be the primary purpose of [FISA] surveillance” and that “[FISA] is not to be used as an end-run around the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of warrantless searches.”

The purpose of a FISA investigation is for foreign intelligence reasons, it is not to be used as a criminal investigation. But through the enactment of the USAPA, FISA powers can be abused, thus giving a broader reach by FISA and lessening Fourth Amendment rights of US citizens.

I know, to you its still a useful tool.

It chills me to the bone, it is unconstitutional

I understand, but have not yet read, that Patriot Act II goes even further in authorizing searches without orders or warrants.

[skip2myloo]

Without legal authority, the FBI did in fact conduct a warrantless, secret, physical search of Aldrich Ames house.

Because the case truly involved national security, attorneys for Ames likely would not have succeeded in excluding the evidence obtained in the search, even if they had tried.

Because Ames was interested in pleading a deal for both his wife and himself -- he did not contest the search.

Don't the 75 cases MAP cited where the government grossly abused even FISA rules concern you at all. ??

[MissAmericanPie]

You didn't even read what I posted did you. Now you continue to embarass yourself for all to see. Go ahead and continue to shame yourself.

The NACDL has long been concerned with the threat that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act poses to the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and with the secret, ex parte manner in which FISA issues are routinely decided. Because of these concerns, the NACDL has decided to take this rare opportunity to offer the Court its views on the critical constitutional issue that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's May 17, 2002 and July 19, 2002 decisions present.

[Southack]

So you have chosen "denial" for your character. Ouch. That must make it difficult for you to sleep at night (or worse, perhaps not).

Remember your original claim. You claimed that the *Patriot Act* was bad. You claimed that the Patriot Act was bad because in your worldview, it somehow did away with court ordered warrants for secret searches "far above" (in your own words) mere wiretaps.

And then you discovered and posted that FISA warrants from FISA courts were indeed still required by the Patriot Act, yet now you engage in the pointless and absurd denial of your own original claim and your own subsequent posts that court warrants are still required.

You've chosen a poor path for yourself. Your path demeans all that you wish to to pretend to stand for. I pity you in some small way, but I did give you multiple warnings and numerous chances to change your course.

This thread will forever serve as an electronic reminder of your fall from intellectual honesty.

I'll bookmark it now since it is clear that you will need to be reminded of your error countless times on future threads...

[Kay Soze]

“It is also up to us to push for presidential leadership in this area.”
“We should also call on the president to unleash his veto pen if fiscal responsibility is not what he gets”

Add the NEA increase to the list of RINOdom.
Remind me- Why don’t we like McCain?

It just gets weirder and weirder.

If Rush Limbaugh signed up here and posted what he said in the third hour of his show today- Rush would be the subject of serious freepmail zotting frenzy!

If we fail to move W back to the right he will loose in 04.

99+% of the republicans are not enlightened freepers.