Posted on 01/26/2004 1:47:29 PM PST by 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.
I've explained too much to you already, and you are obviously determined to keep your incorrect opinion of who I am.
For the record, I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a sinner, saved by grace.
I do not like it when people lie about me, and mock me as you have done, and sometimes my human nature responds. (But the 'punch in the nose' in response to someone ELSE was absolutely in jest, and I explained that to you yesterday).
I have apologized on this thread for being dragged down into unpleasantness by cap, and I will NOT be dragged into an ongoing grudge match with you....and I will apologize to you because I obviously hurt your feelings yesterday, and you are still mad.
And other than my concern for your eternal soul and whether or not you are a brother in Christ, I really don't care what you think, because you are completely ignorant of the facts. Your incorrect opinion is irrelevant to the truth, and I don't care to see your name on My Comments page again, thank you.
May the peace of Christ be with you, OWK.
This is supposed to be a discussion forum, ostensibly for people who are relatively like-minded.
Not a hockey rink.
Either one of you has the power to stop this exchange.
Thanks.
Every law can be abused. You might as well be against all laws if your only concern is that someone could *abuse* them.
That wasn't my point to you. What I did was force you to see that wild-eyed claims of the Patriot Act somehow abolishing court ordered warrants were all hyperbole from people who hadn't even read the actual law itself.
Yes, any law, even the harmless Patriot Act, can be *abused*....but No, the Patriot Act doesn't do away with court ordered warrants.
Show me just one unConstitutional sentence or paragraph in the entire legal text of the Patriot Act.
Come on Map, you haven't even read it...
What Southack fails to see is that the Patriot Act abuses the Constitution.
He wanted citations for warrantless searches -- he was provided plenty.
He was shown where the Patriot Act expands authority for warrantless searches from intelligence investigations to include criminal investigations.
Apparently he does not appreciate the distinction
He was shown where the Patriot Act expands warrantless searches to U.S. citizens as well as foreign agents.
He was shown where a Federal court ruled that the Patriot Act provides an unconstitutional end-run around the 4th Amendment.
He was shown where the FISA Court itself ruled against implementation of certain language in the Patriot Act.
He was shown 75 cases where Justice Department interpretation of the USAPA-expanded FISA has resulted in blatant abuse.
Yet he chooses to characterize it as a harmless, useful tool.
The Patriot Act was passed by an overwhelming vote of Congress while the World Trade Center was literally still burning.
The provisions of the Patriot Act were so odious to so many, that the sequel, Patriot Act II was passed by a pusillanimous voice vote to escape individual accountability to the people, and the President signed it in a rare closed Saturday session.
Now, congressmen from both sides of the aisle are supporting the SAFE Act to limit the overreaching authority of these two laws.
Southack places himself in rare company, other than Bush and Ashcroft, there is hardly any bureaucrat or politician who will voice public support for the "Patriot" Acts.
Advocacy groups from the ACLU to the Cato Institute, from one end of the spectrum to the other, condemn the Patriot Acts.
Prone to hyperbole, Southack characterizes our condemnation of USAPA I and II as "wild-eyed."
We shall see.
It ain't "warrantless" if you have to get a warrant from a FISA court, kid...
"How the USA Patriot Act Expanded the Basis for FISA Warrants
Originally, prior to the USA Patriot Act - enacted after September 11 - law enforcement could only seek a FISA warrant if gathering intelligence was the primary purpose of the investigation. But the USA Patriot Act allowed law enforcement to seek a FISA warrant if gathering intelligence was only a significant purpose, not necessarily the primary purpose of the investigation." ...
601 posted on 01/29/2004 11:12:02 PM CST by skip2myloo
He was shown where the Patriot Act expands authority for warrantless searches from intelligence investigations to include criminal investigations.
Apparently he does not appreciate the distinction
He was shown where the Patriot Act expands warrantless searches to U.S. citizens as well as foreign agents.
He was shown where a Federal court ruled that the Patriot Act provides an unconstitutional end-run around the 4th Amendment.
He was shown where the FISA Court itself ruled against implementation of certain language in the Patriot Act." ...
629 posted on 01/30/2004 10:47:40 AM CST by skip2myloo
It will return about 30,700 results.
Do your own research, if you're interested.
You're neither deserving of nor entitled to anymore of my time.
You are incorrigible.
Incapable of factual debate, Southack stoops to ad hominem attacks as a tool to attempt to discredit the intellect, veracity, scholarship and judgment of those who disagree with him.
Rather than shining light on the merit of his beliefs, these tactics expose only his character for all to see and to judge him accordingly.
Irrespective of his own purpose for being here on this forum, we can infer it is neither to learn nor to champion causes which further conservatism in America.
It seems unlikely we can ever induce him to appreciate the basis of fundamental American values and principles.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it; but there it is." -- Winston Churchill
"There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action." -- Bertrand Russell
"Until changed by the authentic act of the whole people, the Constitution is sacredly obligatory upon all." -- George Washington
”The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." -- Thomas Jefferson
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthen[ed] itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." -- James Madison
”Tell the world why you're proud of America… Tell them why Americans, one and all, stand upright and respectful. Not because some state official told them to, but because whatever race, color, class or creed they are, being American means being free. That's why they're proud." -- Tony Blair 7/17/03
”A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero 42 B.C.
NEUTIQUAM ERRO
So you keep claiming...yet you can't show me a single sentence or paragraph of the actual Patriot Act text that is unConstitutional.
Facts are such stubborn things...
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.