Conservatives can’t get it right!

I really had a hard time reading a new “opinion” page by a supporter of Bush. His, “I support him with reservations” was intriguing. After all, the blogger had so much to choose from to disagree with Bush on:

    rape of the environment
    lies about Iraq and why we went to war
    no bid contracts to Halliburton
    intermingling of religion and politics

But no, that wasn’t it. Instead, he claims that he doesn’t like Bush giving $20 Million more to the National Endowment of the Arts. He doesn’t like the Government supporting education. Hell, he claims that Bush spends too much time and money pandering to the middle!

Bush has gone so far to the right, that he’s been described as THE most radically right President of all time. And this guy thinks he’s too much of a centrist? What, should Bush start lynching blacks and join the KKK?

Article archived here.August 24, 2004

I Will Vote for George W. Bush, with Reservations

Eric Jeffery

I strongly support George W. Bush. I’ve donated money. I’ve written letters to newspapers. I’ve called numerous talk radio programs. I’ve talked with friends and family and explained in detail why President Bush must win in November. I’ve purchased yard signs and asked a dozen friends if I could put them up. One neighbor I was talking with wasn’t sure who to vote for. After my pro Bush diatribe she asked a great question, “what don’t you like about the President?” Without even having to think, I rattled off numerous issues. I support George W. Bush, but I am a realist, and I will vote for him with reservations.

My first complaint of President Bush is his outrageous spending. This “Compassionate Conservative” increased funding for the National Endowments of Arts by nearly $20 million dollars. I can think of no more frivolous use of taxpayers money. In addition to this, President Bush created the largest addition to social services in 40 years with the Medicare Drug benefit program. This $400 billion dollar boondoggle showed how important governing in the middle is to President Bush. Our President says he wants to shrink government but in action he does the opposite. I respect President Bush and understand, like his predecessor, his desire to “govern in the middle;” however, as a true Republican, I cannot support most of his financial actions.

In line with the massive increase in Medicare, President Bush pushed forth “No Child Left Behind” education reform. I agree rather with Ronald Reagan, that the Federal Government has no place in education. Local control should win the day; however, to appease the Left, President Bush strongly pressed for this massive increase in Federal education spending. Ironically, he did so to gain support from the Left; however, they gave him no credit. I see this as a lose/lose proposition. My taxes go to fund other children’s education, and President Bush didn’t even get political points out of the deal. Federal government has no place in public education, and I have issues with President Bush for extending federal involvement.

President Bush says he is for open markets, but he sure knows how to pander. By barely winning West Virginia and Ohio, and slightly losing Pennsylvania, President Bush believed placing tariffs on foreign steel would gain him points in these three important battleground states. This action alienated his Republican base, and it doesn’t appear that he’ll get any political sway out of the deal. In 2003, after the European Union threatened a trade war, President Bush backed down and removed the tariffs. The steel unions and pro tariff folks screamed that Bush betrayed them. Rather than thank him for 18 months of support, they act as though he did nothing for them. Irrelevant of what support President Bush may gain for his temporary implementation to protect American steel workers, he loses in my mind for giving in to steel producers in the first place. The best economies are open; tariffs epitomize trade barriers, and as a Conservative, President Bush should know better.

Finally, his stance on the 1994 Clinton Gun Ban. Set to “sunset” on September 13th, 2004, President Bush has left the door open to extend this ban. He said during the 2000 campaign he would sign the extension. Many pro gun activists view this as a betrayal. I give him the benefit of the doubt, believing he knew when he publicly supported an extension that the House would not pass such legislation. This, again, allowed the President to have his cake and eat it too. He looks like a moderate to anti-gun activists, and like a realist to the pro gun activists. To this date, the NRA still has not endorsed President Bush as they did in 2000. I believe once the 1994 gun legislation sunsets they will come out and support him. I do not like how President Bush handled this issue. He should stick by his pro gun past, and denounce this failed legislation. This predilection to moderation bothers me about President Bush.

I believe our lives, and our civilization, depend on a George W. Bush victory this November. During the Cold War we learned that Democrats cannot be trusted with national security, and no one proves this point better than President Bush’s opponent, John Kerry. From supporting the Sandinista Communists in Nicaragua, to voting for unilateral nuclear disarmament, to voting to cut military budgets and intelligence infrastructure repeatedly for over 20 years in the Senate, John Kerry exemplifies the Left’s utter incompetence when it comes to national defense. President Bush has faults; he spends too much money and he panders to the middle. I support President Bush; however, my vote will come with reservations.

Feel free to comment:

ejeffery@techie.com
Colorado Springs, CO

ads by google