Posted on 03/23/2005 5:45:14 PM PST by freeholland
A grave and as yet unrecognized danger presently looms for Senate Republicans with respect to the upcoming battle over the President’s judicial nominees. Democrat reaction to the possibility of a Senate rules change has been nearly hysterical, which might seem to offer Republican political strategists reason to rejoice. Yet if they are not careful, the situation can be suddenly turned on them.
Despite Democrat caterwauling to the contrary, this situation is not, in their minds, about preserving the Constitution, and it is not about finding some mythical “common ground” between the liberal view of constitutional law and a conservative effort towards the same end.
Rather, it is all about preventing the appointment of individuals who are dedicated to the preservation of the original intent of the document. The present philosophical war being waged here is not intended to decide the nature of our constitutional republic as being liberal or conservative, but will instead determine whether our constitutional republic, as envisioned by the founders, will prevail or fade into oblivion.
In the midst of all of this, a more immediate alarm should be sounding among the Republicans. Along with their efforts to define the judiciary, Democrats are pursuing a political agenda that could potentially inflict extreme collateral damage on GOP Senators, if they are so inept and unprincipled as to be ensnared as they have done in the past. And with each ensuing outrage from the judiciary, the stakes are raised for both sides.
Liberal political operatives have set the stage for a dramatic “win/win” scenario, which will eventuate in the immediate aftermath of a Republican capitulation at this crucial juncture. And such a scenario is not without precedent.
Though Republicans had successfully gained majority status in both the House and Senate during the dramatic 1994 elections, and though they went into the ‘95 budget battle with optimistic expectations of redefining the scope of federal spending policy, a massive public relations offensive by the Clinton Administration completely thwarted their efforts.
Rather than standing fast on the principle of reigning in an obviously out-of-control federal budget, they took their eyes off of their real purpose in Washington and became preoccupied with public opinion as expressed by the major media.
Eventually, as a result of incessant criticism on the nightly news, the entire issue was reframed, not as one of irresponsible spending by a bloated government bureaucracy, but as an endless series of hardships suffered by the “little people” and caused by the “Republican government shutdown.” Ultimately, the Republicans caved.
The Democrat strategy yielded an unprecedented surge in momentum. As a result, they not only resumed their dominant role in shaping the federal budget, but also were also able to blame Republicans for the entire debacle. The feat was truly amazing, especially in consideration of the fact that it was Bill Clinton who, by his veto of the budget, actually caused the shutdown.
Once Republicans retreated from the fight to control spending, and allowed the issue to be framed as a matter of returning the government to full and proper operation, they were unable to escape culpability for the original problem.
Democrat refusal to allow an up or down vote on President Bush’s judicial nominees has amounted to an escalation of recent liberal attacks on the Constitution. Republican efforts to counter this obstructionism and allow for the confirmation of pro-Constitution judges should therefore have been loudly portrayed as a fight over the very integrity of the Constitution.
Unfortunately, Republicans failed to spotlight the controversy in such terms. Liberals, always ready to manipulate any situation to their political advantage, now assert that it is they who are fighting to protect and preserve the Constitution. This preposterous deception is spearheaded by that standard-bearer of shameless liberal hypocrisy, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia.
Undoubtedly, certain faint-hearted individuals within Senate Republican ranks would like to simply back away from the tumult, in hopes of avoiding criticism. But that option no longer exists, if it ever did.
A Republican retreat at this juncture would henceforth cement the notion of absolute Democrat dominance over the makeup of the judiciary. And doing so in the face of such fraudulent accusations would not soften their effects, but would instead validate them.
Ultimately, it will be up to the Republicans to determine whether this situation eventuates into the last dying gasp of liberal dominance, or if it becomes the greatest rout of conservatives ever achieved by the American left.
Growing up during the turbulent decades of the ‘60's and ‘70's, Christopher Adamo saw, to his dismay, the nation's moral foundations being destroyed before his very eyes. But even then he was a staunch Conservative at heart, and rejected outright the tenets of America's counterculture revolution. After a hitch in the Air Force, where he specialized in airborne electro- optical systems, he pursued a career in the field of aerospace, working for major defense contractors in California, Florida, and Colorado. But his career plans abruptly changed during the industry-wide downsizing that followed the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.
Presently he is working in the field of industrial instrumentation in the state of Wyoming. Concurrently, he has become involved in that state's political process, attending state GOP conventions as a delegate, and serving as a member of the Wyoming Republican Central Committee. He has also aided in the candidacies of local legislators and state senators, as well as a U.S. Senator and Congresswoman.
From 1993 to 1996, he edited and wrote for “The Wyoming Christian”, the state newsletter for Christian Coalition of Wyoming. During that period, he developed an acute awareness of the harm being done to Conservatism by liberal activists within the Republican Party as well as the Democrats. This remains a favorite theme of his articles, which now appear as a regular feature on GOPUSA.
Comments: cadamo@wyoming.com
Visit his website at http://www.chrisadamo.com
They are all a bunch of sheep, including the pres. They do nothing to protect our border, allow unconstitutional decisions to stand, grow government and treat us, their hard working constituents, like children. I am finally done with the republican party - come hell or high water I will vote for the Constitution party from now on.
"I am finally done with the republican party - come hell or high water I will vote for the Constitution party from now on."
One reason to stay would be to vote in the GOP primaries. If a reasonably conservative candidate doesn't make it through, then it would be appropriate to put votes elsewhere during the election. Isn't that the only way for the base to shape the Party?
I wrote: "As it is, the Republicans have passed their ENTIRE economic agenda, and have wavered on the ONLY part of their agenda that is truly pro-life: the nuclear option."
You responded: "They have achieved their economic agenda, while America is still a welfare state? And with the largest federal government in history? You must have an interesting set of measures."
Welfare reform was passed by a Republican Congress. So, we have the Welfare system that Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party in Congress wanted. Perhaps YOU think that Republicans should abolish welfare completely. But that is not and was not their agenda. They got their agenda through the Congress they controlled. Bill Clinton signed that bill, but the Welfare System of the United States as it currently exists was devised by the Republican Party. That IS their agenda. Just not yours.
The Republican Congress, at the behest of a Republican President, expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs. Perhaps you don't like the Medicare/Medicaid welfare state philosophically. Understandable. But the Medicare/Medicaid welfare state paying for prescription drugs is a REPUBLICAN agenda item, proposed by and passed by a Republican White House and Republican Congress. Again, that IS their agenda. Just not yours.
Three rounds of income tax cuts.
Elimination of the death tax.
Dramatic reduction of capital gains and dividends taxation: this was the Republican agenda and was passed. I assume you approve.
Social Security partial - not complete, and certainly not abolition! - is the Republican Party agenda. Again, you may philosophically be opposed to the concept of government pensions and Social Security, but that's YOUR agenda. The REPUBLICAN PARTY agenda is that Social Security is good and necessary, and should be left alone for everybody over 55. For everyone else, a PORTION, only of Social Security taxes should be able to be set aside in private accounts, but all the rest should still go to regular old Social Security, with its government pensions and social insurance.
I don't have an interesting set of measures. I look at what the Republicans actually propose, legislate, and state they are for as a party in actual power. I think perhaps you have a set of philosophical beliefs about what government should be and should do, and believe that the Republican Party agenda is those believes. But it seems to me a strange and subjective set of measures to complain that the Republicans haven't gotten their agenda because there's still a welfare state, when actually the current Welfare Law, and Medicare Drug law, are Republican laws drafted by Republican Congresses.
Perhaps you discern a hidden INTENT among Republicans, and think that these good intentions you perceive are the REAL Republican agenda. I'd say, first, that good intentions are good for nothing, what matters is execution and carry through. But more importantly, I'd say that the Republicans actually intended the bills they drafted and passed. They never intended to end welfare or Medicare, but only to reform them somewhat. I think what you want philosophically is something other than what Republicanism is.
Pro-lifers are waking up to that same reality on a different vector this week.
"I am finally done with the republican party - come hell or high water I will vote for the Constitution party from now on."
I wouldn't do that yet.
Wait to see what the Senate does on the nuclear option.
They may understand that the Republican majority is going to fall apart at the grass roots if they don't pass it, and that may motivate the waverers to vote for it. Then there will be an increasingly conservative judiciary, and things can perhaps start to move in the direction you desire.
If they fail on the nuclear option, that will mean there is actually no HOPE of change, and at that point it is reasonable to go vote for a third party which also has no hope of changing anything, because if the Republicans have the power and won't do it, you are still at zero and no worse off being at zero among different folks who didn't betray you.
But the Republicans haven't betrayed you yet.
The Bush brothers look to be playing Pontius Pilate with the life of Terri, but that is them, not the Republican Party. What the Republicans do in the Senate IS the Party.
Hold your fire, and don't leave the tent just yet. Not even though lots of your fellow Republicans here and elsewhere are so eager to show you the door. The fear of loss may bring the Senate to reason, in which case you will still want to be inside the tent.
What you say makes a lot of sense. I coud never vote anything but Republican because of the numbers. It is just that you would think 55 R's would be enough, but it is not cause some pubs are on the fence. If we gave them 60, there would still be some on the fence and they could still wimp out on us!
"It is just that you would think 55 R's would be enough, but it is not cause some pubs are on the fence. If we gave them 60, there would still be some on the fence and they could still wimp out on us!"
That could be.
Or it could be that they're not on the fence and aren't really wimping out. It could be that they mask their mild support for abortion because that is a losing hand, but when it comes right down to it, they actually vote their consciences.
Anyway, we will see soon, because the issue is coming to a head and isn't going to go away. There's no dodge on it. Either the conservatives will take over the bench because the Republicans cleared the way for them, or they won't get on the bench because the Republicans voted to keep the status quo.
Oh, I see. You are another one of those conspiracy theorists who capitalize the word democrats but not Republicans. I think democrat underground is more your style.
Don't you think it's the trilateral commission that's controlling the world?
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the republicans just need 50 votes and then VP Cheney can break the tie..? So can't we afford 5 defections? It makes me thin that there are more than 5 "republican" senators who do not support this rule change, because if not it would have been done already.
Bingo.
They don't have 50 votes.
I daresay there are other exceptions.
I don't know if VP Cheney has a vote in this matter.
Interesting discussion...... Here's what the Constitution says, Art. 1, Sec. 3, para 4:
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The following is the Riddick Senate Procedure.... Go down to page 1219 to the section: Change in, Power to make and it gives a detailed discussion of the changing rules in the Senate.
http://www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/riddick/1217-1228.pdf
If Republicans were on NASDAQ, I would "short em" and take early retirement.
name one.
Amen.
And the Republicans in the legislative and executive branches just made the same mistake again. Allowing the courts to defy their action on behalf of Terri Schiavo turned this into a big victory for liberals and the imperial judiciary.
Finish what you start, GOP.
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.