A Conservative House, Divided Against Itself, Cannot Stand

GOP USA ^ | 10-21-05 | Frank Salvato

[smoothsailing]

A Conservative House, Divided Against Itself, Cannot Stand

By Frank Salvato

October 21, 2005

If just a year ago, as George W. Bush proclaimed victory in the 2004 presidential election, you would have told me that the Democrats would be sitting back and laughing as the conservatives fed on their own, like a pack of self-indulgent jackals, I would have dismissed the notion as incredible. But as we approach the 2006 mid-term election cycle it would seem that notion isn't so far fetched. We are staring directly into the eyes of a Republican-Ross Perot moment and the Democrats are enjoying every minute of it.

For many on the "rightest" side of the right, the Harriet Miers nomination has proven to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. They saw an opportunity to pull the trigger on a political nuclear confrontation and, in their opinion, President Bush shied away from it. This, coupled with a lackluster approach to border security and a perceived indifference to spending excesses, has stirred passions of contempt among many in the conservative political community.

While I agree that the Bush Administration has been less than the vision of a conservative archangel on a few issues, I disagree with those who are advocating the withholding of support for the president. The plain and simple fact of the matter is this, if conservatives maintain a divided house because of ideological differences with the Bush Administration, the Democrats will not only win seats in the upcoming midterm elections, they just may wrap up the 2008 presidential election two years early.

Conservatives in the United States have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot when they have the opportunity to advance their cause. One needs only to look back at the defeat of George H.W. Bush to validate this claim. He was most definitely the more qualified of the candidates. But, because of an unyielding ideology and because they held him in contempt for breaking his promise on taxes, many conservatives chose to withhold their support.

Refusing to realize that Congress had more to do with the tax increase than President George H.W. Bush did, they opted to champion Ross Perot, a third party candidate who had the same chance of winning the White House as George McGovern did when he ran against Richard Nixon. This extremely poor choice of who to support was directly responsible for the election of Bill Clinton and eight years of quasi-Socialistic government.

Make no mistake; it was less about the hard work of the left-leaning Democrats and more about the lack of conservative cohesiveness that allowed the Clinton dynasty to emerge. We should all live with that "stain" upon each of our "blue dresses" for the remainder of our political lives.

Purity of conservative ideology aside, Harriet Miers deserves her day in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- and then in front of the full Senate -- if for no other reason than because the President nominated her. In the end, it will be the Senate's advise and consent role that will determine if Harriet Miers is sworn in as the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, not the president's will. To think otherwise is to give conservatives in the Senate a pass on their constitutional duty. If they don't believe that she is capable, they can vote her down. They have that power.

As for the obscene level that government spending has reached, it needs to be pointed out that Congress approves the budget, not the White House. If real fiscal reform is ever to be attained it will be the appetites of those in Congress that will have to be suppressed. While many waste no time pointing out that President Bush hasn't once used his veto power where government spending is concerned, it should also be noted that he isn't the one proposing legislation to pay for the building of bridges that go to uninhabited islands in Alaska.

The bottom line on spending is this; if Congress sent pork-free budgets to the president's desk there would be no pork in government spending. To lay the blame of excessive government spending solely at the feet of George W. Bush is not only disingenuous, it again gives Congress a free pass on the role they play in the problem that is out-of-control government spending.

It is easy to play the blame game, especially in Washington DC. It is convenient to finger-point in the president's direction because he is just one man where the conservatives in Congress are many. But ease and convenience most often lead not to those ultimately responsible, but to those who are most easily targeted.

If President Bush is responsible for sending Harriet Miers to The Hill as his nominee, the Senate is responsible for whether she is confirmed or not. They have the last word on the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. The onus is on the Senate. And where the president is responsible for sending budgets to Congress, Congress is responsible for sending budget legislation to the president's desk. There is no other way to look at this issue. Congress is the bigger villain where government spending is concerned.

So, conservatives, should they choose, can continue to deride George W. Bush about his nominees and his administration's policies, but they do so at their own peril. You see, they have unwittingly joined the "hate-Bush" bandwagon, a bandwagon that includes Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Code Pink and the rest of the socialist liberal left. That is why the Democrats are laughing.

Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying, "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." If conservatives don't hang together now we will all hang separately, and President Hillary Clinton will be the hangman.

-----------

Frank Salvato is the managing editor for TheRant.us. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, socio-political education project. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor and numerous radio shows. His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are periodically featured in The Washington Times as well as other national and international publications. He can be contacted at oped@therant.us

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

[writer33]

A Conservative House, Divided Against Itself, Cannot Stand

I don't think we're divided. I do think we disagree on a few things.

[Jim Robinson]

Better pray the NYT is wrong about the indictments possibly coming next week. It won't be a house divided, it'll be a house collapsed. This Miers fiasco could not have come at a worse time.

[thoughtomator]

Hear hear.

[Just Lori]

You see, they have unwittingly joined the "hate-Bush" bandwagon, a bandwagon that includes Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Code Pink and the rest of the socialist liberal left. That is why the Democrats are laughing.



I don't think it's THAT bad. Some conservatives are angry with Dubya, but that doesn't mean they HATE him. The temper tantrums will die down, as they do in all children. No need for panic.

[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

A strong conservative candidate in 2008 (unless the Lord has other plans) will unite the party. Another RINO and hello Democratic President. But that isn't bad if we keep the majority in Congress. Otherwise, good night, and good luck.

[smoothsailing]

The day is yet to come that NYT predictions influence my thinking in any way.

But prayers Jim, I've got them a plenty.

[colorcountry]

Remember Clinton (himself) was indicted and IMPEACHED. His base didn't abandon him and his wife has every intention of taking his former place in the White House.

We have to stand together...the dummies are having a field day. Are we conservatives really this weak? I know we have differences, but we have a REAL enemy that is orchestrating some of these "calamities."

[deaconjim]

I agree with Rush. This isn't a "crack up, it's a crack down". Pity the more moderate faction of the Democrat party isn't willing to do the same thing.

We knew Bush wasn't a hard core conservative when we elected him, so why do we expect him to turn into one now? We knew he had the best chance of defeating Al Gore, and therefore we chose him as our candidate in the primary (I will admit, however, that I didn't vote for him in that primary). In the general election, he was obviously the better of the two choices, and that hasn't changed. It is time for us to stop whining about Bush's lack of conservative ideals, and start planning to elect a real conservative in the 2008 election.

[sittnick]

Conservatives in the United States have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot when they have the opportunity to advance their cause. One needs only to look back at the defeat of George H.W. Bush to validate this claim. ...because of an unyielding ideology and because they held him in contempt for breaking his promise on taxes, many conservatives chose to withhold their support... they opted to champion Ross Perot, a third party candidate who had the same chance of winning the White House as George McGovern did when he ran against Richard Nixon.

First, nobody made Bush the Elder sign the tax increase.
Second, Perot had a very real chance of winning before he "withdrew" and got flakier as the campaign went on. He was ahead in September.
Third, much of Perot's support came from populists both left and right and independents, many of whom would not have voted for Bush in any circumstance. They would have either voted Clinton or stayed home. If McCain ran third party, the dynamic would be similar.
Fourth, the social conservatives voted either Bush or (in a few cases)Taxpayer's Party (now Constiution Party).
Fifth, George H.W. Bush lost the election because he ran away from the '88 Bush who won in a landslide. It was the worst campaign I had ever seen. Worse than Dole, much worse than Ford '76. Less energy, even than Mondale '84!

Hey, we're Republicans, not Tories. The Supreme Court was THE issue for many of us, and while I am not attacking Meiers, I cannot say the pick is a good one. This pick split the party. It was W's job to do the job he was elected to do.

As a conservative who voted for Bush with some reservations, I will not be lectured to. At some point conservatives have to remind the top guy who put him there and why. It was not for him to help his pals. It is not to call those of us who would have preferred Janice Rogers Brown sexists and elitists.

I am glad we have three years to work this out, but sometimes the administration is too clever by half. This man had both Houses of Congress to work with, and while he was dancing on the third rail with Social Security reform, hailed as a brave man, he backs away from reforming the goliath that allowed the welfare state in the first place, SCOTUS.

I hope for the best with Meiers, and I don't want her pulled (I fear who her replacement would be). But don't lecture me or the rest of us conservatives about how we hurt George H.W. Bush. HE lost the election. While W is an improvement in some ways, HE is risking the rupture of the party with his behaviour, and the behaviour of his pr staff.

[smoothsailing]

I don't think it's THAT bad.

Not yet,but it needs to stop soon. There's nothing wrong with blowing off a little steam, but a united front will be needed to win elections.

[B4Ranch]

"I don't think we're divided. I do think we disagree on a few things."

No, we are divided and will remain that way until he locks the damn door that he's holding open for the illegal aliens.


>>If they don't believe that she is capable, they can vote her down. They have that power.<<

That would take some strong backbone and the only Republican who has that backbone was just arrested.

[phelanw]

I don't give a rat's patootie how conservative she is, so long as she is to the right of O'Connor. That's giving her a lot of leeway. I don't care what her religion is, though it's close to mine, I suspect. I loved several of Frankfurter's opinions, especially one or two of his dissents. He was obviously not a southern evangelical Christian.

I just can't get over my belief that she's a complete neophyte on most issues of constitutional law.

[afnamvet]

This Miers fiasco could not have come at a worse time.

It could easily have been prevented but that is conjecture. We are in a state of wait and see.

[CitizenUSA]

Very well said, sittnick! It's simply too much to expect conservatives to suck it up time and time again while the Republicans sell us out. I've been bashed before for saying this, but conservatives to the Republican Party are like blacks to the Democrats. We really have nowhere else to go, but the party leadership takes us for granted. We must fight in 2006 and 2008 to retake the heart and soul of the party, to seize it back from those who talk morality and limited government yet do nothing to achieve it!

[Black Tooth]

Better pray the NYT is wrong about the indictments possibly coming next week. It won't be a house divided, it'll be a house collapsed. This Miers fiasco could not have come at a worse time.

My bet is there will be two, possibly three indictments for this administration.

[smoothsailing]

I remember '92 quite well.Perot was an interesting character.

Christmas time in '68 every base camp in Vietnam got a live Christmas tree.I remember some of us asking where they came from.The answer was some rich Texan had flown in planeloads of them at his own expense.I didn't make the connection to Perot until he came out swinging in '92 when some VFW buddies of mine got to talking about it.Hell, I voted for him.I figured I owed it to him.

[writer33]

I agree with Rush. This isn't a "crack up, it's a crack down". Pity the more moderate faction of the Democrat party isn't willing to do the same thing.

We knew Bush wasn't a hard core conservative when we elected him, so why do we expect him to turn into one now? We knew he had the best chance of defeating Al Gore, and therefore we chose him as our candidate in the primary (I will admit, however, that I didn't vote for him in that primary). In the general election, he was obviously the better of the two choices, and that hasn't changed. It is time for us to stop whining about Bush's lack of conservative ideals, and start planning to elect a real conservative in the 2008 election.

I'd agree. The only way to defeat liberalism is to advance conservatism. Definitely.

[LegendHasIt]

I don't know... I'm starting to think we ARE divided.

Those that support the party no matter what, no matter who "stabs them in the back" nor how many times they are betrayed.

And those that believe in accountability and expect those they helped get elected do their very best to fulfill their promises.

No, I'm not talking about Harriet Miers, I'm willing to keep an open mind on that for a while longer... and just hope it is a masterful stroke of strategery.

OK, I'll agree with the "house divided against itself can not stand" thing.... But when the house becomes infested with RINOs and CINOs*; If you find out that the bedrock that you thought the foundation was built on is really shifting sand... Maybe it is time to move to a new house, or at least do a major rebuilding job and pump a bunch of cement into the ground and reinforce the base..

Fortunately for the GOP, there is no practical alternative for thinking people to go to, so I don't think that we will have another Perot type situation.

But as much I financially supported, AND worked as a full-time volunteer last election; And have been a staunch defender of the Administration and the GOP in general for the last ... well, forever...

I'm getting so I'm starting to feel like I did prior to 1999; Anger because I have to choose between the "lesser of two evils". (No, I'm not calling President Bush evil).

I shouldn't have to feel like that, and I shouldn't have to "sit down and shut up" because some people think that the potential of a President Hillary trumps my right to tell my elected representatives what I believe is best for the Nation and my right to withhold donations when their behavior is counter to my conservative beliefs.

*(Conservatives In Name Only).