Posted on 10/20/2005 9:42:55 PM PDT by 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.
O.K. If we agree that we're divided, it's because we are cracking down on conservatism. Once you're this close, you don't just give up. You keep moving the agenda forward and we're too close to give up now.
So if that means we're divided, then that means we're divided in a way because conservatives wish to forward that agenda in order to better America. Meaning the days of having an R in front of your name is no longer good enough.
Exactly.. I did notice you said another RINO.. So true, the denial on this is disgusting.. boot licking disgusting..
The odds of a non RINO candidate 2008.. is very slim..
I'd say after 8 years of Clinton, Bush was more than welcome. Will that do now? I'd say no.
I fully agree. For the last five years I was proud to call myself a Republican for the first time since President Reagan left office..
Now, I'm going back to just calling myself a Conservative.
That would take some strong backbone and the only Republican who has that backbone was just arrested.
Point taken. In all fairness, though, he doesn't get a vote (since he's in the House).
The first step would be to make sure we have a credible, electable conservative running in the Republican primary. We can advance that cause by making sure we have real conservatives elected to our statewide GOP party offices, and to the national GOP seats at the convention. Pour our money into conservative candidates, and get out and work for them. Complaining that it's all Bush's fault not only makes us sound like Democrats, but it helps them get elected.
sittnick wrote: "Indeed! The difference here is that blacks might be one-quarter of the Dem electorate, but conservatives are over three-quarters of the 'pubbie."
I'm truly amazed by the widening gulf between the Republican Party's leadership and its base. I agree with you. Conservatives no doubt make up the majority of the party, but we are terribly underrepresented at the top. I knew Bush was a big-government man years ago, but many conservatives didn't agree. I heard all the excuses...he's too busy fighting a war, he's boxed in by the RINOs, he's a Christian, he's cut taxes (as if cutting taxes is all conservatives want), he's thinking the problem through before he acts, etc. Perhaps the base is finally waking up to the cold, hard reality of the situation. Our leadership, for the most part, is working against us!
I do give financial support to Conservative candidates... even ones from the other side of the nation.
I'm one of President Bush's strongest defenders when I think he is right, and I say so when I think he is wrong. And when I just don't know for sure what is going on, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.
And the next person that calls me a child because I express my dissatisfaction with a specific situation, or tells me that I can't stand up for my beliefs because a Democrat might be elected if I dare dissent on one or several particular points backed by The President or some Senator or Representative simply because they have an (R) next to their name........
Answer: VETO
Better Answer:LINE ITEM VETO
The Supremes already shot that down.
A Conservative house, that allowed liberals to eat at its foundation, does not deserve to stand!
You people crack me up. You so-called "conservatives" have been making excuses for Bush's mushy moderate behavior since he was elected the first time. FreeRepublic isn't exactly the Conservative "think-tank" it's supposed to be when over half of it's members support either Rudy or McLame for president in '08.
Us supporting them and them ignoring us isn't a united front, it's a giveaway of our political power. Do that and it doesn't matter if 'we' win because we've already lost.
That is because morality and decency are irrelevant to the leftists. Judging from your admonishment, I presume that you think we should emulate that sort of conduct.
And, quite frankly, it sickens me.
I don't think Bush has vetoed anything that Congress has sent to his desk.
Those three issues by themselves did not infuriate the base; those three issues taken together and in rapid succession are what triggered this revolt.
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.