Posted on 11/09/2006 7:25:30 AM PST by Small-L
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, likely new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the media will portray Tuesday's takeover as a repudiation of President Bush's leadership on the war in Iraq. The public's media-tinted perception of U.S. progress in Iraq, and its subsequent willingness to vote for Democratic House and Senate candidates does not, however, fully explain the switch in party control. No explanation of the Democrats' takeover is complete without laying partial blame on President Bush's so-called compassionate conservative agenda.
The term compassionate conservatism was coined by University of Texas professor and World Magazine editor Marvin Olasky in Olasky's 2000 book titled Compassionate Conservatism: What it is, What it Does, and How it Can Transform America. In an October 21, 2006 Wall Street Journal profile, Bush's former chief speechwriter Michael Gerson described the president's governing philosophy this way: "Compassionate conservatism is the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself."
Bush's big-government policies have certainly transformed America, but they are not even in the same neighborhood as true limited-government conservatism. Worse, the president, his advisors, the Republican National Committee and Republican leaders in the House and Senate have alienated the party's conservative base of activists and voters.
Compassionate conservatism first brought us the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. NCLB further consolidated federal oversight of education in an era when local control was the mantra of conservative voters and Republican congressional candidates.
Compassionate conservatism gave us the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. A Heritage Foundation report on the Medicare trustees' estimates finds that "Medicare's long-term debt, based on a 75-year actuarial projection, is now estimated to be $32.4 trillion. Of that amount, $8 trillion is directly attributable to the Medicare prescription drug entitlement." The prescription drug bill is one of the largest expansions of the entitlement state in our nation's history.
Bush has further abandoned fiscal conservatism on federal spending, one of the bedrock principles of conservative ideology. According to Richard Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed, federal spending rose by 4.7 percent in President Clinton's first term, and 3.7 percent in his second term. Federal spending rose 19.2 percent in Bush's first term alone.
Too many Republicans in the House and Senate have enabled the compassionate conservative ruse by refusing to lead on true conservative solutions. The flawed structures of the Social Security and Medicare programs continue to consume a larger portion of federal tax receipts and will soon go bankrupt. The federal income tax code is an unfair burden on every taxpayer, yet few Republicans have joined the march to replace the code with a consumption tax. Our energy prices remain largely at the mercy of Middle East sheiks and South American madmen, yet our political leaders lack the will to authorize consumption of our own abundant oil and natural gas resources.
Now that Democrats have seized control of the House, and possibly the Senate, the president is poised to deliver the knockout blow to conservative voters, the conservative movement and the very Constitution itself. In a most bitter twist of irony, Democratic control of Congress would finally allow Bush to enact his amnesty scheme for the tens of millions of illegal aliens within our borders. Amnesty for illegal aliens is not compassionate, nor is it conservative. It is unconstitutional.
Compassionate conservatism failed America and cost Republicans control. Bush's guiding philosophy attempted to co-opt the liberal Democratic strategy of campaign to the right, and govern from the middle. To accomplish that feat one must pander to all interest groups, and hope the traditional base stays home on Election Day. If you recall, Bush's predecessor in the White House utilized the exact same strategy. He called it triangulation.
Conservative voters do not support moderate policy solutions, and they reject moderate Republicans who masquerade as conservative voices. Soon after Fox News declared Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. the victor over Republican Senator Rick Santorum, Fox election analysts called Santorum a "compassionate conservative" who looks for government solutions to issues. Republican In Name Only senators Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) were similarly ousted in the Tuesday Night Massacre. Moderate to conservative-leaning Democrats also replaced many Republican House members.
Republican candidates lose when the party apparatus, whose goal is to win elections, abandons the conservative base, whose goal is conservative policy solutions. Just two years ago Bush and Santorum unconscionably endorsed liberal Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), who was in a primary race with conservative Congressman Pat Toomey. Specter won the primary, but Santorum ultimately paid the price. In this year's Rhode Island Republican Senate primary, the RNC openly supported liberal Senator Lincoln Chafee against his more conservative opponent, Steve Laffey. Sen. Chafee is one of the most liberal members of the Senate and refused to vote for President Bush in 2004, writing in the president's father instead, yet the RNC still paid for ads in his primary race. Rhode Island voters were not likely to nominate or elect a conservative, but the RNC's actions were heard across the fruited conservative plain. Tap the brakes, Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman. You're not king makers.
Compassionate conservatism completely betrayed conservative voters and their decades of grassroots activism. Fortunately, all is not lost for the true conservative movement. Every House and Senate seat lost this year is an opportunity for conservatives to re-educate the public on true conservative policy solutions. The coming Republican presidential primary offers a similar chance for renewal and the possible emergence of a genuine successor to Ronald Reagan.
No voter turnout machine put in motion over a three-day pre-election period could have overcome this slap in the face to the Republican Party's base. Undoing compassionate conservatism's wreckage will take years, not 72 hours.
What is completely shot (I hope) is this notion of a patient electorate waiting for the war on terror to be won.
Americans are the least patient people on the planet.
They love 'Mission Accomplished' but loathe 'Hold the Course'.
Mr. Bush - what have you done for me lately ?
BUMP
2Ch 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Well then as soon as Bush signs the new reform package he will get from the Dems, we will ne back in power.
No, they voted against Kerry, not the same thing.
Unfortunately he is dead, the reality is we have GW.
No, socialism packaged as conservatism lost.
"I really doubt that. Show me 1 poll that reflects this please."
Here are a few during the Senate debate:
FOX 7/13/06
37% to 32% feel Democrats would do better job on immigration
37% to 31% feel Republicans would do better job on border security
Failure to pass a bill would be Bush and Republican congressional fault 43%. Democrats in congress 21%
41% to 36% Immigrants give to the country rather than take away
51% say immigrants should decrease; 41% no change or increase
34% feel borders should be secured first; 35% feel deal with those here first; 28% both equally
Tarrance Group Survey 6/12-13/06
75% of likely voters wanted something similar to the Senate version
49% said it was not amnesty
95% said it was important to pass a bill this year
Gallup 6/8-25/06
59% said immigration should remain at current levels or increase
67% said immigration was a good thing; 28% said bad
66% said illegals cost too much; 29% pay fair share
74% say illegal immigrants take jobs most Americans don't want
66% say illegals should remain if they meet certain requirements; 16% want to deport all
LA Times/Bloomberg 6/24-27/06
34% - 23% Democrats can do better on immigration
87% say immigration is most important or one of most important issues
51% say illegals take jobs no American wants
46% support guest worker program; 22% oppose
67% want illegals to have a path to citizenship
44% want a felony for being in US illegally
58% want a tougher enforcement combined with a guest worker program
22% want only tougher enforcement
60% will be disappointed if no bill is passed this year
NBC/Wall Street Journal 6/9-12/06
50% want increased border security
40% want a guest worker program; 34% do not
More today believe Democrats will do better on immigration than 11/05
50% feel immigration helps; 50% feels it hurts. 12/05 hurts was 53%, helps was 37%
50% favor the Senate Bill; 33% favor the House Bill
CBS News Poll 6/10-11/06
33% approve of President Bush on immigration; 56% disapprove
API/Ipsos 5/15-17/06
52% believe immigration is a good influence on US; 46% a bad influence
Fox News Poll 5/16-18/06
57% feel illegal immigration is very serious problem, 29% somewhat serious
63% favor letting those with jobs apply for legal, temporary worker status
55% favor sending as many back as possible
CBS News Poll 5/16-17/06
77% favor Senate approach to citizenship
61% favor a guest worker program
CNN Poll 5/16-17/06
50% disapprove of Bush handling of immigration; 36% approve
79% favor the Senate approach to citizenship
66% favor increasing penalties for employers who hire illegals
ABC News/Washington Post Poll 5/11/15/06
77% feel US not doing enough to prevent illegal immigration
Newsweek Poll 5/11-12/06
61% disapprove of Bush handling of immigration
CBS News/NY Times Poll 5/4-8/06
61% say legal immigration should be at current levels or increased; 34% say decreased
89% say illegal immigration is a very serious or somewhat serious problem
53% feel illegal immigrants take jobs no one wants; 36% feel they take jobs away
61% feel illegals should be given chance to keep jobs; 35% feel they should be deported
66% oppose a 700 mile fence; 29% favor
70% feel illegals weaken the economy
These polls show that most Americans consider immigration a serious issue, most want strong enforcement, but most want something similar to the Senate version.
I can also show more going back to late last year showing similar results.
GOP sealed it's fate when we rejected shamnesty. Does anyone trust e voting?
I second this. The voters got tired of the lies.
Vancomycin-resistant Socialistococcus aholes
Agree completely with that. The fence is a total illusion.
RE your post #68:
You'll notice that most of those polls use the word "immigration" rather than "illegal aliens" or "illegal immigration". Also, if any of those polls discussed the actual issues at hand (such as the projected $500,000,000,000.00 price tag for "comprehensive reform" over the next decade), you would see the numbers change radically.
Finally, Congress threw out the Senate plan because of OVERWHELMING resistance against it... that resistance came from the voters.
Ahh, yes... the "Virtual Fence". It really is a fence. Virtually, anyway.
To the contrary. Yes, there are about 20 million illegals here. No, most will not qualify under the terms of the bill. Please point to the provision that authorizes 100 million illegals to become citizens. What can be worse? Had the Republican house agreed to meet in conference, much of what most of us dislike and much of what we like in the house bill would have come together. Now the house bill is dead. A comprehensive package will now look pretty much like the Senate version. It's called shooting oneself in the foot!
Spin it all you want. What the polls show is that most Americans wanted a comprehensive package that permitted those already here to stay. I also have about twenty more polls showing much the same thing. Most Americans know you cannot find and deport 20 million illegals.
$500,000,000,000.00 price tag for "comprehensive reform" over the next decade), you would see the numbers change radically.
Yep. If it were true. But of course, we know that the major part of the price tag will be what you want anyway, which is a completely secure border, with a 50 foot high wall and ten immigration agents every 100 feet. Then, of course, finding, charging, jailing and ultimately deporting 20 million felons is the rest of the cost.
Finally, Congress threw out the Senate plan because of OVERWHELMING resistance against it... that resistance came from the voters.
So all the polls were wrong? So the Democrats who overwhelmingly favored the Senate bill were not elected yesterday?
Your post abandons rational thought, given the mountain of evidence contrary to your positions. As such, I am not inclined to waste time with a reponse to each point. However, read and learn.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1632758/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1638411/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1637450/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1636823/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1637441/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1638077/posts
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.