Posted on 07/10/2003 1:06:07 PM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative
he news this summer has been rather bleak for conservatives. The Supreme Court first decided to write "diversity" into the Constitution. A few days later, it issued a ruling on sodomy laws that called into question its willingness to tolerate any state laws based on traditional understandings of sexual morality. In neither case was there much pretense that the Court was merely following the law. At this point it takes real blindness to deny that the Court rules us and, on emotionally charged policy issues, rules us in accord with liberal sensibilities. And while the Court issued its edicts and the rest of the world adjusted, a huge prescription-drug bill made its way through Congress. That bill will add at least $400 billion to federal spending over the next ten years, and it comes on top of already gargantuan spending increases over the last five years. The fact that a pro-growth tax cut is going into effect this summer hardly compensates for these developments especially since expanding entitlements threaten to exert upward pressure on tax rates in the future.
Republicans have been complicit in each of these debacles. Both the affirmative-action and sodomy decisions were written by Reagan appointees. President Bush actually cheered the affirmative-action decision for recognizing the value of "diversity." Bush has requested spending increases, and not just for defense and homeland security. He has failed to veto spending increases that went beyond his requests. But let it not be said that the president has led his party astray. Many congressional Republicans have strayed even more enthusiastically. Bush originally wanted to condition prescription-drug benefits on seniors' joining reformed, less expensive health plans. When the idea was raised, House Speaker Denny Hastert called it "inhumane." Congressional appropriators the people who write the spending bills have been known to boast that they would beat the president if ever he dared to veto one of their products.
We have never been under any illusions about the extent of Bush's conservatism. He did not run in 2000 as a small-government conservative, or as someone who relished ideological combat on such issues as racial preferences and immigration. We supported him nonetheless in the hope that he would strengthen our defense posture, appoint originalist judges, liberalize trade, reduce tax rates, reform entitlements, take modest steps toward school choice. Progress on these fronts would be worth backsliding elsewhere. We have been largely impressed with Bush's record on national security, on judicial appointments (although the big test of a Supreme Court vacancy will apparently not occur during this term), and on taxes. On the other issues he has so far been unable to deliver.
It is not Bush's fault that Democrats oppose entitlement reform, or that the public wants it less than it wants a new entitlement to prescription drugs. He should, however, have used the veto more effectively to restrain spending. Had he vetoed the farm bill, for example, Congress would have sent him a better one. We need presidential leadership on issues other than war and taxes. Instead we are getting the first full presidential term to go without a veto since John Quincy Adams. Bush's advisers may worry that for Bush to veto the bills of a Republican Congress would muddle party distinctions for voters. But this dilemma results from a failure of imagination. Why must the House Republican leadership always maintain control of the floor? When Democrats and liberal Republicans have the votes to pass a bill, sometimes it would be better to let them do so, and then have the president veto it. The alternative cobbling together some lite version of a liberal bill in order to eke out a congressional majority is what really makes it hard to press the case against big-spending Democrats.
The defeats on racial preferences, gay rights, and the role of the courts generally reflect a conservative political failure that predates this administration. Republican politicians have never been comfortable talking about moral or race-related issues, and have been eager to slough off these responsibilities to the courts. Their silence is not, however, only an abdication of responsibility; it is also politically foolish. Opposition to racial preferences and gay marriage is popular in every state of the Union. And if the courts are going to block social conservatives from ever achieving legislative victories and Republicans will not even try to do anything about it social conservatives may well conclude that there is no point to participating in normal politics. There goes the Republican majority.
To get back on track will require effort from President Bush, congressional Republicans, and conservatives generally. Bush ought to bear down on spending; we suggest that an assault on corporate welfare, followed by a reform of the appropriations process, would be a fine start. Republicans need a strategy for dealing with the judicial usurpation of politics that goes beyond trying to make good appointments to the bench a strategy that now has a two-generation track record of nearly unrelieved failure. On gay marriage, a constitutional amendment appears to be necessary to forestall the mischief of state and federal courts. But a mere statute can make the point that Congress controls the federal judiciary's purview. Congressman Todd Akin's bill to strip the federal judiciary of jurisdiction over the Pledge of Allegiance has the votes to pass the House, and has a powerful Senate sponsor in Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch. It should be high on the Republican agenda.
Conservatives, finally, have to find ways to work with the Republicans their fortunes are linked while also working on them. The Pennsylvania Senate primary offers a choice between a candidate who is conservative on both economics and social issues, Pat Toomey, and one who is conservative on neither, the incumbent, Arlen Specter. The White House and the party establishment has rallied behind Specter. But President Bush's goals would be better served by a Senator Toomey. And as recent events underscore, this is not a bad time for conservatives to declare their independence from the GOP establishment.
No. But they (almost) have control of the mechanism to replace the liberal judiciary with conservatives. That is, if we don't throw it away.
I don't know on Alberto.
Probably worse. Even the liberals back then had some restraint. That's gone. The new crop of liberals believes the courts can decide anything. And should.
The Republican party needs nothing less than a SAVIOR--A man of great intelligence, wit, popularity and charisma. He must have the courage to stand up to the enemy, confidence in himself and his Conservative values, and strong, unwavering character. He has to be 'clean' of scandal-with a "lilly white" past, and appealing enough to brigde the gaps of age, race, religion and sex. He must not be afraid to speak his mind...even if it means bad press or alienation from "squeaky wheels." His toughness, brashness, and "tell it like it is" demeanor makes guys vote for him because they want to be like him, and women vote for him because they want to be with him.
This man needs to be so pouplar, so respected, so appealing...other politicians will fall over each other just to be seen with him. His approval/disaproval of an issue can sway and influence votes and judicial nominations--no one will dare vote against him--and the ones that go along with him are smart enough to know where the action is... and he always votes his conscience--he is a "Principle over Party" guy that never advances the enemy's agenda whatsoever.
Unfortunately, right now the Republicans have no one that could even come close to the above descripton. (neither do the democrats, thank G-d) But maybe out of all the millions of talk radio listeners and freepers out there, there is one of these guys that can come out of nowhere and save the Republican party from our so-called leaders. I really think our best hope will be someone like the man I described above--someone who cut their teeth in the "information generation." The fuddy-duddys currently in office have failed us.
Join the rest of us...over here in reality.
As opposed to the bloated socialist bureaucracys in Europe with multi party systems?
Yes and I remember having that goofball leprechaun to thank for giving us 8 years of Semenstain and higher taxes.
FYI. Perot's old company EDS and his new company Perot Systems BOTH export hi-tech jobs to India from the US. In fact one of Perot Systems main services is to facilitate other companies to export more jobs via technology.
Whose the sucker?
Unfortunately Schundler as well as Bill Simon lost, and lost big time. Which brings up another question, did they lose because of their messages or because of the way they ran their campaigns? I think a bit of both. Frankly, winning general elections in America is about energizing moderates and the middle base. Not the base. You energize the base to win primaries. Now, winning over the base is important, but normally to win the actual election you can't cater 100% to your base unless you want to lose. Reagan is one of the few exceptions to the rule, but he was a fantastic candidate.
The ONLY way you will see more conservative candidates move up through the GOP is working with the GOP, not against it.
I liked it so much I posted it on my profile page!
That is over the top and extremely insulting to those people who vote their concience and not a political party.
I agree that it was a combination of both. People in Jersey are generally idiots and were afraid of a pro-2nd Amendment candidate. At the same time, the Republican Party completely screwed over the Schundler campaign.
However, let's look at the long-term picture. I have put my reputation on the line here on FR, and have GUARANTEED that Schundler will win the general election in '05. Judging by McSkeevy's poll numbers currently, this is not far-fetched to believe.
As long as that happens, I'm willing to deal with 4 years of McGreevy. IMO, four years of the Skeeve followed by a Schundler victory beats the hell out of a scumbag RINO like DiFrancesco or Whitman running the state for 8.
I guess what I am saying is that I am personally willing to "hold my nose" and vote for someone I dislike in the General Election, but in the primaries, I will ALWAYS vote my concience, regardless of the "electability" of my chosen candidate.
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.