Skip to comments.
Left Turn: Is the GOP conservative?
National Review ^
| July 23, 2003 issue
| National Review Editorial Board
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.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 3rdparty8yrsclinton; 3rdpartyratvictory; betrayal; conservatives; constitution; constitutionparty; gop; gopliberal; libertarian; losertarians; no; principle; republicans; republicrats; rinos; scotus; spending; voteprinciple
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 581-595 next last
To: Southack
...
And people wonder why NRO isn't taken very seriously anymore. Shoot the messenger? How surprising [/sarcasm]
To: A Navy Vet
One of these days, I'm going quit going for the "lessor of two evils" nonsense and waste my vote, and then feel good about it. My suggestion is to stop bitching about how you are going to wate your vote and actually do it and go off and join an obscure third party that will get fewer votes than the Green Party.
To: Joe Hadenuf; Jim Robinson
Presidency of George W. Bush --the first 30 months
Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.
Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court.
Killed the U.S. - CCCP ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses.
Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy.
Killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California.
Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules that would have shut down every home business in America.
Passed 2 tax cuts----1 of which was the largest tax-Dollar value tax cut in history
Pushed through TWO raises for our military.
Increased Defense Dept funding which had deteriorated during the previous 8 years
Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit
Currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers.
Ordered Attorney-General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, NOT a leftist-imagined "collective" right.
Successfully executed 2 wars: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom.
Changed the tone in the White House, restoring HONOR and DIGNITY to the Presidency
Reorganized bureaucracy...after 9/11, condensed 20+ overlapping agencies and their intelligence sectors into one agency: the Department of Homeland Security.
Initiated discussion on Social security and individual investment accounts.
Improving govt. efficiency with .8 million jobs put up for bid...weakening unions and cutting undeserved pay raises. Wants merit based promotions/raises only.
Executed a WAR ON TERROR by getting world-wide cooperation to track funds/terrorists (has cut off much of the terrorist's funding and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network)
Stopped foreign aid that would be used to fund abortions.
Supported and upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals
Signed E.O. reversing Clinton policy of not requiring parental consent under the Medical Privacy Act
Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control.
Set to sign Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Orchestrated Republican control of the White House, the House AND the Senate.
Killed the liberal ABA's role in vetting federal judges for Congress.
GWB signed an executive order enforcing the Supreme Court's Beck decision (re: union dues being used for political campaigns against individual's wishes)
Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without any bribes or bloodshed
Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ.
Signed the LARGEST nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia
Initiated comprehensive review of our military, which was completed just prior to 9/11/01, accurately reported that ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE was critical.
Has CONSTRUCTION in process on the first ten ABM silos in Alaska, so that America will have a defense against North Korean nukes
Turning around an inherited economy in recession.
Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals.
Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains
In process of eliminating IRS marriage penalty.
Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people
Signed into law the CFR legislation (under dark of night)
Signed into law the No Child Left Behind legislation delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations)
Reorganized the INS in an attempt to safeguard the borders and ports of America and to eliminate bureaucratic redundancies and lack of accountability.
Signed trade promotion authority
Committed US funds to purchase medicine for millions of men and women and children now suffering with AIDS in Africa
Urging Medicare Reform
Urging federal liability reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits
Supports class action reform bill which limits lawyer fees so that more settlement money goes to victims
Submitted comprehensive energy plan--awaits Congressional action. ( works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy)
Endorses and promotes The Responsibility Era ("In a compassionate society, people respect one another and take responsibility for the decisions they make in life. My hope is to change the culture from one that has said, if it feels good, do it; if you've got a problem, blame somebody else -- to one in which every single American understands that he or she are responsible for the decisions that you make; you're responsible for loving your children with all your heart and all your soul; you're responsible for being involved with the quality of the education of your children; you're responsible for making sure the community in which you live is safe; you're responsible for loving your neighbor, just like you would like to be loved yourself. " -----this quote was too good to leave out)
Started the USA Freedom Corps
Pushing for passage of Prescription Drug Benefit package for Seniors which will have 'means' testing
Pushing for privatization of Medicare and CHOICES based on current Federal Employee Health benefits program.
Initiated review of all federal agencies with a goal to eliminate federal jobs (review to be done by September 2003) in an effort to reduce the size of federal gov while increasing private sector jobs.
Part of coalition (Russia, Israel, Palestine, USA) for Israeli/Palestinian "Roadmap to Peace"
Challenged the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities and not become The League of Nations ( in other words, completely irrelevant)
Nominated strong, conservative judges to the judiciary.
Changed parts of the Forestry Management Act to allow necessary clean-up of the national forests in order to reduce fire danger.
As part of the national forests clean-up, the President restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges) and removed the need for an EIS (Enivironmental Impact Statement) before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger.
Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.
303
posted on
07/11/2003 11:15:17 AM PDT
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: finnman69
You are obviously intelligent and see the big picture. electability versus ideology requires an artful balance and an intelligent voter recognizes that.Thanks, finn, you're damned straight about the balance, as frustrating as it may sometimes be.
304
posted on
07/11/2003 11:32:54 AM PDT
by
jmc813
(Check out the FR Big Brother 4 thread! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/943368/posts)
To: jmc813; All
To: A Navy Vet
"So if I vote for the Constitution Party, I'm doing the above [aiding and abetting the DemocRATS to win, and therefore taking away the ability of conservatives to have a voice in a VIABLE political party]?"That's right.
306
posted on
07/11/2003 11:44:45 AM PDT
by
Matchett-PI
(Marxist DemocRATS, Nader-Greens, and Religious KOOKS = a clear and present danger to our Freedoms.)
To: A Navy Vet
Please. And don't bother explaining the "reality" to me. I've been holding my nose for years as I pull the handle. One of these days, I'm going quit going for the "lessor of two evils" nonsense and waste my vote, and then feel good about it. And I am confident, that there are many more lurkers that agree with you, than those posting and wringing their hands, attempting to defend the business as usual, two beltway parties.
307
posted on
07/11/2003 11:52:36 AM PDT
by
Joe Hadenuf
(RECALL DAVIS, position his smoking chair over a trapdoor, a memo for the next governor.)
To: A Navy Vet
"One of these days, I'm going quit going for the "lessor of two evils" nonsense and waste my vote, and then feel good about it." And let's face it --- "feeling good" is what motivates those who say to themselves, "I have seen the truth --- but it nakes no sense."
The emotion-driven will not be persuaded by reason, which was the exact point I was making to BillyBoy HERE when I advised him to read no farther.
308
posted on
07/11/2003 11:55:05 AM PDT
by
Matchett-PI
(Marxist DemocRATS, Nader-Greens, and Religious KOOKS = a clear and present danger to our Freedoms.)
To: Southack
I think all those things added together amounts to whistling in the wind. The fact is that the federal government refuses to defend the borders of this nation. That is one of their primary constitutional duties and they will not do it. Any serious attempt to thwart terrorism on American soil must include tight border control. Thanks to them most of us are sitting ducks just playing the odds that "it won't happen in my town".
Glad to hear the INS is on the job though, LOL.
309
posted on
07/11/2003 11:59:00 AM PDT
by
Buck72
To: Buck72
I think all those things added together amounts to whistling in the wind.Ditto....
310
posted on
07/11/2003 12:13:13 PM PDT
by
Joe Hadenuf
(RECALL DAVIS, position his smoking chair over a trapdoor, a memo for the next governor.)
To: PhiKapMom
Constitutional constraints on the federal government is my "single issue."
To: Matchett-PI; Jim Robinson; oldglory; MinuteGal; gonzo; Seeking the truth
BTTT!!! You nailed the bottom line in #234 Florida FReeper Dittos!!
312
posted on
07/11/2003 12:17:54 PM PDT
by
Luke FReeman
(FReedom isn't FRee)
To: Sid Rich
Mine too. And that's why it's critical we have a complete turnover in the Supreme Court. How do you think we can accomplish that?
313
posted on
07/11/2003 12:20:24 PM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
To: Sid Rich
Am I to take from your comments that you don't plan to vote unless the President gets through what you want?
314
posted on
07/11/2003 12:24:25 PM PDT
by
PhiKapMom
(Bush Cheney '04 - VICTORY IN '04 -- $4 for '04 - www.GeorgeWBush.com/donate/)
To: Matchett-PI
" The emotion-driven will not be persuaded by reason,..."
Don't try to lay that on me. I don't make my decisions by how I "feel". I simply stated that it would feel good to follow my political principles once again. At this point, I don't know what I'm going to do in 2004.
315
posted on
07/11/2003 12:36:14 PM PDT
by
A Navy Vet
(Fedgov is the problem, not the solution)
To: Southack
"Rush is calling Bush a liberal Democrat" Not quite. In fact Rush disagrees with those who say that Bush is a Liberal. (I know what he says, because I listen to him every day, and tape his programs).
Rush says Bush is "acting like" a liberal DemocRAT.
And then he goes on to say that he understands the strategery -- to get some of the DemocRAT base to vote for him.
He then goes on to say that the strategery will probably work (that's why DemocRAT leaders are beside themselves with rage), but after we "buy their votes" --- how do we keep them voting Republican?
That's a good question. Unless their hearts and minds can be changed -- FAST -- we may have to continue to buy their votes for a while, until we can effect the changes we want IN THE JUDICIARY.
Isn't that how the DemocRATS did it? Isn't that [buying votes] the mechanism they used in order to keep power long enough to incrementally get their judges in place over the past 60 years so that they could overide the Constitutional authority of the legislatures?
What is it going to take --- and how long is it going to take -- for us to be able to get those judges out of there? If we are going to have a prayer of preserving this Republic and upholding our Constitution, it is VITAL that we get those weasel DemocRAT judges out of there!!!
THAT has to be priority #1.
And so --- what are we going to do? Will we attempt to use reason with the "swing voters" that the Marxist DemocRATS view as their "useful idiots"?
Or will we take another page out of the DemocRAT playbook, and buy their votes to buy us the time we need to make a U-turn in the judiciary?
If anyone has a better idea (one that will work - "reason" won't), put forth your plan.
NOTE: I won't hold my breath. (If the DemocRATS had had a better plan, they would have used it). Hahahaha
316
posted on
07/11/2003 12:36:51 PM PDT
by
Matchett-PI
(Marxist DemocRATS, Nader-Greens, and Religious KOOKS = a clear and present danger to our Freedoms.)
To: Jim Robinson
So Bush can appoint O'Connor chief justice and Al (Pro-Abort) Gonzales, one of his appointees to the Texas Supreme Court, as an associate justice? That's not going to help. But it will get Bush lots of credit for appointing the first female chief justice and the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.
Remember, Blackmun was a Republican appointee and he wrote Roe v. Wade. O'Connor, Stevens, Souter, and Kennedy are all Republican appointees. If this is what Republicans are going to put on the Court, then there is no point in choosing them over Democrats.
317
posted on
07/11/2003 12:53:11 PM PDT
by
TBP
To: Southack
Big bump!!
318
posted on
07/11/2003 12:53:32 PM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
To: Southack
Lots of good stuff there, but some are just more redistribution of wealth, expansion of programs that the fedgov shouldn't be involved in, and a questionable foreign policy toward Israel. And you think CFR is a good thing?
You forgot the Patriot Act which in part stomps on our 4th amendment rights. Patriot Act II is going to be worse.
My problem is with all the good he's done, he's also increasing the budgets of hundreds of programs that should be reduced or eliminated altogether. President Bush is INCREASING the size of the Fedgov. Unsat.
319
posted on
07/11/2003 12:53:44 PM PDT
by
A Navy Vet
(Fedgov is the problem, not the solution)
To: Texas Federalist
"I think it will ultimately be the judicial appointment issue that sways me away from a third party." Bump that!! Like the Syndicate/Mafia/Criminal Element, DemocRATS know that if they "own the judges" they can literally "get away with murder".
Literally. See #316
320
posted on
07/11/2003 12:55:26 PM PDT
by
Matchett-PI
(Marxist DemocRATS, Nader-Greens, and Religious KOOKS = a clear and present danger to our Freedoms.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 581-595 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson