Left Turn: Is the GOP 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.

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.

"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

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.