Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 ... 521-540541-560561-580581-595 next last
To: Ken H
Depends on whether you support a 'living' Constitution or the original document...
541 posted on 07/12/2003 9:56:42 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
Is this why you don't post anything about Alberto and continue to smear me a RAT?

Geez, don't you have anything else to post about other than Alberto? He has not been nominated to any federal judicial post as yet - it's a pointless issue at the moment.

542 posted on 07/12/2003 10:00:05 AM PDT by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Would you like to see Alberto sitting on the USSC? If so, why?

If not, would you prefer a)derailing him before nomination, b)derailing him during nomination or c)having a Justice Alberto?

Thanks.
543 posted on 07/12/2003 10:07:35 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
Geez, don't you have anything else to post about other than Alberto? He has not been nominated to any federal judicial post as yet - it's a pointless issue at the moment.

I guess not.

544 posted on 07/12/2003 10:09:13 AM PDT by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: Southack
From Post 502: the Patriot Act, which still requires a Court to approve a warrant, even if said warrant is only produced **after** the search.

Ken H: Isn't a court supposed to approve a warrant first?"

That hasn't changed. Only when it is displayed in some rare instances.

So under the Patriot Act, authorities are still required to obtain a warrant prior to a search. Is that correct?

545 posted on 07/12/2003 10:15:22 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Yet another evader. Some of you folks truly deserve what you get.
546 posted on 07/12/2003 10:18:58 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
Yet another evader. Some of you folks truly deserve what you get.

Unlike you, I don't seek battles with nonexistent opponents.

547 posted on 07/12/2003 10:22:00 AM PDT by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
And, apparently, unlike you, I prepare for all battlefield possibilities before I have to confront them.

If Bush selected Alberto WH Counsel, then it's not a stretch to envision Bush nominating Alberto for the USSC.

Alberto's possible ascent should be explored and pre-empted IMO.
548 posted on 07/12/2003 10:36:50 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
I dropped in to watch.
549 posted on 07/12/2003 10:43:59 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Cultural Jihad
Political Correctness is an exercise in ... truth suffocation – nothing more.
550 posted on 07/12/2003 10:57:20 AM PDT by f.Christian (( bring it on ... crybabies // bullies - wimps - camp guards for darwin - marx - satan ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
Alberto's possible ascent should be explored and pre-empted IMO.

Would you rather have Alberto or Ruth Ginsburg?

Would you rather have Alberto or John Stevens?

Would you rather have Alberto or David Souter?

551 posted on 07/12/2003 12:24:22 PM PDT by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
>>So under the Patriot Act, authorities are still required to obtain a warrant prior to a search. Is that correct?<<

Yes.
552 posted on 07/12/2003 1:05:05 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
D)None of the above.

E)Dissolve the court and start over.

I prefer D, but E would probably be the best option at this point, while we still have a Constitution.

The next thing you know, we will have a Constitutional Convention, at the rate the current court has been moving.

You answered my question with a question. Does that mean you have no knowledge of Alberto and are dodging the direct questions I am asking?
553 posted on 07/12/2003 1:23:23 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Wrong.

The new authority "is primarily designed to authorize delayed notice of searches".

The amendment permits seizure of any tangible property or communications where the court finds "reasonable necessity" for this seizure.

The law also requires that notice be given within a "reasonable period" - which can be extended by the court for "good cause."

"Reasonable period" is undefined, and the administration's Field Guidance advises that this is a "flexible standard."

This significant change in the law applies to all government searches for material that "constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States" and is not limited to investigations of terrorist activity.

Prior law authorized delayed notification of a search only under a very small number of circumstances (such as surreptitious electronic surveillance).

The expansion of this extraordinary authority to all searches constitutes a radical departure from 4th Am. standards - and could very well (especially in the hands of a RAT POTUS) result in routine surreptitious entries by law enforcement agents.
554 posted on 07/12/2003 1:27:49 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
D)None of the above.

E)Dissolve the court and start over.

I prefer D, but E would probably be the best option at this point, while we still have a Constitution.

So, to mix a few metaphors, you're still up the creek without a clue, arguing against your fantasyland demons...

Don't ping me when you come down.

555 posted on 07/12/2003 1:30:17 PM PDT by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
And you still evade the core issue, but rather take the yet again lower road. How do the mindless navigate the net and find FR? Have a good day, I'm done with you now.
556 posted on 07/12/2003 1:36:13 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; Southack
Why bellyache about the Patriot Act? Most reasonable people aren't, nor should they, as Michelle Malkin explains.
557 posted on 07/12/2003 1:50:16 PM PDT by Houmatt (If it is about what goes on in the bedroom, why doesn't it stay there? And leave our kids alone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution

Alberto Gonzales

Part I: Biography/Background
Part 2: The Major Decision: Southwestern Refining
Part 3: "Liberal" civil rights issues
Parts 4 ("Conservative" Civil Rights) and 5 (Further Thoughts)
558 posted on 07/12/2003 4:12:37 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Yet you insist its repugnancy is urban myth."

What I've insisted upon is that you show actual legal text evidence to support your claims.

So far, you haven't. You probably won't, either.

In contrast, I've shown some of the actual legal text.

Hmmm... No evidence from one side; plenty of evidence from the other...I wonder who's more likely to be right?!

559 posted on 07/12/2003 4:33:09 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"So under the Patriot Act, authorities are still required to obtain a warrant prior to a search. Is that correct?"

That is correct.

560 posted on 07/12/2003 4:35:20 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580581-595 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson