A conservative news and views blog.

Location: St. Louis, Missouri, United States

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Republican Crack-Up

Nathan Tabor, writing in Human Events mirrors my reasoning about the nomination and subsequent confirmation of John Roberts. He rightly points out that Roberts was a trap into which Republicans have fallen, and as a result we are now stuck with this terrible nomination for Sandra (look at may! I`m Sandra Day!) O`Connor`s vacated lounge chair. I wholeheartedly agree, and fear this may be the stumbling block which finally breaks the Republican coalition.

If the President and the Republicans had done the right thing in the first place, we wouldn`t find ourselves riding this French tank (all reverse gears!). Unfortunately, our leaders chose the easy path, and now find themselves trapped in the tarpits. (Broad and easy is the path which leads to damnation, according to the Bible.) We needed to fight the battle of the filibuster. The Democrats have set a precedent, a precedent which will color all future nominations-both by Democrat and Republican Presidents. This was, and is, unacceptable! We should have fought this fight when we had the strength to win. Unfortunately, the Republicans have still not learned how to govern, and did not have the stomach for that fight. Our President especially did not have the stomach for that fight, and how can the Republican leadership buck the President on this?

So, who wins? The Democrats get a Chief Justice who probably won`t be as conservative as the last Chief Justice, they also get a new Justice who will probably not be any more conservative than Sandra Dee, and they haven`t had to surrender their filibuster to accomplish this. The President gets two personal friends on the Court without having a knock-down, drag-out fight. The Republicans get to avoid exposing themselves politically while the pro-business lobby gets two of their own.

Who loses? Those of us who put the President on Pennsylvania Avenue! The Conservative base gets flipped the bird, especially social conservatives. Pro-Lifers are probably completely, well, you know! Also, I fear this may be the thing which cracks up the Republican party.

This President has continually damaged party unity over the years-especially with his pro-big business stand on illegal immigration, as well as his terrible fiscal policies and his willingness to sign ANY legislation sent to him (McCain-Feingold, Prescription drugs, Stem-Cell research funding,etc.) The Conservatives have had many complaints about Bush, but have stuck with him because of his avowed social conservativism (although, come to think of it, he hasn`t really DONE anything to prove it!) and the War on Terror. Lately, his prosecution of the War has consisted mainly of rehashing the same speeches he has been giving since `01, while he has allowed political correctness to stymie real success on the battlefield. Nonetheless, conservatives have understood that Bush is better than any Democratic alternative, so they have stuck with the President despite his apparent contempt for his base. This nomination, I fear, may be the straw which breaks the horses back (he certainly hasn`t been breaking many camels backs with the war lately!)and which will finally split the party. The ONE THING which held conservatives was the Supreme Court! This was the guaranteed vote getter and money generator. It is becomming apparent to those of us in the conservative movement that this President is not one of us, and never had been. He no longer needs to court us, so his true colors are showing. What are those colors? The same big-business, country club Republicanism of his father! The apple truly does not fall far from the tree!

I hope I`m absolutely wrong about this, but I see nothing to dissuade me of my opinion. I fear this President has sold us out with this Miers appointment, and the one thing we`ve worked toward all of these years has been stolen from us. I fear this may purge Ronald Reagan`s wing from the Party, and the Republicans will return to their traditional role as the loyal opposition.

Get ready to hear ``Madam President`` in the future!



Blogger Aussiegirl said...

Wonderful post -- you are absolutely correct. And in my head I hear Karen Hughes comments when she was promoting her little book about how she came to work for the president (speaking of odd attachments -- GWB seems to have a strange predilection for adoring women surrounding him -- echoes of his mama? Or mama substitutes?) Anyway -- back to Karen -- she described how she was uninterested in getting back into politics until GWB called and told her he wanted her to join him in creating a "new" Republican party - -and she went on to say in so many words -- not that old party,the one with all the conservatives and mean people, but a new socially aware and compassionate party, etc. etc. And that is what he has done. In a sense, he pushed his faith and people believed that meant he was conservative -- but he's fundamentally not. The Bushes did not like the Reagans and the relations were famously icy. They looked down on him. And so they are completing the job of destroying the Reagan coalition and the Reagan legacy. Perhaps it also has something to do with his alcoholic personality, but he seems to have a neurotic desire to please his enemies -- but a willingness to shaft his closest allies -- the conservatives. They are tone deaf to that side of the party, which is why they came out with vicious smears of "elitism" and were surprised that people were outraged by that attack. They are clueless and arrogant. It's too late, I'm afraid. He will have destroyed this party and put all his people into positions of power, like the Clintons have done in their party. I don't think we will ever be free of their influence and money until someone like a REagan comes along. They will pass the presidency back and forth between them -- Jeb - or perhaps Jeb's son - that's why they need the Hispanic vote. It's sad -- but true.

4:54 PM  
Blogger TJ Willms said...

Tim, Aussiegirl, Great post and insightful comments.

I wish I didn’t have to share your fatalistic view of the future of the Republican Party. However, I see no emerging leadership anywhere I look. I find one mealy-mouth weak-kneed pseudo-conservative after another. None have the guts to fight for what matters these S.C.O.T.U.S. nominations really, really matter, and Bush has bollixed them something fierce. Gingrich had great potential as a national conservative with a capital “C” leader but shot himself in the foot effectively taking self out of the fight.
It’s a testament to how truly Great Ronald Reagan was to get so much done with so little help. George W. Bush isn’t conservative enough to even clean up after Reagan’s horse.

9:43 AM  
Blogger Aussiegirl said...

"George W. Bush isn't conservative enough to clean up after Reagan's horse."

Bravo!! Beautifully stated!

4:52 PM  
Blogger Steve Rankin said...

I'm not as pessimistic as y'all are, though I'm pretty upset with GWB. This "conservative" is the biggest spender since World War II, and he doesn't give a rat's rear about illegal immigration. He's issued ZERO vetoes but threatened to veto any changes in the prescription-drug boondoggle.

It's too bad that GWB's election has likely ended any chance of a Jeb presidency, as I always considered Jeb more conservative than GWB. If Jeb hadn't lost in '94, he may have been the 2000 presidential nomineee.

Gingrich is a fount of great ideas but has a prickly personality. Besides, he dumped his 2nd wife in '99 and remarried.

I hope Tom Tancredo gets into the presidential race and raises all kinds of hell.

Back to GWB: in my view, Supreme Court nominations were his last chance to redeem himself, and he's blowing it. Miers may be a good candidate, but she's far from the best. She may yet be withdrawn.

2008 is a long way off (the race will start in 2007), but I kinda like Sen. George Allen of Virginia.

BTW: No one can blame GWB on me, as I haven't voted for a major-party presidential candidate since Reagan.

2:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by