|
| |
A Conservative House,
Divided Against Itself, Cannot Stand
Politics/Frank
Salvato, Managing Editor |
October 21, 2005
- If just a year ago, as George W. Bush proclaimed
victory in the 2004 presidential election, you would have told me that the
Democrats would be sitting back and laughing as the conservatives fed on
their own, like a pack of self-indulgent jackals, I would have dismissed the
notion as incredible. But as we approach the 2006 mid-term election cycle it
would seem that notion isn’t so far fetched. We are starring directly into
the eyes of a Republican-Ross Perot moment and the Democrats are enjoying
every minute of it.
For many on the “rightest” side of the right, the Harriet Miers nomination
has proven to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. They saw
an opportunity to pull the trigger on a political nuclear confrontation and,
in their opinion, President Bush shied away from it. This, coupled with a
lackluster approach to border security and a perceived indifference to
spending excesses, has stirred passions of contempt among many in the
conservative political community.
While I agree that the Bush Administration has been less than the vision of
a conservative archangel on a few issues, I disagree with those who are
advocating the withholding of support for the president. The plain and
simple fact of the matter is this, if conservatives maintain a divided house
because of ideological differences with the Bush Administration, the
Democrats will not only win seats in the upcoming midterm elections, they
just may wrap up the 2008 presidential election two years early.
Conservatives in the United States have a habit of shooting themselves in
the foot when they have the opportunity to advance their cause. One needs
only to look back at the defeat of George H.W. Bush to validate this claim.
He was most definitely the more qualified of the candidates. But, because of
an unyielding ideology and because they held him in contempt for breaking
his promise on taxes, many conservatives chose to withhold their support.
Refusing
to realize that Congress had more to do with the tax increase than President
George H.W. Bush did, they opted to champion Ross Perot, a third party
candidate who had the same chance of winning the White House as George
McGovern did when he ran against Richard Nixon. This extremely poor choice
of who to support was directly responsible for the election of Bill Clinton
and eight years of quasi-Socialistic government.
Make no mistake; it was less about the hard work of the left-leaning
Democrats and more about the lack of conservative cohesiveness that allowed
the Clinton dynasty to emerge. We should all live with that “stain” upon
each of our “blue dresses” for the remainder of our political lives.
Purity of conservative ideology aside, Harriet Miers deserves her day in
front of the Senate Judiciary Committee – and then in front of the full
Senate – if for no other reason than because the President nominated her. In
the end, it will be the Senate’s advise and consent role that will determine
if Harriet Miers is sworn in as the next Associate Justice of the United
States Supreme Court, not the president’s will. To think otherwise is to
give conservatives in the Senate a pass on their Constitutional duty. If
they don’t believe that she is capable, they can vote her down. They have
that power.
As for the obscene level that government spending has reached, it needs to
be pointed out that Congress approves the budget, not the White House. If
real fiscal reform is ever to be attained it will be the appetites of those
in Congress that will have to be suppressed. While many waste no time
pointing out that President Bush hasn’t once used his veto power where
government spending is concerned, it should also be noted that he isn’t the
one proposing legislation to pay for the building of bridges that go to
uninhabited islands in Alaska.
The bottom line on spending is this; if Congress sent pork-free budgets to
the president’s desk there would be no pork in government spending. To lay
the blame of excessive government spending solely at the feet of George W.
Bush is not only disingenuous, it again gives Congress a free pass on the
role they play in the problem that is out-of-control government spending.
It is easy to play the blame game, especially in Washington DC. It is
convenient to finger-point in the president’s direction because he is just
one man where the conservatives in Congress are many. But ease and
convenience most often lead not to those ultimately responsible, but to
those who are most easily targeted.
If President Bush is responsible for sending Harriet Miers to The Hill as
his nominee, the Senate is responsible for whether she is confirmed or not.
They have the last word on the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. The
onus is on the Senate. And where the president is responsible for sending
budgets to Congress, Congress is responsible for sending budget legislation
to the president’s desk. There is no other way to look at this issue.
Congress is the bigger villain where government spending is concerned.
So, conservatives, should they choose, can continue to deride George W. Bush
about his nominees and his administration’s policies, but they do so at
their own peril. You see, they have unwittingly joined the “hate-Bush”
bandwagon, a bandwagon that includes Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Code Pink
and the rest of the socialist liberal left. That is why the Democrats are
laughing.
Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying, “We must, indeed, all hang together
or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” If conservatives don’t
hang together now we will all hang separately, and President Hillary Clinton
will be the hangman.Related
Reading:
No More Benefit of the Doubt
http://www.conservative.org/columnists/keene/051017.asp
|
|
Contact Frank
Bio
|
|
