Conservatives NEED to get their act together SOON

[Bonnie]

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/rossmackenzie/2005/10/13/171099.html

Try this for a picture:

The nation with a president whose Investor's Business Daily Leadership Index stands at 41, a nine-point plunge since August; Republicans, who, during his presidency have rated him as high as 95, now rate him at only 79. Declining support for the American presence in Iraq. Deficit spending at record levels, with more to come for Katrina recovery. Gasoline at $3 per gallon, and big jitters over the prospect of winter heating bills double those of just a year ago.

General Motors maybe about to go toes-up; Alcoa and others hurting, big-time. Social Security reform and estate tax repeal off the table. Conservatives balking at cutting pork from spending bills to pay for Katrina; liberals lamenting that all suggested amounts are too little. Tom DeLay in the dock and Bill Frist maybe about to be; the Plame-leak investigation possibly moving toward a similar fate for Karl Rove and others in the Bush administration.

The Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination encountering heavy flak from conservatives - with liberals on the sidelines secretly smiling. The left niggling a Bush speech about the war against terror, wherein he spoke of the determination of an enemy "never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality" and driven by "a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world."


Rarely, if ever, do the records show such a swift, abrupt turnaround in presidential approval.

The principal precipitators? Katrina and Harriet Miers.

Regarding the former: Rightly or wrongly, Bush took huge hits - and ultimately took responsibility for a lame federal response. Never mind that his offers of quick National Guard assistance to Louisiana and New Orleans, at least, were initially rejected. And never mind that his proposal to federalize key aspects of disaster relief, possibly the only realistic answer over the long term, faces mounting criticism.

Regarding the latter: Key conservative constituencies look on the Miers nomination as a lost opportunity. Never mind Bush's knowledge of her work over many years. Never mind that he and she evidently share similar evangelical religious views. (Question: Does rising resistance to Miers from the left suggest from that sector elements of the very religious intolerance it so diligently deplores?) And never mind that in none of his nominations to the appellate courts - or in his successful nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court - has Bush betrayed his pledge to offer individuals committed to strict constitutional and statutory interpretation.

So what is it about this, perhaps the fastest fall in presidential approval?

The ideologization of the right.

For decades, a conservative ideology - a set of "correct" views forming a lens through which one views reality - did not exist. The conservative movement, such as it was, contained former communists and anti-communists, free marketers and compassionists and private-sector welfarists; unionists (Ronald Reagan's "hardhats") and those driven by a commitment to the Taft-Hartley Law's section 14-B; Burkeans, traditionalists, libertarians, religionists, and believers in living one's life according to an individualized secular virtue; neocon refugees from the liberal swamp.

The conservative umbrella kept the rain off all these disparates; the conservative tent had room for just about anyone.

Conservatives took over the Republican Party and drove it to political power. On their way to consolidating power, two things happened:

1. They demonstrated time and again that they were not particularly good at government - that in many ways they don't do the governing thing well, often not so well as liberal Democrats.

2. They coalesced around a set of views and values one generally had to embrace in order to have one's claim of allegiance to the conservative flag accepted.

As President, Bush has deviated from the ideologized conservative norm - particularly in federal spending and federal intrusiveness. In his federally financed compassionate conservatism, the notion of limited government disappears up the chimney. It may be that truly compassionate conservatism can be achieved in no other way. Yet following Katrina, which dismayingly put human faces on the sterile data of poverty, the Bush commitment of a $200 billion solution hardly conforms to any tenet of today's conservative ideology.

And the Miers nomination joined the Katrina response in breaking the back of certain conservatives' trust in Bush's devotion to the Ten (or however many there may be) Conservative Commandments.

The fundamental political problem in Washington and many state capitols is not so much the division between Republican and Democrat or between conservative and liberal, as a division among Republicans. Many have failed to work with the others; now, Katrina and Miers may prove to be bridges too far. Major realignment may be in process, with the Democrats the principal beneficiaries in the short term.

Can they capitalize on Republican/conservative division in the long term? It's difficult to believe Howard Dean will attract many disaffected Republican conservatives. Ditto regarding Al Gore, that profound thinker (and self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet), who these days is saying such weighty things as (a) declaring "American democracy in grave danger" from within, and (b) pronouncing dead "the marketplace of ideas that was so beloved and so carefully protected by our Founders" - a datum that will come as major news to many people.

Another Democratic heavyweight - James Carville - said the other day, "Sometimes the problem with being a Democrat is being a Democrat." To paraphrase what Israel's U.N. ambassador Abba Eban said famously of the Palestinians: So devoid of energy and ideas are today's Democrats that they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Certainly it's premature to count Bush and the conservative Republicans out. But they need to get their game together - and soon.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Conservatives NEED to get their act together SOON

You ain't lyin' baby!

 

[theim]

Watch. Just watch.

All I'll say is that if the Dems are relying on this non-existant "conservative crackup" they are set to take another beating in '06.

This is like every other headline news item that everybody thinks will DESTROY THE REPUBLICANS!!!!!1!!1!!one! and come three months later nobody remembers what the big deal was. Schiavo anyone?

 

[Bonnie]

Watch. Just watch.

All I'll say is that if the Dems are relying on this non-existant "conservative crackup" they are set to take another beating in '06.

This is like every other headline news item that everybody thinks will DESTROY THE REPUBLICANS!!!!!1!!1!!one! and come three months later nobody remembers what the big deal was. Schiavo anyone?

I agree but I am troubled by the lack of unity within the party and Im hoping this doesn't cost us seats in 06 because any Democrat majority that gets in will do absolutely NOTHING but make it their mission to ruin Bush by not passing any leglislation even if it's good for the country.............Just as they do now!!

 

[no1tovote4]

I agree but I am troubled by the lack of unity within the party and Im hoping this doesn't cost us seats in 06 because any Democrat majority that gets in will do absolutely NOTHING but make it their mission to ruin Bush by not passing any leglislation even if it's good for the country.............Just as they do now!!

What is the lack of unity in your party? I see little evidence of that.

 

[Bonnie]

What is the lack of unity in your party? I see little evidence of that.

Actually Im not a republican so much as a conservative, so I was referring more to the Conservative base. But it is everywhere stemming from the displeasure at Bush's large fiscal spending, his lack of committment on securing our borders, and now his pick for a new justice. Some of that anger is warranted I think, but it's much more important to get things in order now rather than just implode like the Dems are doing.

 

[no1tovote4]

Actually Im not a republican so much as a conservative, so I was referring more to the Conservative base. But it is everywhere stemming from the displeasure at Bush's large fiscal spending, his lack of committment on securing our borders, and now his pick for a new justice. Some of that anger is warranted I think, but it's much more important to get things in order now rather than just implode like the Dems are doing.

Ahh, okay. I think that Conservatives should get together and write another Contract with America.

 

[theim]

Ahh, okay. I think that Conservatives should get together and write another Contract with America.

Or they could just get together and grow a pair. Everytime I hear of those idiots sacrificing an agenda platform in the name of "cooperation" with the likes of Kennedy I want to puke.

The whole reason alot of conservatives are saying they're going to stay home next election is because their work on the last two didn't matter at all. All they have to do to turn out the base (pssst...that's who elects them) is act like a majority and start ramming things through. Because nobody is going to get off their asses for a bunch of wimps who cower in abject fear at every NYT editorial.

 

[Bonnie]

Or they could just get together and grow a pair. Everytime I hear of those idiots sacrificing an agenda platform in the name of "cooperation" with the likes of Kennedy I want to puke.

Singing my song now!! :teeth:

 

[Adam's Apple]

Here's someone else who shares your concern about disunity among the conservatives, Bonnie.

Conservative Disharmony
By Lisa Fabrizio, The Conservative Voice
October 14, 2005

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=8964

 

[Bonnie]

Here's someone else who shares your concern about disunity among the conservatives, Bonnie.

Conservative Disharmony
By Lisa Fabrizio, The Conservative Voice
October 14, 2005

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=8964

Great article thank you Adam!!

Conservative Disharmony
October 14, 2005 12:00 AM EST

Conservatives are cranky people by nature. Having walked in the liberal shadow for forty years as the opposition party, finding themselves in control of the government has, at times, been an even less sunny experience.
For too long, they fought only liberals and their freedom-killing “progressive” ideas. Now that they are truly a major political force, they additionally must battle the mainstream media and, it seems, each other.

They too, by nature, have brains they like to use, also sometimes against each other. So we see that in the Harriet Miers dustup, some wise words have been expended on both side of the argument. Unlike their liberal counterparts, conservatives are a diverse group who seldom march in lockstep and there’s no fight as fierce as a family fight; but until now, it’s been mostly civil.

It is easy to understand the near hysteria from some on the right. The courts have been the Holy Land that conservative crusaders have been trying to reclaim for decades. They are the reason some have looked the other way at what they regard as President Bush’s major transgressions; profligate spending and his reluctance to deal with the illegal immigration mess.

Their former disagreements have been mostly in-house. Apart from think-tanks and conferences, conservatives who support the GOP have generally followed Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." Who then could have conceived of the following from National Review’s Rich Lowry?

The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is foundering, but President Bush is confident that she will be confirmed. Bush thus displays a touching faith in the power of hypocrisy, double standards, and contradictions to see his nominee through. The case for Miers is an unholy mess, an opportunistic collection of whatever rhetorical flotsam happens to be at hand.

Or this biting snippet from The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto:

Mediocre people are, of course, entitled to representation. That's what Congress is for. But the federal courts are not a representative institution, and the charge of elitism is a strange one in this context. After all, it's called the Supreme Court, not the Court of Common Place.

But it is exactly this kind of rhetoric that disturbs rank-and-file conservatives, exceptional as well as mediocre. It is buying into liberal elitism to think the SCOTUS should be anything more than the third--and by design least powerful--branch of government or that its justices should be more than mere mortals.

It is disheartening that some conservative pundits attach an almost mystical aura to the simple words of the U.S. Constitution and believe one must possess mythical powers to discern their mysteries. It is this sort of thinking that led to liberal visions of penumbras and other fanciful illuminations that so frustrate those on the right who, mediocre though they may be, are able to read and understand the forthright law of the land.

Still, there is cause for concern regarding the Miers nomination. Because she was on nobody’s short list--or medium or long--she is a judicial cipher, or as some say, a stealth nominee. Much energy has been spent asking questions. The anti-Miers choir sings the same songs: Who is she? What are her qualifications? How can we know her judicial philosophy with no case history to read?

Pertinent questions all, though they will probably go unanswered until she is on the bench. But ultimately one must also ask: Why would President Bush nominate a stealthy Souter-type? What in his judicial nomination history suggests that he would? What would his purpose be? Could his vanity lead him to abandon his vow to remake the judiciary?

We are left to ponder the questions on all sides of this curious case as well as the liberal media’s inference that the Miers nomination will lead to the demise of conservative power. They somehow believe that disaffected right-wingers will sit out the 2006 elections in protest of Bush’s “betrayal,” and allow the balance of power in Congress to be decided by their liberal brethren.

Certain members of the conservative punditry may be sounding some discordant notes, but the media is, as usual, tone-deaf.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=8964

Maybe Im wrong about trusting Bush on this who knows?
It just doesn't make sense that he would cave in, it would be political suicide. You know many of the other choices Brown, etc told Bush they did not want to go through the nomination process, fearing their careers and reputations would be ruined by the Dems.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I'm glad you enjoyed the article, Bonnie. The Conservative Voice is a very good conservative website.