Click here
 

Features

 

Home

About DV

Headlines

Opinion

Vote Info

Blog

SD Weather

Next Issue

Resources

Christian Events

Ad Rates

Retail Outlets

Support DV

 

Contact

 

Contact Us

Letter to Editor

Guest Column

News Tips

Press Releases

Submit Event

Subscribe

Advertise

Join Outlets

Free Copy

 

Email me when new stories post

 

   

PAUL E. SCATES

 

(10/10/2005)

 

TRUE COSTS OF CONSERVATIVE’S ‘VICTORY’
Bush Again Betrays His Base

By pAUL e. sCATES

Well, Conservatives...will you finally accept the fact that President Bush is simply another “lesser of two evils” choice, and not really a true Conservative?

The President’s nomination of long-time Bush loyalist Harriet Miers, coming on the heels of the similarly “stealth” Roberts nomination, should show true Conservatives once and for all that this man’s courting of the Conservative vote was purely political self-interest. He clearly never intended to deliver on his implied promises of appointing true Conservatives to the Supreme Court, and why? Because true Conservative nominee would bring about a nasty, partisan drawn-out battle in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Why, you ask, should Bush shrink from such a battle, especially considering the long-term impact on society that two Supreme Court appointees could have? Given such a momentous opportunity, a truly Conservative president would not. Instead, personal loyalty has driven his decisions, in both the Roberts and Miers nominations.

Also driving this nomination is a sissified tendency to “make nice” with the opposition in some twisted sense of political bipartisanship (definition: do it the liberal Democrat way or you have a fight on your hands). Although every effort at such appeasement has resulted in further Democrat slurs, opposition and accusations, Bush can’t seem to comprehend that there can be no “compromise” with liberals. With the potential for winning any kind of partisan battle, a man of principle would engage in that battle with all the power and influence of the office. He has not done so except on the tax cut issue, and even that was a milquetoast effort.

The American people chose Bush as an alternative to liberal Democrats and their socialist policies...so why does he insist on cooperating with and kowtowing to them?

You do remember, don’t you, that in his first term he actively promoted and signed the $350 billion “No Child Left Behind” education boondoggle written by Sen. Kennedy, the Massachusetts limousine liberal and socialist? And that he has vastly expanded the federal government’s size and scope, and now threatens to do so again in response to two national disasters? What kind of Conservative principle is that? When Bush could have opposed the accession of liberal Republican senator Arlen Specter to the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, knowing Specter is an avid pro-abortion advocate, he instead “took him at his word” that Conservative nominees would get a fair hearing. Well, I guess Bush already knew he wasn’t going to nominate anyone with true Conservative credentials, so what did it matter that a pseuo-Democrat chaired the committee?

Perhaps it’s recognition of the wisdom and moral clarity of those on the Judiciary Committee that prompts Bush’s deferral to their continual demands to be consulted with about judicial nominees? Let’s see, the “moral conscience” of the Senate includes Pat Leahey, who twice leaked Top Secret information to journalists while he was on the Intelligence Committee (from which he was removed). Oh, and Joe Biden, who was caught red-handed plagiarizing another’s work, and Ted Kennedy, who literally got away with murder, or at least criminal negligence, when he left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown while he scurried to save his political career. Nor should we forget Chuck Shumer, the smarmiest of them all, who at least had the honest last summer to openly declare his socialism, saying that “big government is a good thing.”

No, it’s clearly not in deference to the moral judgment of that scurrilous bunch. What then? Can it be that George W. Bush, for whom Conservatives worked so hard, and upon whom they put their waning hopes for turning around a nation hell-bent towards the socialism that modern Democrats call liberalism, is no true Conservative at all?

Well, he does call himself a “compassionate Conservative,” doesn’t he? Of course, that is an affront to all true, principled Conservatives, implying that we don’t have any “compassion” for the poor and downtrodden. Aside from the fact that the Conservative way gives power to the individual – rather than making him eternally dependent upon the federal government – and is thus far more “compassionate,” compassion isn’t something we should seek from government! To paraphrase Harry Truman (who once said, “If you want a friend in Washington...buy a dog.”), if you want compassion, go to your family or friends, or to your priest or pastor. All I want from politicians is honesty and adherence to the oath they took to uphold the Constitution; I’ll take care of my need for love and compassion on a personal level, thank you.

No, my friends, I’m afraid the dirty little secret is out. President George W. Bush, just like his opportunist, chameleon father, is not a Conservative. He is, sad to say, just another self-interested politician guided by political expediency rather than principle. “But he’s the choice we had against the socialist Kerry,” you argue? Yes, that’s true enough, but only because we acquiesce to the continual political elitism of both major parties, as if ordinary working Americans aren’t competent to rule ourselves. So the only real “choice” we get is liberalism (i.e., socialism) full steam ahead (a la Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Bill and Hillary Clinton, et al) or liberalism-lite (from George and George W. Bush, Bill Frist, Tom Delay, et al).

To all true Conservatives I ask two questions: First, how has going along with that non-existent choice worked out so far?

Second, and more importantly: Will you again fall for this scam when the GOP foolishly nominates John McCain for president, not because of any Conservative principles (or any discernible principles at all), but simply because he is perceived as “able to win”?

Webster defines “Pyrrhic victory” as one that is too costly, a victory that comes at the expense of extremely heavy losses. Well, Conservatives “won” with George W. Bush and a GOP-controlled Congress, and we’ve seen the federal government expanded, billions in pork barrel boondoggles for Republicans, a pantywaist conduct of the war against Islamic terrorists, continuation of socialist education policies, and now, two unknown entities nominated for the Supreme Court (think Souter or Stevens, both appointed by Republicans).

Many more such “victories” and America will be finished.

Formerly a liberal and an atheist, Paul E. Scates served as a Marine in Vietnam and is a lifelong student of American history, politics and culture. A former contributor to national website TooGoodReports.com, he writes his staunchly independent Conservative and informed Christian commentary for his fellow ordinary, working Americans, the “we, the people” who are ultimately responsible for preserving our Constitutional liberties. He welcomes your , pro or con.

 

Write a letter to the editor about this article

  Support Dakota Voice