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.