.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Rantings of a Sandmonkey

Be forewarned: The writer of this blog is an extremely cynical, snarky, pro-US, secular, libertarian, disgruntled sandmonkey. If this is your cup of tea, please enjoy your stay here. If not, please sod off

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Is Bush destroying the conservative movement?

The writer of this article thinks so. It's pretty much doom and gloom stuff on how the republican voters may just sit down the next election to punish Bush for his anti- conservative leadership. For the liberal leaders who are like "WTF are you people talking about?", here is why Bush isn't a true conservative: With a single stroke…the president has…widened the fissures within the conservative movement. That's not a bad day's work -- for liberals. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aside, George W. Bush has not governed as a conservative (amnesty for illegal immigrants, reckless spending that will ultimately undo his tax cuts, signing a campaign finance bill even while maintaining its unconstitutionality). This George Bush, like his father, is showing himself to be indifferent, if not actively hostile, to conservative values. Not to mention the Harriet Miers nomination, which is really pissing the republican base off. The writer warns that republican voters may just sit out the 2006 elections to punish Bush and the party. This may lead to some negative consequences. But the “persuasive act” may be one of severe consequences. If conservatives opt to stay home next November, then Democrats -- who even now openly gloat over their electoral prospects -- will capture seats in both chambers of Congress. More importantly, Democrats will unquestionably seize the momentum going into the 2008 presidential election. This may seem like good news for democrats, but not really. The reason why people will vote for them will have more to do with their dislike of Bush's presidency and not affinity to their ideas (an area in which they are found lacking). All it would take to swing the vote back to the republicans is if their politicians convinced them that they will have the discipline to act truly conservative. The same can not be said for the democrats unfortunately, and the "vote for us because we are not Bush" strategy they seem to be following will not work past 2006. The democrats need to find a vision first, while the republicans just need to follow the one they have.


At 10/27/2005 04:19:00 AM, Blogger Tomanbay said...

I don't know about how the democrats would fare in 2008, but even if you're a republican you should wish for a democratic win in 2006. The reason is, the republicans are becoming so power-corrupt that it is ruining their reputation for being fiscaly responsible and prudent. A democratic senate would provide some balance, and possibly remotivate the the republicans by reminding them how hard it will be for them to have a democratic senate once again.

At 10/27/2005 05:00:00 AM, Blogger The Sandmonkey said...


We may have something in common here. I am a libertarian, so I usually lean more towards republicans than democrats when it comes to who gets to be in charge. However, for some reason, republicans are better hwnever there is a good opposition from the democrats. The democrats have been losing power for the past what, 6 years? If they get to win enough seats the enxt election, it maybe the wake-up call the republicans in the senate need to start acting right. you know?

At 10/27/2005 07:48:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

With the announcement of the Miers withdraw the base should be lot happier. The corruption is something made up by the press who is decidely towing the DNC line. AS a Republican there is no way I'll sit out an election and no way I will ever vote for a Democrat. I think this is all way overblown.

At 10/27/2005 12:58:00 PM, Blogger Scorekeeper said...

Made up by the DNC?
Bro did you read the latest article from the Cato Institute?
If you don't think the House Repubs especially have gotten out of control and arrogant you gotta be kidding me. Unfortunately with the state of politics today you have to "protect your turf" because the other side will do the same. The Senate which forces compromise often is not as bad believe it or not.
And actually the Dems have a much better shot of getting control of the House than the Senate. The Republicans have enough of a seat advantage there that it would be very hard to take control of the Senate. House seats are typically easier to take.
I'll find the Cato article and even I was disgusted by what the guy wrote.
I'd consider myself somewhere in the middle leaning right presently prior leaning left.

At 10/27/2005 01:00:00 PM, Blogger Scorekeeper said...

Here you go. And the part about the major league team in DC was so ridiculous it makes me hope as well that the Republicans lose control of the House. ENOUGH.

At 10/27/2005 01:05:00 PM, Blogger Scorekeeper said...

GOP Senators seem to have taken a more measured view. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who held a fundraiser at a Nationals game, said -
"I don't care who owns the team." Senator and former baseball player Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) opined: "That's up to Major League Baseball."

In the midst of the controversy, Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig insisted: "This is a baseball decision. It's not a political decision."

But Selig is too smart and the stakes are too high for baseball professionals not to consider the politics. After claiming that he was not threatening the league, Rep. Davis (House)observed: "This is an opportunity for baseball to market itself to decision-makers."

Former Baseball Commissioner Bowie Kuhn suggested that the winner "must be a group that knows how to work with politicians."

Which in this case seems to mean those belonging to the Republican majority.

When it comes to policy there seem to be ever fewer serious differences between the two leading political parties. Both expand government power, increase federal spending, lavish money on pork barrel projects, and put their own interests before that of the public at every turn. And these days, at last, the GOP appears to be more ruthless about using every bit of the power that it has accumulated for its own advantage.

While there are few substantive reasons to choose between the parties, there now is a practical reason to vote Democratic: to put at least one organ of national power into someone else's hands. As Lord Acton famously observed, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The GOP seems intent on proving the truth of Lord Acton's axiom.

This article appeared on the American Spectator Online on September 30, 2005


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home