Posted on 09/17/2005 1:47:47 AM PDT by Frank T
Yes, President Bush gave a good speech Thursday night but no amount of inspiring rhetoric can obscure the fact that Hurricane Katrina may well have drowned the Republican Party as a credible vehicle of conservative reform.
Why? Consider House Majority Leader Tom Delay’s stunning assertion the day before Bush spoke from New Orleans that 11 years of GOP control of Congress has “pared [government] down pretty good.”
Here’s what he said when a puzzled reporter asked if Delay really was suggesting there is no fat to cut in the federal budget to help pay Katrina recovery costs: "My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet."
Neither Tip O’Neill nor Jim Wright – two powerful former Democratic Speakers of the House famous for their big spending ways – could have said it better than Delay.
The worst thing about Delay’s comment is not its factual unreality, bad as that is, but what the remark says about the GOP congressional leadership’s attitude about spending our tax dollars.
“We’ve already cut it to the bone” or “there isn’t any more fat to cut” or variations thereof were typical responses from O’Neill and Wright to critics of excessive federal spending. The truth then as now is the federal government was and is shot through with monumental waste, fraud and inefficiency.
Today Delay sings the Democrats’ tune as the GOP leadership in the House and Senate gives President Bush more blank checks to finance a Katrina recovery that promises epic boondoggles. So we get the same result no matter which party controls Congress.
The GOP’s prospective fall could be much more swift than the Democrats in 1994, however, because of the Internet. Then, the mainstream media’s lock on the news meant it took years for enough voters to finally get the message that it was time for a change in Washington.
The GOP pork barons on Capitol Hill can’t count on such protection. The Talk Radio and cable TV that broke the mainstream media monopoly are being succeeded by the Blogosphere that instantly spreads the word about events inside the Beltway.
Judging by the response to my recent column here on Townhall.com asking if the time has come for conservatives to dump the GOP, word about Republican hypocrisy in the nation’s capitol is being heard loud and clear beyond the Beltway.
The “time to dump the GOP” column generated more than 200 emails, many brimming with anger, disbelief and disgust. Less than a dozen came from people saying the GOP is just fine. The vast majority said they either have already or are planning to switch to the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party.
Emails inspired by an online column don’t make a scientific survey, of course, but what if those responses do reflect an as-yet unreported gathering revolt of the GOP base? All that’s required for a GOP-majority ending electoral earthquake is five percent or so of the base staying home or voting third party on election day.
It’s hard to deny such an earthquake is coming when there are so many signs “out there.” They are most obvious and intense whenever discussion turns to protecting America’s borders. Millions of illegal aliens are streaming into America and there is no doubt terrorist operatives are among them, yet Bush and the congressional GOP seem to have no clue about the political consequences of not stopping the alien invasion.
Now it appears issues like out-of-control spending are also generating pre-shocks. A fall became certain when people became convinced in the months leading up to the 1994 election that entrenched majority Democrats had lost touch with the electorate, lacked credibility when promising reform and were too attached to the perks of power.
That is why Delay’s comments should send shudders down the spine of every GOP strategist. The House Majority Leader’s attitude tells legions of the GOP’s most faithful supporters that the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan has irreparably lost its way.
Political parties in America don’t always die quickly. It took several elections before the demise of the Federalists and the Whigs became obvious to all but the most die-hard supporters. Thanks to the microchip, the GOP might not have long to linger once the base splinters.
I remember how conservatives bashed Reagan for cutting nukes with Gorbachev, because they didn't recognize it as part of Reagan's strategy for winning.
History repeats.
I guess the author will just have to start voting Democrat then. Lord knows they're a real bastion of fiscal responsbility and social conservatism!
/SARCASM OFF
That is a trade-off that many conservatives will no longer be making - one party of the other.
What the author is suggesting is that the Republican party, federally, can die off, like the Whigs and Federalists before them. He is not suggesting that conservatives switch to the Democrats. And I think you realise that, sarcasm notwithstanding.
Reagan / Gorbachev...those were the days of high stakes games played well. Upfront, warm and with real promise and menace. Another thread going on about Reagan on the $50 bill, and your post just reminded me how clear-eyed and brilliant he was.
I don't think that Bush is up to that level, but very few are.
He doesn't have to be up to that level, in terms of core beliefs.
Bush has been consistently and cleverly rendering the Democrats politically impotent. What Reagan did to the USSR, Bush is doing to the Democrat Party. He is removing liberalism as a major political force, and if he has to put up with budget defecits in the short term and some complaining conservatives, that's fine: Reagan did that as well.
Bush knows what he's doing.
I find that incredibly doubtful. If such were a possibility, it would have happened decades ago.
What the author is suggesting is that the Republican party, federally, can die off, like the Whigs and Federalists before them.
...and that was how long ago? During a time when there were how many other parties?
Look, I wouldn't mind at all if there were a truly conservative party available. That would help keep the Republican Party true to its base and would assure that no party could take the core values for granted. But the only alternative out there is pretty much overrun with either dope-smoking, open-border nutbars or reactionary wonks who wouldn't attract more than 5% of the voting population.
Bottom line: there are very few purists left in politics and the remaining 90% of voters are willing to compromise on nearly everything provided they still get reality TV and a fat paycheck. That's life...
He is not suggesting that conservatives switch to the Democrats. And I think you realise that, sarcasm notwithstanding.
Just repeating what I get tossed at me every time I call a RINO a RINO...
I'm not saying tha Bush is on the wrong track, and I can't see me ever leaving the GOP, but how will increasing the size of government - and paying for it with deficits - destroy the Democratic Party?
Reagan engaged in an arms race so that the USSR had to give up and / or go bankrupt. [He also did some nifty diplomacy and a few shooting wars, but that's not to the point on this issue...] How is the White House spending OUR money putting the Dems in a similar position? The White House is bankrupting the US, not the USSR and certainly not the Dems.
In short, Bush is using reversable tactics to take the Democrats' issues away from them. If they have nothing to run on, they can't win, so they become shrill, and seal themselves out of power even after Bush stops proving their solutions useless.
Reagan forced the USSR's hand and beat it with a better one. Bush is taking the Democrats' hand away from them, forcing them to leave the game completely.
Forgot to add this to my previous reply.
If you need proof that Bush is batting for our team, look at the issues he's been rock-solid on: taxes, the judiciary, the war on terror. He's picked the three bedrock issues we absolutely need, and he's winning on all three.
They could go back and clean up the highway bill. That would be a good start on finding the funds.
He thinks 200 emails are a huge response, LOL.
That proves he doesn't know much about the blogosphere.
Agreed on the big issues, but the economy is pretty big too. The US is number one not because of our judges, our tax system or our foreign policy, but because we're the richest country in the world, something that's comeabout from having less govt involvment in teh economy, not more.
The standard conservative line is also for smaller government, not only for moral reasons but also for practical economic ones - the market is the best agent for deciding how capital should be assigned, not the govt. By diverting a greater share of our country's economy from the private sector to the public sector Bush is weakening America. By running up deficits that will need to be paid he is placing a tax burden on our children. Reagan had deficits too, but then he had to raise taxes, as did Bush I, as did Clinton. There are no free rides, and there are only so many hundreds of billions of dollars Washington can throw at Iraq and Katrina before they start having adverse effects. State involvment in the economy is socialism, whether in Cuba, France or the USA.
By outspending the Dems we may take away their claim to be the freespending party who knows best, but I'm not too sure that's a title the GOP ought to be gunning for.
****
YES............. if the media has it's way, and so far they certainly have.
****
The old established/liberal/socialist media is America's most ruthless, relentless, and destructive enemy.
****
This is just to set the fox in the hen house. Wishful thinking by a Dem. Wants us to argue amongst ourselves.
Well, two things:
1) The tax cuts are taking care of the economy. The strategy seems to be that immediately shrinking the government is impossible due to the Democrats. So how does one fix this problem? Eliminate the Democrats. I think Bush, like Reagan, is prepared to say "Damn the deficit! Full speed ahead!" if it means winning. The budget hasn't been balanced for 60 years: the short term damage can be grown out of, the long term damage avoided by actually getting something done with the Democrats are gone.
2) Most of the things the Democrats are being outspent on are reversible, in the sense that if the goal is to reduce the goliath that is the federal government, it would be just as difficult to do it without the spending programs enacted. It's a short-term hit for a long-term goal. Eliminating Medicare would be just as difficult without the prescription drug plan: eliminating the Department of Education would be just as difficult without No Child Left Behind. Bush has found a way to benefit from their expansion in a manner that lets us win both short- and long-term.
It's a huge gamble, but I remember what Patton once said: "It is risky, but so is war." Politics is war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.