AJ-Strata discusses how some people put conservatism before the country's victory in the war on terror.
Given the way certain people have acted (Limbaugh, Ingraham, Malkin, etc.), it is clear that since at least the fall of 2005, President Bush has been repeatedly kneecapped by conservatives who demanded ideological purity on immigration and other issues.
Limbaugh's recent comments about Bush's decision to allow Rumsfeld to resign (after rejecting at least two previous offers from Rummy) are the final straw. I will not be renewing my subscriptions to the Limbaugh Letter and Rush 24/7. He should be ashamed of himself - particularly given the 3:30 press conference with Rumsfeld and Gates. Rush and these others never got it through their heads that 9/11 required some changes in priorities.
To an extent, this is Bush's fault. At the CPAC convention after the attacks, he should have told conservatives things had changed and that their petty issues had to take a back seat to victory. Perhaps he thought it was something they'd understand. But it is water under the bridge. With the benefit of hindsight it is obvious that he also erred by not going for an increase in forces.
The only place conservatism should come before country is in the dictionary. This country's survival matters more than ideological purity on a host of issues that were little more than chump change compared to this country's victory in time of war.
I'm through with them. It seems that conservatism has not yet decided that the war on terror is something it should take seriously. A large number of conservatives do take it seriously, but there is a faction that hasn't - and that faction contains many influential people, particularly in talk radio and in the blogosphere. And now, rather than focus on preventing the Pelosi Democrats from stabbing our troops in the back, they are more interested in conducting an internal purge of "RINOs" who dare disagree on immigration or other pet issues.
They have placed the war effort at risk. By pushing this purge now, they are risking handing al-Qaeda a victory through action on misplaced priorities. They are wrong to do so, and as a result, they have forfeited their moral authority to lead. As far as I am concerned, they can go to hell - and if they want favors, they can ask the Democrats. President Bush owes them nothing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I tend to agree. The unappeasables on their single issues did a great deal of harm, worse than 1992, really.
It sickens me to see people who are obstensively on our side of political thought trashing a fairly conservative President . In many ways, this is a reflection of some believing their pet peeve is the only moral chice.
You're right , the President is in no way beholden to the alleged base.
Ummm, President Bush wasn't running for re-election. The last time he did, these terrible conservatives who "demand ideological purity", voted to put him in office for another 4 years.
From what I have read in the last couple of days, turnout among repubs was fairly high. If these conservatives who "demand ideological purity" were angry with Bush, wouldn't they have voted to keep the House in Repub hands as the House was the only thing blocking "comprehensive immigration reform"?
The problem for the Repubs in this election was not the conservatives, but the 'Independent' voters who moved to the Dem candidates. Iraq was a huge problem for these voters. But, because so many Repubs had abandoned their core principles that helped sweep them into power in '94, the best argument they could come up with was "but at least we aren't as bad as the Democrats will be". I'm sorry, but that is simply not going to sway a lot of people in the middle to vote for you. You have to give them something positive to grab on to.
Let's examine a few places where the GOP ticked off those who "demand ideological purity".
1. Campaign Finance Reform - The GOP apparently believes that in fact, the government should be allowed to limit you say.
2. No Child Left Behind - The GOP apparently believes in more federal and less local control of the schools.
3. Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit - The GOP apparently believes in foisting a GIGANTIC increase in entitlement programs on me and my children. Heck, my great-great-great-grandchildren are going to be paying for this one.
4. Spending in general - partially related to number 2 & 3, but easily can stand on its own. Come on W., bust out that Veto Stamp.
5. Comprehensive Immigration Reform - Can you believe that they were debating whether or not to allow someone that had entered the county illegally, obtained a fake SSN, and worked illegally, to collect on back-social security they "earned" under the fraudulent ID?!?!? Why was this even a question?
So, the independent voter evaluates the Repubs vs. the Dems. In his mind, he can't see much of a difference between the two parties. The GOP gave him no positive, solid idea to vote for. So why not vote for "change"?
Harold, I just read your comments out loud to my husband. We both agree completely! Since I have spent many hours surfing the blogosphere & listening to talk radio, I saw this election debacle coming months and months ago. I stopped listening to Rush when he started reading lunatic immigration info verbatim from Malkin's site. I will never, ever, forget or forgive the wounds inflicted by our own [alleged] team members.
Thus far, it seems the loudest Pubbies are prescribing more, not less, extremism as the solution to the GOP loss. If that is the suicidal path our leaders choose, we are sunk.
I think Steele may be a good choice for head of the RNC... but who will we choose for minority leader in the houses?
Also, my husband says Rummy's resignation was perfectly timed. First, it took a lot of wind out of the Dem's gloating sails. Second, it allows the most excellent Donald Rumsfeld to finally go home to his wife, his ranch, and his new horse (who doesn't even recognize the old man) -- and most important, to exit stage right so that insane Libs cannot torture him with subpoenas and ridiculous accusations for the next two years, when he should be kicking back watching sunsets in New Mexico.
Ditto!
The Pink Flamingo
Could someone please explain to me why I should listen to the rantings of a bloviating overweight pill-popping draft-dodger?
Post a Comment