Is There A Backbone In The House? Republicans Must Step Up

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brad

Guest
gopusa.com/commentary/bobby/2005/bobby_06271.shtml

The proverbial smoke is once again pouring from my computer. Am I alarmed? No. The computer meltdown is not being caused by a virus or some other sneaky gremlin, but rather by the heated temperature of the e-mails from irate readers across the country – loyal Republicans and strong conservatives. The elevated blood pressures are driven by a sense of hopelessness. Conservatives want results, and the lack of action by our Republican majority is wearing down the faithful. Republican leaders are wandering aimlessly with no backbone to fight for issues and no resolve to hold Democrats accountable. Are Republicans really in the majority? Read any of the scores of e-mails in my inbox, and the answer would appear to be “no.”

From judicial nominees and the Social Security debate to framing the war in Iraq and immigration, Republicans need to stand up and lead. Time and time again, the Democrats are able to block, obstruct, delay, and spin an issue in such a way that the Republicans are left spinning in the wind, unsure of what to do next. That rumbling you’re feeling is not another California tremor – it’s the conservative base becoming angrier by the day.

A perfect example is the debacle in judicial nominations. For years, a group of qualified nominees for the federal bench has languished under the continued and unprecedented use of the Senate filibuster to prevent an up or down vote. President Bush made numerous public statements saying that all judicial nominees who have been voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee deserve a vote before the full Senate.

However, the so-called “deal” brokered by seven Republican senators is a slap in the face of the president and shows that Republicans won’t stand and fight. First, Republicans failed to stand together as a caucus. There was no leadership and no coherent strategy. If Republicans in the senate could have just stuck together, they could have changed the rules to prevent the Democrats from using the filibuster on judicial nominees, but, of course, they didn’t.

In addition, the “deal” violates President Bush’s core statement of all nominees deserving an up or down vote. When the deal was first announced, a flood of e-mail started hitting my inbox from angry readers. In frustration, I fired off an e-mail to an associate at the National Republican Senatorial Committee saying that it appears certain judges will be cast aside in order for others to receive a vote. I was assured via both phone and e-mail that that was not the case and all nominees would receive an up or down vote.

Within just a few days after the deal was announced, senators confirmed on several news programs that some nominees would be “casualties” of the deal. Was there a statement of outrage from the White House? No. The deal went through, and all it showed was that Republicans could not exert the leadership that conservatives across the country are expecting.

Another example is that of border security and illegal immigration. Republicans are supposed to be tough on terror, but when it comes to the thousands of miles of unprotected borders, Republicans are playing politics while the security of America is at stake. To fight a real war on terror, government officials must make it as tough as possible for terrorists to enter the country illegally. Yet, whenever some Republicans come forward and talk about fighting illegal immigration and increasing border security, other Republicans are backing down under fear of being called “racist” or “insensitive.”

Perhaps Republican legislators need to increase the calcium in their diets so they can grow a backbone. Instead of the image of tough legislators fighting for conservative values and issues, the images that come to mind more often than not when thinking of Republicans in Washington are those of a family of jellyfish. Democrats go on the attack, and Republicans back down. The American people have picked the Republicans as the party to lead this country. Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Despite this control, Republicans more often display fear rather than leadership.
 
The remarks of Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) and the lack of outrage expressed by Republicans also have grassroots conservatives voicing their dismay. Sen. Trent Lott, the former majority leader of the U.S. Senate, lost his leadership position for comments much less serious or inflammatory than Sen. Durbin’s, yet the constant calls for resignation or censure by the Democrats took their toll, and Sen. Lott stepped down. Sen. Durbin, in comparing actions by U.S. soldiers to those of Hitler and Pol Pot, did serious damage to the morale of our troops and also provided the enemy with much-desired propaganda ammunition. Sen. Durbin’s so-called “apology” fell woefully short of being sincere, yet Republicans have let the issue go with little more than a mild protest. Republicans should hold the Democrats to the same standards as the Democrats hold Republicans. These “leaders” must end the constant routine of putting their tails between their legs whenever the heat is on.

Grassroots conservatives have put in hundreds of thousands of hours to help get these officials elected, and it’s time that these Republicans delivered. What’s next? A liberal nominee put forward as a Supreme Court justice just so the Democrats won’t get mad? Deals and compromises can only go so far, and too often, it’s the conservative grassroots activists who end up on the short end of the stick. It’s time for Republicans in Washington to stand up and fight or step aside and let new conservative leaders do it.
 
There is little to be said, other then I agree, the GOP is laregly populated by cowards. I have said this for the last year and have been chastised quite often for holding that view. I personally do not think that the GOp is going to change, we are very close to losing this window of opportunity.

I fear chastisement for this nation is close at hand.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
There is little to be said, other then I agree, the GOP is laregly populated by cowards. I have said this for the last year and have been chastised quite often for holding that view. I personally do not think that the GOp is going to change, we are very close to losing this window of opportunity.

I fear chastisement for this nation is close at hand.
I may be one of those that you consider having been “chastised” by. From my point of view, the position stated above I very much agree with. It is the solution that I think we disagee on. You think there is no hope for the current Republican party to gain what is necessary. I still think that enough of the right Republicans (like Brownback for example) could ultimately get the job done.

Consider this. In the 2006 election, there are 11 Democrat senators up for reelection in states that were soundly won by Bush in 2004 and only 3 Republican senators up for reelection in states that were won by Kerry. Consider if the Republicans gain 5 more seats and have 60 seats, thus being able to override any filibuster. Further likelihood is the conservative backlash would suggest that any Republicans that win (like the senators that won in 2004) would be very much pro-life, pro-family, and pro-Christian.
 
40.png
Brad:
The remarks of Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) and the lack of outrage expressed by Republicans also have grassroots conservatives voicing their dismay. Sen. Trent Lott, the former majority leader of the U.S. Senate, lost his leadership position for comments much less serious or inflammatory than Sen. Durbin’s, yet the constant calls for resignation or censure by the Democrats took their toll, and Sen. Lott stepped down. Sen. Durbin, in comparing actions by U.S. soldiers to those of Hitler and Pol Pot, did serious damage to the morale of our troops and also provided the enemy with much-desired propaganda ammunition. Sen. Durbin’s so-called “apology” fell woefully short of being sincere, yet Republicans have let the issue go with little more than a mild protest. Republicans should hold the Democrats to the same standards as the Democrats hold Republicans. These “leaders” must end the constant routine of putting their tails between their legs whenever the heat is on.

Grassroots conservatives have put in hundreds of thousands of hours to help get these officials elected, and it’s time that these Republicans delivered. What’s next? A liberal nominee put forward as a Supreme Court justice just so the Democrats won’t get mad? Deals and compromises can only go so far, and too often, it’s the conservative grassroots activists who end up on the short end of the stick. It’s time for Republicans in Washington to stand up and fight or step aside and let new conservative leaders do it.
I agree…and I was surpised to see the repub not stepping it up when the judicial nominees…fillibuster deal was struck… :eek:
 
What is the problem with some moderate Congressmen wanting to avoid a polarized fight, and to give something to each side? The Republicans did get the extremists confirmed through the compromise - without the fallout from a battle.
 
In addition, the “deal” violates President Bush’s core statement of all nominees deserving an up or down vote.
No it doesn’t. First, Bush is not party to the “deal.” Bush can do very little to force the RINO senators to do anything.

Secondly, three were confirmed. I never thought Janice Brown would make it to the Federal bench. She was target #1. And she made it to the most important court outside the Supreme Court–the D.C. Circuit. Justice Brown is more conservative than either Scalia or Thomas. A huge win as Democrats have been frantic to prevent another black conservative from being confirmed. One they can explain as a token and can demonize. Two they cannot. It erodes their virtual lock on blacks. Pyror and Owens, solid orginalists were also confirmed. No chance of either becoming another Justice Kennedy.

Thirdly, incrementalism worked for liberals from 1933 until 1995. Take what you can get today and demand more tommorow is the only way to win in American politics.

Which leads to the fourth point: This isn’t over by any means.

Immigration is a huge problem. One which, I fear, it is too late legislatively to do anything about except reduce the flow slightly or reduce the rate of increase (ugh). This one is up to the public. Karl Rove is not going to create a bold program to stop it, give liberals an opportunity to exert all their effort on this one (albeit very important) issue, have the GOP get slaughtered in the media and every other i stopped dead. They can’t even endorse the Minutemen. But they shouldn’t. This must be seen as and be in reality a grass roots effort. One which neither party can stop.

Important to remember: Bush and Rove took a page from the Gipper’s playbook–concentrate on a very small number of non-negotiable issues. Bush ran on two in 2000: tax cuts and judicial nomination. In 2001, he added the War on Terror.

He has not compromised on any of them.

Did I like the Education Bill? The Steel Tariffs? Bush signing CFR? Not sealing our borders to all but legal traffic?

NO! But such is politics if you want to get anything. Purists can go join the Constitution party and get nothing.
 
40.png
Richardols:
The Republicans did get the extremists confirmed through the compromise - without the fallout from a battle.
Which “extremists” were those? Someone like Bill Pryor, a pro-life Catholic? (Be honest that is what the liberals were afraid of with him). I assume you share that view. Are you an “extremist”?
 
40.png
Stu:
Which “extremists” were those? Someone like Bill Pryor, a pro-life Catholic?
Brown, Owens, and Pryor. So Pryor is a pro-life Catholic. Even if he were the Pope’s nephew, he’s still an extremist.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Brown, Owens, and Pryor. So Pryor is a pro-life Catholic. Even if he were the Pope’s nephew, he’s still an extremist.
Are you an “extremist” pro-life Catholic?

Additionally, please list the views that make the others “extremists”.
 
40.png
Stu:
Are you an “extremist” pro-life Catholic?

Additionally, please list the views that make the others “extremists”.
Pryor has a “majority rules” ideology that would lead to a balkanized America in which one’s constitutional rights would depend on where one lives.

You can look up the records of the others yourself.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Pryor has a “majority rules” ideology that would lead to a balkanized America in which one’s constitutional rights would depend on where one lives.

You can look up the records of the others yourself.
Nice dodge. I don’t need to look them up as I asked “you” why you thought they were extremist since you made the charge.

The liberals don’t want Pryor because he is pro-life.

Are you an “extremist” pro-life Catholic?
 
40.png
Stu:
The liberals don’t want Pryor because he is pro-life.
Since you have all the answers, no need for my (name removed by moderator)ut, apparently.
 
40.png
David_Paul:
No it doesn’t. First, Bush is not party to the “deal.” Bush can do very little to force the RINO senators to do anything.
The article didn’t say Bush was part of the deal. It said that the deal violated his position.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Since you have all the answers, no need for my (name removed by moderator)ut, apparently.
I am interested in your point of view.

Are you an “extremist” pro-life Catholic?
 
40.png
Richardols:
Pryor has a “majority rules” ideology that would lead to a balkanized America in which one’s constitutional rights would depend on where one lives.

You can look up the records of the others yourself.
This is ridiculous. You’d have a lot more free time if you didn’t have to research answers for each candidate the Democrats labeled “extremist”. Extremist = pro-life. Kerry even said he would require the nominees to be pro-“choice”.

Save yourself some sweat. Just go with Kerry’s explanation.
 
40.png
Brad:
The article didn’t say Bush was part of the deal. It said that the deal violated his position.
Yes. And it was a slap in the face. It shows Republicans won’t “stand and fight”.

Rather broad statement, don’t you think? A slap in the face to all who have worked for decades to get where we are.

Democrats think we fight. That is why they have having a collective mental breakdown right now.
 
40.png
David_Paul:
Yes. And it was a slap in the face. It shows Republicans won’t “stand and fight”.

Rather broad statement, don’t you think? A slap in the face to all who have worked for decades to get where we are.

Democrats think we fight. That is why they have having a collective mental breakdown right now.
I think the meltdown has to do more with a bankruptcy of values. There is some fight in some Republicans but there are many that are either wimpy or not on board.

The Republicans have been given a mandate in the past several elections, no matter what the left says and they are not moving on it like they should.

Where is the movement on:

Marriage protection
Abortion
Euthanasia
 
40.png
Brad:
Where is the movement on:

Marriage protection
Abortion
Euthanasia
Is there much more which can be done, considering the courts, right now about abortion? Think they defunded some overseas stuff, eliminated abortions on military bases and either won (or are about to win) against Democrats who want to deny Federal funds to Catholic hospitals which refuses to do abortion.

On euthanasia…don’t know much about the situation in congress. Very distressing that when Congress passed the Schiavo bill the courts refused to do a de novo review of the case. The 10th circuit decision was astounding. One justice wrote it was unconstitutional for congress to have passed that bill (obviously is was not).

Protection of Marriage Act is floating around someplace. My take is there are more important issues right now such as:

Tort reform. One bill passed. There are at least 3 more to go. The last, due this summer according to Frisk, handles malpractice–a huge issue.

Social Security. Win or lose, Republicans ran on private accounts in 2002 and 2004. Bush began running on it in 2000. That, like the WOT and taxes cuts, was a promise. It has to be handled this year.

We all know the PMA will immediately go to some activist judge. Gay groups, the ACLU, PFAW and others have briefs already written. Won’t be 24 hours after it passes (if it does) before they are filed. Perhaps a hold will be put on the law.

Stem cell legislation I suspect Bush wants to drag out as long as possible. Too many Republicans in the House want the research. As with his splitting the issue when he allowed research on existing lines, Bush is hoping science will make funding it moot as better alternatives are found.

All those issues you cite are, of course, critical. But they are long and drawn out. There are things which can and should be done right now.
 
40.png
David_Paul:
Is there much more which can be done, considering the courts, right now about abortion? Think they defunded some overseas stuff, eliminated abortions on military bases and either won (or are about to win) against Democrats who want to deny Federal funds to Catholic hospitals which refuses to do abortion.

On euthanasia…don’t know much about the situation in congress. Very distressing that when Congress passed the Schiavo bill the courts refused to do a de novo review of the case. The 10th circuit decision was astounding. One justice wrote it was unconstitutional for congress to have passed that bill (obviously is was not).

Protection of Marriage Act is floating around someplace. My take is there are more important issues right now such as:

Tort reform. One bill passed. There are at least 3 more to go. The last, due this summer according to Frisk, handles malpractice–a huge issue.

Social Security. Win or lose, Republicans ran on private accounts in 2002 and 2004. Bush began running on it in 2000. That, like the WOT and taxes cuts, was a promise. It has to be handled this year.

We all know the PMA will immediately go to some activist judge. Gay groups, the ACLU, PFAW and others have briefs already written. Won’t be 24 hours after it passes (if it does) before they are filed. Perhaps a hold will be put on the law.

Stem cell legislation I suspect Bush wants to drag out as long as possible. Too many Republicans in the House want the research. As with his splitting the issue when he allowed research on existing lines, Bush is hoping science will make funding it moot as better alternatives are found.

All those issues you cite are, of course, critical. But they are long and drawn out. There are things which can and should be done right now.
Don’t have time to wait. My position has increasingly become (and based on your analysis is even moreso) that the the legislature needs to take steps to limit the power of the courts.

If a court can strike down any law and any amendment and will act to do so, then their scope must be limited. Different possibilities include term limites, scope of consitutional review limited, impeachment proceedings, potential override of constitutional review with super majorities, hearings for contempt of Congress etc.

We cannot just throw up our hands and holler at the courts when we know what they will do. We need to do something different. I understand it may take a radical approach but if the system is broke and vast majority of judges have an academically liberal bent then where are we and where will we be?

Something must be done.

As an aside, the idea that a judge can rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional is ludicrous. We cannot keep going in a circular loop and keep depending on a small minority of judges to be absolute rulers(liberal or conservative). The rules of the game must be modified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top