I did not call for the GOP to steadfastly defend the president and his
nominee against obviously meritous charges of perjury, etc. I argued
that the Democratic Party's example of absurd and wrong headed loyalty
of a scandal-plagued Clinton contrasted sharply with many among the
GOP's immediate turn on Bush/Miers even before the hearings, when Bush
deserves political support from the very people he has aided, at a
minimum until the hearings begin. The GOP and allied pundits cold move
a long way towards party loyalty and the sort of political maturity
that enduring majority coalitions need without ever coming close to the
line the Democrats crossed with Clinton, and that move would serve the
party and their goals in the long run.
got a point -- there's a difference between loyalty to a President on
the matter of perjury charges and similar crimes, and a Supreme Court
nomination. But Hugh is arguing here that those the President has
aided owe him loyalty in return. Fine, to a degree. Those
the President has aided with his Presidency do perhaps owe him
something. But what has President Bush done for me?
He's passed tax cuts... that will expire in a few years. But he's
also spending like a drunken sailor, including massive new drug
He's kept America "safe" from terrorism... while undermining vital
civil liberties. And he won't even close off the southern border,
something that is vitally important to preventing terrorists from
smuggling in weapons of mass destruction.
He's appointed a justice to the Supreme Court... whose opinion on vital questions is still a mystery. No credit there.
He's supported the Firearms Liability Protection Act... while also
supporting the Assault Weapons Ban. He has failed even to propose
meaningful reforms to bring our nation's gun laws back to sanity.
He's failed even to propose meaningful social security or tax
reforms. Never mind pass them -- he hasn't even proposed them,
aside from broad speculative outlines of possible future proposals that
fade into mist once Democratic opposition crystalizes.
In short -- we, the People, put a single party in control of the
Presidency and both Houses of Congress. And what has he changed
about our government? Not much. He's changed how we
interact with other nations, to be sure, and mostly in positive
ways. But domestically, he's done nothing for gun owners, nothing
for libertarians, nothing for small-government conservatives.
So when Hugh says that "we" owe Bush... well, maybe someone does. But I don't owe the man a damned thing.
This entry was published 2005-10-25 17:41:36.0 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2005-10-25 17:41:36.0.