True Republicans are currently in an abusive relationship with their nominal leader, President George W. Bush. As Peggy Noonan succinctly put it, conservatives remain in a state reminiscent of “battered wife syndrome” in which each blow the administration has perpetrated against conservative ideals has resulted in many remaining loyal, scared to abandon that which they know, merely hoping for a better future.
It is no secret, however, that George Bush’s second term has resulted in a consistent stream of conservatives jumping off the proverbial Bush bandwagon (a bandwagon that currently portends no clear philosophical direction). Grassroots Republicans, the masses of GOP supporters to whom President Bush ought to accredit his presidential victories, have many bones to pick with their former candidate. The man who in his campaigns qualified his conservatism with the feel-good word “compassion” has gone astray from the original premise of conservatism. He has not only squandered any claim to the Reagan restraint from which he hailed but he has also lost a bastion of supporters garnered by the election savvy of “the architect” Karl Rove.
Seeing Bush as a Texas simpleton, those representing the Left in this country have hated the President from the moment he defeated Gore in the Florida re-count, and continue to do so. With his enemies calling him an illegitimate president, it seems clear that the former Texas governor (celebrated for his good relations with Texas Democrats) has failed in his campaign promises to bridge the divide between Democrats and Republicans in Washington. Washington D.C. is indeed a much different place than Austin, Texas.
In his attempt to reach out to those who loathe him, Bush has only alienated those who actually backed him. Conservatives were baffled for example, by his appeal to Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy with the “No Child Left Behind Program.” Education initiatives it seems did little to sway the career politician Kennedy, a man who has continued to denigrate the President in the media. I love the quote in which Kennedy criticizes the very proposal over which he presided, no match it seems for the polarizing effect of this President, “This is the pattern and the record of the Bush administration (on) Iraq, jobs, Medicare, schools, issue after issue — mislead, deceive, make up the needed facts, smear the character of any critics. Again and again, we see this cynical, despicable strategy playing out.”
In the image of legislation-happy-democrats, the President has allowed government spending to skyrocket and has expanded the government in ways unimaginable for one who claimed to be a conservative. Perhaps it would be pilling on to mention immigration reform and the Harriet Meyers nomination; however, the latter has become relevant in recent days and provides Republicans with just one more reason to leave the President’s side.
To conservatives the administration’s Supreme Court nominations, Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, represented a ray of light in a seemingly dark period for the conservative movement. In a book, recently published, which received a great deal of input from the White House, Dead Certain: The Presidency of George Bush, journalist Robert Draper tells of some of the most intimate strife within the President’s inner circle. Providing great detail about a wide variety of issues, Draper’s account offers a piece of seemingly damning information about one of Bush’s greatest successes. The book, with administration participation, claims that it was Supreme Court Justice John Roberts who initially suggested Harriet Meyers as the optimal nominee for the open seat on the bench. As many will remember the President did nominate the far from qualified Meyers, receiving near unanimous rejection from even the most ideologically lax Republicans.
Justice John Roberts since learning of the book’s allegations has adamantly rejected the premise. It seems misguided for the President to blame one of his biggest mistakes, Harriet Meyers, on his greatest victory, Chief Justice Roberts. With this claim it would seem that the President has completely rejected any aim to reinvigorate his based. Perhaps with such a short amount of time left in office the President no longer feels compelled to do so. However, is he now trying to destroy one of his greatest legacies? I continue to be baffled by this President. Bush has frequently stated, “history will be his judge.” I have reached a point, however, in which I doubt I will even be able to depend on this….
Caroline May
September 5, 2007
