Bush CPB appointee and NPR defender is symbol of GOP fight between Conservatives and Statists.
(Page 3 of 4)
And campaigning on them too. Here is Weaver’s view (as reported in 2009 by Byron York over at the Washington Examiner) in which he insists that the GOP must stick with Statism or neo-Statism because if “our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we’re headed for a blowout…. That’s just the truth.” In other words, Limbaugh is a Reaganite and unless Republicans stop listening to him and start campaigning on the Statist principles that elected Presidents Dewey, Ford, Dole and McCain and re-elected President Bush 41 in 1992 the GOP is headed to certain defeat.
Thus… Jon Huntsman, Statist GOP candidate selects the perfect Statist consultant.
• Internal Party Nomination Fights: The Conservative-Statist fight in 2010 dominated the news when the Delaware Republican Party and its Statist candidate for the Senate, Congressman Mike Castle, battled against the Conservative Christine O’Donnell. Versions of the same battle were seen in Senate GOP primary races in Kentucky, Nevada, Utah, Alaska, and Florida. Frequently choosing the Statist side of the argument was the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee and its chair, Senator John Cornyn of Texas. Opposing it — and raising money to oppose Statist GOP candidates — was South Carolina Senator Jim De Mint.
And so on. And on.
Limited government? From Patricia Harrison to President Bush 43 to Senator John McCain to Senator Scott Brown to Governor Romney and Governor Huntsman and ex-Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson and political consultant John Weaver…all are believers in it. Sort of. Kind of. Unless, of course, we’re talking about the government’s right to decide the wattage of your light bulbs, take your tax money and give it to a favored special interest group (Planned Parenthood in this case), insist that more tax money be used to fund NPR, remove your ability under the law to decide the definition of marriage, mandate that if you live in Massachusetts you must buy health insurance, or believe that the government should be taxing you for the latest global warming fad.
Again, these aren’t bad people. Surely to the contrary. But they simply cannot find it in themselves to sign on with the seriously real idea of what “limited government” really entails. Which is precisely why there are so many Republican fingerprints on that telltale $14 trillion deficit some 8 decades in the making.
SO WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN for Republicans and conservatives in 2012?
Let’s assume what is most probably the case, based on past history. There will be another Republican in the White House. At a certain point, simple incumbency problems overtake the Ins, and that’s before one’s name becomes synonymous with being a political disaster as president — Hoover or a Carter or, conservatives would argue today, Obama. Whether a he or she manages this Republican victory in 2012 — or later — happen it will. And when it does, then what?
Is the new president a GOP Statist or neo-Statist prepared to fill his or her administration with appointees like Patricia Harrison — appointees always on the lookout for ways to expand the role of the federal government and the funding that goes along with it? Will he or she take advice from Statists like John Weaver and just shrug as did President Bush when signing on to the newest version of McCain-Feingold or banning of 100-watt light bulbs?
The other day an attorney named Kent Masterson Brown had a remarkable piece in the New York Post that illustrates the problem. It seems Brown was the lead plaintiff attorney in a case that had a federal judge allowing Social Security Administration bureaucrats to institute “three internal rules …that make receipt of Social Security retirement benefits contingent upon enrollment in Medicare. Plus, a person who withdraws from Medicare would not only have to give up Social Security benefits, but repay all benefits previously received.” (Emphasis added.) The latter would be, of course, the benefit program that you have already paid into for the duration of your working life.
Now what happens if a Statist Republican sits in the White House when this issue comes to a head? What would be the response here? And what kind of federal judges would that president be appointing?
Upon learning of Mr. Brown’s revelation, would he or she demand, say, the firing of the Social Security Administrator? Issue stiff instructions to the Republican Secretary of Health and Human Services to eliminate these rules post-haste?
Based on the Statist views on display with Republicans from Patricia Harrison to Ted Olson to Scott Brown to Mitt Romney to Jon Huntsman to John Weaver — unlikely. Case in point?
Who is it that appointed the federal judge Mr. Brown is writing about here? The federal judge whom Mr. Brown describes as allowing “unelected bureaucrats to make up their own laws” by issuing a ruling that “would allow the ‘health reform’ law to become even more Orwellian than it already is, without any action from Congress”?
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?