With the possible exception of Ralph Nader considering another run for the presidency, nothing makes me crazier than watching Tom Daschle, Zell Miller or another high-profile Democrat break ranks over some major piece of legislation. In those moments I find myself almost wishing for a parliamentary system, or at least that Democrats would behave just a little bit more like Republicans when it comes to party discipline.
So, while not quite enough to make me dance in the streets, the fact that George Bush is catching some grief
like this from his right flank gives reason for a hopeful smile or two:
By Jonathan E. Kaplan.
Conservative Republican frustration over the failure of the Bush administration and the House Republican leadership to restrain federal spending has boiled over in recent days, producing a rare confrontation between GOP lawmakers and party leaders.
The internal conflict, fueled largely by recent passage of the $78 billion Iraq reconstruction effort and the $400 billion prescription-drug benefit for senior citizens that squeaked through the House on Nov. 22, came to a head last week when President Bush abruptly terminated a phone conversation with a Florida Republican who refused his plea to vote for the landmark bill.
Well-placed sources said Bush hung up on freshman Rep. Tom Feeney after Feeney said he couldn’t support the Medicare bill. The House passed it by only two votes after Hastert kept the roll-call vote open for an unprecedented stretch of nearly three hours in the middle of the night.
Feeney, a former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives whom many see as a rising star in the party, reportedly told Bush: “I came here to cut entitlements, not grow them.”
Sources said Bush shot back, “Me too, pal,” and hung up the phone.
The grumpiness over Bush’s spending habits isn’t confined to a few GOP congresspeople.
Wall Street Journal columnist Alan Murray (via Brad DeLong) included a
scathing blast at Bush in his latest write-up:
...Increasingly, President Bush resembles not Ronald Reagan, but another GOP forbear: Richard Nixon.... "By many measures," [Herb] Stein concluded, "the Nixon years were a period of retrogression from the conservative economic standpoint." Unless a midcourse correction comes soon, the same will be said of the Bush administration....
It is also possible that what really links Presidents Nixon and Bush is something else: an unbounded desire for a second term, even at the expense of taxpayers. Continuing to cut taxes and increase government spending in the face of runaway budget deficits isn't a good way to run the country. But it may still be a great way to win elections.
As
DeLong notes, Paul Krugman - the economist rightwingers most love to hate - has been saying this kind of thing for quite a spell. But when a long-time stable mate in the
Journal speaks up, it’s worth a double-take. (Let’s face it, the place has gone to hell since last year’s departure of 30-year editorial-page veteran Robert L. Bartley, who will receive a
Medal of Freedom from Bush.)
And the complaints aren’t merely about economics. In another piece from the
Wall Street Journal, Brendan Miniter ponders whether Bush faces trouble in the rank and file. This murmur doesn't presage more votes for whoever wins the Democratic nomination, but it might mean
fewer for Dubya:
President Bush's armor of invincibility is starting to crack. The president is still infinitely stronger on national defense than any of the nine Democrats running for the White House, but on a growing list of domestic issues, the president is losing his conservative base.
Fiscal conservatives are upset about the Medicare expansion as well as the farm bill and a host of other spending extravaganzas. And now another front of criticism is opening up. Karl Rove is picking up his phone to find the Family Research Council and other Christian groups thundering away. The big issue is marriage and whether the president will defend it.
It's not enough to have a president who sees the world in moral terms and isn't fooling around with an intern in the Oval Office. The recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling mandating same-sex marriage is now a test for where politicians stand on this issue. If gay marriage gets a foothold in the Bay State, social conservatives believe, the decline of marriage nationwide will be inevitable. If Massachusetts legislators aren't able to hold the line on marriage, Christian conservative groups will demand federal action.
Strong leadership now could head off the necessity for federal laws or a constitutional amendment later. So what's really giving the Christian right jitters is that Gov. Mitt Romney--a Republican with access to the president--waffled a little. He initially spoke out against the court's ruling, calling for a state constitutional amendment defining marriage in traditional terms. He later softened his position, saying a civil-union law might satisfy the court. Many fear that Mr. Romney softened his position after getting a call from the White House. That's why Karl Rove is now hearing that if President Bush waffles on marriage, many Christian voters will stay home next November.
Those disgruntled conservatives aren’t going to refill the Democrats’ depleted ranks. But with the
split among registered Democrats, Republicans and Independents dead even, the more rightists who stay home out of purist pique, the better.