Blogs for Bush Apologists was right in their "lake of fire" post about a civil war. They just got the sides wrong.
It's GOP vs. GOP.
The Republican civil war we see occurring now with CroneyGate was predicted with George W. Bush's victory.
The New York Times Magazine article by Ron Suskind predicted this exact scenario.
From the
article (the same that brought us the reality-based community line):
Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.
''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .
This is why CroneyGate occurred. George W. Bush must surround himself with loyalists at all costs because he sees himself surrounded by enemies.
It's not about principles with him. It's not whether she's pro-life, pro-corporatist or any such thing. She's pro-George W. Bush.
Some conservatives said Mr Bush's nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers, a lawyer with no judicial experience whose views on key issues are largely unknown, did not fulfil his campaign pledge to appoint justices in the mould of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the court's two most conservative members.
So Bartlett was wrong about how quickly the GOP civil war would begin. He also misunderstood the depth of Bush's messianic tendencies. Bush isn't faithful to right-wing Christian beliefs. He believes only in himself.
But he was right about a Republican civil war.
From the Flynn Files on Human Events Online (going there reminds me of a certain mess I cleaned up this weekend):
A man who lacks convictions can't betray them. This is why crying "betrayal" at President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court falls flat. Let us instead look in the mirror and see who, after five years of the Bush presidency, has really betrayed conservative principles.
When candidate Bush vowed to make education his top federal priority, and to provide prescription drugs for seniors at state expense, conservatives reassured themselves, and others, that these were mere campaign promises. When President Bush did what he promised to do, conservatives sought to mute criticism lest it help the Democrats in 2004. When candidate Bush characterized McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform as unconstitutional, and mocked "nation building" in his debates with Al Gore, conservatives applauded. When he signed McCain-Feingold into law, and embarked upon mammoth nation-building ventures, we didn't boo.
One could just as easily cite President Bush's nationalization of airport security, the farm, energy, and transportation bills, plan to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, unprecedented federal financing of embryonic stem-cell research, support for affirmative action, and grandiose vision of placing men on Mars to illustrate the point. If President Clinton had attempted any of this, would we have responded in the same quiet manner? All of this leads one to wonder if the raison d'etre of the conservative movement is no longer limited, Constitutional government, but non-stop electioneering to keep Republicans in power. Power is not an end but a means.
Principles lost are difficult to recover. After selling out our principles for the president's benefit, we now have the gall to accuse George W. Bush of selling us out? It's not difficult to understand why President Bush felt it politically safe to insult his base by nominating Harriet Miers: no consequences for past assaults on conservative principles results in future assaults on conservative principles. Fool us once, shame on the president. Fool us 137 times, shame on us.
The boogeymen of "President Al Gore" and "President John Kerry" are gone. All that remains is the Bush presidency--bigger government, nation-building commitments abroad, a growing national debt, and a Supreme Court that will likely be more liberal than the court President Bush inherited. This is not only disheartening, but a blow to the credibility of conservatives. By projecting "conservatism" upon President Bush, we have tethered our movement to the negative connotations of the Bush presidency. Will future voters think "Bushism" when they hear "conservatism," or will they think "limited government, personal responsibility, low taxes, strong defense, and family values"?
Despite a Republican Senate, a Republican House, seven of nine Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans, and a Republican in the White House, conservative principles have less influence in our government than ever.
It is time to chart a new course.
Ronald Reagan, the greatest conservative leader of the past age, didn't shy away from a fight with Republicans when they fought against conservative principles. He challenged President Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination in 1976. The next year Ronald Reagan took on the Republican establishment that worked with Jimmy Carter to give away the Panama Canal. Then, he was called divisive, an unwitting ally of the Democrats, and worse. A few years later, he was called "Mr. President."
Reagan's example can serve us well today. Ronald Reagan didn't take his ball and go home in the face of a Republican Party that often warred with conservative principles.
snip
True conservatives holding office deserve our support now more than ever. Republicans who continually offend our principles don't deserve our support on the grounds that they share our party affiliation. Without demonstrating negative consequences, we will never get positive results.
Conservatism can withstand assaults from Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, and Nancy Pelosi. Assaults on conservatism from George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, and other big-government "conservatives" come at a greater price. When Republicans push liberal policy, we shirk our duty to fight back because we strangely believe that opposing Republicans can only help the liberals. But when we do oppose Republicans who push liberal policy, we help conservatives. Ronald Reagan knew this. Why don't his present-day admirers? (Yeah, what did Reagan know about conservativism? He created bloated federal government and huge deficits: Carnacki)
Let us begin by recognizing that though our party controls three branches of government, our cause does not. Before we can win over our nation, we must first win over our party.
Make sure you check out the comments. Here's some choice ones:
Do conservatives truly want "limited government, personal responsibility, low taxes, strong defense, and family values"?. Visit www.constitutionparty.com for hope!
...
With all the bad news this administration has brought down on every TRUE conservative in this country, lets all step back for just a moment and dream. Ann Coulter and Ted Nugent in 2008!!Please don't wake me!!!
...
Posted by: Ron P. on October 4, 2005 06:12 PM
Ann Coulter is part of the problem. That shrill b*itch never met a war she didn't like or an administration policy she couldn't stump for.
....
Posted by: obi juan on October 4, 2005 06:20 PM
Well put. The writing was all over the wall yet we refused to see it. Read "The Pennsylvania Treason" by Mark Crutcher. Perhaps we should send a message to the GOP by Naderizing them. Surely handing 20% of the vote to the Constitution (or Libertarian) party will get some attention.
Posted by: Doug on October 4, 2005 06:52 PM
Pass me the popcorn.