| The euphoria of Mr. Bush's victory postponed the battle, but not for long. Now that Mr. Bush has secured re-election, some conservatives who say they held their tongues through the campaign season are speaking out against the neoconservatives, against the war and in favor of a speedy exit.
They argue that the war is a political liability to the Republican Party, but also that it runs counter to traditional conservatives' disdain for altruist interventions to make far-off parts of the world safe for American-style democracy. Their growing outspokenness recalls the dynamics of American politics before Vietnam, when Democrats first became identified as doves and Republicans hawks, suggesting to some the complicated political pressures facing the foreign policy of the second Bush administration. "Clearly, the war in Iraq was a drag on votes, and it is threatening to the Bush coalition," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a strategist close to the administration who had not spoken up about the war's political costs before. He contended that the war reduced Mr. Bush's majority by 6 percentage points to 51 percent of the vote. Mr. Bush now has two years to "solve Iraq" to protect Republican candidates at the midterm elections, he said. His suggestions: withdrawing United States troops to safe citadels within Iraq or by "handing Falluja over to the Iraqis and saying, 'It's your headache.' " On Thursday, Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation and chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, issued a call to conservatives for a serious debate about the administration's foreign policy. "The consequences of the neocons' adventure in Iraq are now all too clear," he said. "America is stuck in a guerrilla war with no end in sight. Our military is stretched too thin to respond to other threats. And our real enemies, nonstate organizations such as Al Qaeda, are benefiting from the Arab and Islamic backlash against our occupation of an Islamic country." ..snip.. "A lot of the antiwar conservatives had to hold their tongue during the campaign because the No. 1 goal was to get Bush re-elected," said Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and an important conservative fund-raiser. |
You know, that reminds me of something. Back when I was a kid I used to go to Sunday School all the time. It was fun. In between making macaroni art and hand puppets, the teachers would tell us stories. They usually involved Jesus, but they always involved morals. You know... "do unto others", "love thy neighbor", "lying is bad", "don't covet your neighbor's ass", all that fun stuff... Anyhow, somewhere in there I remember something about judging people not only by what they say but by what they do. You can say you're a good man, but it means nothing if you don't act like one.
Seems there are more than a few conservatives out there who didn't get the memo (or perhaps didn't got to Sunday School?) If you have principles, if you have "values", speaking the truth will always be more important than winning an election. Protecting this country, protecting its citizens and its soldiers, will always be more important than temporary electoral success.
Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury.
Raise the double standard.
PS - 6%? 6%? Hey Grover... Whatever it is you're smoking, send some of it my way.
--------0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Et Tu, Grover?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.alexwhalen.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1541
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Leave a comment