May 20, 2004
Where's The Sacrifice?
I admire John McCain. He is the lone Republican voice of rationality and sanity in a Party otherwise gone fiscally insane, and which has collectively climbed into bed with our befuddled President refusing to see the realities of the day. In a remarkable development (or perhaps not so remarkable given my opening sentence), Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, not the most dynamic or decisive leader the House has ever elected to lead them, both chided and made public sport of John McCain for not towing the party line.
Speaking to reporters yesterday the esteemed Speaker pretended not to know who the honorable Senator from Arizona was when questioned by a reporter about a recent statement by McCain in which he observed that “never before when we've been at war have we been worrying about cutting taxes”… and he went on to ask… '[w]here's the sacrifice?' "
According to the CNN report, as other House GOP members stood behind him laughing, Hastert, R-Illinois, then expressed doubt that McCain was indeed a Republican and the exchange with the reporter ensued when the reporter asked: "Can I combine a two issues, Iraq and taxes? I heard a speech from John McCain the other day..."
Hastert: "Who?"
Reporter: "John McCain."
Hastert: "Where's he from?"
Reporter: "He's a Republican from Arizona."
Hastert: "A Republican?"
Hastert went on the state:
"If you want to see the sacrifice, John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed and Bethesda. There's the sacrifice in this country. We're trying to make sure they have the ability to fight this war, that they have the wherewithal to be able to do it. And, at the same time, we have to react to keep this country strong."
No one has to speak to John McCain of sacrifice, and certainly not Dennis Hastert who seems to have sat out the war in Vietnam and knows nothing of “real” sacrifice. It boggles my mind that in face of record red ink and public debt that the Republicans in the House can be so irresponsible as to even suggest further tax cuts let along bring the measure to a vote. Are they living in the same world as the rest of us? But I digress…
Ordinarily I would applaud such acrimony within the Republican ranks, but not now, not at the expense of such an honorable man as John McCain. Quite frankly I do not understand McCain’s willingness to remain loyal to a Party so obviously adrift, so wantonly out of touch with most of it constituents save those who embrace religious fervor as you and I would embrace a loved one. I wonder—quite often now—if McCain’s loyalty to the Republican Party is not woefully misplaced, and I admonish him for not putting loyalty to country before Party. But perhaps the growing rift between himself and his lockstep brethren will finally push him to leave a Party that has been hijacked by those who no longer put the welfare of the nation ahead of those of special interests.
Posted by V. Edward Martin at May 20, 2004 10:00 AMEdward- while i agree with you on McCain, I dont think he is the only one left with principle in the party. If you want to know who the true fiscal conservatives and who are the party hacks, I suggest you take a look at the vote for the last medicare bill. Those who voted for this bill are the party hacks, those who voted against it are people like McCain, who realize we cant throw more and more money at this sinkhole. Bush tried to strong arm every conservative to vote for his bill so he could get the votes of seniors, it took those who real political courage to resist.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at May 20, 2004 12:00 PMParty hackery gets worse than just Medicare. There is, for example, a sinkhole called Iraq, but which I’m increasingly calling Viet Sand.
The iraq was, while you may think its a bad idea, is not inconsistent with the ideology of conservatives- who prefer more freedom and less tyrrany (and also are not averse to military solutions). The medicare plan, on the other hand, went against most everything conservative stand for. Bush did not need to strong up conservatives into supporting a war to knock off Saddam, most of them already believe that that is the right thing to do. Medicare, on the other hand…
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at May 20, 2004 02:07 PMEdward,
I to agree with your assessment of Sen. McCain. And, as a proud Democrat, I would vote for him as President, even if he were to face Kerry, Dean or Gore.
As I join you in hoping this treatment by GOP leaders would cause him to bolt the party, I think he has other plans. The Bush administration’s failure may soon trigger the implosion of the Conservative’s hold on his beloved party. Thus, his popularity will then thrust him into total control of the Republican Party.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at May 20, 2004 07:16 PMMisha—
If he is not the only one left, I wish the other would join him in decrying the betrayal of Republican principles. Oh, there’s that lockstep thing again…
Bert, I think you’re right. I bet we’ll look back on this topic as the humble beginning of a new Republican party that will put the Gingrich zealots out to pasture and get back to core Republican values.
And I would have had a hard time choosing between McCain and Gore, also. It would have come down to his VP, cabinet, and advisor choices.
…the ideology of conservatives- who prefer more freedom and less tyrrany.
Misha, surely you’re not talking about Bush conservatives? :)
Lee, I think Bush conservatives will use “freedom from tyranny” as an excuse and a watch-word for pursuing their agenda, because they know that the gunrack and flags crowd in America will go along with any pig painted with that lipstick. Had that been the initial overt plan from the beginning, they might have even had more centrists on-board for the war, but remember, it was WMDs (W of Mass Destruction as it turns out).
The shifting stands of excuses are not a stable foundation for carrying out this war, and the obvious blunder SHOULD have sent Bush packing in the GOP primary, and conservatives should have replaced him with some candidate who could have plausible deniability for Operation Oops. If not McCain, then perhaps Rudy Giuliani or Elizabeth Dole. But they screwed the pooch… again… so it’s time for four years of Kerry as the GOP sits in the corner wearing the dunce cap.
Had that been the initial overt plan from the beginning, they might have even had more centrists on-board for the war
There’s evidence that the UN would have sanctioned that approach also. No one would have needed inspection teams to verify that Saddam was a “bad man”.
BTW, the argument that Europe was against the war because of the alleged oil for food scam just doesn’t hold water for me. By supporting Bush, they could have shared the spoils. It would have been a far more lucrative deal with the added bonus of being legitimate.
Lee, yep, and if the issue of the financial loss experienced by France and Germany and Russia, over the fall of Saddam’s government, could have been addressed diplomatically and behind closed doors, with the type of aplomb Bush SENIOR would have used, the Coalition would have included troops from those nations as in the first Gulf War, and there’d probably even be a blue flag over the command post for added legitimacy.
But there was none of that. It was “we’re going to derail your money train because we’re pretending Iraq has nukes”, which elicited a predictable (yet unpredicted, by the Bush administration) round of incredulous smirking followed by consternation and opposition and now, outright hatred.
Fortunately, what Europe continues to hate is Bush, not all Americans and not all things America USED to stand for. Even if we split up between Kerry and Nader and sane alternative conservatives and libertarians running their own campaigns, and the SCOTUS coronates W for four more years, Europe will still know what we meant by it.
