BCT Editorial – 8/16/06

This page was last updated on August 19, 2006.

Road to ruin; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 16, 2006.

In my critique of August 9^th’s “Name game,” I wrote, “I can only assume this editorial is targeted at conservatives. The objective is to get conservatives to ‘fight back’ at Rockefeller Republicans by voting for Democrats or by not voting at all. If you think this editorial is trying to encourage conservatives to get behind true conservative Republicans ‘to rescue their good name,’ you haven’t been paying attention to Times editorials.”

This editorial confirms my observation and I now assume we’ll see a series of like editorials between now and the November election.

If the Times was really interested in seeing prototypical conservatives running as Republicans, why didn’t it go down this road before the primaries? Where was the call for full-blown conservatives to challenge Rep. Hart or Sen. Santorum? Why didn’t the Times have a problem with Sen. Specter in 2004? After all, then-Rep. Pat Toomey was far more conservative on a daily basis than Sen. Specter is on his best day.

Do I believe we would be better off with representatives more conservative than Rep. Hart, Sen. Santorum, et cetera? Of course. That said, I’m not about to “cut off my nose to spite my face.” While most current elected Republicans are not as conservative as I’d like, they are more conservative than Democrats. As a result, candidates like Hart and Santorum will get my vote. There are exceptions, however. I felt Sen. Specter was so far gone, I wrote in Pat Toomey’s name rather than vote for Specter.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Republican Party is seeing a repeat of what happened to the Democrats

“President Ronald Reagan often said he did not leave the Democratic Party, that the party left him.

“He was, of course, referring to what he perceived to be the party’s lurch to the left, especially in the late ‘60s and ‘70s.”

[RWC] “[P]erceived … lurch to the left?” Please read “Not your father’s Democrats.”

“The same thing is starting to happen to the Republican Party as many of its moderate and conservative - real conservatives, not today’s bunch who use that identifier - members are becoming disenchanted.”

[RWC] Remember, when the Times uses “moderate” in reference to Republicans, it really means “liberal.” For example, Times editorials routinely refer to RINO Sen. Arlen Specter as a “moderate Republican.”

To summarize this sentence, the editorial asserts both liberal and conservative Republicans “are becoming disenchanted” with the party.

“For instance, John Dean, who figured so prominently in the Watergate scandal, has little regard for today’s so-called conservatives. ‘My views have changed very little over the last 40 years,’ he told The Associated Press. ‘The Republican Party and conservatism have moved so far to the right that I’m now left of center.’”

[RWC] Before I continue, let’s talk about Mr. Dean for a second. Dean was White House counsel for the Nixon administration. If you recall, Richard Nixon wasn’t exactly a conservative Republican. During his administration, big government got bigger and President Nixon even tried the socialist tactic of wage and price controls to tame inflation. It didn’t work, of course.

Getting back to Mr. Dean, I believe it’s fair to say he likely shared the political beliefs of his boss, President Nixon. That is, I believe John Dean is a Rockefeller Republican at best. For example, since 2004 Mr. Dean wrote two books bashing President Bush (“Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush”) and conservatives/Republicans (“Conservatives without Conscience”). Finally, Mr. Dean claims he admired Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), “Mr. Conservative” of the 1960s.

I find Dean’s claim to be a Goldwater admirer tough to believe. Here’s why. How could anyone be a “Goldwater Republican” and claim today’s “Republican Party and conservatism have moved so far to the right that I’m now left of center?”

Conservatism hasn’t changed at all. Though the name may have changed over the years (originally known as liberalism), the principles are the same as they were at our country’s founding.

Regarding Republicanism, it’s moved to the left, not the right. We have self-described “conservative Republicans” who promote bigger government, social programs, et cetera. What’s conservative or “right” about that? If Mr. Dean or the Times can provide any examples of the Republican Party moving to the right, I’d like to see them.

“Dean isn’t alone. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported this Sunday that the GOP is losing its grip on registered voters in Philadelphia’s four suburban counties - Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery. For the first time since the Civil War, Republicans represent less than half of registered voters in those four counties.”

[RWC] News alert! The suburbs of a big Northeast city are becoming increasing liberal. This has been going on since at least the 1930s.

“While the Democratic Party has picked up a number of the GOP’s discontented, not all of them are flocking to the Democratic Party. Many are registering as Independents or joining third parties.

“The ‘other’ category of registered voters in those four counties has gone from 7 percent in November 1990 to 14 percent in May 2005.

“Even that might not be a good measure of the discontent in the GOP. Who knows how many more Philadelphia-area Republicans would have bolted and registered as Independents if Independents were allowed to vote in open primary elections in Pennsylvania?

“Basically, Republicans have abandoned the center, and that has left many of its members feeling left out. (Of course, if the results of the Lieberman primary loss last week are any indication, Democrats aren’t hurrying toward the middle either.)”

[RWC] You will note that nowhere does the editorial describe “the center.” That said, given the politicians the Times considers “moderate,” I think we can guess.

The editorial wants us to believe Sen. Lieberman is somehow in “the middle.” That’s BS! As I noted in another critique, “With the sole exception of the war on terrorism, Sen. Lieberman is as liberal as you get short of the MoveOn.org wackos. For example, Sen. Lieberman’s 2005 Americans for Democratic Action voting record was 94% and he was the VP candidate in 2000. The American Conservative Union gave Sen. Lieberman a 2005 rating of 8%.” This is what the editorial considers “the middle?”

“As a result of this polarization, Americans are being forced to make false political choices by hardliners on the left and right. In doing so, these diehards are driving the nation to ruin. Our system of government was designed to force compromise and moderation.”

[RWC] Note the editorial doesn’t describe the “false political choices.”

“Dean told The AP, ‘This country works best as a centrist nation. I think, basically, the electorate is centrist. You have the debate being set by the extremes.’

“Amen to that.”

[RWC] Please read my critique of “Lost ground” for my comments on the centrist hogwash.