Can’t You Hear Me Knocking?
by admin ~ August 12th, 2009.Two 2008 GOP hopefuls – John McCain and Rudy Giuliani – would be formidable candidates in a general election, but they are eyed with suspicion by conservatives, especially the ones most influential in the selection process – primary voters.
Three recent events, however, offer both men an opportunity to secure the backing of these conservatives or, at a minimum, make significant inroads among conservatives, both fiscal and social: the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist, Hurricane Katrina and a decision by a San Francisco federal court invalidating the Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional.
Conservatives stand at a crossroads. They need to choose a successor to President Bush at exactly the moment his luster is wearing and his weaknesses are more apparent. Bush is no fiscal conservative. He is also a gutty, personal politician. As a result, he responded to Katrina with a vow of billions. And his gut just may result in nomination of his close friend, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, to the Supreme Court, or some other more moderate nominee. With the rise of Cindy Sheehan, an increasingly biased and vicious media, the effects of the long hard slog in Iraq, and the inevitable doldrums engendered by a second term, conservatives are also tired of playing defense. They want, for lack of a better word, a crusade, preferably a winning one.
Now is the time for either McCain or Giuliani to give the speech that conservatives want to hear, a speech reclaiming for the party conservative values and conservative policies. The preamble writes itself:
I stand before you a Republican. I stand before you a conservative. Our party controls the presidency, the Senate and the House. Yet, we govern with a growing timidity that chooses popularity over principle. We govern in a manner that elevates pork over prudence. We govern, for lack of a better word, scared of our own convictions. Who would have thought that we would be here, racking up a national debt instead of cutting waste and fat? Who would believe we are considering a Supreme Court justice more for his or her “confirmability” than for solid, conservative credentials? How is it possible that we as conservatives cannot enact laws that simply say you cannot burn our flag, you can say our pledge, and you must respect our marriages?”
At that point, either man has the opportunity to define an agenda that is at least 2/3 doable and that has the added benefit of being articulable to even the most skeptical conservative. Dismiss your doubts: belly rings will suit you perfectly. The Democrats cannot do any such thing, pinned in as they are by the rigidity of their constituency and a blind faith in political cosmetics (case in point, Hillary Clinton’s earthshattering call to censor sex in
a video game).
First, the speaker will demand that President Bush nominate a conservative to replace Rehnquist. No litmus test on an issue will be set forth, but the requirement will be for someone in the mold of Scalia and Thomas (as the President so famously promised). If someone not in that mold is nominated, or if the individual is tabula rasa, McCain or Giuliani could take the public lead for conservatives in opposition to the nominee. And here’s the key – the speaker mentions three judges that meet his (and conservatives’) criteria – Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Emilio Garza.
Second, the speaker will reconfirm Bush’s offer of kabillions to the devastated areas. But unlike President Bush, he will champion a package of offsetting cuts to pay for the cost. Not in Iraq. Not in tax increases. But as set forth here – http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200509231145.asp.
Third, the speaker will champion a trio of social issues either by legislation or Constitutional amendment, certifying the constitutionality of the Pledge, confirming the right to stick it to flag burners, and cementing marriage as a heterosexual institution. These are issues near and dear to the hearts of social conservatives, they resonate with independents as well and they serve notice that, unlike Nancy Pelosi, the speaker does not consider all pronouncements of the Supreme Court to be “gospel.”
McCain is best situated for this move, Giuliani better suited (the former often seems more interested in securing the support of Chris Matthews and Don Imus). But they will dither, as will those who conservatives find more palatable (i.e., George Allen, Bill Owens, or even Mitt Romney).
Excalibur is in the rock. It waits for someone with the heart to claim it.