Wednesday, March 23, 2005

The natives getting restless?

Today's NYT has an interesting little article about some unrest in the GOP over the role Congress and the President have taken in the whole Schiavo ordeal. Specifically...tensions between the competing branches of the conservative movement, the religious social agenda and the federalist opposite...which have allied themselves more for convienence than anything else (as Thomas Frank would put it...the federalists have duped the values brigades...though in this case, it's vice versa).
"This is a clash between the social conservatives and the process conservatives, and I would count myself a process conservative," said David Davenport of the Hoover Institute, a conservative research organization. "When a case like this has been heard by 19 judges in six courts and it's been appealed to the Supreme Court three times, the process has worked - even if it hasn't given the result that the social conservatives want. For Congress to step in really is a violation of federalism."
The article goes on to quote Senator Warner of my former home state (VA), revealing his dissatisfaction with the party's choice to intervene in a state matter as well as Christopher Shays, a House GOP representative from CT:
"My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill.
Exactly my point the other day. They love federalism when it suits their values agenda. When it doesn't...well...they want the federal government to do it. Take gay rights. Or abortion. Or the death penalty. These are all examples of this kind of conflict. These people will say or do anything to push their agenda. If they can't get their way federally, they try the states. If they can't get their way in the states, they go federal. Shays went on to add:
"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy," Mr. Shays said. "There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."
Shays knows that public opinion polls show the public is overwhelmingly on the side of the husband. How has such a small minority managed to capture power like this? Does GOP leadership realize that they've handed the Democrats an issue to run on in 2006? "Don't vote for that guy...he wants to interfere with the way you live and die."

Now two more courts have ruled for the husband...we're up to 22 judges who have looked at this case and said, "let her die," now? How many more is this going to take?


Post a Comment

<< Home