Other Columns by Frank Salvato
Frank Salvato Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

If just a year ago, as George W. Bush proclaimed victory in the 2004 presidential election, you would have told me that the Democrats would be sitting back and laughing as the conservatives fed on their own, like a pack of self-indulgent jackals, I would have dismissed the notion as incredible. But as we approach the 2006 mid-term election cycle it would seem that notion isn't so far fetched. We are staring directly into the eyes of a Republican-Ross Perot moment and the Democrats are enjoying every minute of it.

For many on the "rightest" side of the right, the Harriet Miers nomination has proven to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. They saw an opportunity to pull the trigger on a political nuclear confrontation and, in their opinion, President Bush shied away from it. This, coupled with a lackluster approach to border security and a perceived indifference to spending excesses, has stirred passions of contempt among many in the conservative political community.

While I agree that the Bush Administration has been less than the vision of a conservative archangel on a few issues, I disagree with those who are advocating the withholding of support for the president. The plain and simple fact of the matter is this, if conservatives maintain a divided house because of ideological differences with the Bush Administration, the Democrats will not only win seats in the upcoming midterm elections, they just may wrap up the 2008 presidential election two years early.

Conservatives in the United States have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot when they have the opportunity to advance their cause. One needs only to look back at the defeat of George H.W. Bush to validate this claim. He was most definitely the more qualified of the candidates. But, because of an unyielding ideology and because they held him in contempt for breaking his promise on taxes, many conservatives chose to withhold their support.

Refusing to realize that Congress had more to do with the tax increase than President George H.W. Bush did, they opted to champion Ross Perot, a third party candidate who had the same chance of winning the White House as George McGovern did when he ran against Richard Nixon. This extremely poor choice of who to support was directly responsible for the election of Bill Clinton and eight years of quasi-Socialistic government.

Make no mistake; it was less about the hard work of the left-leaning Democrats and more about the lack of conservative cohesiveness that allowed the Clinton dynasty to emerge. We should all live with that "stain" upon each of our "blue dresses" for the remainder of our political lives.

Purity of conservative ideology aside, Harriet Miers deserves her day in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- and then in front of the full Senate -- if for no other reason than because the President nominated her. In the end, it will be the Senate's advise and consent role that will determine if Harriet Miers is sworn in as the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, not the president's will. To think otherwise is to give conservatives in the Senate a pass on their constitutional duty. If they don't believe that she is capable, they can vote her down. They have that power.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2