AT LAST, we have a working definition of “compassionate conservatism.”
The phrase has puzzled people ever since George W. Bush introduced it in his campaign for his first term as president. At the time, he said that a compassionate conservative was a conservative who cared about folks. And that, the candidate said, was what he was.
But since he entered office, neither the compassion nor the conservatism has been much in evidence.
The folks of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans have had a big load of presidential compassion on back order for almost two years now and have seen barely a trickle. The rescue and recovery workers at Ground Zero could have used some compassion when they were sent to work in the poisonous dust without proper safety gear.
The waiting line for compassion is long, from people in need of health insurance and decent health care to the last members of the rapidly disappearing middle class. They have all been waiting six years for a bit of compassion. They may have to wait forever.
Well, the president may not be compassionate, but he certainly is conservative — right?
Not noticeably. True conservatives take seriously the presidential oath to protect, defend and support the Constitution. President Bush can’t seem to remember ever having taken the oath, so busy has he been lopping off rights and stretching and twisting what is left of that document into bizarre shapes that serve only the current office holders and will be a problem for the nation for generations to come.
True conservatives are also careful with public dollars and like to balance the budget whenever possible. This president does not seem to care how far the nation goes into debt, as long as he and his wealthy friends and allies do not have to pay their fair share of the tab.
And now the president has celebrated Independence Day by declaring his independence from shame. He has commuted the sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was facing 2 1/2 years in federal prison for lying to prosecutors who were trying to investigate the leaking of state secrets. Libby is the former aide of Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney recently claimed that his office places him beyond control of either the law or the Constitution.
The president said he commuted Libby’s sentence out of compassion (so that’s where the compassion went) and his conservative belief that the federal court and the appeals court had been too harsh in the sentencing of Libby and in upholding that sentence.
The law and custom give the president the right to commute prison sentences. But custom and common sense say that the right should not be used to protect presidential and vice presidential cronies from paying for crimes they commit.
So we now know that the president reserves his compassion for his friends and his conservatism for setting the punishment for their misdeeds.
We have seen this before and it gives us, at last, a true definition of “compassionate conservatism”: nothing more than that old political disease, cronyism — open, shameless and malignant.
Can the nation survive 18 months more of this administration?
Patrick S. Kelley
Editorial Page Editor
mythoughts (anonymous) says...
Oh, Mr. Kelley. I appreciate your editorial. I really think that the entire Bush family line should be banned from holding any political office from this day forward. These guys are fascists of near-Hitlerian proportions. Shame on Cheney, Bush and their ilk. Americans used to be the "Good Guys." Now, it looks like we're the MAFIA.
July 6, 2007 at 1:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
I agree 100%.
M
July 6, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
Where is Bush's compassion for the working, tax paying American? I also agree with my thoughts.
July 6, 2007 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mythoughts (anonymous) says...
Compassion? He's Marie Antoinette!! "Let them eat cake." This man thinks he can converse in Spanish just because he likes to eat Tex-Mex.
He sees himself as the idealized (or was that "idolized"?) "John Wayne/Savior of Humanity" when he's really trying to become the fomentor of the apocalypse. The man has NO CONCEPT of world history or democratic process. Doesn't he realize that John Wayne (& Ron Reagan, for that matter) were following scripts? They had a true, deep love for our country and our way of life, but they FOLLOWED THE SCRIPT given to them by people who may or may not have held the same values. John Wayne managed to transcend most of it; Reagan did not. The real powers in this "democratic" nation want to maintain their power and increase their prosperity--not ours.
This idiot has the blood of at least 3,500 + Americans on his hands, and untold hundreds of thousands of members of other nations' military and sovereign nations' civilians on his hands, and our government attempted to impeach Bill Clinton over sexual infidelity? I wish Georgie HAD a mistress instead of this blood lust--geez--have TWO mistresses! Have 40 virgins a month, male or female, as long as they're willing, if that's what it takes to keep him from killing our faithful, loyal (almost to a fault), Americans in uniform. Bushy is just hanging them out in the Middle East as BAIT to (supposedly) keep the terrorists off American soil--that's working out REAL well for the United Kingdom, eh?
It's time to get back to the sunshine (e.g. transparency). No evil can hide in the sun of truth. I'm counting the days until these vampires around our necks shrivel in the sunlight of truth, justice and the almost demolished American Way of Life. Mercy! Does the Bush want Apocalypse? I got his Apocalypse right here! heh heh Impeach Bush and Cheney before we all go down the tubes! Get them out now! This is insane!
Thus endeth the rant for this day...it brings no pleasure to denigrate another person, but, honestly, I believe that what is happening is Unamerican and we need to say so. If only I felt safe enough to sign this!
July 6, 2007 at 8:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
It doesn't help to use names like "facist" or "Hitlerian" too loosely.
Some things to consider. The Congress and Senate both voted overwhelmingly in support of our invasion of Iraq. The public supported it. Polls indicated that public support was over 80% in favor of the invasion. My guess is that it had the overwhelming support of Emporians and those who comment in this forum. .
Further, one of the great propelling elements of Facism is nationalism, the kind that holds one ethnic group or identity above all others (i.e. - Germans over Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, evangelicals, political non-conformists). As I've read these forums I've seen a great deal of this type of thinking in the debates about immigrants from Mexico, Somalia, etc. While I'm sure that some would argue that they have nothing against these people, some of the commentary says otherwise.
I wonder what might happen if the "right" person came along and promised a "final solution" to the immigration "problem." Would he or she have the support of some of the Gazette's on-line commenters? I think it's highly likely.
I also suspect that if the term "facist" had been around during our Civil War, Abraham Lincoln would have been so labelled. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus and led the nation into a war that cost close to a million lives. Some of those commenting here, had they lived then, would probably be at the front of the pack of those calling for impeachment or calling Lincoln a "monkey." Many would have expressed the view that eliminating slavery or preserving the Union wasn't worth the human cost
The label could easily have been used for Harry Truman for the Korean War (almost 40,000 American dead) or Lyndon Johnson for Vietnam (almost 60,000).
History will judge George Bush. Let's do whatever dissent we have with dignity and stop stooping to the lowest possible rhetoric. I understand the anger. We're all angry. But, for God's sake, let's express oursevles in the best traditions of American discourse.
July 7, 2007 at 9:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )