Time To Choose, Indeed

REPUBLICANS’ GUT CHECK – ARE THEY REALLY FOR WHAT THEY SAY THEY ARE?

FITSNews – August 3, 2008 – To pork, or not to pork? That is the question facing Republican politicians these days … a choice which was neatly personified in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal by columnist John Fund.

In boiling down conflicting GOP dogmas to the personages of U.S. Senators Ted Stevens (the porker) and Tom Coburn (the anti-porker), Fund paints a picture of polar opposites that should be quite familiar to South Carolina voters:

The Republican Party is facing what Ronald Reagan called “a time for choosing.” A real argument is raging over how much it should turn its back on the bad habits that cost it control of Congress in 2006.

Just after that debacle, Alaska’s Sen. Ted Stevens, the father of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” encountered Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, the antipork crusader who had held up many of the projects so many members believe are the key to their re-election. Mr. Stevens said, “Well, Tom, I hope you’re satisfied for helping us lose the election.” Mr. Coburn replied, “No, Ted, you lost us this election.”

The data favored Mr. Coburn: 2006 exit polls revealed that corruption in government was second only to the Iraq war as the driving force behind the Democratic takeover. A major part of that corruption was earmarks — pork projects members often secure in secret. Earmarks were at the heart of the scandals that sent Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Calif. Rep. Duke Cunningham to jail.

This week’s events further discredited the earmark culture. On Tuesday, Mr. Stevens, ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, had to step down after being indicted for failing to report over $250,000 in gifts from a firm that sought earmarks from him. The day before, Republicans enjoyed a rare success when they beat back an attempt by Majority Leader Harry Reid to ram through an earmark-laden omnibus bill that Mr. Coburn had refused to help pass …

Funny, we’ve got our own Ted Stevens here in South Carolina in the person of powerful Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman.  We’ve also got a Coburn-esque crusader for fiscal conservatism in Gov. Mark Sanford, although several factors have contributed to marginalize his influence, ranging from the structure of state government (which limits his executive power) to his own lack of political acumen.

Of course, whatever one may think of Sanford and his many flaws, that doesn’t change the underlying choice.

Will Republicans take steps to reclaim the mantle of less government and lower taxes?  Or will they continue blowing our money on everything under the sun?

Time to choose, indeed.

Comments