Notes From D. R.

Weekend Box Office: Casino Gambling

Ocean's Thirteen tops the charts. More from the New York Times.

How Suite It Is

The recent debate over illegal immigration has once again revealed the rift between the two main strands of the modern-day right: "street" conservatism and "suite" conservatism.

"Street" conservatism sees things in black and white; "suite" conservatism sees shades of gray. "Street" conservatives, in this case, support the mass deportation of an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants: "suite" conservatives, such as President Bush, argue that mass deportation is not feasible--and that illegal immigrants are a boon to our economy.

For nearly thirty years, there has been a sharp conflict in the GOP between "street" conservatism and "suite" conservatism. The "street" and the "suite" came together to support Ronald Reagan and both Bushes, but there doesn't seem to be much love between the two groups.

"Suite" conservatives tend to be libertarian on the social issues (with the exception of abortion; many "suite" conservatives share the disdain "street" conservatives have for Roe v. Wade). "Suite" conservatives believe in limited government, lower taxes, a responsible judiciary and a vigorous prosecution of the War on Terror--but they're not obsessed with so-called "culture war" issues.

"Street" conservatives, however, view the GOP as the only entity that can put a stop to what they see as left-wing attempts to damage American culture. "Street" conservatives--the GOP grassroots--led the fight against pornography, gay marriage, racial quotas and the welfare state. "Street" conservatives made talk radio and the Fox News Channel influential factors in American political culture. "Street" conservatives donated millions of dollars to the Republican Party, hoping that the party would be a strong voice against cultural efforts to marginalize conservatives, evangelical Christians and middle-class Americans. These conservatives are the ones most outraged by Bush's effort to provide de facto amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Will there ever be a truce between "street" and "suite" conservatives? I'm not sure. Let's face it--plenty of "street" conservatives regard "suite" conservatives as RINOs, and quite a few "suite" conservatives regard "street" conservatives as naive at best and xenophobic at worst. Both "street" and "suite" conservatives would like to run the GOP outright. Yet, for numerous reasons, both elements of the right must find a way to coexist.

I wish that both "suite" and "street" conservatives would realize that both sides need each other. The "street" conservatives are necessary for the Republican Party's financial and numerical strength, and the "suite" conservatives are needed to present the intellectual case for conservatism to a country bombarded with false media images of conservatives-as-rednecks. If the GOP's next Presidential nominee can heal the current rift between "street" and "suite" conservatives, then the Republicans will have a Election Day "three-peat" for the first time since 1988. If our next nominee can't resolve this spat, get ready for yet another Clinton Democrat.

UPDATE: More from Robert Bluey.

Stepping Aside

General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will leave the position this fall. More from the Washington Post and Washington Times.

Listen To Me

The left's next target: Fred Thompson's voice?

Come Together

An apparent compromise between Presidents Bush and Putin. More from the Washington Post and New York Times.

Coming To America?

A major setback for the controversial immigration bill. More from the Washington Post, Dean Barnett, the New York Times, Michelle Malkin, Robert Bluey, Human Events and Power Line.

THE BUDDY SYSTEM

I doubt that I'm the only one who finds something a little unusual about the partnership between Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush.

The ex-Presidents, fierce rivals in the 1992 election, have seemingly become inseparable, teaming up to raise money for tsunami and hurricane victims and delivering back-to-back commencement addresses at prestigious universities. For Clinton and Bush partisans, the sight of the two men coming together in this fashion has raised eyebrows, if not anger.

How could Clinton be so buddy-buddy with the man who put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court and fathered Dubya? How could Bush be friends with the dude who dodged the draft, didn't inhale, wagged his finger to lecture the country, and didn't lift a finger to confront Islamofascism?

The Clinton-Bush friendship clearly transcends politics--but how could that be the case?

It may be that neither man regards the other as a Satanic figure. Bush evidently doesn't share the conservative perception of Clinton as a hard-left radical who charmed his way into the White House. Similarly, Clinton seemingly doesn't share the liberal view of Bush as a weakling who was a patsy for reactionary interests.

Presumably, Clinton gets a lot of flak from his "progressive" buddies over his relationship with the 41st President; in addition, Bush's willingness to embrace Clinton undoubtedly strengthens the view that Ronald Reagan's VP shared little of the "Great Communicator's" conservatism. However, Bush and Clinton seem not to care a whit about how they're perceived by those who voted for both men fifteen years ago.

It's interesting that both Bush and Clinton have been accused of blurring the line between conservatism and liberalism. Clinton was famously despised by the far-left for not being committed enough to "progressive" principles; no true liberal, the argument went, would have backed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or signed welfare reform into law. Bush has taken heat from the right for years because of his apparent unease with true conservatism: committed Republicans will never forget "voodoo economics," "a kinder, gentler nation," the broken no-new-taxes pledge, or David Souter.

Perhaps Clinton and Bush get along so well because they both see themselves as being above partisan politics. Both men clearly envisioned themselves as being Presidents who represented America as a whole, as opposed to being symbols of the Red State-Blue State divide. They both wanted to be thought of as good men by Americans of all political persuasions.

Even the most hardcore liberal has to admit that H. W. ‘s humility and decency in the Oval Office were traits that all Presidents should emulate. Likewise, Clinton critics like myself have no problem acknowledging that the 42nd President effectively appealed to America's fundamental sense of optimism and hope (don't you think that John Kerry could have defeated Bush's son if he didn't strike so many Americans as a doom-and-gloom Negative Nelly type?).

The Bush-Clinton partnership appeals to Americans from a symbolic standpoint: by working together, the former Presidents are promoting the idea that there can be a balm for America's partisan wounds. I admit that I don't get the message. I also admit that I'm not the target audience.

School Daze

The Washington Post on the apparent success of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Overseas Trip

The Weekly Standard, the Washington Post and the New York Times on President Bush's visit to Prague.

UPDATE: More from the Post and Washington Times.

Throw Back The Little Ones

Can we get rid of the no-hopers, and just have a GOP Presidential debate with Giuliani, McCain, Romney (who came across as the most Presidential tonight) and Fred Thompson? For cryin' out loud... More from the New York Times, Washington Times, Washington Post, Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, Fred Barnes, John Gizzi and Power Line.

Federal Property

Former White House aide Lewis Libby is sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison. More from the Washington Post, Dean Barnett, RedState.com and William Kristol.

A Statesman's Departure

Wyoming Senator Craig Thomas passes away at 74. More from the AP.

Left To Right

Richard Cohen and Paul Weyrich on Fred Thompson's potential Presidential run.

Do You Want A Revolution?

The Congressional Black Caucus vs. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The Transformers

Several years ago, a liberal called into Boston talk-radio host Howie Carr's show to state that he was sick and tired of listening to those he considered "conservative whiners." At the time, I figured the caller was just another disgruntled "progressive" upset over Republican criticism of the left. Now, after all these years, I think I understand what that caller was complaining about.

For adherents to a political philosophy that is supposed to reject victimization, some conservatives have been acting an awful lot like victims lately. While I share their concern over President Bush's efforts to provide de facto amnesty to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, the whining, moaning and complaining from some on the right about Bush's actions is just a little too much to take.

Enough of this garbage about how Bush "betrayed" the conservative base. Bush didn't betray anybody. He was always a moderate--remember his admonition of Congressional Republicans for supposedly "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor?" From the moment Bush started calling himself a "compassionate conservative," the right should have known what was up.

Bush is who he is, and his instincts are what they are. He considers himself a compassionate Christian--and thus, he is reluctant to view illegal immigrants as criminals desirous of welfare and government largesse. In Bush's mind, such a view is "mean-spirited." Call him a liberal if you must, but Bush was never dishonest about his "compassionate" worldview.

I swear that some of these "We Wuz Robbed!" conservatives have forgotten the state of the game in 1999-2000. We had no electable Reagan conservative to choose from. Period. We could either go with the "compassionate conservative" or John McCain, the media-glorified maverick who had launched a rhetorical assault on his own party's base. Bush was the ONLY option.

He's still the only option, his questionable actions on immigration notwithstanding. Everyone who supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 must realize that, like it or not, we have to pay Bush's tab, so to speak. We told the world that Bush was superior to Al Gore and John Kerry. It will be up to us to defend his legacy, not to join liberals in trashing it.

I don't get it. Conservatives will still defend Nixon despite his social liberalism (wage and price controls, racial quotas, the EPA, etc.) They'll always defend Reagan, even though he gave us official amnesty in 1986 and placed non-conservatives Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy on the US Supreme Court. Yet Bush is supposed to be the Great Satan now?

Yes, Bush has made mistakes, some of them severe. Yes, Bush's actions with regard to immigration, Medicare and education cannot be considered blessings for the conservative movement. Yet some on the right now seem willing to join the left in declaring Bush the worst President of all-time. It's like they've transformed themselves into hard-lefties.

The anti-Bush right needs to get over it. Bush is certainly not perfect, but conservatives who have decided to jump on board the "Bush sucks!" bandwagon are embarrassing themselves. In 2000 and 2004, they said Bush deserved to be on top. In attacking him now, they've decided to flip-flop.

Culture Warrior

George F. Will on the role that social issues might--or might not--play in the 2008 election.

Life Sentence

The Washington Post on an unusual fight involving the religious right.