By Christopher Adamo
web posted May 15, 2006
Were any anti-government "militia" or other separatist organization to consistently discuss Timothy McVeigh as merely a "rental truck operator," their underlying sympathies would become glaringly obvious. While such a description is not absolutely inaccurate, it clearly misrepresents the overall significance of McVeigh and his actions.
Yet Washington liberals shamelessly persist in their efforts to distort NSA terrorist surveillance in just such a manner. From the liberal punditry to the prominent Democrat voices on Capitol Hill, the objects of NSA scrutiny are continually referred to as "American citizens" or even more absurdly, as "average citizens.
Through such dangerous and fraudulent means, liberals believe that they can undermine credibility of the Bush Administration's war on terror in the eyes of the American people. And incessant repetition is certainly part of the plan. But by far the worst aspect of their treachery is that once again, they anticipate and all too often receive collaborative support from Republican "moderates."
With the nomination of General Michael Hayden to replace Porter Goss as CIA chief, the Trojan Horses from the GOP have predictably surfaced. Congressman Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, not typically among those who carry the water for the Democrats, nonetheless is decrying Hayden's military service as sufficient reason to disqualify him for the post.
The preponderance of historical evidence clearly shows that a strong military background not only presents no inherent problem, but in fact often correlates to an enhanced ability to make the intelligence agency operate effectively.
Such an argument is particularly strengthened in light of the disastrous consequences from the recent administration of a draft-dodging president whose inept bungling of international affairs resulted in real long-lasting damage to America's standing in the world, a strong case can be made for a military background as an extremely worthwhile prerequisite to holding high-level office.
In contrast to the toothless and inconsequential "negative opinions" of America, currently expressed by the leadership of "Old Europe" and cited by the press as some unforgivable malfeasance on the part of the Bush Administration, Bill Clinton's incompetence ultimately provoked Osama bin Laden to believe he could wage war against the U.S. and possibly even win it. Yet so afraid are Republicans to make this case that they studiously avoid the matter.
Continuing their abysmal and unnecessary defensive pattern of recent months, Republicans have lately allowed the debate on one issue after another to be defined and advanced almost solely by the left, with the most forceful GOP response invariably being some insipid version of "me too." Yet of such waffling and pandering, few electoral victories of recent years can be claimed.
This compromise of fundamental principle, if not rectified immediately, may end up costing them dearly in November. But in any case, the ideological loss of the agenda becomes inevitable.
Whether the agenda item of the day is cabinet appointments, immigration, or gas prices, Republican acquiescence to the Democrats never succeeds at standing them in good stead with the American people. Those who oppose the conservative agenda feel ever more justified in doing so, while its supporters become increasingly bitter and disillusioned over such needless betrayals.
Recent Republican assent to the bogus claims of "big oil" as the reason for rising energy costs only serve to solidify a misconception in the minds of gullible Americas that a corporate conspiracy lies behind their woes. So the Democrats gain points in the ideological debate.
Worse yet, since this "conspiracy" has over time been attributed to the corporate/political cabal presumed to be running the GOP, fanning the flames of such fanciful notions only energizes the party's enemies, while dispiriting the traditional Republican base.
Likewise, the immigration crisis begs for the implementation of a truly conservative response from Washington, one that would reassert American sovereignty and culture over unrestrained economic pragmatism and the ravages of "multiculturalism." Yet word is out that something quite the opposite may be in the works.
Presidential political strategist Karl Rove is reportedly pressuring conservatives to carry the water for yet another Bush attempt at implementing a "guest worker program." So while the Democrats continue a sellout of the country for the benefit of their new voting bloc, GOP "insiders" remain wedded to the idea of doing so for cheap labor.
All evidence points to the sad possibility that the ideological "meltdown" within Republican ranks is continuing unabated. Having lost their courage to advance the conservative cause in the face of Democrat caterwauling and media condemnation, GOP congressional "strategists" are in full retreat, advising their members to "campaign on local issues." Thus they abandon any pretense of leading the country.
Ultimately, the party could not be any more diametrically opposed to the precepts of the "Gingrich Revolution" that brought victory and political dominance a dozen years ago. Republican leaders who have any interest in retaining their majority status should recognize that a thoroughly neutered GOP is not the ticket. 
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been active in local and state politics for many years.