Why I want Republicans in the Minority
Well, since my earlier post got everyone’s attention, I might as well piss off anyone I missed.
So the House Republicans have come out with their “Pledge to America.” I believe exactly as Erick Erickson of Red State who said that it was Perhaps the Most Ridiculous Thing to Come Out of Washington Since George McClellan:
The entirety of this Promise is laughable. Why? It is an illusion that fixates on stuff the GOP already should be doing while not daring to touch on stuff that will have any meaningful longterm effects on the size and scope of the federal government.
This document proves the GOP is more focused on the acquisition of power than the advocacy of long term sound public policy. All the good stuff in it is stuff we expect them to do. What is not in it is more than a little telling that the House GOP has not learned much of anything from 2006.
I will vote Republican in November of 2010. But I will not carry their stagnant water.
What is semi-ironic is while I agree with him on all this, he is voting GOP, against the guy I praised earlier, Jim Marshall, in whose district Erickson lives.
If the GOP takes over again, and acts like they did last time, the GOP will likely go extinct as a viable option. I’m accused off all kinds of things in the comment section of my other post, and some of it is understandable, but if the GOP takes over, and doesn’t make SIGNIFICANT changes, we are through. Now, how much can the GOP do with a President Obama? Virtually nothing.
So, let me address a few comments. From Matt:
The only problem with voting for Democrats is Pelosi, Rangel, Conyers, Franks, Waters, Miller, the pipsqueak from Cinci, et al. Voting for a demorat put these clowns in power. The liberals out number the conservatives in the party. They control the agenda.
Yes they do, and they are impotent provided that the GOP stands tall, and the blue dogs come on over for anything asinine.
In the House particularly, it is a numbers game. So what if Marshall’s personal platform is conservative? His votes for the the Democrat leadership ensures left wing policy outcomes. Even if he votes contrary to that leadership, he allows them to set the terms of each vote.
I figured Stupak’s example from the health care debate would’ve put this issue to rest.
I’m not sure how this is even remotely true. If there are 218 Democrats, and Marshall sides with the GOP on a vote, that vote fails. What happened on the Stupak thing is he caved. Had the House been closer, say 220-215, then Obamacare would have failed. Now, because it did pass, the GOP looks great right now. So, what happens when the GOP is in the majority, and can’t pass anything, because Obama vetoes it all. Who is the bogeyman now? It’s not the Dems.
I’ve grown pretty weary of this ‘pox on both their houses’ style of analysis. Your preference doesn’t just prevent the GOP from going stupid, it also allows the Democrats to go full retard, precisely due to the early critical support of the few ’sane dems’ in the caucus. You’d be just as responsible for the excesses of another Pelosi/Reid congress as a Democrat who enthusiastically voted for their Democratic congressional candidate.
Um. Wow. How the fug can they go “full retard” if they don’t have the votes? Explain to me how that happens? Based on your logic though, when the GOP wins, and they pass a appropriations bill with a ton of pork for George Miller in California (R), just like they do every other year, you sir are fully and totally reponsible for it.
Screw that. I don’t trust that the GOP has learned anything. The budget ballooned under Bush and a GOP Congress. It has gone up even more since then, true. My ideal situation, a GOP minority with enough blue dogs to block anything and everything. I’d rather have a GOP majority that is smart enough to handle the reins, but I have never seen such a thing.
If someone is going to take the blame, I want it to be them, not us. Because do you really want Sue Collins deciding what bills get passed, or a Conservative Dem like Marshall? Obviously we differ on that.
Category: Politics
You’re right. Republicans are like the Whigs.
Bring back the Federalists. Strong national defense. Strong national finance. Interstate transportation. That’s it.
No federal education or health or environmental or labor departments. Leave that to the states.
I think you are onto something. And being born and raised in Jim Marshall’s district and having watched him work and met him a couple of times, he’s a throwback to the Dems we all used to vote for in the South.
The GOP isn’t standing for anything, yet. Just against. It’ll get you in the door, but that’s not what America needs. We need to unleash the freedom that made us the most prosperous and powerful nation in history. Less government. Lower taxes. Equality under the law. The “no better friend, no worse enemy” posture. Push down oversight to local government and take Big brother out of the classroom. Put the “service” back in “civil service.”
I agree, TSO–in 1995 they had a real chance to show their true colors. Well, they did–they caved the first time someone called their bluff. What makes anyone think this time will be any different?
Memo to GOP: Don’t tell me, SHOW ME.
“…the GOP will likely go extinct as a viable option.”
Newsflash…they already have.
And I’m a REPUBLICAN, which leaves me in a helluva lurch…
Perhaps the TEA party might become a power to deal with?? I sure as hell don’t want the Dems in the majority any longer, though. How about some honest folks that can abide by the Constitution, follow the intent of the founders and act like Americans are supposed to act??
I’m glad you brought that up Thor, because I have been meaning to do a post on why I won’t go to any further TEA party things either. (Read the rest before you get mad at me.)
A few weeks ago some asstard named Andrew Beachum burned the Koran at the White House, and when interviews, claimed he was a leader in the Indiana Tea Party movement. So, I did what any rational person would do, and immediately emailed them. And then did so again. And again. Responses thus far: 0.
Now, according to this website:
http://templeofmut.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/andrew-beacham-is-not-a-tea-party-leader-despite-elite-media-attempts-to-make-him-so/
A real Tea Party Leader, Dawn Wildman (a national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots and the President of the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition) had this statement: “As a Tea Party Patriots coordinator, I have talked often with the organizers in Indiana. This man is not one of the people I recognize, nor am I aware of his participation in any official Tea Party events before. He sounds like a fringe type who is using the hard-won relevance of the Tea Parties to give him self credibility. If the media really does its job, it will discover he has none — Tea Party Patriots would never condone an act of desecration for any reason.”
Now, why the hell is a tea party person from California answering for the IND Tea party, and yet that second group still has nothing up on their website. If this clown is not a Tea Party guy, wouldn’t you want to tell that to everyone in the world? Why not respond to multiple emails, and to an uproar?
I just can’t be part of a group that allows freaks like Beachum to claim to be members, and then doesn’t disavow them.
TSO, lets be realistic hear for a moment. Even if whoever is elected goes to DC with the best of intentions, something in the water always seems to corrupt them and make them think getting reelected is the most important thing in the world. I had a conversation with a friend who works for the Dem party here in GA. (I know, shockers, I have friends whose politics I dislike. I think that is called being open-minded, but don’t tell Matthis) After talking for a while he asked me why I didn’t run. I told him there were several reasons. First, the thought of having to be nice to that many stupid people day after day makes me want to take a bottle of ambien and sleep for a month. Second, I would make Chris Christie look shy in telling people what I really think of their stupidity. Third, and most importantly, I could never get past a primary in a district where I could have a realistic chance of getting elected. My father says our politics are fiscally conservative with a social conscience. Most Reps. are too socially conservative and most Dems. are too liberal. Basically, I am a flaming moderate. I am uninterested in most of what gets true social conservatives stirred up. I am pro choice, within reason. I am bummed that my gay neighbors moved and took my dog with them. If they had wanted to get married, I would have baked the cake so long as they didn’t force some church to violate its tenants to perform the ceremony. I basically do not care what you do in your own home so long as it involves consenting adults and I do not have to pay for it. I have a concealed carry permit and believe in hunting, but think laws that ensure psychos and criminals don’t get guns and that hunting is done in a reasonable manner are dandy. The only issue the social conservatives bring up that gets me interested is the overly-PC crap. You do not have a right to not be offended… Read more »
Susan, I agree with absolutely everything in there. (Although i didn’t read too closely.) So, let me ask this:
Would you rather have the GOP REALLY CLOSE to taking control, and then use their power to stop things (which they are good at)
Or in countrol, screwing up, pissing off the conservatives again, and thus ensuring the next Dem Congress has like 60%?
I think our disagreements all boil down to whether you think the GOP can lead or now. I still can’t be convinced that they would do the right thing. Don’t get me wrong, of the two major parties, I think the GOP is the second worst, but if they go into control and act like Dems, we are screwed, screwed, screwed.
At some point, it has got to be about doing something to right the ship, rather than insisting that we not stop bailing out the every increasing rush of water. You can only say no and stop stuff for so long. I want somebody to fix the damn problems. I think the best shot is to elect the Republicans and then blast them with daily emails reminding them that we are watching them and that they can be replaced.
TSO, I agree with you to some extent. This is why I abandoned the GOP. I tend to vote for them on the whole. There are IDIOTS that are somehow affiliating themselves with the TEA Party and that disturbs me. While I haven’t gone to any events around here (mainly because there are so few and Dallas is a day trip), I have read about them and they are mostly where I’d like to see America. And Susan, yes, I’m pretty much like you as far as attitudes. The biggest thing I loathe about the gay agenda is them attempting to shove it down our throats and somehow turn themselves into some sort of “protected class”. I also LOATHE and disdain “protected classes” of people, with one exception, the handicapped or disabled. (Perhaps that’s a selfish interest because I am disabled and I see how some people treat the disabled and handicapped.) I do think that the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) goes a little too far. Anybody that can stand up for themselves shouldn’t need protection. The bigger problem is that since the GOP won the house & senate in 1994, they sat on their asses. They allowed corruption to go unaddressed, as some of them were corrupt, too. While the Republicans were sitting on their dead asses, the Dems perfected their corrupt schemes and are just recently starting to be noticed. Still, I don’t see anybody resigning or being prosecuted. I still stand by my statement/ question: “How about some honest folks that can abide by the Constitution, follow the intent of the founders and act like Americans are supposed to act??” And, I don’t mean that these folks should “interpret” the Constitution to meet their ends. It was well written and if anybody bothered to actually STUDY the ntent of the founding fathers, they would understand. This doesn’t mean that a misplaced or omitted comma (in today’s American English)should change things. (e.g.: the argument that the Progressives have used in an attempt to distort the 2nd Amendment) Honestly, as long as they aren’t stealing OUR money and… Read more »
The problem I see with the Tea Party right now is that every conservative who has an axe to grind with the Repulicans is hitching their wagon to this movement. It’s making for a very interesting, but also very confusing, mix. And it is DEFINITELY attracting the “batshit crazies.”
My suggestion on this is watch them closely, get involved, and stay tuned for further developments!
Susan, I would gleefully vote for you. Your DC water thing fits.
You’ve pointed out The Elephant (as I tried to do).
The problem IS systemic! The TEA Party is the right idea – implemented poorly thus far.
One miss of note (IMHO). The founders should have codified something akin to drawing The House from the jury pool. I dunno where we’d be by now, but the idea seems sound.
TSO:
I don’t completely disagree with you, in theory. If the republicans do nothing, send pork to Cali, etc they will look bad and be crushed as an entity.
But in practice, I’m not sure you are correct. In reality, the label you stick yourself with is where you’re going to stand when the shit hits the fan.
Politics, in my mind, tends to be like gangs. A person may treat you very well, and come across exactly like you in normal day to day operations, but when the colors come out… you never existed.
If the dems would stop dabbling in craziness….
I think you’re wrong on this…Not entirely but I have a different take:
IF the Repubs take over congress NOW with Obama at the helm, they have no expectations. As is evident by the last 2 years of Bush when the Dems took over, they don’t get mentioned. It’s all Bush’s fault…
IF the Repubs take over congress now, they have a check valve in the form of veto from Obama. IF the Repubs take over and do nothing but block the progressive agenda they will be viewed as successful. IF they stay in the minority and the economy stays as is or gets worse, they will get the blame for not going along with more progressive crap….
Either way they have a lot to prove. Now is a good time to give them a chance to see if they have learned the lessons. Rather than waiting till 2012 and giving the entire ship to them because the dems have screwed up so bad…Then they will have US at their mercy. They will know at that point they may suck but the Dems proved they suck worse…
I’m optimistic that they have learned their lessons.
Ponsdorf – thanks. A buddy of mine and I are talking about setting up a site in 2012 something would_you_vote_for_me.com that goes into depth on a subject a week or so and see if we could get elected.
Susan: Sold!
Let’s see (tongue firmly in cheek)… Are you photogenic? Please move to WV. Phooey on the WE aspect. It’s the various forms of WE that got us to this point, Either walk the walk – or talk the talk like so many of our pampered princesses already do.
TSO, I think you’re right, and wrong. I think you’re right to point out the many deficiencies in Washington, and I think you generally capture the problems found within our two parties, but I think you completely miss the true problem with American politics today. What is the true problem with American politics today? We The People. Our country is so far down the slippery slope of myopic self indulgence that I honestly do not think we will ever again see it resemble what our forefathers fought and died for. The entitlement mentality is the majority mentality, it’s here and it’s now, it’s not some dangerously creeping entity that’s threatening us. Think you’re going to get rid of pork barrel spending (I wish we could)? Think again, ‘We The People’ want it or we would have done something about it already. Want a smaller, more efficient central government (I do)? Keep on wanting, ‘We The People’ don’t really want it or we would have done something about it already. Want universal term limits (I do)? Keep on wanting, if ‘We The People’ really wanted them we would have ensured their establishment. Want the private sector to be the undisputed back bone of our economy (I do)? Again, keep wanting. ‘We The People’ have allowed the Fed to over regulate private business to the near brink of extinction. I could go on, but I hope you’re getting the gist of what I’m saying by now. Almost everyone in this country works entirely in their own self interest these days, and every one of us has an excuse for doing what we do, or more accurately, for not doing what we maybe should, in order to achieve our national goals. In these troubled times we are only reaping the just rewards for the actions of a largely apathetic and selfish electorate. True altruism is a rare, rare thing in America today, most disturbingly in the heartland where it used to be so prevalent. Suspicion, cynicism, insular attitudes, and ‘what’s in it for me’ are far more the order of the day amongst… Read more »
Would you rather have the GOP REALLY CLOSE to taking control, and then use their power to stop things (which they are good at)
Good at? Like stopping auto bailouts, TARP II, Obamacare, a completely unqualified SCOTUS Justice (at least Sotomayor had a resume) I’m not sure they’re all that good at stopping stuff.
Or in countrol, screwing up, pissing off the conservatives again, and thus ensuring the next Dem Congress has like 60%?
So the GOP should be the minority party so that they don’t tick off conservatives? Sorry, I’d rather the Democrats don’t piss off conservatives….weird, I know…
Don’t get me wrong, of the two major parties, I think the GOP is the second worst, but if they go into control and act like Dems, we are screwed, screwed, screwed.
If the GOP is 2nd worst then wouldn’t we be screwed the most worst if they stay in the minority? After all, the Dems can (and will) block everything the GOP tries to pass….why can’t they be in the minority?
I still can’t be convinced that they would do the right thing.
Can’t argue with you on that one, the GOP has to step up and and follow through, no doubt….but you can’t even give them the chance? Even if they’re less worse than what we have now? As I pointed out in your last post, when the GOP swept in in’94 they got off on a great roll. We know that after time they “settled in” but GOP voters stayed home and left them swinging in the wind.
Think about this…in ’92 Dems controlled it all, the House, Senate, and White House and in 1 election cycle they got butt hurt. When the GOP had it all it took 3 cycles. Where do you think the public in general places more trust?
Ultimately it appears that things work better when we are a house divided. Dem POTUS deserves a GOP congress.
“If the GOP takes over again, and acts like they did last time, the GOP will likely go extinct as a viable option.”
That’s why it’s more important to vote for strong conservatives who assume the label with pride than it is to vote for the guy with an “R” next to his name. I could even vote for a guy with a “D” next to his name if he had a strong conservative record. I just can’t think of any at the moment.
But I’m pleasantly surprised to see that the conservatives are beating out RINOs in race after race–Toomey, O’Donnell, Miller, etc. There are some good candidates out there this year! There’s even a guy here in my ultra-liberal district who looks almost solid enough to vote for.
Might I suggest Ilario Pantano (USMC veteran of Desert Storm and OIF), Jeff Perry, Sharon Angle, LTC Allen West, Paul Lepage, Ron Johnson, Bill Randall (retired Command Master Chief), and Carl Paladino.
It’s an exciting year for conservatives. Yes, I want to see Republicans kick butt. No, I don’t want those Republicans to be namby-pamby lukewarm moderates who sell out the second they get to Washington.
“Now, how much can the GOP do with a President Obama? Virtually nothing.”
Perhaps. But look at this way–Obama won’t be able to get much done either. Without Reid and Pelosi, he’ll have a hard time getting his awful agenda through Congress. They haven’t given up yet on things like DADT, Cap and Trade, the Fairness Doctrine and amnesty.
I’d like to offer the following analogy. Our government has evolved much like the modern automobile. There was a time when virtually anyone with a modicum of mechanical skill could perform the basic maintenance on their car. Cars were simple machines, with straightforward functions that could be easily repaired without a huge amount of money or specialized training. But as cars changed with the times, they became more sophisticated and refined and as people’s fortunes increases, the vehicles quickly became bloated with flashy doo-dads that provided no real value but added complexity to what should have remained a method of conveyance. Within a relatively short amount of time, basic transportation morphed into something clunky, unreliable and increasingly more expensive…then to add insult to injury, the average Joe was relegated to only performing the most simple maintenance on his own vehicle and the only true choice he had was a broad range of cars that pretty much looked, performed and acted the same. It now takes a specialized technician equipped with a bank of computers to service a car, leaving the vast majority of owners scratching their heads in complete confusion when the damn things eventually break down. This is where I see ourselves politically. We’ve allowed government to be completely overtaken by the “ruling class” who has done an amazingly efficient job in ensuring that the average Joe has zero chance of stepping in and “changing Washington”. We’ve seen it on numerous occasions where some well intentioned newcomer gets elected and within one political season, they’re as assimilated to the process as old guard denizens who have been reelected a dozen times. Seriously, does anyone honestly think a coven of lawyers, bankers and career politicians are going to allow Billy Bob from Tennessee to truck his ass to Washington and burn down their little play house? Please.
Can’t see a whole lot wrong with that, Claymore.
Beautifully stated.
I’ll settle for, on the Senate side, enough people with the stones to stand up and say, “not only no, but hell no” on the next SCOTUS nominee who isn’t qualified to clerk at the SCOTUS, much less sit on the bench there.
This “the GOP can’t do anything with Obama in power” meme is starting to pop up everywhere. I fear the Republican leadership is putting it out there to preempt accusations that they haven’t made the changes voters want. The problem is that it’s simply untrue.
What can the GOP do that Obama’s veto has no effect on? Refuse to pass a budget without substantial cuts. What happens if the GOP refuses to pass a budget? The federal government shuts down except for essential spending and we get the spending reduction anyway. That’s what the GOP can do, and Obama can’t do a thing about it.
Now, I know what some of you are thinking: didn’t we try this already? Yes, but Gingrich screwed it up by making some impolitic comments and turning a principled stand into a personal vendetta against Clinton. Before that, we were holding our own in the polls. The public understood that sometimes you have to just refuse to go along with the gradual but implacable growth in the federal government.
TSO,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments in the earlier post. There’s been a lot of quality thoughts on this already in the comments above, so I’m late to the party. But I wanted to respond nonetheless:
“Um. Wow. How the fug can they go “full retard” if they don’t have the votes? Explain to me how that happens?”
Well, the Dem leadership didn’t have the votes for Obamacare minus the Stupak amendment at first, but when push came to shove, those votes manages to materialize due to a BS executive order. Even if the Dems have only a slight advantage in total seats versus the massive advantage they hold now, the idea that the Blue Dogs will somehow block them ignores the fact that the Blue Dogs are Democrats for a reason.
Your Blue Dog firewall is great in theory, but in practical terms it relies on the hope that those Sane Democrats will willingly buck their party consistently. You cede the initiative by allowing the Dems to set the agenda, and you set up a situation where any vote is essentially a holding action. That’s not a recipe for policy success.
“…Based on your logic though, when the GOP wins, and they pass a appropriations bill with a ton of pork for George Miller in California (R), just like they do every other year, you sir are fully and totally reponsible for it.”
Yes, I am. If my vote enables a Congress that advances policies I like, I’m also on the hook for the policies they push that I disagree with. There’s no cafeteria option in representative government. I’d say that pork barrel spending, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and a variety of other bad policies are worth a lot of pro-defense, pro-growth, pro-liberty policies.
I can work through a variety of venues to shape that package – during primaries, party conventions, and voting smartly during state and local elections. But the general election choice is a binary one, you don’t get to just vote for the policies you like.
“I’m not sure how this is even remotely true. If there are 218 Democrats, and Marshall sides with the GOP on a vote, that vote fails. What happened on the Stupak thing is he caved.”
I’m repeating myself here, but why are you certain that Marshall won’t “cave”? He’s obviously a democrat for a reason, so he’s going to vote blue on at least some issues. If he was so stalwart that we could count on him to block the bad stuff, why isn’t he a Republican? And why on earth do we want to set up a situation where our side has to maintain absolute party discipline, but the other side can afford to bleed support strategically?
“There’s no cafeteria option in representative government. I’d say that pork barrel spending, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and a variety of other bad policies are worth a lot of pro-defense, pro-growth, pro-liberty policies.”
==========
Not to mention tax cuts, 5% unemployment for most of 2003-2007, record highs on Wall Street during that same period (which helped everyone’s retirement accounts), great GDP growth and job growth during that same period and the deficit was decreasing each year from 2005 through 2007.
Now, compare that to what we have endured since the Democrats took over Congress in JAN 2007 through now, SEPT 2010 and it is *drastically* different.
So I don’t see how anyone can say that Democrats and Republicans are the same. It’s like comparing an unhappy and sexless marriage to a marriage where the spouse is emotionally and physically abused. Both suck, sure, but at *drastically* different levels.
With the Bush Administration and the GOP from 2000-2006, we didn’t have conservative governing, sure, but the economy was prosperous and we had economic levels — save for the deficit — on par with the Clinton years.
The Republicans gave us 5% unemployment, while the Democrats have doubled that rate under their reign. That doesn’t look like “they’re the same” to me.