GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Unlike 1994, the Party Accused of Corruption is Also the Party With a Cadre Committed to Reform

by

Make sure to check for updates at the end of this post!

UPDATE at 2:20 PM EST: John Boehner elected Majority Leader. If Shadegg had won, we could say this is 1989 all over again. This is clearly a rejection of the status quo, but is it a whole-hearted embrace of reform as the Arizonan’s election would have been? I’ll have to listen to what Boehner has to say ponder this for a bit, but, until then, I encourage readers to weigh in with thoughts of their own.

Twenty years ago when I interned for a then-relatively obscure Congressman from Georgia, a group of other junior Republican Representatives would gather once a week in my boss’s office and discuss ideas for reforming Congress and the federal government. Under the leadership of my then-boss, Newt Gingrich, these legislators made up the Conservative Opportunity Society (COS), energetic young leaders who saw themselves as building on the ideas of then-President Ronald Reagan and working toward a Republican majority.

When the Gipper’s successor, President George H.W. Bush, tapped then-House Minority Whip Dick Cheney to be Secretary of Defense in March 1989, Gingrich defeated Ed Madigan, the favorite of the House Republican leadership, by two votes for Cheney’s old job. Just over five years later, Newt would lead Republicans to victory in the 1994 mid-term elections by running a campaign based on the Contract with America, a policy agenda developed, in large part, in those Conservative Opportunity Society meetings. My former boss would become the first Republican Speaker in four decades.

That is, for more than a decade prior to his 1994 triumph, while Republicans were in the minority, Newt and his COS colleagues were working on ideas for reform. They were not just an opposition party challenging the increasingly corrupt practices of the then-Democratic majority. They were also thinking about the future and developing policies to address social changes and to respond to technological innovations. In short, in the 1980s and early 1990s, the energy for reform came from a cadre in the minority party while the corruption came from the majority party.

Today, given the Democrats’ latest mantra about the Republican culture of corruption, one would think that the roles had been reversed, that the GOP (now the majority) had become the font of corruption while a cadre of Democrats was putting forward new ideas. Not exactly. While, to be sure, the latest scandal affects the majority (this time, Republicans) more than the minority (i.e., Democrats), the energy for reform also comes from the majority. Under the leadership of Indiana’s Mike Pence, the House Republican Study Committee (RSC) seems to have taken the mantle of the Conservative Opportunity Society and been the font for new ideas. There doesn’t seem to be a Democratic counterpart to Newt’s energetic cadre.

With a leadership battle, this time for House Majority Leader, as significant as that in 1989 taking place today, John Shadegg, a member of the RSC, seems to have assumed the Gingrich role of reformer while Missouri’s Roy Blunt seems to be the 2006 equivalent of Ed Madigan, that is, the leadership’s favorite. Like Bruce, I personally hope Rep. Shadegg prevails. A third candidate in the race, Ohio’s John Boehner is also, like Shadegg, running on an agenda of reform. (SoCalPundit has heard that Boehner has the race “wrapped up.”)

Thus, while Republicans have become “entrenched,” facing some of the same problems which helped defeat Canada’s long-ruling Liberal Party last month, they also, have within their ranks, leaders committed to fixing these problems. Back in the 1990s when Newt Gingrich and his allies were pushing for reform, there were no such leaders clamoring for change in the House’s then-majority Democratic caucus.

Nor do the Democrats today have an energetic group putting forward new ideas as had the COS in the 1980s and 1990s. Today’s vote for Majority Leader will show whether House Republicans are committed to the reform agenda which brought them to power now over a decade ago or whether they have become, like the Democrats for the better part of their tenure in the majority “the party of incumbency and big government.”

The great difference between 2006 and 1994 is that the party accused of corruption is also the party which includes members with ideas for and the energy to reform. Today, House Republicans will have a choice that Democrats did not have twelve years ago. They can choose to stay with a smug status quo or opt for dynamic new leadership.

Last week, Glenn Reynolds wrote that “If a reformist candidate — Shadegg, or maybe Boehner — wins, there’s hope for the GOP.” I agree. It would be a sign that House Republicans recognize that leadership means more than holding the reins of power. It also means being an engine for ideas, innovation and improvement.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

UPDATE: In a great — and more comprehensive post on the House Majority Leader race (than this one) — John Henke raises a point similar to my own:

This time, however, the potential beneficiary of electoral dissatisfaction is not quite so clear. The Democratic Party has not produced an agenda similar to the Contract with America, and, in fact, cannot do so. They neither want to reduce taxes or limit government – they only promise to rule more efficiently. That platform may beat a wayward and corrupt Republican party, but it doesn’t capture the voter’s imaginations in quite the same way that the Contract with America did in 1994.

Via Instapundit. Now, as Glenn himself might say, read the whole thing!

Comments

  1. As I observed earlier, the diff between the GOP and the Donks is the GOP seem aware of their problems — they spend too much and they’ve gotten too cozy with lobbyists — and are trying to do something about them. The Donks on the other hand seem oblivious to their main problems which are that the far left effectively controls their party and they have no new ideas (and those two facts are related: the Donks can’t put forth the ideas their far left masters would want them to without further alienating mainstream voters). Also, despite the rather desperate spin Democrats are putting on it, the Abramoff scandal affects them too. It is kind of amusing when a pack of partisan shills try to claim that the money Democrats got from Abramoff doesn’t count because it was laundered through Abramoff clients.

    And spare me the simple-minded “there’s no difference between the parties because both parties are corrupt and the Religious Right controls the GOP the same way the far left controls the Dems” canard. First of all, as explained, the GOP is trying to reform while the Donks are oblivious or even getting worse. Second, the far left has far more control over the Donks than the religious right has over the GOP, or have we already forgotten how PFAW and NARAL got 25 senators to dance like puppets on a string to filibuster Alito? Sure, both parties suck, but to try and proclaim that they suck equally is facile and intellectually dishonest.

  2. I think the problem with the dems is that they still haven’t accepted the fact that they have lost in every major area of government. Until they admit they have lost, they aren’t going to be all that hot to come up with new ideas, because they are convinced their old ideas are losing because the other side is cheating.

  3. If you read the “Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You” speech
    (Inaugural Address by John F. Kennedy – January 20th 1961) and juxtapose it’s message and temperment with the modern Democrats message and temperment it becomes abundantly clear what the Democrats have lost, not only in governmental power, but also in spirit. How sad it is that an American political party should take such a turn and loose such vision.
    Read it here:
    http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/5.htm

  4. It’s almost too ironic you posted this, about how the GOP is really going to do the reforming this time around, comes out the same day as we find the GOP backtracking on reform almost as fast as it did on the SOTU message about reducing our dependence on foreign oil:

    Lobbying Changes Divide House GOP

    Money Quotes:
    Just two weeks after House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) pledged to pass far-reaching changes to the rules of lobbying on Capitol Hill, House Republican members pushed back hard against those proposals yesterday, charging that their leaders are overreacting to a growing corruption scandal.

    In a tense, 3 1/2 hour closed-door session, many Republicans challenged virtually every element of the leadership’s proposal, from a blanket ban on privately funded travel to stricter limits on gifts to an end to gym privileges for lawmakers-turned-lobbyists. Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), a veteran conservative who is seeking a top leadership post, scoffed that Congress knows how to do just two things well—nothing and overreact, according to witnesses.

    GOP leaders did withstand a motion to force every leader but Hastert to stand for reelection today. Yet the motion was backed by 85 of the roughly 200 Republicans at the meeting, after leaders predicted that it would attract little support.

  6. Oh, and in case you don’t get my SOTU statement above, the backpeddling began yesterday:

    Administration backs off Bush’s vow to reduce Mideast oil imports

    “One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America’s dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn’t mean it literally.”

    So I guess he was for reducing our oil dependence before he was against it…

  7. I just don’t think everyday, real Americans distinguish good Republicans from bad Republicans. The differences among the candidates for majority leader are clear mainly to the conservative base. I doubt Americans outside of Rep. Shadegg’s district (hope he wins all the same) have even heard of him.

  8. My thoughts at my blog. Todays decision will decide how many seat the Republicans lose in the elections in November. If they chose Blunt, and don’t pass real reforms, many conservatives will stay home. If this happens, they will have only themselves to blame.

  11. I don’t see how electing a guy (Boehner) who got caught handing out checks from tobacco lobbyists to other members on the house floor, and who is routinely mentioned for his own ethics problems, is going to clean up the corruption in Congress or put a new face on our party.

    Couldn’t we have gotten someone better than this?

  13. I’m afraid this dooms any meaningful attempts at real Congressional-behavior reform; and paves the way for St. Hillarybeast’s candicy in 2008. Not that she’s assured the Presidency, but I think she’s a lock on the Democratic-nomination. And the GOP is going to lose the House in either 2006 or 2008. The GOP’s elected-leadership is too compromised and forsworn at this point to have any legitimacy, despite the incompentence of the DNC and the Democratic Party Leadership.

    It’s a sad day….

    It’s merely a return to the Bipartisan “…everyone’s a crook but my guy, and he brings home the bacon to the District.”

  14. I am truly amazed at the naivete of the Republican apologists around here. I’ve been paying attention since I was a sentient being–at least from the 1960s–and it became clear to me that Republicans–at least at the federal level–are nothing more than borrow&spend liberals. Republicans used to bash Democrats for being tax& spend liberals, but the Republicans would prefer to finance their welfare through borrowing. Sen. Everett Dirksen was widely attributed in the 1960s as having said “a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking real money.” (Dirksen didn’t actually say it, but it was attributed to him.)

    Nixon talked a good talk, saying that he had a secret plan for extricating the US from the Vietnam war. It was so secret, that it was never implemented. But he did implement wage&price controls (very unconservative) that basically lead to the first oil shock (1973) and to the hyper-inflation in the mid to late 1970s.

    St. Reagan talked a good talk, but he implemented the borrow&spend liberalism that ran up huge deficits. He was followed by his successor GHWBush who also was somewhat profligate. GWBush has followed in St. Reagan’s footsteps.

    Gingrich did well from a public relations standpoint with his “contract with america” but it ultimately led nowhere. They had the promised votes, but that’s about it. I believe that one of the proposals passed, the one that dealt with term limits on House committee chairmanships. Big deal.

    Somewhere on one of these comment threads, someone made a comment to the effect that employees are paying on the order of 12.6% of their income to social security. That is a fraud. It assumes that, if there were no SS tax, the employer would pay the employer’s cut of the SS tax to the employee. Not only is there no evidence that that would happen, it ignores the fact that the employer gets to deduct its portion of the tax from its income for income tax purposes. Meaning that the employer is not paying 6.3% to the federal gov’t; the employer is paying at most 6.3% less the applicable income tax deducation. I am self-employed and know how to do the taxes.

  15. I predict that reforms will be quite limited. It’s far easer for America to give up its “addiction” to oil than for a politician to refuse money.

    I also predict that the GOP will be talking up very loudly the gay marriage issue during this coming election in an effort to distract voters from their poor performances and to mobilize their base.

    I also suspect, although not predict, that the “gay marriage” ploy will not work quite as well for the GOP as it did during the Presidential election. Evangelicals have after all, achieved their objective of decades, the creation of a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. (At least thats what they think now. You can’t really ever predict how a Judge will rule until he does.) I suspect they also think that now it is only a matter of time before Roe gets overturned. The point being that they may sit on their laurels a bit this time. They will be more resistant to the “activist judges” angle because they have already achieved their major objective in that area.

    I would also guess that the GOP leadership is praying that Roe does not get overturned before the election.

    My last prediction is: (and to be fair, this is shooting fish in a barrel) that HRC will be completely ineffective in the next election if not an actual detriment to the cause of freedom and equality for gay and lesbian Americans. And they aren’t even going to be of much use to the Democratic Party either.

  17. Wow, Dorothy MUST BE BACK IN KANSAS now… and all the fantasy moments are being relived in technicolor by Mr Mod, raj baby (the unrepentant) and GrampaGryph. The ridiculous “money quotes” from each of the nattering nabobs…

    Ms Mod: “charging that their leaders are overreacting to a growing corruption scandal” –only if the little Munchkins of NancyP are writing the meeting summary, Ms Mod. And as for the KR piece you linked to indicate the Pres id “backtracking” on his effort to break America’s addiction to Middle East oil and move toward energy independence… and how that’s being contradicted by Secy Bodman and Dan Bartlett or Al Hubbard (NEC)… go back a read more than headlines there, Ms Mod.

    The article says nothing about conflicts in policy in the Administration, nor can it be read –again, except the Flying Monkeys of the Wicked Witch of West– to contradict the President’s goal/effort/policy preference.

    Nice try, but a miss by mile is still a miss.

    rajbaby: “Gingrich did well from a public relations standpoint with his “contract with america” but it ultimately led nowhere.” Really? Like a 20 year run on Majority Power is “no where” eh? No wonder you’re destined to remain in the minority, venting and bitching in the dark. You’re still clueless and a dishonorable schmuck.

    GrampaGryph: “I would also guess that the GOP leadership is praying that Roe does not get overturned before the election”. Really now? Do me a favor and exactly count up the votes on overturning RvW. The balance of power hasn’t shifted to a conservative majority on the Court… on the specific issue of RvW, it’s just moved the point of balance to Justice Kennedy –a jurist who confirms the notion that the longer they sit on the bench, the closer they move to the center.

    And let’s say that a case could be created before the election, move to the Court’s docket and be decided in a manner which overturns RvW… something just about every Court watcher and 1st Monday in October pundit will inform you is impossible… the overturning of RvW will so ignite the silent majority of Americans that they’ll throw the GOP out of power –why? The majority of Americans no longer view RvW as the cutting edge issue, the money raising battle cry that you and the feminist abortionists think it is. Frankly, it’s not even on the gay agenda; but let’s not go there today.

    We do agree on one thing, the HRC will matter naught when the election day bell is rung. And for the LibLeftGays, the HRC was their last best hope of getting out of Oz.

    No boys, the balloon has taken off >>but thanks for contributing all the hot air to get it aloft.

  18. #18 Michigan-Matt — February 2, 2006 @ 4:33 pm – February 2, 2006

    Some of us can actually do arithmetic. Gingrich’s contract was a public relations stunt in the fall of 1994, and the Republicans did not take over until Jan 2005. If you look at the date above, it is early 2006. Where do you get 20 years out of that?

    I notice that you did not respond to the issue of how many–or how few–of the provisions in the “contract” were passed by even the House within the first 100 days of 1995.

  20. Well the best thing about the Republican takeover of the house in 1994 and the fiscal discipline it imposed was the fiscal discipline that moved Clinton to the right. The buck may stop at the White House, but it starts in Congress. I think Mr. Boehners view of the state of affairs is just as relevant as Albert Gores. And Mr. Boehner is where he can do something about it.

  21. The retention of Roy Blount as GOP House Whip merely reinforces that it will be business as usual…no meaningful reforms, no public shamings, and no accountability. While I’m not “shocked”, I am saddened that the elected-leadership of my party could be so parochial and blind to reality.

  22. Michigan-Matt, I know it’s hard for party apologists like yourself to see that your kind are just as slimey and pathological in their lies, but you shouldn’t shoot the messenger.

  23. The Dems chances in 2006 took a hit today. The appearance of the Republicans cleaning up their leadership is important. Appearances in DC mean a lot unfortunately. The gang that cant shoot straight 1. is having horrible trouble fundraising, what money they had chairman Dean has squandered, 9 months out from the elections 2. the base is furious at the leadership for not being liberal (crazy) enough and are threatening to withhold donations goin forward 3. HRC their leading prez candidate in a recent poll has 51% of registered voters saying they would “never” vote for her 4. When asked who their party leader was, Sen Reid instead of giving a reasonable answer, said “that’s an unfair question”, the dems have no policy preposals or alternatives at all—- SS Medicare, Iraq, OIL/energy, Iran. Cutting spending…anyone believe liberals would spend LESS than republicans? Where’s the dems plan for trimming spending. They dont like the Patriot act. All they do is wait for the administrations direction then stand up and say “that sucks, Bush lied!” I dont think that wins any election in 06 or 08.

  27. #25 Calarato — February 2, 2006 @ 5:34 pm – February 2, 2006

    Before you give us the Communist Party talking point of the day in these new threads and expect a modicum of credence

    Unless it has escaped your notice, I have not said anything positive about any US political party. The Republicans are in power now, and that’s one reason that I criticize them. When Clinton was in power and I got on the Internet, I criticized him–as well as the Republicans who were then in power in Congress. But the Democrats are not in power now in any branch of the federal government, and I will continue to criticize the Republicans at the national level.

    I’ll even criticize them at the state levels in some states that I pay attention to. Jack Ryan, former governor of Illinois, implicated in something of a sex scandal. “Bob” Taft, governor of Ohio, who is mired in a corruption scandal–and who, in his re-election campaign boasted how much his administration was spending on public schooling (that’s conservative?). John Rowland, former governor of Connecticut who was also mired in a corruption scandal. Mitt Romney, governor of MA, who, in 2004, spent US$millions to try to get more Republicans elected to the state legislature and ended up with a net gain of minus five–ending up with not enough to sustain a veto. Even Republican MA governor Bill Weld (elected in 1990) had enough Republicans in the state legislature to sustain a veto. Romney even imported a Republican carpetbagger from Georgia to run against a Democrat from the Worcestor area–the carpetbagger lost in a landslide.

    BTW, I stand by my comment regarding the use of the term “hero” regarding Casey Sheehan. And I have explained why. I don’t really care whether or not you agree with it. Get over it.

    Also, I’m sure that the michiganders will recognize the Romney name. Mitt’s father George Romney was the Republican governor of Michigan in the 1960s, and thought that he might run for president. He famously complained that he had been brainwashed regarding the Vietnam war. Brainwashed? ROTFL That ended his presidential campaign.

  28. #26

    He was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Does that make him a hero? No.

    Lurch shoots a kid in the back and he’s a hero. He gets grazed a couple of times and he becomes a bigger hero. He throws somebody else’s medals over a fence and that seals him as deserving of all our genuflections.

    Liberals have no idea how to participate in discussions of the largest group they hate that is the U.S. military.

  31. St. Reagan talked a good talk, but he implemented the borrow&spend liberalism that ran up huge deficits.

    That’s the second time you’ve tried to pull that here, and the second time you’ve been corrected. You have, apparently, a poor grasp of how the brances of government work, and an even poorer grasp of recent history.

    The blame for the “borrow and spend liberalism,” as you call it, lies squarely on the shoulders of the Democrat Congress.

    But you don’t stop there. Indeed, you continue to show your ignorance of the branches of government and history:

    Gingrich did well from a public relations standpoint with his “contract with america” but it ultimately led nowhere.

    Gingrich managed to implement a great deal of the contract, such as welfare reform, which today liberals try to paint as Clinton’s achievement. Clinton signed the bill into law after his veto had been overridden.

    I see you are also economics illiterate:

    It assumes that, if there were no SS tax, the employer would pay the employer’s cut of the SS tax to the employee.

    It makes no such assumption, but when you are hired, the employee sets aside a sum that includes your salary and all benefit costs. Whether the company would or would not pay for, oh, insurance if it were not offered, either by intrusive legislation or not, is irrelevant.

  33. The energy for reform seems to come only after scandals, and quickly dies down when the media looks for something else to focus on.

    But reform would be great, from either party.

  34. #28. ThatGayConservative — February 2, 2006 @ 6:14 pm – February 2, 2006

    Wasn’t Ryan’s “scandal” yet another lie fabricated by liberals?

    No, it was in court papers that were filed during his divorce case filed by his wife Jeri Ryan (7 of 9 of Star Trek Voyager fame) The papers had been filed with the court several years before they were made public. Jack Ryan did not dispute the information that had been filed with the court and that ultimately were made public.

    Try again

  37. #36 V the K — February 2, 2006 @ 6:45 pm – February 2, 2006

    Yes, that is the liberal concept of a scandal, a man who actually has sex with his own wife.

    You missed a few words, namely: in public

    Kind of weird, don’cha think? It brings to mind a satirical Beatles song from the 1960s: Why Don’t We Do It In The Road.

  45. 2. What does qualify as a heroic act?

    Based on who the liberal left praises as heroes, we can conclude that the left regards the following as heroic activities:warning terrorists that the government may be listening in on their phone calls so they switch to disposable cell phones; killing a cop and being sent to death row; killing 4 or 5 people in the process of starting a murderous drug gang that goes on to kill thousands more people …

  46. #28
    I’ll even criticize them at the state levels in some states that I pay attention to. Jack Ryan, former governor of Illinois, implicated in something of a sex scandal

    You need to pay closer attention Raj. The former governor of Illinois is George Ryan. He was/is involved in a corruption scandal not a sex scandal. Jack Ryan ran for the US Senate in Illinois and was involved in a “sex” scandal. Not to be confused with Jim Ryan who ran for Governor of Illinois in 2002(and was not involved in either a sex scandal or a corruption scandal but lost anyway to Governor Blagojevich)

  47. And since I’m ragging on Raj, I’ll respectfully disagree with this statement of his in #15

    Somewhere on one of these comment threads, someone made a comment to the effect that employees are paying on the order of 12.6% of their income to social security. That is a fraud. It assumes that, if there were no SS tax, the employer would pay the employer’s cut of the SS tax to the employee. Not only is there no evidence that that would happen, it ignores the fact that the employer gets to deduct its portion of the tax from its income for income tax purposes

    An employee costs X amount to the employer. X equals the hourly wage plus any and all benefits (whether voluntary or forced by government regulation). In a competive, free market economy with a limited number of employees(like we have now) employers will pay X to get and keep that employee. If there were no FICA taxes, they would still pay that employee X to keep him. The employer who paid Y (being lower than X) would not be able to compete with the employer who paid X.

    Bringing up the fact that the employer gets to deduct his portion of FICA tax for income tax purposes is ridiculous. The employer always gets to deduct the total of all payroll expenses.

  48. #48 John — February 2, 2006 @ 10:56 pm – February 2, 2006

    I understand the concept of burdened costs, John. I’ve had to deal with them with my last employer. That does not mean, however that, if the SS tax were suddenly to go away, an employer would give the employer’s half of the SS tax to the employee. The management might very well pocket the half or give it to the shareholders. The employer might give part of it the the employee, but there is no reason to believe that he necessarily would.

    The burdened costs also include an amount that represents a “rental cost” for the office that the employee occupies. I have yet to hear of a company that pays “rental fee” to an employee who tele-commutes and maintains an office in his home. I suppose that it may be possible that there are some that do, but I haven’t heard of it. Have you?

    The problem that you have with SS “privatization” is that the stock markets have always been very volatile and very unreliable. SS privatization only came up as a significant topic in the 1990s when the stock market was riding a bubble. After the bubble burst in 2000 and subsequent years, it became an insignificant topic. The 1980s bubble burst in 1987, there was “stagflation” (no significant movement) in the 1970s. I was too young to pay attention in the 1960s. The bubble burst in 1929, which led to the Great Depression–the severity of which was exacerbated by the Federal Reserve.

    You can blather on about SS privatization. It might happen someday, but unlikely any time soon. I’ll merely point out that St. Reagan’s SS committee in the early 1980s headed by St. Greenspan, who just stepped down as head of the Federal Reserve, established a “plan” that was supposed to “save” SS and put it on a sound footing for “as far as the eye could see” (I’m exaggerating of course). St Greenspan’s plan called for significant hikes in SS taxes over a period of years, with receipts in excess of outlays being put into the SS “trust fund.” (We can discuss whether the SS “trust fund” actually is a trust fund–it is, but not in a traditional sense–but that would take too long in a comment thread.) In actuallity, St. Greenspan’s plan was meant to hide St. Reagan’s looming deficit. How? By combining the SS receipts with the deficits in the general revenue accounts. They did the same thing with the other trust funds–in particular the highway trust fund, which is paid for by taxes on gasoline, and is supposed to go to road construction and repair.

    Going up to #47, oh, so there are two weird Republicans in Illinois named Ryan. Good to know.

  49. It’s good that Rep. Blunt lost — he’s too closely associated with Tom DeLay. But Rep. Boehner’s election is evidence the Republican majority isn’t quite ready to shake up too much of the status quo. It’s a shame there wasn’t a Newt Gingrich-type leader in the running.

    House Republicans basically ripped out the old carpeting and installed new carpeting but decided not to repair the dry rot in the flooring.

    The appearance of reform — and there will be some reform — may enhance Republicans’ chances of retaining control of the House this fall. But if the House leadership lets things slide once the spotlight shifts to the presidential races, voters might not be so friendly to House Republicans in ’08.

  51. Some people have the oddest notions of “reform.”

    Boehner is a sponsor of the federal marriage amendment which would ban same-sex marriage under the Constitution. He has repeatedly voted against the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act which would add sexuality to groups protected under federal hate crime law.

    He also has voted against non-discrimination legislation that would bar employment bias based on sexual orientation and endorsed a bill that would allow the federal government to strip school libraries of books with gay themes.

    In addition Boehner voted to bar same-sex couples in the District of Columbia from adopting children.

    He is one of a handful of congressmen who have refused to sign a pledge indicating that he would discriminate against his own staff based on sexual orientation.

    GLBT aren’t stupid. They may not vote only on matters pertaining to sexual orientation, but they aren’t going to abide by a regressive homophobe of a major political party, whose only notion of “reform” doesn’t even admit that GLBT have a right to earn a living or live their own private lives. If THAT is what the GOP stands for, who will want to stand with them?

    THAT kind of “reform” has unfortunately become all too common among GOPers. Whatever happened to Goldwater’s “live and let live?” Have the theocrats completely taken over the GOP? Can anyone doubt why the GOP’s popularity has faded?

  52. #48. John — February 2, 2006 @ 10:56 pm – February 2, 2006

    I’ll continue fisking this comment. You are terribly naive.

    (i) First, let’s assume that the employer is a corporation. And let’s assume that the corporation pays the 6.3% SS tax on the employees salary (up to a cap). I don’t know what the federal corporate income tax is (or the state corporate income tax rates are, for that matter) but let’s assume, arguendo, that they total on the order of 30%. A quick calculation shows that the tax saving to the corporation is on the order of 1.9%. Subtract that from 6.3% and what do you get? 4.4%. That might be what the corporate employer might be willing to pay to the employee. If it were any higher, the employer would be losing.

    (ii) Second, going back to burden costs in my previous comment, the total burdened cost on an ordinary worker is some integer multiple of his actual salary, some 2-3 times the salary. That includes wages (or salary), imputed rental costs for an office, benefits, various taxes, the cost of maintaining staff such as Human Resources (which are actually to protect the corporation, not the employer) etc., etc., etc. The maximum SS tax is miniscule in the calculation for a single individual, but taken over an entire company, it can be rather substantial. Now, what leads you to believe that a company would pay any substantial portion of the company’s SS tax obligation to its employees, when most employees don’t even realize that there is that portion of the tax?

    (iii) Regarding

    The employer who paid Y (being lower than X) would not be able to compete with the employer who paid X.

    Not necessarily. One thing that you apparently miss is that corporate offices are usually little social gatherings. This is the “water-cooler” environment. People usually will stay with an employer who pays them Y, rather than looking around at other employers who might pay them X, because they like the people they are working with, and because they are comfortable in the working environment, that it is a technologically interesting environment, whatever. That is one reason that a company that wants to lure away employees who are paying X oftentimes have to pay an X that has a substantial premium over Y. Unless they are trying to lure away upper management, of course. (We saw the DVD of the documentary about the Enron debacle a couple of nights ago. Pigs at the proverbial trough. I’m waiting for a documentary about Worldcom and Adelphi.)

    (iv) Continuing with the portion quoted above in (iii), that is pretty much irrelevant. You seem to be stuck in 19th century economics. I work with high tech firms in the US. Their designers are in the US, they work with fabricators in the far east, they sell to markets throughout the world, and repatriate some of the profits to the US. No manufacturing is done in the US, although quality control (QC) may be. (That means, they test the units in the US before exporting them.)

    If employees in the US demanded higher wages, the companies could very easily send their design jobs abroad. Electronic design–particularly in consumer electronics, isn’t really that complex.

    Life isn’t simple.

  53. Calarato took my words to heart, but not my point. Instead of labeling those he disagrees with “liberals,” he’s now stooped to calling “communists.” I guess it’s kind of like those who call people “fags.” But he simply doesn’t get it. Calarato: It’s all the same. Why is the ad hominem fallacy so challenging for you to comprehend? Is it because you’re too damn queer to understand?

  54. #51 Bobo — February 3, 2006 @ 1:46 am – February 3, 2006

    Have you ever heard of the phrase “until hell freezes over”? I’ve said as much as I’m going to say on the subject. I don’t deal in hypotheticals.

    Blather on.

  55. #54 Stephen — February 3, 2006 @ 2:07 am – February 3, 2006

    Calarato is obviously self-destructing (communists? that’s a new one), but I do want to point something out. I’ve discussed this on several message boards in the last few years. I’m a lawyer. Pointing out potential biases in a witness is not an “ad hominem” attack. It is pointing out potential bias, through which one’s testimony should be viewed.

    I’m having a Perry Mason episode (the 1950-1960s series) but the fact is that it is true.

    Ad hominem is, of course, a logical fallacy, but we are not dealing with logic on the Internet. What you need to do is to read the posts, decypher the biases, and then filter them through what you have decyphered. And then throw them back at them. It takes time. I did it almost a decade ago on FreeRepublic.com. I’m not kidding, and that’s why I was banned from there for not being sufficiently subservient to the homophobes who were posting there.

  59. -Couldn’t have been bigger than Uncle Teddy was. –

    TGC, are you really saying that he’s good as long as he’s not Ted Kennedy? Holy crap, I hope those aren’t our new standards. Kennedy loves the big government. NCLB was his dream come true. No self-respecting small government conservative would ever support such a disastrous piece of empty-headed legislation, legislation that is so bad I think even Utah refused to implement it.

    Maybe those can be the GOP campaign ads for 2006? “Majority Leader Boehner – at least he’s not Ted Kennedy!!”

    –

    Boehner is a sponsor of the federal marriage amendment which would ban same-sex marriage under the Constitution. He has repeatedly voted against the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act which would add sexuality to groups protected under federal hate crime law.

    He also has voted against non-discrimination legislation that would bar employment bias based on sexual orientation and endorsed a bill that would allow the federal government to strip school libraries of books with gay themes.

    In addition Boehner voted to bar same-sex couples in the District of Columbia from adopting children.

    He is one of a handful of congressmen who have refused to sign a pledge indicating that he would discriminate against his own staff based on sexual orientation.-

    Stephen, the response will probably be, “gays bring this on themselves.” That’s the usual response when the GOP is involved with anti-gay legislation.

  62. He has repeatedly voted against the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act which would add sexuality to groups protected under federal hate crime law.

    Kudos to him. Hate crime laws are despicable, and have no place in the US.

    He also has voted against non-discrimination legislation that would bar employment bias based on sexual orientation

    Again, give Boehner a cigar for that. “Anti-discrimination legislation” is an unconstitutional intrusion on private business and a violation of the right to free association.

  63. Dan, despite the GayDemocrats’ “insiders’ reporting” -complete with their political analysis and spin (which has as much value as asking the Steelers which way to bet on the SuperBowl)– provided to us in this thread, I think the other demerit in yesterday’s Caucus leadership vote was that former FBI agent Rogers of Michigan didn’t gain a chance to take the Majority Whip seat away from Rep Blount. Rogers is a squeaky clean law enforcement type and that would have bode well for the GOP Majority leadership in the House.

    He is legendary in the House for having -0- tolerance for corruption and his staff is the only one who undergo an ethics seminar each year taught by GU Law School profs… and they have to sign a contract that, if they leave the office, they can’t lobby anyone for anything for 18 months or they have to return a 1 yr equivalent in salary to charitable organization mutually identified in the employment contract.

    Blount is a whole different kettle of fish.

  65. Hate crime laws are despicable, and have no place in the US.

    Agreed. The news this morning was giving heated coverage of a story about a yewt in a black hooded sweatshirt who attacked patrons at a Mass. gay bar with an axe and a firearm. Among the charges he is being sought for are “civil rights violations?”

    So, am I to understand that the crime would somehow have been less bad if, while he was hacking at some dude with an axe, he had been shouting “But I support your right to marriage and non-discrimination?” Or is it that a guy with a mind to hack up some people would have been deterred because, “I’m okay with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon, but I sure as heck don’t want civil rights violations on my criminal record.”

  66. Dan

    The world is so small……..I worked for US Congressman Robert Walker, PA 16. a member of COS when you were with Newt. And we meet here on GP. I do not know if Bruce has told you that but he also knows Bob quite well.

  67. #63 rightwingprof — February 3, 2006 @ 8:27 am – February 3, 2006

    Hate crime laws are despicable, and have no place in the US.

    Hate crime laws might be despicable, but the US SupCt held them to be constitutional in a case in the early-to-mid 1990s. In an opinion authored by Rehnquist.

    Hate crime laws might be seen as being dispicable by some conservatives, but, by observation, they do not become particularly controversial until it is suggested that the category “sexual orientation” be added to pre-existing laws. Most of those pre-existing laws already cover race, national origin, religion and sex, and perhaps a few other categories. If and when conservatives endeavor to eliminate all bias crime laws (which is what I prefer to call them), I’ll sit up and listen. Until then, no. And they haven’t.

  68. they do not become particularly controversial until

    That’s utter crap, but it’s predictable from you, since you have no principles.

    There are plenty of conservatives who oppose hate crime laws on principle (a concept with which you are unfamiliar), no matter who the “protected” classes are.

  70. #66 V the K — February 3, 2006 @ 9:03 am – February 3, 2006

    The news this morning was giving heated coverage of a story about a yewt in a black hooded sweatshirt who attacked patrons at a Mass. gay bar with an axe and a firearm. Among the charges he is being sought for are “civil rights violations?”

    Why not? That is what is generally called “throwing the book at the perpetrator.” They might pare the charges down as the investigation continues.

    From a report at 365gay.com (which is useful but not exactly reliable):

    Police have issued a warrant charging Robida with attempted murder, assault and civil-rights violations.

    http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/02/020306barFolo.htm

    I have not seen the arrest warrant, so I do not know what “civil rights” the police alleged that he may have violated to obtain the warrant.

    The incident occurred at a gay bar in New Bedford, MA late Wednesday night/early Thursday morning. What I was principally surprised at was the fact that there is a gay bar in New Bedford. It is on Massachusetts’s south shore, not far from Providence RI.

  71. Gee, raj, if you had bothered to read my second paragraph, it explains why I regard “civil rights violations” in this context as silly, but most of us on this board are accustomed to your selective editing, asserting fallacy as fact, and general inability to argue on substance, which is why I seldom responding to you.

  72. #69 rightwingprof — February 3, 2006 @ 9:42 am – February 3, 2006

    That’s utter crap, but it’s predictable from you, since you have no principles.

    Sorry, I go by the evidence. Conservatives have controlled both houses of Congress for over a decade and the presidency since at least 2001. Have they made any effort to repeal the existing federal bias-crimes laws? No.

    Conservatives also control most state governments. Have they made any effort to repeal state bias-crimes laws? No.

    I could go on.

    I will throw out this thought, an example that I have used on the Internet for years. Existing federal and state bias crimes laws have religion as a protected class. In many cases, existing bias crimes laws do not have sexual orientation as a protected class. And it is primarily conservative christians who raise objections to adding the category of sexual orientation to pre-existing bias crimes laws.

    So, to cut to the chase, if a gay person were to commit a crime against a christian because he (the victim) is a christian, he (the perpetrator) could be charged with a bias crime. On the other hand, if a christian were to commit a crime against a gay person because he is gay, the perpetrator would not be charged with a bias crime. The latter is far more likely to occur than the former, as FBI bias crime statistics have continually borne out.

    I have no principles? Actually I do. One of my principal principles is recognizing hypocrisy when I see it.

    As I posted previously, if and when conservatives actively push for repeal of all bias crimes laws, I’ll sit up and listen. Until then, no.

  73. #72 V the K — February 3, 2006 @ 9:55 am – February 3, 2006

    I read both of your paragraphs. The second paragraph did not appear to make any sense, so I ignored it.

    I have not seen the arrest warrant in the case, or the papers filed in support of issuance of the warrant, so I do not know what the statutory bases for the “civil rights violations” claim were. You appeared to ignore the attempted murder and assault claims, and that was the reason for my post. If more is posted on it in the Boston Globe, I’ll be sure to let you know.

    Just to let you know, Massachusetts has a bias crime law that was amended (under Republican Bill Weld) to include “sexual orientation” as a category. In a case a few years ago in Springfield MA, involving a crime against a gay man, a perpetrator attempted to avoid a bias crime charge by claiming that he was gay himself. His attempt failed. The point being that the category is based on the status of the victim, not the perpetrator. I’m sure that you’ve heard of “self-hating homosexuals.”

  74. I didn’t realize that Boehner was such a jackass.

    From 365gay.com-

    Washington) Republicans voted Thursday to make Rep. John Boehner (Ohio) the permanent replacement for Delay as House Leader.

    Boehner is a sponsor of the federal marriage amendment which would ban same-sex marriage under the Constitution. He has repeatedly voted against the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act which would add sexuality to groups protected under federal hate crime law.
    He also has voted against non-discrimination legislation that would bar employment bias based on sexual orientation and endorsed a bill that would allow the federal government to strip school libraries of books with gay themes.

    In addition Boehner voted to bar same-sex couples in the District of Columbia from adopting children.

    I generally give politicos a pass when it comes to the hate crimes act since I have mixed feelings about it myself, but the others measures are simply malevolent actions toward gay and lesbian Americans.

    No doubt I’ll be called a one-issue voter, but really, is it? Employment, Adoption, censorship, there is nothing “one-issue” about this except for Boehner’s apparent zeal to go after gay people.

    But no doubt, quite a few gay gop’ers will be on hands and knee’s before this twit praising him as salvation.

  77. #76 and 77 V the K — February 3, 2006 @ 10:57 am – February 3, 2006

    You may not consider “Republican” synonymous with “conservative,” but I suspect that most voters would. I consider “Republican” to be synonymous with “borrow&spend liberal” from a fiscal standpoint. And largely conservative from a social standpoint–the Repubicans at the national level–and at most state levels–largely appear to have let the conservative christian “tail” wag the national “dog” on social (dare I say it? anti-social) issues.

    Now, let’s cut to the chase. It is the “social” issues that are driving the bias crimes laws. Republicans have been in power for a number of years, but have made no effort to repeal existing bias crimes laws. If and when they do, I’ll sit up and listen. Until they do, their bitching&moaning about them when it is proposed to add “sexual orientation” as a covered category doesn’t mean a whole lot to me.

    BTW, it would be something of a mistake to preach to me about “logical fallacy.” Deductive logic depends on an agreement by all parties involved as to the veracity of the premises. As far as I’m concerned, premises are based on evidence, but others apparently disagree. Unless all parties agree to the evidence, deductive logic is pretty much useless.

    Robert Heinlein–science fiction writer–famously wrote once something to the effect that you can’t learn something new from deductive logic that you don’t already know:

    Beware of the “Black Swan” fallacy. Deductive logic is tautological; there is no way to get a new truth out of it, and it manipulates false statements as readily as true ones. If you fail to remember this, it can trip you — with perfect logic. The designers of the earliest computers called this the “Gigo Law,” i.e., “Garbage in, garbage out.”
    Inductive logic is much more difficult — but can produce new truths.

    Pretty much true.

  78. “I faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to. Never falter! Don’t hesitate to honor and support those of us who have the honor of protecting that which is worth protecting.”

    – Marine Staff Sergeant Dan Clay, who was killed last year fighting in Fallujah, in a letter to his family.

    I assume that Raj thinks that this man was not heroic but stupid. Is that a fair assumption?

  80. #79 Bobo — February 3, 2006 @ 12:15 pm – February 3, 2006

    It is a fair assumption.

    I’ll repeat:

    PATRIOT, n.
    One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors

    –Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s dictionary.

    Parse it

    You tell me. Saddam had not declared war on the US–unlike Germany at the entrance of the US into WWII. And as has been shown despite Colon Powell’s dog&pony show at the UN Security Council–where he presented pictures of supposed Iraqi WoMDs, for which, it was subsequently discovered, there was no evidence. There was no evidence that Saddam presented any threat to the United States. It strikes me that if any other countries believed that Saddam presented a threat to them, they could have taken him out with a well-placed missile. Israel has shown that they are well capable of doing so. Would I have cared? Not really.

  81. #80 V the K — February 3, 2006 @ 12:28 pm – February 3, 2006

    It would be a mistake to paraphrase what I post through your filter. If you wish to comment on one of my comments, why don’t you comment on it directly? Instead of obliquely?

  82. raj baby, are you STILL taking flack from decent people here because you overstated a silly notion that soldiers dying in combat are heroes? I advised you a while ago, oh-pretentious-one-without-parallel, you needed to admit you erred on that silly notion and seek forgiveness.

    But did you listen? No. It’s a sad, sad day when the GayLeft can’t admit their mistakes and move on.

    VdaK nailed you to the wall, raj baby.

    Oh… and quoting Robert Heinlein raj baby? Gheez, dude, that guy is so 1970’s fag paste you forgot he wasn’t relevant anymore? Or did you discover his homoerotic writings whilst under the sheets with the flashlight and you can’t move on from that cauterizing moment in time either? Heinlein, cryin out loud. What’s next? Another wiki cite? LOL

  84. #83 Michigan-Matt — February 3, 2006 @ 1:18 pm – February 3, 2006

    You apparently still do not understand. As far as I’m concerned, not everyone who is killed in a combat operation is a hero, just because he was killed while engaged in a combat operation. You wish to differ–fine with me. But, as far as I’m concerned, it debases the language. “Hero” is used to characterize people who survive life-threatening illness. “Hero” is used to characterize people who survive natural disasters. “Hero” has been thrown about so as to be virtually worthless: everyone is a hero, ergo nobody is a hero.

    In my opinion, the fact that he was killed in a jeep riding into a combat zone does not make him a hero. My father was shot down while on a bombing raid over Germany during WWII. He survived and suffered a couple of years in a German POW camp. But the fact that he was shot down–and injured in the process–doesn’t make him a hero. Should he not have done what he did? Definitely not. But that didn’t make him a hero.

  86. Guys, well, I think my point about raj has been made! He’s not worth the effort.

    It is possible for some people to be so sick, so loony, that they simply are not worth responding to. And on this dead soldier issue, raj is sticking to his guns as one.

    It’s an interesting meta-game he’s playing. It goes as follows.

    The game player’s motivation is to confirm his beliefs and feel superior. He tells himself, “My opponents can’t beat me and in fact, won’t even engage me.” He goes to a place where his opponents gather (that’s GayPatriot) and acts in such a distorted, deluded, intellectually dishonest and irresponsible manner that the opponents conclude he isn’t worth engaging.

    At that point, he’s “won”. He’s “proven” that his opponents won’t engage him. And, to his mind, he’s then proven as well that his positions must be correct, he must be superior, etc.

    Well I say, let raj “win” at that game. Let the baby have his bottle.

    I say we should prove to raj that his arguments are so confounding that we won’t even engage them. To sane people, “confounding” here would obviously mean “worthless”, “reprehensible”, “unworthy of effort”. But let raj think it means what he wishes. You can’t heal a loony. They have to choose to be sane, LATER, in their own time and way – or not.

    By the way raj, my “Communist” remark was meant as a form of put-down known as “hyperbole”. You don’t seem to recognize it. Do get out that dictionary and have a look, OK love?

  88. # 87 Calarato — February 3, 2006 @ 2:01 pm – February 3, 2006

    By the way raj, my “Communist” remark was meant as a form of put-down known as “hyperbole”.

    I know full well what hyperbole means. Unfortunately, one of the things that you may wish to consider is that hyperbole, like sarcasm and “tongue in cheek,” is oftentimes not clear in short messages.

    Some of us have come to use HTML-like tags /sarcasm and /tic to indicate the latter two. You may wish to consider adopting an HTML-like tag /hyperbole to indicate that your comment was meant as such.

    NB: the backslash, of course, indicates “end of.”

  89. Raj, your definition of hero is a true preversion. By your standard the fact that I survived cancer makes me a hero but men who volunteer to put their lives in mortal danger for their fellow citizens are not. I repeat, you are a pervert and your sick view puts you in the same basement of morality occupied by NAMBLA members, Holocaust deniers and George Galloway.

    Since even dreck like Raj is allowed to smear their stink here, I second Calarato’s motion to shun and ignore the pervert. Anyone who engages it will only be encouraging it. Let it go over to the DEM Underground where it belongs.

  90. Calarato and Bobo, shunning the village idiot never works… we’ll always have a raj or jimminyCricketCarter in our midst. But I’m done responding to his nonsense –no time limit trials for me; I just “quit him”.

  91. That’s what I had in mind. If nobody responds it, eventually it will go away. And I want to make clear that I don’t have a problem with those who I disagree with quite sharply or even cranks, but I draw the line at this level of moral perversion.

  93. -Carl, you raise some points valid and invalid. The one on Boehner refusing to sign the pledge is meaningless. I once worked for a Congressman who didn’t sign a pledge because he didn’t sign any such pledges.-

    Is that the case for Boehner? Does he not sign any pledges?

    Rightwingprof, since you praise Boehner for his opposition to some gay-related laws, how do you feel about his vote against gay adoption in DC?

    I also haven’t heard anyone aside from one person mention his role in No Child Left Behind, and that person apparently only cares that the guy isn’t Ted Kennedy.

    We seem to have no expectations at all of Republicans.