Rejecting Republicans who Rejected Republican Ideas
It seems that whenever you see some Democratic strategist discussing the fate of the GOP, he’ll report that Republican ideas have been discredited and that, if the party is to have any chance of success, it will have to come up with an agenda different from the small-government ideas of Ronald Reagan which defined the GOP in the past.
But, those who claim that the American people rejected Republican ideas in the past two election cycles miss one fundamental thing. Voters didn’t reject Republican ideas, but rejected Republicans who had rejected them.
The Bush Administration have been anything but an era of conservative ascendancy in terms of domestic policy. Yes, the more conservative party did control the executive branch for the last eight years and the legislative for the better part of the George W. Bush’s first six years in office, but, as we’ve noted repeatedly on this blog, his team put forward an entirely conservative economic agenda.
So, it’s odd that the president-elect thinks that turning to the government to address the economy represents a change from the last eight years. Does he think we accumulated the gargantuan deficits that he acknowledges face us “for years to come” by holding the line of federal spending?
While Republicans, as Clint Eastwood said, are “supposed to be libertarians,” under George W. Bush, they haven’t been. Maybe if they had, the American people wouldn’t have rejected them. (H/t Althouse.)
77 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I’m advocating the “clean sheet of paper” approach. Instead of reconstituting an ideology, the GOP should make a list of challenges faced by the country: (economic collapse, energy dependence, illegal immigration) and develop a set of solutions. Run on solutions instead of ideology (although the solutions should incorporate a limited government, individual rights philosophy).
Advance solutions, not ideology. If the solutions work, the ideology advances on its own.
Comment by V the K — January 11, 2009 @ 3:46 pm - January 11, 2009
As to your comment that “Voters didn’t reject Republican ideas, but rejected Republicans who had rejected them.”? Uhm. No. Wrong. Back up. Voters DID explicitly reject Republican ideas such as (among many, many others) a lack of strong regulation and close oversight over the financial and banking industries. Apparently it’s ALSO a Republican idea (or ideal) for the current administration, in its last humiliating days, to try to secretively pass as many environmentally damaging last-minute provisions as possible (such as allowing drilling and mining in the MOST ecologically sensitive areas of the nation) – often next to national and state wildlife preserves and parks. If this were not a Republican idea one might expect to see other Republicans calling publicly for a halt to such recklessness.
Comment by Su — January 11, 2009 @ 6:40 pm - January 11, 2009
Proofread, GPW. I think you meant “non-conservative”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 11, 2009 @ 7:26 pm - January 11, 2009
Voters DID explicitly reject Republican ideas such as (among many, many others) a lack of strong regulation and close oversight over the financial and banking industries.
Let’s see; who was calling for tighter regulation and oversight, and who was opposing it?
Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2009 @ 7:34 pm - January 11, 2009
Apparently it’s ALSO a Republican idea (or ideal) for the current administration, in its last humiliating days, to try to secretively pass as many environmentally damaging last-minute provisions as possible (such as allowing drilling and mining in the MOST ecologically sensitive areas of the nation)
Under the assumption, of course, that drilling and mining are always wrong, and that the nation supports $6 gas rather than careful use of our national resources.
Keep it up. That should send Botox Pelosi and Dingy Harry out on their rears in two years.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2009 @ 7:36 pm - January 11, 2009
Uh… wait a minute… I recall campaign commercial after campaign commercial from the Big O promising the American people that he would cut taxes and reign in unnecessary government spending. Oh, sure, he didn’t bother to explain that what he really meant by “cutting taxes” was doling out welfare checks to people who don’t pay taxes in the first place and raising taxes on people who create jobs; and what he meant by “reigning in unnecessary spending†was cutting the Defense Department’s budget while raising spending levels everywhere else to hitherto unimaginable new heights of extravagance and waste. But didn’t he sort of co-opt the Republican message and run as a kind of small government socialist? (After all, it worked for Bush… running as a “compassionate conservative  using a Republican buzzword to run as a kind of centrist in order to cover a leftist agenda…).
Comment by Elephant in the Room — January 11, 2009 @ 10:02 pm - January 11, 2009
Exactly. The Messiah ran on conservative, small-government ideas. People only voted for him because he carefully tried to sound fiscally responsible (and a ridiculously biased media supported him in putting it over). Yet somehow, we’re now to be told,
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 11, 2009 @ 10:31 pm - January 11, 2009
Oh, and the Messiah did it with abortion too. He ran away from his own radical pro-choice record. He reportedly ran ads with some targeted constituencies that suggested, falsely, that he was pro-life.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2009 @ 2:06 am - January 12, 2009
Maybe if the Republicans hadn’t RUN as Republicans and then GOVERNED as Democrats, they woudn’t have been rejected.
Comment by DaveP. — January 12, 2009 @ 6:30 am - January 12, 2009
How come a little financial crisis means the glory of socialism must be delayed? I don’t get it. They act like you have to pay for free things.
Comment by heliotrope — January 12, 2009 @ 8:45 am - January 12, 2009
heliotrope, what I am thinking is this insane spending binge is a harbinger of socialism. There is no other endgame for the massive amount of debt the Obama-Reid-Pelosi Regime is piling up except default.
Default on the debt would make it probable the government would no longer be able to borrow enough to cover its spending. At which point, the nationalization of industry becomes a real prospect to avoid “catastrophic economic dislocation.”
Comment by V the K — January 12, 2009 @ 9:53 am - January 12, 2009
“catastrophic economic dislocation.â€
Isn’t that what happens when I pay taxes?
Comment by The Livewire — January 12, 2009 @ 10:01 am - January 12, 2009
#9: “Maybe if the Republicans hadn’t RUN as Republicans and then GOVERNED as Democrats, they woudn’t have been rejected.”
I’m sure that this is probably what you meant, DaveP, but I think to be accurate, the problem is that the Republicans governed DOMESTICALLY as Democrats. If Bush had also governed INTERNATIONALLY as a Democrat, we would have all of the same problems in addition to our country being infested with Islamist psychotics. Or, as I call it, THE GORE ERA.
Comment by Sean A — January 12, 2009 @ 10:19 am - January 12, 2009
One problem the GOP and the conservative movement shares is neither has a news media to shape its message. The Democrats want to leverage “Climate Change” to grab more government power, and they have the media to indoctrinate the masses with the message: “Global Warming is real, and only massive government control will thwart catastrophe.” The Democrats handle the power grab, the media covers their flank with propaganda.
The GOP on the other hand does not have an integrated media arm. Their can oppose the power grab, but no one is out making the case against global warming except for marginal media … talk radio and a handful of blogs. So, to the average stupid voter, it looks like they are opposing climate change regulation only because Evil Big Business wants them too. Which is what the Democrat propaganda machine wants the stupid voters to believe.
The GOP is still to stupid to realize that opposing regulation isn’t enough. They have to propose alternatives, but more importantly, they need a vigorous intellectual offense against the default liberal positions of the MSM. They haven’t figured out how to do that. And worse, you have dimbulbs like Landslide McCain, Pandsey Graham, and the Maine Sisters who buy into the Democrat propaganda.
Comment by V the K — January 12, 2009 @ 10:38 am - January 12, 2009
And Climate Change is but one example… the same applies to illegal immigration, regulation of business, treatment of detained terrorists, tax increases, pork barrel stimulus packages, and a whole range of issues.
Comment by V the K — January 12, 2009 @ 10:40 am - January 12, 2009
Actually, the reason Republicans lost is because Americans rejected DEMOCRAT ideas. Several polls now have proven that the vast majority of Obama supporters think Republicans have been in control of Congress for the last two years, when it has actually been Democrats — THE most unpopular congress in polling history.
Comment by American Elephant — January 12, 2009 @ 10:44 am - January 12, 2009
No, it *is* socialism. Socialism is government ownership of the nation’s capital.
- Bailing out failures who otherwise deserve to die (business-wise), is socialism.
- Government taking *any* stake in private enterprises, even if it’s a minority stake in a minority of enterprises, is socialism. It has a chilling effect on all other enterprises.
- Government directing 25% or more of the economy, by its own spending, is socialism.
- Redistributing wealth from workers and savers (such as retirees) to government – which is what government debt does, especially when the debt is monetized at 0% interest rates – is socialism.
They don’t need to literally nationalize industries anymore. They have other techniques.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2009 @ 11:02 am - January 12, 2009
First, we’re already defaulting. Monetization is a partial/covert form of default. Our stupid creditors just haven’t figured it out yet or, if they have, they’re frozen like a deer in the headlights. Second, the federal govt will never formally default – they’ll just keep increasing the monetization, that is, the Fed decreeing new dollars into existence and buying assets.
The end-game of Obama-Bernanke’s policies is Argentina-style hyperinflation. If our society isn’t wrecked by that, and IF conservatives can their **ideological principles** together (no more pragmatist compromises or only advocating “solutions”), then we might have a new American revolution after that, restoring small government and some kind of hard-money standard.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2009 @ 11:09 am - January 12, 2009
Hard money? Revolution? Did you just become a Ron Paul supporter?
Comment by V the K — January 12, 2009 @ 11:36 am - January 12, 2009
LOL….well, the problem with Ron Paul is that he’s like those crazy financial pundits who preach that you should be “cash-only” at all times.
Credit is not inherently a bad thing — as long as you use it to generate wealth, versus financing consumption. A business borrowing money to increase its output in response to increased demand is generating wealth. An individual who is borrowing money to purchase a house they can’t afford when they have a perfectly suitable monthly rent and location is financing consumption.
In this recession, the root cause is that homebuyers were financing consumption; they were taking on more than they could afford, with the government egging them on to do it, with virtually no possibility of ever earning it back or catching up with it. Everything depended on housing prices not only going up, but continuing to go up at an accelerated rate.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2009 @ 12:14 pm - January 12, 2009
I am swinging more and more around to ILC’s view that, if Barack Obama puts in his leftist policies like he’s already doing, the net effect is going to be hyperinflation.
Classic example: the leftist Democrats are already pushing for “tax cuts” to people who don’t pay taxes under the argument that these people will be more likely to spend money . Their argument is that the previous tax rebate checks didn’t provide stimulus because people didn’t spend them and instead used them to pay down debt and put more money into savings.
What these halfwits, most of whom, like Kennedy and Frank, have never held a real job in their life or run a business, don’t realize is that excessive consumption and spending is what got us into this mess in the first place. There is no money to lend because of an overload of bad debt — which is a worthless asset whose value decreases over time and whose offset has to be balanced with real money.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2009 @ 12:22 pm - January 12, 2009
How is BO any different? The closest thing he ever had to a real job was editing wire reports for a reference book publisher. Even in his campaign, he had so much money, he never had to make hard choices about where to spend it.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. To a lawyer, the solution to every problem is a law. To a psychologist, the solution to every problem is therapy. BO was a community organizer. What do community organizers do? They shake down the government for money. That’s his mind-set. It’s the only thing he knows.
Comment by V the K — January 12, 2009 @ 12:36 pm - January 12, 2009
Exactly, V. Obama is a parasite of the first order; all he’s ever done is suck blood out of the government, and when he dried up one spot, he just moved to another.
It should be no surprise to anyone that the only answer of someone like him whose work ethic is akin to that of a mosquito’s is to open more holes and drain more blood.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2009 @ 12:42 pm - January 12, 2009
Well, let’s put it this way. I’m looking for Ron Paul without the ranting, nutty isolationism or the tawdry acceptance of racist donations. By 2012, Palin-Jindal might prove to be it; we’ll see.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2009 @ 1:40 pm - January 12, 2009
For years, the Fed has been increasing its part of the money supply by well over 10% a year – i.e., more than what’s needed to merely keep up with growth in population and GDP. And in the last quarter of 2008, they increased it in unprecedented ways, an order of magnitude more than they’ve ever done.
We haven’t seen it yet as price inflation, because in the past, foreigners sucked up our dollars and our debt instruments and held them in their own vaults, as if they were something valuable. And because, lately, Americans themselves are sitting on cash.
But a point must be reached, eventually, where Americans get back to their normal spending activities. And where foreigners’ appetite for dollars is finally sated, as they realize they’ve been had in a giant scam. I don’t think it will happen in 2009. I think it will happen by 2016 for sure, and probably by 2012. In other words: Before the Obama-Pelosi-Bernanke years run out. The only thing that can save us is a policy reversal: deficits below 500 billion and financed honestly – which will mean sky-high interest rates, a la Volcker – plus lower regulation and taxes to aid the supply-side picture.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2009 @ 1:55 pm - January 12, 2009
Sean I may be misunderstanding you… but Bush DiD govern internationally as a Democrat, especially in his second term: “Looking into Putin’s eyes”, Condi Rice’s cover for the Palis, ‘The Saudis are our friends’, et cetera.
Comment by DaveP. — January 12, 2009 @ 1:57 pm - January 12, 2009
Billionaire Peter Peterson, whose foundation financed the excellent film, “I.O.USA” — which every American should watch, put his finger on the root cause of the nation’s staggering debt and financial crises:
The American people want it, they want it now and they don’t want to pay for it.
That problem has to be dealt with before anything else suggested makes sense.
Comment by Jack Allen — January 12, 2009 @ 3:08 pm - January 12, 2009
I don’t think that’s true.
Do Americans really want a Medicare/Medicaid system where somewhere between 20 and 40% of claims are fraudulent? I don’t think so.
Do Americans want a welfare system where on 27 cents out of every dollar actually reaches the needy? I don’t think so.
Do Americans want an education system that rewards mediocrity and devalues success? I don’t think so.
Did Americans want the social security system raided and treated as general revenue? The highway fund treated the same way? I don’t think so.
Do the American people want state bureaucrats to have gold-plated pensions that allow them to retire at 55 with full benefits? I don’t think so.
Do the American people want our domestic energy resources locked up even though they can be developed cleanly and safely? I don’t think so.
Do Americans want racial preferences in hiring and admissions? The voting records of Civil Rights Initiatives suggest they do not.
But the politicians and their activist buddies, and community organizers, and union bosses, and environmental freaques want them.
The working people and the sane people of this country have simply been outvoted by the shiftless and fanatical.
Comment by V the K — January 12, 2009 @ 3:27 pm - January 12, 2009
And Obama is taking us (and was always going to) in the exact wrong direction.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2009 @ 5:06 pm - January 12, 2009
Good point, ILC. Much better than my filtered response.
If we’re bankrupt now, how is spending kerjillions on health care, infrastructure, welfare, education, and bailouts to states supposed to help?
I thought the first rule when you found yourself in a hole was too stop digging.
Comment by V the K — January 12, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - January 12, 2009
“By 2012, Palin-Jindal might prove to be it; we’ll see.”
Do you think that either one is ready for those offices, particularly Palin as President. I’m also wondering if that question can be answered without resorting to comparisons to and/or slams at Democrats. On their own merits not as the lesser of two evils, is it time for them yet? I say yet because I have no doubt that both will run and perhaps win at some time in the future. And I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing.
Comment by a different Dave — January 12, 2009 @ 7:07 pm - January 12, 2009
Translation: “Don’t point out that Palin is more qualified than Obama!”
Comment by American Elephant — January 12, 2009 @ 8:05 pm - January 12, 2009
scratch that, “Don’t point out that Palin AND Jindal are BOTH more qualified than Obama!”
Comment by American Elephant — January 12, 2009 @ 8:08 pm - January 12, 2009
Palin in 2008 was more qualified for the office than Obama. She had close to 2 years of real executive experience. Obama has none.
Palin in 2012 will therefore, mathematically, be that much more additionally qualified than Obama was in 2008.
Oh, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight… Sorry, leftoid, I’m not that incredibly stupid.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2009 @ 8:30 pm - January 12, 2009
No AE, what it meant was that if you can’t support a person on their own merits and have to point to someone who you despise in order to support your opinion, then you have nothing to offer at all. Apparently neither one of you have the ability to comment without an attack on Dems. Pitiful, with supporters like you Palin needs no enemies.
And yeah, ILC, you are that incredibly stupid because you can’t see past your hate for all liberals to understand that I vote for who I believe is the best candidate NOT because of what letter comes after their name or what label they have along the political spectrum. And I’m sick of you calling me a liar.
And again I was dumb enough to think I could get a civilized answer with any thought behind it from the sandbox crew here. Useless, partisan hacks.
Comment by a different Dave — January 12, 2009 @ 9:02 pm - January 12, 2009
Well adDave. Palin and Jindal have shown they won’t do or say anything just to be elected. I believe that puts them ahead of Obama, who you’ve conceeded will.
And obiviously, you cna’t handle it when it’s pointed out that both Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal have executive experience, and in Gov Palin’s case, experience with other countries governments.
Comment by The_Livewire — January 12, 2009 @ 10:00 pm - January 12, 2009
Again – LOVE them true colors flying, ADD
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2009 @ 12:26 am - January 13, 2009
P.S. For the record: I did NOT call you a liar. And yet, you clearly did call me “incredibly stupid” anyway. Again, ADD, I luvs to see them true colors of yours flyin’.
Also for the record: I do not hate liberals. They simply are not worth it. (I don’t hate neo-Nazis, for a similar reason.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2009 @ 12:31 am - January 13, 2009
ILC, directing personal attacks at you, AE, and NDT, is much easier than answering the substantive criticisms of Obamunism that have been raised in this forum. e.g. the same program has always failed in the past, the massive deficit risks hyperinflation, and so forth…
Comment by V the K — January 13, 2009 @ 7:40 am - January 13, 2009
Yes. And for the millionth time: I’m an *ideologue*, not a partisan. (Never been a Republican.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2009 @ 9:40 am - January 13, 2009
The reason Barak Obama will be listening is because he is bereft of ideas to solve the problems that confronts him. A leader, a CEO, surrounds himself with capable people to implement his solutions to problems.
Comment by Roberto — January 13, 2009 @ 9:51 am - January 13, 2009
Sarah Palin: Not Asking for a Bailout. Neither is Mark Sanford. Bobby Jindal, however, is.
Comment by V the K — January 13, 2009 @ 10:51 am - January 13, 2009
a different Dave in #31 asks of Palin and Jindal:
1) the question assumes that they are not currently ready for those offices. So I would counter with what makes them unqualified now?
2) My bias for Palin leads me to read the question as: Can Palin figure out how to counteract the well honed myth “She’s too stupid to walk and chew gum” that the liberals have pasted on her.
3) Palin has an almost cult-like following of people who live outside of the government handout zones. The real question is whether ACORN can amass enough of life’s “piglets for socialism” to offset the legions of people who would flock to the polls in a desperate attempt to drive a stake into the heart of the government sow of socialism.
4) The fact that Palin so enrages the left is a clear sign to me that they are scared to death of her. Tina Fey can draw the same partisan flies that voted for Al Franken. But the sides would be enormously different. The Palin supporters believe deeply in her principles and constancy. The anit-Palin people have nothing more than ridicule. They have yet to rip her apart on substance.
5) While liberals have at the religious right, it is the liberals themselves who arm the villagers in the projects with pitchforks and torches. All through the election season we heard about the riots that might break loose if Obama didn’t get elected. ACORN concentrated on the dissaffected, ill-informed and those looking for a hand out. Amorphous hope and unspecified change is always in the demagogue’s tool kit. But the hypocrisy of using the least among us to achieve power is disgusting. Read the list V the K posted in #28. We are wasting billions on programs now. The real winners in all of them are not the recipients, but the leeches that “manage” them. Why liberals can not get outraged about waste and corruption is beyond me.
Comment by heliotrope — January 13, 2009 @ 11:07 am - January 13, 2009
Let’s get one thing straight (excuse the term):
The Community Reinvestment Act was regulation, got it? This constant refrain that we needed greater oversight and regulation is complete bullsh*t and I’m getting tired of it. The issue isn’t whether we need regulation, but rather the type and scope of government interference and common sense rules.
The Democrats are torn between Squealer and Snowball while we’re torn between “pure enuff/true enuff”…oh, wait…wrong thread.
Comment by Ignatius — January 13, 2009 @ 11:58 am - January 13, 2009
Gov. Palin was an asset to Republican ticket. She energized the base like nobody has since Ronald Reagan. It was Senator McCain who lost the election when he suspended his campaign and signed on to the bailout. He showed no leadership during that session.
Comment by Roberto — January 13, 2009 @ 12:13 pm - January 13, 2009
Its not an attack on Obama to say that Palin and Jindal are more qualified than him, its just a simple statement of demonstrable fact. Hiring managers do it every day. Candidate A is more qualified than candidate B, therefore I am hiring candidate A. My cat is smarter than Differently Abled Dave. Again, not an attack, just a statement of fact.
Comment by American Elephant — January 13, 2009 @ 12:37 pm - January 13, 2009
#44 – Iggy, good comment
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2009 @ 1:08 pm - January 13, 2009
Bush gave away Clinton’s budget surplus by cutting taxes, then went out and got America involved in a costly two front war (of which only one front was necessary). That’s how we ended up with huge deficits.
Historically, in times of crisis, the government has been forced to spend lots of money. The difference this time is that taxes weren’t raised to offset some of the cost.
Comment by Erik — January 13, 2009 @ 1:52 pm - January 13, 2009
V the K has it correct about the vision needed
and so does Roberto as to Roberto’s point on Sarah Palin.
.Sarah Palin is the modern version of Reagan and she will be the next President. My concern is that she times running. I don’t want her to lose so we will have to see how the next 4 years go.
Nobama ran as a compassionate conservative…..ala Bush did in 2000…..Both Bush and
Nobama are radical huge spenders……time will tell what Nobama does….either he will go the way of a landslide in 2012 or we have 1980 all over again after a 4 year economic and world mess ala Jimmy Carter.
We must stand for something and not stand against something…..Reagan succeeded wildly because he stood for something and had the ideas to back it up. As V the K said, throw out the stupidity and stop being lazy and really think about the issues and present them in an optimistic way and that we as a country are a can do country and we can solve issues and use common sense, which is what Reagan did and communicated them well.
I am hoping that Palin runs for re election and ignores the talking heads that she should be a Senator…she has executive experience, runs a state and then she studies, studies, studies and gathers thinkers the way Reagan did and comes up with the new ideas we will need for energy independence, unleashing the ingenuity of Americans and small businesses to succeed…..Reagan stood with Main Street, and that has been lost since the Bushes (both of them) were Wall Street…
We need to come up with new ideas for immigration, economy, energy independence, homeland security and return to Americans can do it better then government and freedom is far more powerful then a hand out…the old saying of teach a person to fish and they can feed themselves for a lifetime vs. give them a fish and they are dependent upon the government to feed them.
It is time to stop whining and see the future as Reagan did..the opportunity to build from the grass roots up and think with broad colors and not in shades of stupid.
Comment by Rocket — January 13, 2009 @ 3:19 pm - January 13, 2009
#48 – “Bush gave away Clinton’s budget surplus by cutting taxes.”
BZZZT. Wrong answer, Erik the Red. You either were a mere child in the 1990s or you are just engaging in historical whitewashing. Probably both.
Bush did not “give away” any surplus, Clintonesque or otherwise. If you recall, the Republican-led Congress in 1995-2001 cut taxes under the Contract For America and Slick Willie was forced to move to the right in order to get anything done legislatively speaking.
When Bush took office in 2001, we were running a budget surplus which meant that the government took in more money than it spent. It also showed remarkable fiscal restraint on the government’s part. Since the money came from taxpayers like myself (and I bet you don’t even file a 1040 form), we got a rebate. Nice and simple.
Of course, if the Clinton-era “wall” between the FBI and CIA hadn’t been put up by the likes of Sandy Berger, Jaime Gorelick and George Tenet, we would have avoided that little incident known as 9/11 and the economy wouldn’t have tanked in the 1st quarter of 2002.
Yet we did come back from it – no thanks to parasites like the whiny left.
So next time, get your facts straight. They can be pesky little things, you know.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 13, 2009 @ 4:34 pm - January 13, 2009
So, is Erik suggesting everybody’s tax rate be doubled? Because that’s what it would take to pay for the Dear One’s spending binge.
Comment by V the K — January 13, 2009 @ 5:48 pm - January 13, 2009
What’s funny about this is that Erik and his fellow liberals are whining about the Bush tax cuts, which were put in specifically to fight a recession and succeeded dramatically in doing so, while breathlessly supporting The One’s pathetic attempts to do the same thing.
Just like deficits were always bad regardless of size under Bush, but deficits doubled and tripled in size under Obama are good.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2009 @ 6:37 pm - January 13, 2009
I am pretty sure the game with the deficit is so in two years they can say, “Well, we spent X Trillion to bail out the economy, so we can now spend Y Trillion on health care.” Which, as noted, will require a doubling of tax rates to finance.
When the state of Wisconsin tried to implement socialized health care, it discovered the cost of their program was more than the entire existing state budget.
Comment by V the K — January 13, 2009 @ 7:10 pm - January 13, 2009
NDT and V, it just goes to show you how libtards always flunk Econ 101.
If you cut taxes and increase spending, you will create an economic boom. What is so difficult about that?
(Shaking head, reaching for martini)
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 13, 2009 @ 7:12 pm - January 13, 2009
With tax cheats like Charlie Rangel, Al Franken, and Tim Geithner, you can see why Democrats love taxes… they don’t have to pay them.
Comment by V the K — January 13, 2009 @ 8:39 pm - January 13, 2009
#46
What you said would be true if I had asked for a comparison to Obama. I am fully aware of your panic about him so what reason would I ask for more? And what you spout is not demonstrable fact, it is your opinion, nothing more. And it’s rare that I have read anything written by you that wasn’t an attack on somebody. I didn’t ask who is better, I know how you would answer that. The question was quite simple what makes them ready? Not too hard, except for those lost in the hate filled obsession with Obama.
#43
Thanks heliotrope, at least one person understood the question. I’m not saying they’re unqualified but I’ll reword the question to why are they qualified. What SOME liberals have said about her means nothing to me, I’m interested in what qualities make her and Jindal ready to lead the country.
“All through the election season we heard about the riots that might break loose if Obama didn’t get elected. ”
The only sources that I ever read such nonsense in were right wing.
#49
“Sarah Palin is the modern version of Reagan”
That, in a nutshell, is the problem. While y’all worship him as a near god, there a plenty of us who view his time in office as a blight on our history and a symptom of greater problems in the national conscience. To put in another like him would be a step backwards, and if the nasty critters trying to head the RNC actually get in, it would be devastating to a country supposedly based on freedom and justice for ALL. My opinion of course, I’m not as arrogant as AE.
Comment by a different Dave — January 13, 2009 @ 8:45 pm - January 13, 2009
Yup, ADD still looks, walks and quacks like a leftist. As expected.
ROFL – ADD, you are the definition of arrogant.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2009 @ 9:01 pm - January 13, 2009
there a plenty of us who view [Reagan's] time in office as a blight on our history
Yeah, he brought down the Soviet Union. It was a dark time for those who wanted us to lose the the Cold War.
Comment by V the K — January 13, 2009 @ 9:36 pm - January 13, 2009
And Gee, if it’s “near-worship” to respect Ronald Reagan for defeating the Soviet Union and ushering in a generation of prosperity, what do you call children singing hymns to the Dear One before he is even inaugurated
Comment by V the K — January 13, 2009 @ 9:42 pm - January 13, 2009
Come on, V. It’s impolite to bring self-awareness to the clueless.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2009 @ 11:26 pm - January 13, 2009
The only sources that I ever read such nonsense in were right wing.
And down goes that one.
If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness – and hopelessness!
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 14, 2009 @ 12:19 am - January 14, 2009
No, what I said is true, which is why you constructed your question specifically to prohibit it from being said.
Not arrogant, just right. And no, you’re not.
Comment by American Elephant — January 14, 2009 @ 12:28 am - January 14, 2009
#56 a different Dave: James Carville loudly and frequently warned of riots.
Comment by heliotrope — January 14, 2009 @ 9:00 am - January 14, 2009
The simple fact is, ADD’s question is fully answered by a comparison of Palin to Obama.
Voting choices are relative for most people. They look at one major candidate relative to the other. Under any reasonable standard where Obama comes out as qualified for the office of President, Palin is absolutely qualified – because she is objectively more qualified than Obama. Under any reasonable standard where Palin comes out as unqualified, then Obama is absolutely unqualified – because Obama is objectively less qualified than Palin. Pick your standard. Whichever way you want to go. But, as long at it is reasonable (not a double standard), Palin will come out as the better one.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2009 @ 9:56 am - January 14, 2009
Getting back to this:
Let me say once more that for the speaker of such a statement to pose as someone who is open-minded enough to vote for Palin in 2016, 2012, or any time, is patently absurd. Sorry, ADD, but WE (including heliotrope) are just not that incredibly stupid. You’re a leftist. Have the modicum of courage it takes to face it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2009 @ 10:02 am - January 14, 2009
Finally, as to whether Palin is a modern version of Reagan: my answer (already given at #24 is), “We’ll see.” She needs what HR people call “personal development”, and what I call ideological or philosophical development. I, unlike ADD, am genuinely open to voting for her – and merely that. (Not committed.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2009 @ 10:07 am - January 14, 2009
#66, I believe in my point, I mentioned that Palin needs to stay as Governor and develop the ideas she believes in. Governor Palin was the VP candidate so she was constrained in having to fully adhere to the McCain positions for the campaign.
My hope is that Governor Palin studies issues, (she knows energy extremely well) and then discusses those view points in her own time frame, her own chosen forum as Reagan did in his off years before being elected President.
I have full faith in Governor Palin. I believe she has the vision and now just needs the time to articulate them in her own timetable to do so. In the meantime she does have a state to run and a re election campaign to plan.
Plus, timing is everything and it may be that it is best for Palin to wait until 2016 based upon what occurs in the next 3 or so years leading up to 2012. I would rather she wait and win then run and lose.
Palin has the right stuff (no pun intended) to create those broad colors and not the blandness of the me too crowd of can’t think outside the box, never mind think…and like Reagan, Palin has an excellent common sense set of values and communicates them well and she is one of us….and I want a President that knows what it is like to work every day, struggle, know what it is to be an every day American and to fight for us and she has that and the vision to lead….Give Governor Palin time to study, formulate and then articulate her American vision. (I mean the Chosen One hasn’t even been sworn in as POTUS)
Comment by Rocket — January 14, 2009 @ 12:43 pm - January 14, 2009
Rocket, I’ve been thinking if 2012 looks like a lost cause to the GOP, they should put up Huckabee or some shlub like that. But you know who would be fun as the (doomed) GOP nominee in 2012? Ron Paul. He’d lose big time, but it would sure be entertaining to hear him debate fiat currency with the Dear One.
Comment by V the K — January 14, 2009 @ 1:11 pm - January 14, 2009
Reagan a blight on our history? Hell no!! He gave us the longest period of economic growth in our history, which extended beyond his presidency. He stopped the cancerous growth of communism in our hemisphere, Granada, Central America. Here, in El Salvador among democratic loving persons Ronald Reagan is revered as a saint. As a friend of mine in the National Republican Aliance said to me, ¨If it wasn´t for President Ronald Reagan, El Salvador would not be free today.¨ Through his commitment to keep the hemisphere free, Nicaragua had its first free election in which Violeta Barrios de Chamorro became president.
You can bet your bottom dollar that if Ronald Reagan were alive and president today, Vladimir Putin would not be resurrecting the Soviet Union, Ahmadjinedad would not have built a nuclear reactor and Hugo Chavez would not be spreading his venom in Latin America.
Comment by Roberto — January 14, 2009 @ 4:12 pm - January 14, 2009
Twice I have attempted to post a comment, some what longer than #45.
Both times it disappears. This is not the first occasion. It has happened on two other topics. IL check back to see if it posts late, then I rewrite and submit again with the same results. Why is that?
Comment by Roberto — January 14, 2009 @ 4:18 pm - January 14, 2009
V the K…I love how you think…..thanks for also making me smile in a good way..and a bit evil way…since what you said would be sooo cool to see…Ron Paul throwing fits into the Chosen One….but I have this feeling that since its rare to defeat an incumbent better to throw a minor leaguer (especially if the winds are blowing for 4 more years of the Marxist in Chief) that we best throw one to the wolves and keep Palin ready for 2016..this way she can serve a solid 2 terms as Alaska Governor and then concentrate full time for 2016
Roberto, I have lost more posts that I thought were posted and eaten alive here then I can imagine. One of the regular posters was kind enough to remind me to cut and paste what I type and put it on say Microsoft word…..and this way if my post gets eaten alive, I can repost again.
It is very frustrating, I have to admit….I hope you can repost:)
Comment by Rocket — January 14, 2009 @ 4:43 pm - January 14, 2009
Thanks Rocket. I don´t know what it is but I saw #70 post but #69 hadn´t posted yet. I keep trying to understand it. Sometimes I think it´s the long distance. Also, I do have some minor mechanical problems for which I´m waiting for a friend who is trained in repairs to come over and take care of it.
Your point about Gov. Palin is interesting and makes sense but I´m hoping hoping for a Carteresque meltdown, the nation will want a change from the change.
Comment by Roberto — January 14, 2009 @ 5:55 pm - January 14, 2009
“Let me say once more that for the speaker of such a statement to pose as someone who is open-minded enough to vote for Palin in 2016, 2012, or any time, is patently absurd. Sorry, ADD, but WE (including heliotrope) are just not that incredibly stupid. You’re a leftist. Have the modicum of courage it takes to face it.”
I don’t believe I ever said I wasn’t a leftist. The majority of my views fit in with the left but not all. And I am very much open to voting for Palin. Comparing her to Reagan will never convince me to do that though. Perhaps if I could read what you folks value about her without comparisons to anyone else I could find the things I would like to know about her. But apparently that won’t happen here. Well I have time to find these things out.
Thank you to those who provided examples of people on the left saying there would be riots. But, NDT – “If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war”does not, to me, predict riots but a long term struggle.
“The simple fact is, ADD’s question is fully answered by a comparison of Palin to Obama.”
No, it’s not. Some of you would say that a goat is more qualified than Obama but that would be just as meaningless to me as comparing Palin to Obama. I don’t CARE what you think about Obama, that’s settled, I need no more evidence. Despite AE’s assertion that what he says is fact, when you compare the two you are simply expressing an opinion. If you can’t tell me WHY the goat would be qualified, what it’s positions are that you like then you show me nothing about the goat, it is still a mystery. No, I’m not saying Palin is a goat, or resembles a goat, or thinks like a goat. How could I say that since you’ve provide nothing to base that opinion on.
It’s funny to me that only a couple of those commenting were actually able to simply explain what they like about Palin. I very much appreciate those responses. The fact that it so difficult for the rest of you says much about your way of thinking and inability to express a opinion of someone you support without a negative comment about those you despise. It’s really quite bizarre. Just another example of the either/or, black/white, yes/no mentality that plagues fanatics of all political persuasions. It’s a handicap that doesn’t reflect the reality of life and it’s dangerous because this country cannot survive with such an infantile attitude influencing the political process. Unless the all like-minded people gather in specific states and secede from the Union there has to be a collective effort from the various factions to protect the USA.
V, I think that the songs, vid clips, chants etc. for Obama are asinine. I consider any time people that people seem to forget that the President is just a man, not a superhero or idol, dangerous. Obama is not the first and he won’t be the last. The access that the internet provides to millions of people just makes it easier to spread such nonsense.
I will be shocked if this actually makes it through the filter!
Comment by a different Dave — January 14, 2009 @ 9:59 pm - January 14, 2009
amazing
Comment by a different Dave — January 14, 2009 @ 9:59 pm - January 14, 2009
Eh, now folks ’round here are starting to wonder if Jeb turned down the senate seat because he has bigger fish to fry.
That’s easy. A goat would provide an easier analysis of its background, could probably do a better job at appointing cabinet members and wouldn’t be afraid to butt heads with those who threaten.
Then again, a goat would always say the same shit over and over. Sorta like the way Comrade Obama says Hopeâ„¢, Changeâ„¢ and America sucks assâ„¢ all the time.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 15, 2009 @ 6:34 am - January 15, 2009
In 2000, George W. Bush campaigned as a campassionate conservative. Maybe the administration did put forth a conservative agenda, but I´ve been sending faxes to the both President Bush and Vice President Cheney, (to influence the President) to show the compassionate side of his platform to pardon Border Agents Igancio Ramos and Jose´Alonso Campeon who were railroaded into jail for doing their sworn duty. They shot a drug trafficker from Mexico, who was given immunity for testifying against the border agents. Bush, in union with former President Vicente Fox and now Felipe Calderon in compassion might want to give amnesty to illegal aliens. I think his compassion is misplaced when he is willing to give amnesty to criminals (let´s face it, entering the U.S without a visa is a crime) but as of yet a pardon to two American Citizens for doing their duty.
Comment by Roberto — January 15, 2009 @ 11:03 am - January 15, 2009
Roberto, I am also hoping for a Carteresque meltdown in 2012..but if it doesn’t happen let us hope Palin waits until 2016…as to the pardons they should be granted. I doubt they will be.
I only wish that Bush had engaged in the compassionate conservative agenda…he began to oversees in Africa and it is a shame it is not recognized but he should have done so here too….on a different topic, as noted, Bush should have cut the budget when he had spend more on national security/ homeland security and the defense budget..but he out LBJ’d LBJ in doing both guns and butter and paying for neither….and messed us up for a long time period..
Bush did have help in a screwed up Congress…..remember that from May 2001 through end of the 2002 that the Senate was in the Democrats hands and then again from 2006 through 2008..the whole Congress in the gang that couldn’t shoot str8’s hands….so he had help from a messed up Congress.
Comment by Rocket — January 16, 2009 @ 2:06 am - January 16, 2009