Gay Patriot Header Image

If Obama is Serious about Fiscal Responsibilty . . .

Nick Gillespie anticipated my next post, so since he blogged about it first, I gotta give him credit (so read the whole thing)–and thank Glenn for linking the Reason editor’s observation:

If Obama is serious about restoring trust and confidence in the government’s ability to live within its gargantuan means (and he should be), he should start by rewriting the $410 billion Omnibus Spending Bill that the Democrats have just dropped like a big, wet, steaming, stinking pile of…pork barbecue.

I was going to say that at minimum, the president should threaten to veto the bill unless Congress eliminates its 8,570 earmarks. Then, if Congress sends it to him with the earmarks included, he should follow through on that threat.

Then, it will be up to congressional Republicans to sustain his veto by uniting against any attempt to override it.

It would be a chance for both the President and the GOP to show their mettle.



  1. I don’t see any covergae of this here. Why not, I wonder.

    GOP Chairman Michael Steele was asked on a radio show Monday whether the party should “consider” civil unions. “No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy?” he replied.

    RESPONSE from Dan: Yep, I’m aware of it and intend to blog on it, but given how much I have blogged on Bill Moyers, wanted to address his response to Jack Shafer’s work on Slate. Trying to confirm that I caught him doing what he did in 1964, lying about Barry Goldwater.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 25, 2009 @ 6:00 pm - February 25, 2009

  2. The bill is free of earmarks as is the stimulus package. There are 8,570 points of stimulus light embedded in the vast sky of austere government attention being carefully crafted to undo eight years of inherited mismanagement that drove the economy into the deepest abyss of corruption, greed and demonic neglect in the history of the solar system.

    We are on the very brink of being saved.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 25, 2009 @ 6:02 pm - February 25, 2009

  3. PeeJ,

    Why would you give a flying fig about Michael Steele? Do you think that if Sarah Palin were to embrace civil unions that the left would come flocking to her support?

    Do you think that civil unions are within the top 3,000 single issue items that could possibly affect how people vote?

    As knuckle dragging, straight, Republican conservative I happen to support civil unions. But my party is not struggling because of that issue, nor is it going to gain an ounce of traction by supporting it.

    Try again.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 25, 2009 @ 6:10 pm - February 25, 2009

  4. #1: Translation: “Hey, look over there! Don’t discuss liberals screwing you over!”

    Can you provide anything more than Don’tThink,Regress’s version of events?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 25, 2009 @ 6:27 pm - February 25, 2009

  5. “I was going to say that at minimum, the president should threaten to veto the bill unless Congress eliminates its 8,570 earmarks.”

    He won’t.

    “Then, if Congress sends it to him with the earmarks included, he should follow through on that threat.”

    He won’t.

    Nope, what His Majesty will do is take a wet noodle, flicki it on Congress’ collective wrist, and mumble, “Okay, I’ll sign the bill this time. But if you do this stuff next year, I’ll really get tough and issue with a VERY strongly-worded statement.”

    Let me know when you meet an earmark or spending bill Obama actually didn’t like, okay?

    Comment by MarkJ — February 25, 2009 @ 6:54 pm - February 25, 2009

  6. The point, silly, is that the GOP doesn’t like gays and doesn’t want gays. The point is, the GOP only cares about posturing and politics, not a whit about policy. Sure, they’ll take our votes, but only if we stay in the closet and don’t get uppity. His honest answer is just what I like to see. He’s going to be very helpful in further reducing the GOP to rubble.

    Why oh why would any gay man or woman with the least bit of self respect want to be a part of the GOP is unfathomable.

    Maybe I’ll take the time to clue a few people in, now. I’m not a Democrat. I was once a Republican. I voted for Reagan (but only the first time). The GOP of today bears almost no resemblance to the GOP of forty years ago. The GOP of today pays lip service to “conservative principles” but that’s all it is, lip service. Reagan and Bush II: each oversaw the largest expansion of government in history, successively. Fiscal conservatism? Reagan and Bush II ran up the largest deficits in history, successively. Government out of people’s lives? Terry Schiavo. States rights? Terry Schiavo, Steven Johnson,

    Bush: “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system”

    Embarking on TWO nation building exercises? Simultaneously, no less? That’s conservative?

    Perosnal responsibility? What a joke. The last Republican congresses amazingly managed to outsleaze the Dem congresses of the 60’s.

    What “conservatism” means today has little relationship to anything the GOP actually is. The GOP throws out candy and people just eat it right up, not becaase it has any substance but because it’s the party line. Loyalty, toeing the party line, is more important than ideas.

    When I joined the Republican party in the 70’s I did so on principle. When I left it in the 80’s I did so on principle. Ronald Reagan sold out to the Christianists. I was there, I remember it well. Reagan established a set of policies and “principles” that are only now wreaking the havoc that’s been building for decades.

    I’d love to see some of those core principles that the Republicans once espoused AND embodied actually in place in Washington. Nowadys it seems the Democrats are more Republican than the GOP. What I see here and seemingly everywhere throughout the GOP is that it’s become an all or nothing propostion. Dissent is not allowed. It’s all politics and no policy. The GOP isn’t about governing, it’s about powerlust. It’s about greed. Tribalism.


    Comment by PeeJ — February 25, 2009 @ 7:21 pm - February 25, 2009

  7. PeeJ, if you bothered to read my post instead of using its a forum to exorcise your own personal demons, you might understand why a gay person would join the GOP.

    I don’t see government as the institution responsible for addressing our social problems and believe the best way to address our economic problems is to give private enterprise a freer hand. On the whole, the GOP, at least when its leaders adhere to its Reaganite philosophy, is a much better fit for me.

    And, um, are you going to stay stuck in the past. If you read this blog, you’ll know we’ve been critical of past Republican Congresses. And on more than one occasion, I’ve seen the rise of Tom DeLay as all but synonymous with the decline of the congressional GOP.

    You would know these things if you read this blog. You might know better if you paid attention to what has been going on in our party since November 4 instead of dwelling on the past.

    All you do is rant without evidence, without reference, but with distortion. If you think Reagan sold out to some mythical group which one unhappy blogger has dubbed Christianist, well, then you have as little knowledge of his real record as I do of Mariah Carrey’s music.

    So, please read our blog instead of defining us by your own demons.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 25, 2009 @ 8:47 pm - February 25, 2009

  8. Why oh why would any gay man or woman with the least bit of self respect want to be a part of the GOP is unfathomable.

    That’s because you confuse SELF-respect, which is being comfortable with who you are regardless of what others say, with affirmation from OTHERS, which is being uncomfortable unless everyone else likes you.

    Case in point:

    I’d love to see some of those core principles that the Republicans once espoused AND embodied actually in place in Washington.

    Obviously not, since you were willing to sell every principle you allegedly had out in favor of whether or not people pretended to like your sexual orientation.

    You’re a much better fit for the Obama Party, PeeJ. They make their bread and butter on people like yourself who don’t care what happens as long as someone blows sunshine at them 24/7.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 25, 2009 @ 9:06 pm - February 25, 2009

  9. GPW, I think you and I described PeeJ’s condition to a tee during our ride back to my place.

    People like PeeJ and Andrew Sullivan once had principles, but they decided it was more important to be liked by leftist gays and the gay community than it was to actually stick to them. However, now that they’ve made the decision to follow everyone else’s opinion rather than their own principles, they need to eliminate examples of those people who are doing what they gave up. “Zeal of the converted” is a good way to describe it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 25, 2009 @ 9:09 pm - February 25, 2009

  10. PeeJ, you are amazing. I know you don’t have a memory or a clue about Hoover. Eisenhower wobbled between courting the Democrats or the Republicans. Dewey, the Giuliani of his time, was run off the stage after 1948. In 1952, Bob Taft was the closest thing to a conservative the Republicans had seen since Coolidge. In a tight convention, Eisenhower prevailed. He was the Colin Powell of his time. In 1960, Dr. Walter Judd gave a true conservative keynote to the Republican convention. That convention also introduced Richard Vigarie, L. Brent Bozell and Barry Goldwater to the conservative world.

    Goldwater got his clock cleaned in 1984 by allowing the young television medium to paint him as a neanderthal version of Attila the Hun. He discovered too late that the medium massages the message and his message was easily distorted.

    Nixon was a pragmatist, a conniver and an astute manipulator. He learned how to out slime the Democrats at their own game and took glee in doing so. His main principle was to control the arena. His ghost is readily apparent in the Obama White House.

    Ford was a cypher, masquerading as a bookmark.

    You say you voted for Reagan once. Wow. That means you voted for Carter or Mondale. Either way, you were 180 degrees away from Reagan. So what is your story?

    There were 12 years of father and son Bush and neither one was a conservative or particularly guided by principle. (“Moderate” is not a principle, it is an accommodation of principle.)

    Meanwhile, from 1954 until 1996 the Democrats had near total control of Congress. This was a reality with which Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush 1 had to deal.

    There is no question that Republicans squandered their 12 years (1994-2006) of Congressional power by acting like Democrats. They raided the treasury for their brand of pork and they gave back to the Democrats as good and better than they had gotten for 40 years.

    PeeJ, if you ever had an inkling of being conservative, you certainly never spent quality time figuring out what conservative principles are and stand for.

    Since 1932, we have had two presidents who were conservatives: Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy. No Democrat has come close to matching the conservatism of Kennedy and aside from Reagan, no Republican has walked the walk or talked the talk. Not Ford, not Bush 1, not McCain.

    When you claim that the Democrats are more Republican than the GOP, it is clear to me that what you are either smoking rabbit tobacco or your confusion about politics is profound and can not be addressed.

    Obama is to the extreme left of Roosevelt. He is so far left of Truman he could not see his position from where he stands. There is little in common he shares politically with Kennedy. He might be a kindred spirit of Johnson and a soul mate of Carter, but he has no affinity with Clinton. Just who these Democrats who are acting like Republican may be, I can not fathom. If you are referring to Snow, Collins, Specter, Stevens, Hagel or McCain as your benchmarks, you may take them with my blessings.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 25, 2009 @ 9:32 pm - February 25, 2009

  11. PeeJ, for what it’s worth, I’m a Republican because in order to move the country to a more libertarian ideal, the GOP is the most viable vehicle. The only way to influence my party is to remain in it, to remain active. No one is arguing the GOP is perfect — I would be the last to do so.

    Sure, my being a Republican is a means to an end and probably a cynical one (but earnest nonetheless) and I agree that the definition of conservative has changed and not for the better. But I for one am contemptuous of those who wear the halo of independence from party politics, using the sideline as a pulpit and trashing those who, for whatever their politics and issues, are in the trenches trying in whatever way they can to improve the party, keep it honest, and move it in the direction so many independents claim is theirs.

    (Btw, sent you an e-mail. Are you a Java or C# guy?)

    Comment by Ignatius — February 25, 2009 @ 9:51 pm - February 25, 2009

  12. Filtered! I call foul!

    Comment by Ignatius — February 25, 2009 @ 9:52 pm - February 25, 2009

  13. Has there been a commenter on here more full of shit than PissJ?

    “I used to be a Republican blahblahblah Yakity-smakity!”

    As for this:

    Why oh why would any gay man or woman with the least bit of self respect want to be a part of the GOP is unfathomable.

    Because self respecting gays know that the hatred, bigotry, homophobia, anti-Semitism etc. resides and breeds on the liberal left. Because self respecting gays see the left’s “we love gays” donkey show for what it is. Because self respecting gays don’t support those who eschew accountability.

    But most of all, self respecting gays don’t have the crippling need for the adoration and approval others. Nor do self respecting gays wallow in a pool of self imposed victimhood or tolerate those who do.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 26, 2009 @ 1:21 am - February 26, 2009

  14. As adDave has conceeded, President Obama is a typical politician who will do or say anything to get elected. I do worry about a consolidation of power, in order to maintain power, that we’re seeing from this administration already.

    Does anyone remember President Clinton’s middle class tax cut? Or rather his “Well I was going to cut taxes, but golly gee, it’s such a mess that I can’t.” We’ll be lucky if we get that ‘admission’ from President Obama. “Did I say 250,000? I meant 170,000. Did I say 170,000? I meant 70,000. it’s ok, I’ll just demonize you a bit more, then spend the resources I’ve taken to fly around to make my point.”

    I think (to make this a gay issue for Tom) the biggest worry on the left would be when the pendulim swings back, all these institutions swinging back to hurt everyone who thinks they’re benefitting now.

    “You want more antidepressants under nationalized healthcare? Well our medical records show you’re gay, depression is too common in that sexual preference, sorry we’re going to deny it.”

    “You want the AIDS cocktail? Sorry, we’ve had to restrict access to that because of the cost, the waiting list is 6 months.”

    “You want artificial insemination? No, we had to nationalize the private industries some time ago. Here fill out a form and we’ll put you on the waiting list, it’s 3-5 years.”

    “You want to run for office? Sorry! We accidentally released all your health records to the press. Good luck explaining that, um, prostate problem. Oh, and I’m sure the people won’t mind that you told your doctor that you wanted to try reversion therapy. Pity it didn’t work.”

    “I understand you want to adopt, but right now the govenrment needs you and your partner to remain DINKs, so we can tax you at the higher rate. It’s for the good of the country, I’m sure you understand.”

    “Your partner is 76 and wants a pacemaker installed? Sorry, that’s a high risk operation and we can’t approve it.”

    Comment by The Livewire — February 26, 2009 @ 8:14 am - February 26, 2009

  15. Bugger, filter

    Comment by The Livewire — February 26, 2009 @ 8:15 am - February 26, 2009

  16. Wasn´t it in either the second or third debate that the two candidates were asked, given the financial crisis which programs would you delay if you become President? Didn´t Obama say that health care reform would be a back burner issue? He just moved it to the front. Another 650 billion dollars going into the national debt. He is hell bent on implementing his socialist agenda even if it bankrupts the nation.

    Does anybody believe AG Holder´s wanting to ban the sale of certain firearms will reduce the violence in Mexico? Doesn´t he know that the drug cartels don´t buy their firearms in sporting goods stores but in the underground market? It sounds more like an attempt to curb our Second Amendment rights.

    If Obama´s UN ambassador signs the UN´s hate speech resolution, it will violate our First Amendment right to free speeh. It will be a crime to speak ill of islam, but muslims can still call for the annihilation of Christians and Jews with impunity.

    Bankruptcy, socialism, and an abridgment of our Constitutional civil rights, the libs had the consummate gall to criticize GWB.

    Comment by Roberto — February 26, 2009 @ 11:43 am - February 26, 2009

  17. The hilarity of this comes when you realize that liberals like Obama want to put your healthcare into the hands of the same people who brought you such paragons of speed, efficiency, service, and caring as the IRS and the DMV.

    Then again, it’s probably like education or taxation; they have no intention of enrolling themselves or their families in the system into which they force everyone else.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 26, 2009 @ 1:37 pm - February 26, 2009

  18. […] President had a chance to show he was serious about fiscal responsibility, but he didn’t take it.  Jake Tapper reports that he’ll sign the pork-lade omnibus […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » No New Kind of Politics Here — March 3, 2009 @ 7:41 pm - March 3, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.