Most party leaders in Washington are stupid – detached, played out, stuck in the wisdom they learned when they were coming up, in '78 or '82 or '94. Whatever they learned then, they think pertains now. In politics especially, the first lesson sticks. For Richard Nixon, everything came back to Alger Hiss.
They are also – Hill leaders, lobbyists, party speakers – successful, well-connected, busy and rich. They never guessed, back in '86, how government would pay off! They didn't know they'd stay! They came to make a difference and wound up with their butts in the butter.
And:
"This was a real wakeup call for us," someone named Robert M. Duncan, who is chairman of the Republican National Committee, told the New York Times. This was after Mississippi. "We can't let the Democrats take our issues." And those issues would be? "We can't let them pretend to be conservatives," he continued. Why not? Republicans pretend to be conservative every day.
Yep.
At this rate, Americans will be saddled with costly and inefficient farm legislation for the foreseeable future, even though only a tiny percentage of Americans benefit from these programs. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, never has Congress taken so much from so many for the benefit of so few.
The Editors at NRO
Here's a novel thought - maybe the GOP Congressmen should quit worrying about the Dems "stealing their issues" and start casting votes for the good of the American people.
Peggy pegged it.
Re: the farm bill and the USDA -- There was an old woman who swallowed a Sow, I don't know how she swallowed a Sow...She swallowed the sow to catch the dog, she swallowed the dog to catch the cat, swallowed the cat to catch the mouse, etc. ...you know how it turned out...
I still don't get it. Look at this economy. Who doesn't believe that "The Market" can solve any problem at this point? What corner of America hasn't resigned itself to the corporatization of almost every aspect of the economy? What Democrat in America today can run on a policy of raising taxes to expand the welfare state? Whose taxes haven't been cut over the last 30 years?
The only thing conservatives haven't managed to do is cut programs to the depth that they would desire. And the reason for that, obviously, is that you are talking about politicians who must be re-elected every two, four, or six years. Columnists can blow hot air for the rest of their lives, politicians have to face angry seniors who don't want their social security or medicare payments cut.
Conservative ideas sound good, but they don't work in the American political arena. Even Reagan learned that lesson back in 1982. You all are real good at cutting taxes, but you can't balance a budget to save your life. A real conservative would be advocating higher taxes and a reduction in government services in order to balance the budget. Instead, any Republican who dares mention the idea of raising taxes is ridden out of town on a rail. So we spend $16 billion a month in Iraq, we give the wealthy their tax cuts, and we swell the debt to $10 trillion. This is not bad conservative governing. This is just bad governing.
Yeah, with all that animal fat, her cholesterol went through the roof and she died of a heart attack.
What Democrat in America today can run on a policy of raising taxes to expand the welfare state?
Hillary, Obama? (What am I missing?)
Kennedy had it right
Get out of Nam, increase the tax base, not the taxes.
Johnson funded the war with our social security, Nixon spent money trying to figure out if it was his Ass or a hole in the ground.
Democrats raise taxes to spend money and not balance the budget, and increase the welfare burden. Republicans cut taxes and don't balance the budget.
Our society is no longer the blue color society that built steel mills, cars and railroads, we are a society of money shufflers that just increase the cost of living for the lower tiers of our society by dealing from the bottom of the money deck and taking the cream off the top of the deck. The blue collar jobs are now out of the country ....... or Indiana.
Illinois has an overwhelmingly elected Governor so damned dumb and arrogant that he flies a taxpayer funded plane back and forth to work in the City he is supposed to reside in. Not only that he bases the plane in Springfield, so when he files to work, the plane flies to Chicago to pick him up, back to Springfield with him in it, takes him back home to reside Chicago and then flies back empty to Springfield. Hello....Hello.....
The Attorney General should be prosecuting the "damned dumb and arrogant" Governor for Constitutional violations of the residing in Springfield requirement and getting hundreds of thousands of dollars back from him, but she and her Dad are too busy trying figure out how she can be Governor and continue to fly to Chicago with our plane.
Now that tobacco is outlawed in Illinois, we are safe from second hand whatever but are now suffering from political bulimia and can use all the spittoons to barf in after we read about our leaders.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
Hillary, Obama? (What am I missing?)
That's a red herring. If they are going to spend less, which by any credible account they are, then a slight bump in taxes will leave us with a much, much healthier economy.
It makes no sense to isolate the areas they are going to increase spending, when the overall champions for bloated overspending and deficits are the last three Republican Presidents.
Actually, Obama's plan includes tax cuts for all earners making less than $75K a year and he effectively eliminates the income tax for any senior making less than $50K a year. This was explained quite clearly last fall.
Does he raise taxes on the highest earners? You bet. But his plan is based on middle class cuts. The difference, of course, is that he will cover those lost revenues by raising taxes on the wealthiest. Whereas conservatives tend to do the math backwards: cut taxes on the wealthiest and make it up by taxing the lower and middle classes in new and creative ways.
But either way, both candidates will be running on economic plans that prominently feature tax cuts for most of the voters, and cuts in wasteful government spending. Conservative economic ideas continue to rule the day.
Nobody is addressing the national debt, the billions going to Iraq, Medicare going down the tube in a few years. All I hear is " fluf " from the Democrats and McCain's promise to do the same as George Bush but better and faster at execution. HOW ABOUT ADDRESSING SOME REAL ISSUES? There are NO conservatives running for President so quite looking.
In response to Local Voter:
The majority of Republican politicians aren't addressing it because the majority of Republican voters aren't forcing the issue -- yet. Politicians like McCain can take on traditional Democratic issues like the environment and neglect traditional Republican issues because his base isn't threatening to walk out on him. It will take more congressional loses like in Mississippi and the all but inevitable Obama presidency to wake up the sleeping GOP masses and stir some GOP politicians to fight the intertia holding them lockstep in the shadow of the Bush big-government, nation building, brand of neoconservatism.
You've got the Ron Paul brand of conservatism laughed at, Newt pleading with the "threat" of a Bob Barr candidacy, and Chuck "who?" Baldwin running in the Constitution Party all threatening to take a handful a percentage points away from McCain. These points will of course then be blamed by the party establishment and the media as giving the election to Obama. What may take a few years to sink in however, is that we gave the election to Obama (or insert any D) in the last six plus years.
Within the two major parties there may not be a conservative running, but I'm going to find one that is running, and make my silent protest.
Locomotive Breath. Can we start over now?
Zogby poll of 7586 likely voters indicates that 76% of Republicans are Not Satisfied with McCain as the GOP Nominee, but interestingly only 11% of Republicans are saying that they would never vote for him. On the other hand, Democrats seem satisfied (82%) with their candidates (Hillary and Obama) but 22% of the Dems say they would never vote for Hillary. Overall, 48% of voters said they were dissatisfied with the field of candidates.
"Qui autem perdere quaerunt animam meam, introibunt in prfunda terrae. Tradentur in manus gladii, portio vulpium erunt."
"Qui autem perdere quaerunt animam meam, introibunt in profunda terrae. Tradentur in manus gladii, portio vulpium erunt."
But those that seek my soul, to destroy it, shall go into the lower parts of the earth.
They shall fall by the sword: they shall be a portion for foxes. - Psalm 62.9-10
thanks for the links, D. Boon.
The Dems are not doing a very good job of getting that message out - no tax increases for anyone making less than $250,000.
Maybe I'm not paying attention.
Weren't there some recent votes on the extension of the Bush tax rates?