Breaking: Republicans Promise Conservatism
Wow. Republicans took off their ties and visited a hardware store in Virginia to make their "Pledge with America". I guess this is different from Newt Gingrich's infamous "Contract with America" from 1994 in that it's merely a "pledge", and not a "contract" with contracted deliverables. I haven't read it yet so I won't mock too much, but I can't say I was surprised to hear my local-radio announcer sum it all up as "reduced taxes, less regulation, and smaller government". Let's hold hands and–oh, I don't know, sing "Kumbaya"?–and remember the golden Bush years of bedget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy, lack of regulation leading to melt-down of financial markets, and the huge expansion in federal spending that apparently indicates "smaller government".
All of that aside, this is what stood out for me as I started reading about the big news:
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) summed it up: "The point we make, in this preamble to our pledge, is that we are not going to be any different than what we've been."
[quoted by Andy Towle, "Read: The GOP's Election Year 'Pledge to America'", Towleroad, 23 September 2010.]
I can easily imagine that the point of the remark might be to assuage the fears of, shall we say, "traditional" conservatives who worry about their party's being waylaid by fanatical, wacky teabaggers, but…
…but, isn't "not going to be any different than what we've been" the obviously tautological definition of what it means to be "conservative"?
In: All, Current Events, Raised Eyebrows Dept.
9 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Friday, 24 September 2010 at 12.31
Permalink
…remember the golden Bush years of bedget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy, lack of regulation leading to melt-down of financial markets, and the huge expansion in federal spending that apparently indicates "smaller government".
Setting aside a few quibbles, such as spending, not tax cuts, busts the budget, and much more than lack of regulation gave us the financial melt down, there was not much conservative about the Bush years. Liberal spending, liberal use of the military, liberal on immigration. Not much is conserved. People go to Washington to start new programs or help out a constituency. The choice is how much liberalism to foist, and what to watch for is how the collapse occurs.
on Sunday, 26 September 2010 at 00.30
Permalink
I thought Boehner's statement about "not going to be any different than what we've been" was fittingly macabre as we head toward Halloween. Not unlike Jeffrey Dahmer cheerfully inviting someone, "Come on over and let's have a bite."
The perfect SNL skit on this would have the assembled fellow naysayers, obstructionists and spoilers follow Boehner's statement by breaking into a WW I-era song, "We Did it Before and We Can Do it Again."
Rightsaidfred's lame attempt to conflate Bush and what his neocon wrecking crew did with liberals and liberalism is what's to be expected of the political right. They compound their incompetence, stupidity and perversity by dispensing BS. It's a lot like punks vandalizing a home, and when a judge asks what they thought they were doing, one says, "We did them a favor because the place was a dump."
on Monday, 27 September 2010 at 08.48
Permalink
SW, you have learned your shaming language well.
Under Bush, from 2000 to 2008, the federal budget went from 1.3 trillion to 2.6 trillion. What did we get from that extra money? Please fill in the blank ________________ .
Under Obama, we got a one year INCREASE of 1.3 trillion. What did we get for our money? Please fill in the blank _____________________________________________ .
We have gotten very little from this LIBERAL spending.
Your reply is more of the same. The hard Left complains because normal people won't go along with their policy creations. And when the Left gets their way and the usual failure follows, the excuses and blame shifting begins.
on Monday, 27 September 2010 at 15.06
Permalink
We got a whole lot of jobs that would have been lost saved and more created in 2010 so far than during Bush's entire reign of error, for starters. And going forward, we will have a whole lot of infrastructure repairs, upgrades and replacements that were needed and are useful, benefiting business and the public in ways that include saving time and money, to enhancing safety.
We also got a start on restoring the economy, as opposed to standing around with hands in pockets saying que sera while what was left of it went down in flames.
Charge that $1.3 trillion not to the repair crew, but to the wrecking crew. Had it not been for the latter's incompetence, stupidity and ideology, we woudn't have had to spend it.
While your waxing fiscal conservative, RSF, cogitate on the fact Obama has not raised taxes, has cut a variety of taxes, passed health care reform so it won't require big tax increases, and in another example of cleaning up after Bush, Cheney and the wrecking crew, put the Mideast wars on budget instead of on credit.
Sorry reality doesn't fit your script, RSF, but that's the way it is. You want to do something for fiscal responsibility, vote Democratic. You won't get what you want 100 percent but you will come a lot closer, and have a better country to live in as well.
on Thursday, 30 September 2010 at 03.25
Permalink
SW, all your statements are inaccurate, misleading, and not reflective of the dynamics involved.
Government cannot go out and buy jobs/economic growth.
on Thursday, 30 September 2010 at 12.12
Permalink
W had dynamics? I never realized he had such depths.
Why can't government go out and buy jobs. I know, the natural picture here is that rich people start companies and then buy jobs, thus fulfilling market-force prophecies. But suppose all the rich people who would, according to natural forces, be buying these jobs (well, workers) are busy gathering money elsewhere (derivatives, say) and so they pay agents to buy the jobs (workers) for them. Still , market-force prophecies are satisfied. Now, what difference in economic growth does it make if these agents happen to be called "federal government workers"?
on Saturday, 2 October 2010 at 06.54
Permalink
The economy needs PRODUCTIVE jobs. If we just hire people to dig unneeded holes and fill them in, we are at a net loss.
If the government is "buying" productive jobs, then that is okay. I'm a bit cynical. I see lots of sinecures and no-show jobs come down from DC et al.
on Sunday, 3 October 2010 at 11.06
Permalink
I know of no rule that says private-sector jobs –> productive / public-sector jobs –> non-productive . What shall we think of the Hoover Dam, one of the biggest holes ever dug and filled in? Eisenhower's interstate highway system / civil defense system? Lots of holes dug and filled in for that one.
But, being the liberal that I am, I rather like a lot of the output of the WPA, too, especially public art.
on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 at 00.42
Permalink
I have no argument with you in this case. I agree that public sector jobs can be productive.
It is harder to manage the feedback mechanisms in the public sphere, i.e. things tend to head toward the East German or The Congo model.