If you’re a Republican congressional candidate, the news keeps getting worse. Even the Wall Street Journal has weighed in with an editorial tracing “the roots of Republican failures in Congress.”
Just a few of the shortcomings cited: failure to make tax cuts permanent, failure to repeal the estate tax, failure to do anything on health care, failure to handle immigration, and an “epidemic” of earmark spending. Then there’s the steady drumbeat of corruption allegations.
“Too many Republicans now believe their purpose in Washington is keeping power for its own sake,” the editorial says.
Harsh words for an editorial board as conservative as the Journal’s. And to the extent that it reflects frustrations among fiscally conservative Republicans, another ominous sign for the GOP next month.
Posted by Dave Knadler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ProudMan on Too many exemptions
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
45 Comments
Republicans are so drunk with power that they won’t care what anybody thinks or says about them. The only thing they will remember is when the majority of the voters turn their butts out into the cold.
CX you know you like it! It’s kind of messed up, if it wasn’t for little boys catholic priest would have to honor their vow of celibacy.
Oh noooo…First they repugs lose Merle Haggard,and now The Journal?Wow, who’s left?That about covers both extremes.
I would hardly classify criticism of the Republicans not enatcing the conservative policies that the left hates as being good for the left.
You’re missing the point, Nathan. Whether it’s good for the left is irrelevant. The national Republican party has been betraying fiscal conservatives since the ’80s, but they still had the supply-siders and the conservative evangelicals.
Supply-side economics has long since lost its charm (pure greed pushed threw the new tax cuts), and the religious right vote was just lost. Anti-interventionists and isolationists were already pissed about NAFTA and Iraq.
There’s no telling how the “left” will fare, because, the emergence of grassroots Dems notwithstanding, the “left” does not control=s the opposition party (when those idiots don’t even oppose official torture and kangaroo courts, there’s nothing “left” about them).
What it does mean is that a large chunk of incumbent Repubs are going to get their asses handed to them.
Period.
Actually, I think it’s a good thing that the Republican Congress hasn’t enacted the things that the Wall Street Journal wants them to. “Fiscal conservatism” isn’t the same thing as cutting taxes (much less repealing the estate tax), supply side economics or making things easier for the investment class. If the Republican Congress had succeeded in enacting those policies AND succeeded in “doing something about health care and immigration”, then the deficit would even be more out of control than it is.
The lesson of the Bush Lite plus Republican Congress years is that true, effective fiscal conservatives are rare. A fiscal conservative is someone who is out to make sure that government has the funds it needs to do the jobs that the citizens need it to do, and who opposes pork. Leaving aside the obvious problem that one person’s needed spending is another person’s pork and vice versa, the above definition eliminates the following types of legislators from the ranks of fiscal conservatives:
1) Those whose priorities include maximizing funding within their district.
2) Those who reflexively try to cut or eliminate taxes whenever the opportunitity comes up, regardless of what the actual fiscal situation of the country is.
3) Those who confuse doing what we can with doing what we “should” (e.g., giving people in poverty the tools to survive and to hopefully get themselves out of need verses eliminating poverty).
4) Maximizing the wealth of the wealthy on the idea that the wealthy drive the economy. Plutocracies are not economically healthy, and generally are referred to as third world countries.
The difference between liberal and conservative, between democrat and republican, is not whether they spend government money but where they spend government money. The difference between a tax and spend liberal and a cut and spend conservative is that both can run up deficits, but guess which one runs them up faster?
The only way to promote true fiscal conservativism is to have a divided government so that each side has the strength to inhibit the fiscal irresponsibility of the other.
I recall from the FOXNEWS thread that research outfit that found them to be “centrist” considered the WSJ to be liberal. What a joke!
The republicans lack the gall,spin, and treachery that the democrats have as well as the 97% democratic (by their own admittion) media. I didn’t expect the congress or the President to undo 40 years of democratic control right away It takes decades to turn a whole country back to proud, self reliant, principled, truthful, courageous and wholesome. The journal article says that they fell far from their goals. They have flaws. Not That this is the end or that this is the first time in history. The republicans need to weed out the bad and move on with their plans not give up and turn it over to the democrats who have no plan except for more government and less responsibility. The things that were wrong with the Republicans this time around is they acted to much like democrats.
Say what? You gotta be kidding Polson:
gall, treachory – take a look at Rove, Abramoff, …
“97% democratic (by their own admittion) media” – got a source for that?
“proud, self reliant, principled, truthful, courageous and wholesome” – by playing with underage pages?
“The republicans lack the gall,spin, and treachery that the democrats have as well as the 97% democratic (by their own admittion) media.”
Ninety seven percent democratic? I call bullshit.
Both parties have plenty of gall, spin, and treachery. Partisanship and win at any cost breeds it. The only thing that inhibits it, other than people of good conscience (which, believe it or not, both parties also both have in more abundance than popular cynicism would ever allow themselves to believe), is divided government which forces the two sides to work together (and even then, you can have ridiculous escalation, e.g., the impeachment of Clinton because he lied about a blow job).
Right now, even if the Democrats take over the Congress (and I hope they do) I am still worried because their leadership (Pelosi and Reid) sucks.
Polson’s a wingnut winger,or some other neeto insult.Another scroll-over for the normal people.Haven’t read anything by IT yet that would even make decent propaganda.
Playing with pages isn’t a republican thing. Remember Barney Frank? Abramoff didn’t just deal with Republicans, he delt with democrats as well. I have forgotten the source for the Media but I have heard it many times 97,95,93 and there was no attempt to refute it.
Once again the liberals are calling names. shows your intelegence. Look back on the blogs and see if there is an idea from any liberals accept what is wrong with this country, it’s people and it’s leaders. all you will find is name calling. Try yelling, that’s mature too.
Democrat efforts at scandal mongering won’t have the desired effect on religious conservatives. The reason can be explained in one word. Abortion
Abortion trumps everything else. As long as there is no place other than the Republican party where pro-life people are welcome, that is where their loyalty will remain.
“I have heard it many times 97,95,93″
And I have heard it many times that we never landed on the moon and that little green men run the White House. I recently “heard” that Foley procured little boys for Bush and Rove to “party” with.
Barny Frank involved adults. He never claimed to be straight. Foley targeted minors while preaching straight ‘values’
Polson, you twit.You haven’t presented one shred of evidence to support any of your lies.Then you come back whining,oh those awful libs.The democrats have great plans and ideas that I have repeatedly posted links and pasted copies.What have you brought to the blog, besides a bunch of whiney lies?
Blaming this on FranksREALLY SHOWS YOUR INTELLIGENCE,scroll-over boy.Where’s all the facts about dems being invloved with delays’ buddy abramhoff? Ain’t none.Where’s the indictments on Barney Franks for pedophilia?AIN’T NONE.REALLY SHOWS YOUR INTELLIGENCE
First word out of your mouth “twit”. I haven’t call you a thing. That is one glaring difference in the Libs and conservatives. Review for me will you please a Democrat plan.
Polson – please review for me evidence to support (a) 97% dems (b) Barney Franks being a pedophile.
From your position of “gall, spin, and treachery” you complain about name-calling. HA!
Yeah right polson.Conservative champions like limpballs and billO have never used anything near as nasty as ‘twit’. RIGHT.Another stewpud thing to write.Twit is as twit writes.So here’s your first over-view of the dems plans.I admire the fact that you even asked to see any. Well on your way to non-twitism.There is plenty more and more specific. You can find it under the category: GOOGLE. HA
21st Century MilitaryTo Ensure Unparalleled Military Strength and Honor our Troops, we will:
Rebuild a state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America wherever and whenever necessary.
Guarantee that our troops have the protective gear, equipment, and training they need and are never sent to war without accurate intelligence and a strategy for success.
Enact a GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century that guarantees our troops — active, reserve, and retired — our veterans, and their families receive the pay, health care, mental health services, and other benefits they have earned and deserve.
Strengthen the National Guard, in partnership with the nation’s Governors, to ensure it is fully manned, equipped and available to meet missions at home and abroad.
War on TerrorTo Defeat Terrorists and Stop the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction, we will:
Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban.
Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.
Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.
Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or “dirty bombs.”
Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.
Homeland SecurityTo Protect America from Terrorism and Natural Disasters, we will:
Immediately implement the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission including securing national borders, ports, airports and mass transit systems.
Screen 100% of containers and cargo bound for the U.S. in ships or airplanes at the point of origin and safeguard America’s nuclear and chemical plants, and food and water supplies.
Prevent outsourcing of critical components of our national security infrastructure — such as ports, airports and mass transit — to foreign interests that put America at risk.
Provide firefighters, emergency medical workers, police officers, and other workers on the front lines with the training, staffing, equipment and cutting-edge technology they need.
Protect America from biological terrorism and pandemics, including the Avian flu, by investing in the public health infrastructure and training public health workers.IraqTo Honor the Sacrifice of Our Troops, we will:
Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.
Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.
Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.
Energy IndependenceTo Free America from Dependence on Foreign Oil, we will:
Achieve energy independence for America by 2020 by eliminating reliance on oil from the Middle East and other unstable regions of the world.
Increase production of alternate fuels from America’s heartland including bio-fuels, geothermal, clean coal, fuel cells, solar and wind; promote hybrid and flex fuel vehicle technology and manufacturing; enhance energy efficiency and conservation incentives.
What great plans.Enough to make ya’ goHMMMM…….
Now it’s your turn polson.What ya’ got?Anything positive about the repugs?Any negative stuff about he dems that’s actually true?My friend Ben and I are waiting patiently.Bring some facts and common sense to the blog and I’ll gladly quit with the twit.I have completely changed my mind and attitude before about people that do that. Right Ed?
http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasics.html
I had this saved so here is info on media bias. Obviously written from a right viewpoint, but quotes reliable polls demonstrating the strong left wing bias of reporters and journalists.
It’s been almost an hour polson.You still lookin for the dirt on Franks?What about the Abramhoff money?Still looking?
I checked it out, outie.Not convinced of course.Another winger source.IMHO, the so-called biased media are just the ones that didn’t buy into the winger spin.And if we want to bitch about media, I will refer back to the white house buying phony reporters and news stories. FACT.And just to rub it in, I will also bring up the fact that one of them was a gay male prostitute. IRONIC FACT.Okay, nuff o’ that.Now what about the GOP’s great plans and doings?
I didn’t see a thread on the “World Can’t wait” “protests”.Column from my local paper that is a good synapses of my opinion.(BTW Marylee goes to my church – I’m sure some of you will love that too :-)
Protest possible because America remains secureBy MARYLEE SHRIDER, contributing columnist | Friday, Oct 6 2006 9:40 PMLast Updated: Friday, Oct 6 2006 9:51 PM
In case you missed it, and I’m betting most of you did, there was an anti-Bush protest in downtown Bakersfield Thursday.
Seeing as how it was such a lovely autumn day — perfect for a protest — I decided to drop by Jastro Park for the local kick-off of World Can’t Wait Day, an all-day protest of the Bush administration, reportedly held in more than 230 cities around the world.
My intention was to blend in with the crowd, to try and make sense of their anger, their call for mass resistance and their ardent belief that President Bush should be impeached for “crimes against humanity.”
But there was no blending in with this particular crowd, mostly because they numbered around only a dozen or so when I arrived at the park. Unlike last May’s Day Without Immigrants boycott, in which thousands were convinced to walk off jobs and out of schools, similar calls by the anti-Bush bunch went pretty much unheeded, at least at the local level. Not that their small numbers discouraged the protesters, who repeatedly referred to the event as an “historic day in Bakersfield.”
They had pluck. They had passion. They had paranoia. All the makings of the ideal anti-conservative protest.
The protesters were earnest — I’d like to see that same passion in some conservatives I know — though it’s hard to put a finger on what, precisely, they were trying to accomplish. Organizers said their intent was to raise awareness of Bush’s crimes and to persuade passers-by to “join us” even while some in their midst were shouting slogans and brandishing signs that likely convinced many — even moderate liberals — to drive by with eyes averted.
The event started with a reading, via megaphone, of grievances against the current administration.
“Have you had enough,” a protester shouted, “of the illegal war in Iraq?”
What? You mean the war that both houses of Congress voted to authorize and once pledged to support?
“Have you had enough,” the protester continued, “of denying women the right to birth control and abortion?”
Was he talking about America? Where abortion has been legal for 30 years and even underage teens can get abortions without permission from their parents?
“Have you had enough,” he shouted on, “of Christian fundamentalism?”
Ouch, that hurt. If memory serves, the First Amendment guarantees that Americans may be as fundamentally Christian as they like. At least it did the last time I checked.
And on it went.
The protest ended in the evening, at the bell in front of Kern County Superior Court. There were roughly 75 protesters there engaged in standard protest activities — banging on drums, waving banners and parading in costume.
It was all rather carnival-like, save for one thing — the same fear-mongering protesters claim they despise in Bush appeared pervasive among the group. They congratulated one another on “having the courage” to come out and protest, cheering when local activist Doug McAfee said “we had to overcome fear, we had to overcome government cameras to be out here.”
Government cameras? Are they serious?
If the protesters’ numbers, here and in other American cities, were small it’s because they cling to the illusion that they are systematically losing their civil rights. The protesters fail to persuade because they are not protesting what America is, but what they imagine America to be — and most Americans are smart enough to know it.
If Thursday’s march proved anything, it was the opposite of what the protesters intended. In America, even in Bakersfield, you can spike your hair, bang away on drums and yell profanities into a megaphone. You can even carry ludicrous signs that read “9/11 Was An Inside Job,” as several of the protesters did.
You can do all that because in America our rights are secure.
No matter what the protesters say.
Even based on outlander’s link the media is hardly the liberal bastion Polson claims. A small majority “leaning” liberal rather than “leaning” conservative is hardly “97% democratic”. In fact, the pie chart shows a solid majority as “moderate” – i.e. the ‘mushy middle’
If the Grand Old Pedophiles going to claim that the Wall Street Journal is another part of this fictional liberal media? Probably, they never met a lie they didn’t like.
Unlike you this blog isn’t my life. I have been helping my neighbor who just returned from the hospital having knee surgery. Not your plan is that your plan or is there a Democratic leader behind your ideas Most of it is good ideas. Not very liberal I am afraid. I realize that democrats need to posture like they are for a strong defense because of the climate here after 911, but they have traditionally voted the other way. I guess I will have to spend some time and find the references to the Media’s bias. I will do it in my spare time. You can seeth and call me names while you wait.”Liberal”
I ain’t holding my breath waiting for your substantiation of your 97% BS Polson.
Looks like there might be a couple of upsets today in NCAA football!
Outlander?
If doing away with abortion is your or anyones sole consideration in voting, then you and they are behaving with a blind zeal I would honestly call dangerous.
I think Kia is of a similar bent if I remember correctly.
Say this with me. “Abortion is never going to go away.” Keep repeating that to yourself until you accept it because it is a hard cold fact that you will never change.
Meanwhile their are plenty of other considerations when voting that you should be thinking about while you acquaint yourselves with reality. Vote with them in mind.
Polson? I don’t consider you worth the time. There is no depth to you. You are hard core conservative and all you folks and your part of the GOP is about is money. On every single issue you can name the GOP is reduced to….money and the rich getting richer. American dream? Bullshit. You people killed that under Reagan.
Now Tracy has put up the Democratic agenda you asked for. I turn it back on you. What does the GOP have? More tax cuts our kids will have to pay for? Another war or three for them to fight? Hey let’s just get rid of ALL entitlements. That about size the plans of your party up? That’s what it’s been for 20 years and that is why I waved the GOP goodbye those 20 some years ago. I can’t see a thing has changed.
A comment on abortion. We have elected Republicans over and oner again; nothing has changed. Might it be time to try a different strategy to at least REDUCE demand for abortion? Perhaps establish better birth-control availability, education, availability of alternatives, etc? As with Iraq – the currect course is not working. It’s time to try a different approach.
The GOP uses the abortion issue as their wedge. The GOP is not really wanting to solve the abortion issue.
Why would they? They can’t afford to give up that golden goose that brings in millions of dollars from the Religious Right and gets these people riled up and out to vote for the GOP?
Wasn’t the actual abortion rate down during Clinton’s 2 terms? Perhaps that was because more people were working and had health insurance? Just a thought.
CR – as I recall you are correct. And I think it has gone back up. Those would be good statistics to dig up.
I still maintain that what I do is more effective at decreasing abortion than those guys picketing Tiller or shooting him.
Ben, lucee, CR
All good points.
Outlander and Kia?
If your vote is inspired by your faith, you need to realize as many Christians are that there are other issues you should be considering.
The care and love of your fellow man is better practiced in the policies of Democrats.
The stewardship of creation is better left to those who have demonstrated the greatest concern for it. Again Democrats.
I could go on.
Reported number of legal abortions in the United States for selected years according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Abortion Surveillance Report, November 25, 20052:
1972 — 586,760
1980 — 1,297,606
1985 — 1,328,570
1990 — 1,429,247
1992 — 1,359,146
1995 — 1,210,883
1996 — 1,225,937
1997 — 1,186,039
*1998 — 884,273
*1999 — 861,789
*2000 — 857,475
*2001 — 853,485
*2002 — 854,122
*At first glance, the table listed above appears to show a considerable drop in the number of reported abortions performed in the U.S. between 1997 and 1998. Upon closer examination, however, the decrease is more moderate.
Here’s why: In 1998 and 1999, the number of abortions reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) excluded data from four states – Alaska, California, New Hampshire and Oklahoma – that did not provide information. Data from Oklahoma was included in the 2000, 2001 and 2002 statistics. In order to compare reported abortions in 1997 to the subsequent years, the CDC recalculated abortion totals for 1995, 1996 and 1997, minus these non-reporting states. The adjusted number of reported abortions are as follows:
Year19951996199719981999200020012002 Reported Abortions908,243934,549900,171884,273861,789857,475853,485854,122 Change from Previous Yearunavailable3 percent increase3.5 percent decrease2 percent decrease2.5 percent decrease0.5 percent decrease0.5 percent decrease0.1 percent increase
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I will try to find some more recent numbers. It is clear, however, that horrible satanic Clinton fostered policies that DECREASED abortion incidence.
Seems to have plateaued since 2000:
Reported abortions in the United States, by year 1973 – 2005 (chart)
http://www.mccl.org/abortion_statistics.htm
I don’t consider abortion to be the reason for my vote for one candidate or another. I’m not stupid enough to post here or announce in any former that abortion to be made illegal. That would probably lead to a civil war in this country as sick as that would be.I do think the legality of abortion should be up to individual states. The only state I would imagine would vote for it to be illegal is Utah (South Dakota possibly – the movement there is surprising.).My stance on looking at a candidate with regards to abortion is where do they stand with groups such as NOW, Planned Parenthood and other leftist organizations that exist in my opinion for the sole purpose of seeing as many abortions performed as possible.
“NOW, Planned Parenthood and other leftist organizations that exist in my opinion for the sole purpose of seeing as many abortions performed as possible.”
Care to substantiate that claim? I have known some PP and NOW people over the years and they definitely did NOT oppose supporting alternatives to abortion.
Makes you wonder why the blog started with “Journal chatises GOP”
Will the Democrats get equal time to be hacked and slahed on the blog circuit? :)
I don’t want to be labeled as a woman-hater, NOW was certainly important in the days of Susan B. Anthony and before Sexual Harassment laws. Planned Parenthood is great at giving teenager’s birth control.So in a “perfect world” where abortions would no longer be needed (not because of laws but because of a change of hearts – this includes both the unwed and those impregnated by violent crime – and the change of heart I mean is by the violent criminal)then what would be the purpose of these organizations to exist?
You intrigue me sometimes Kia.
You aren’t a full on “fundie”. But the platitudes are still there. Maybe if you could get past THEM you would see things differently.
“seeing as many abortion performed as possible”?
See THAT is a platitude. Folks say it over and over again. But if you really THINK about it, it doesn’t make any sense. Women are not being pulled into abortion clinics. I am formerly militantly “pro life” now militantly pro choice. In my “pro life” days, I had been known to ask young women “Why do you want to murder your baby?” Now that I am pro choice, I don’t remember EVER asking a visibly pregnant woman:”Have you considered abortion?” The concept of anyone advocating or encouraging abortion is absurd! No one does that.
“NOW, Planned Parenthood and other leftist organizations that exist in my opinion for the sole purpose of seeing as many abortions performed as possible.”
Fortunately it is your opinion and carries the appropriate weight as such. If you knew about PP you would know that they don’t ever suggest abortion. If a woman wants an abortion they help her understand why she wants one as well as suggest alternatives. Abortion is the last option because often the woman has regrets and it is tough on her mentally (not all women).
“Planned Parenthood is great at giving teenager’s birth control.”
Make up your mind. Do you want them to give as many abortions as possible or do you want them to help women not get pregnant in the first place.
Nobody ’seething’ here polson.Just gigglin’ at your futile attempt to defend the indefensible.
Come back any time and launch a few adjectives back at me, just for fun, huh?