Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: A GOP Pledge to Do Nothing
Source:
David Frum
URL Source: http://www.frumforum.com/a-gop-pledge-to-do-nothing
Published: Sep 24, 2010
Author: David Frum
Post Date: 2010-09-24 10:38:08 by go65
Keywords: None
Views: 31189
Comments: 49
I had a good chuckle at Erick Erickson’s enraged piece on the Republican pledge, now being circulated by Democratic spinmeisters. Question for Erickson: What did he expect? Here is the GOP cruising to a handsome election victory. Did you seriously imagine that they would jeopardize the prospect of victory and chairmanships by issuing big, bold promises to do deadly unpopular things? But if the document is unsurprising, it’s also unsurprising that Erickson and those who think like him would find it enraging. The “Pledge to America” is a repudiation of the central, foundational idea behind the Tea Party. Tea Party activists have been claiming all year that there exists in the United States a potential voting majority for radically more limited government. The Republican “Pledge to America” declares: Sorry, we don’t believe that. We shall cut spending where we can – reform the legislative process in important ways – and sever the federal guarantee for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Republicans will redirect the federal government to a new path that is less expensive and intrusive than the status quo. But if you want promises of radical change? No. Too risky. We don’t think the voters want that – not the smaller, older, richer, whiter electorate that votes in non- presidential years, much less the bigger, younger, poorer, less white electorate of presidential years. And even that smaller, older, richer, whiter electorate is highly wary of cuts to programs that benefit them, Medicare above all. But the real news is this: You can primary a Bob Bennett, you can nominate a Sharron Angle, you can balk Karl Rove and Mike Castle – but when decision hour arrives, the leadership of the party rejects the assessment of the American electorate offered by Rush Limbaugh, Dick Armey and for that matter Erick Erickson. Yet at the same time, we so-called RINOs can take no pleasure in this document. Yes, there is good in it. (Putting legislative language online 72 hours in advance seems Good Government 101.) The silly bits are not too silly: the promise to cite specific constitutional language is an empty sop to those so-called constitutionalists who vainly hope to revive the John Randolph school of constitutional interpretation. But the true sad news is that this is not a document to govern with in the recessionary year 2010. It’s fine to reject Tea Party illusions. But without an alternative modern Republican affirmative program, the GOP will find itself at risk of being captured and controlled by special interests instead. The most admirable thing about the Tea Party is its zeal to find a bigger message for the Republican Party than: do what K Street wants. The message offered by the Tea Party may have been unworkable, unrealistic, or worse – but at least it was large and public-spirited. I’d like to see a Modern Republicanism that responds better to the needs of the country, while retaining still the Tea Party’s reforming spirit. What I fear is the worst of all worlds: a Republican majority that rejects not only extremist ideas, but all ideas.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Badeye, lucysmom, sneakypete, war, skip intro, fred mertz, brian s, no gnu taxes (#0)
The Republican “Pledge to America” declares: Sorry, we don’t believe that. We shall cut spending where we can – reform the legislative process in important ways – and sever the federal guarantee for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Republicans will redirect the federal government to a new path that is less expensive and intrusive than the status quo. But if you want promises of radical change? No. Too risky. We don’t think the voters want that – not the smaller, older, richer, whiter electorate that votes in non- presidential years, much less the bigger, younger, poorer, less white electorate of presidential years. And even that smaller, older, richer, whiter electorate is highly wary of cuts to programs that benefit them, Medicare above all. pass the popcorn....
Looks like you're the designated fill in poster for Brian S today . . . Anyway, I can't find anything in this article to really disagree with. I know you're a partisan Dim. Me? As a conservative, I think I hate the republican party more than the dems. With the dems - you KNOW what you're going to get. While all the 'pubs do is run on conservative, good sounding platitudes and then, once elected, govern like the statists they are. Christie in NJ might be an exception - we shall see. But the rest of them? Pfffffffft.
______________________________________________________________________________ Christie is like a dumb carpenter. He has the remodeling plan but he doesn't understand basic engineering.
war - I know you have a hard-on against Christie. Which makes him all the better in my book :-)
______________________________________________________________________________ Towns suffering from budget shortfalls...pension plan severely underfunded. And his administration can't fill out a basic form. He's facing a continuing deficit with nothing left to cut and a credit rating that is going to make borrowing difficult. Now he wants to cut taxes. How is this fat fuck different from Kean or Whitman or Bush or Reagan? But tell me again how you prefer dems over Republicans.
That's fair. However there are a lot of folks here who think that it will be different "this time" as they ignore that a GOP take over of Congress means that guys like Boehner, Kantor and McDonnell, who all voted for Medicare Part D and TARP, will take the leadership reigns.
And All Aboard to the 1994 Contract On AMerica!!!: That brings us to 1994, the next in the series of “conservative landslides.” Of the 38 percent of the electorate who took part, a bare majority voted Republican. “Republicans claimed about 52 percent of all votes cast for candidates in contested House seats, slightly better than a two-point improvement from 1992,” when the Democrats won, the polling director of the Washington Post reported. One out of six voters described the outcome as “an affirmation of the Republican agenda.” A “more conservative Congress” was considered an issue by a rousing 12 percent of the voters. An overwhelming majority had never heard of Gingrich’s Contract with America, which articulated the Republican agenda and has since been relentlessly implemented, with much fanfare about the popular will, and less said about the fact that it is the first contract in history with only one party signing, and the other scarcely knowing of its existence.
When asked about the central components of the Contract, large majorities opposed almost all, notably the central one: large cuts in social spending. Over 60 percent of the population wanted to see such spending increased at the time of the elections. Gingrich himself was highly unpopular, even more than Clinton, whose ratings are very low; and that distaste has only persisted as the program has been implemented.
______________________________________________________________________________ I don't hold out a lot of hope for it being different this time. The only thing is - we ARE broke. The laws of economics may finally kick in and force things to be different.
______________________________________________________________________________ WHere is the source?
The GOP is doing just fine here. And the Democrat plan to create jobs is....? (laughing) Thats right, they don't have one.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
GOP - Kean I think - put a plan in about 25 years ago that polled municipal revenues. Why? Who runs the pension plans? Who promised perpetual funding? The pension plans are an obligation of the state. So? Tim Geitner - GOOD GREIF!the TREASURY SEC'Y - can't do Turbo Tax. BFD Oh...they ALL do it. Glad to see you come around on that. Bullbarack! There's always room to cut. Budgets are governed by statute. Some spending is mandatory. Classy. So you now hate him because he's fat? It underscores a lack of self control.
as long as you can print more money you aren't broke.
How'd that work out for the Weimar Republic?
______________________________________________________________________________ Weimar did just fine after it deflated its war debt. IN fact, it turned around fairly quickly.
GOP - Kean I think - put a plan in about 25 years ago that polled municipal revenues. The pension plans are an obligation of the state. One certainly couldn't run a household or business that way. Oh...they ALL do it. Glad to see you come around on that. Budgets are governed by statute. Some spending is mandatory. It underscores a lack of self control. Do you struggle with anything?
______________________________________________________________________________ As long as you ignore the funny little guy with the funny mustache . . .
______________________________________________________________________________ Do you struggle with anything? I didn't realize war was running for office.
When he moved against Weimar he failed. Mostly because everyone was economically happy. It took a GLOBAL depression to really give the guy with the funny little mustache a goose.
They WERE properly paid for until Whitman "borrowed" from them because her insane tax cuts caused HUGE deficits. OF COURSE they all do it. YOU'RE the one who holds Rs to different standards than Ds I've voted for more republicans than democrats. In fact, it's not even close.
Yea...when I put steamed brussels sprouts into my egg white omelet, I get really bad gas...
OK - that explains why mininggold showed up in post #19
______________________________________________________________________________ Yeah right troll. You are the gas. Of course when posters are compared to the candidates they are discussing (as if any of that is relevant) that's okay with you.
And are you okay with that?
______________________________________________________________________________ And you are always trying to manipulate the discourse here. If he's 400 pounds or on the way to it you betcha! And it's relevant as long as he's running for office or remains in the public domain.
FWIW< I don't think you're a troll. But I do believe that you and are opposite sides of the same coin...
Big difference, their currency wasn't the global standard. We can only go bankrupt when the dollar becomes worthless.
An interviewer was trying to pin a GOP candidate down on exactly how he would cut government spending. Backed into a corner, the candidate finally said he would role back the budget on everything to 2008 levels except the Department of Defense and Homeland Security (I wish they'd dump that name). Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.
How about a 20 percent across the board spending cut then freeze What about 15 percent? 10 percent? Any takers at 5 percent? You're a loser if you can't at least say 2 percent.
Me too. And the entire department too.
I'd go for 25%, but we look at this the same.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
______________________________________________________________________________ I'm not sure what you meant here. Did you leave out "I" or "you" (both might apply. Sometimes I'm on the opposite side of myself)
______________________________________________________________________________ Big difference, their currency wasn't the global standard. We can only go bankrupt when the dollar becomes worthless. Okay, help me out here. If you keep printing money, doesn't the value of the money (compared against other currencies or a commodity like gold) go down? Doesn't hyperinflation happen? Isn't the end point of hyperinflation a worthless currency?
______________________________________________________________________________ That depends on the demand for the dollars. We've printed a lot of cash in the last few years and yet inflation is flat.
Well, I suppose it's obvious that I'm not an economist. On the surface, that makes no sense. Supply (of dollars) is up. Value (Inflation) is relatively stable. Which means the final variable (demand) should be up. But it's not. What else is in play? The bad economy? And, if so, does that mean possibly that - if the economy were to improve (say the jobless rate went down) - that hyperinflation is lurking in the background?
______________________________________________________________________________ Yes.
Don't pay attention to FOREX...look at gold and the currency it is pegged to. There is a HUGE demand for dollars and gold is but one dollar investment.
What about 15 percent? 10 percent? Any takers at 5 percent? You're a loser if you can't at least say 2 percent. True, the document talks about the need to cut spending. But as far as I can see, there’s only one specific cut proposed — canceling the rest of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which Republicans claim (implausibly) would save $16 billion. That’s less than half of 1 percent of the budget cost of those tax cuts. As for the rest, everything must be cut, in ways not specified — “except for common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops.” In other words, Social Security, Medicare and the defense budget are off-limits. So what’s left? Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won’t cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: “No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.” From Paul Krugman, 9/23/10 In short, the Republicans plan to cut nothing.
Starve the beast? Even Stockman is backing away from that.
Comments (42 - 49) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe “Pledge to America” is a repudiation of the central, foundational idea behind the Tea Party. Tea Party activists have been claiming all year that there exists in the United States a potential voting majority for radically more limited government.
And the Conservative plan to create jobs is......?????
#2. To: go65 (#0)
But the real news is this: You can primary a Bob Bennett, you can nominate a Sharron Angle, you can balk Karl Rove and Mike Castle – but when decision hour arrives, the leadership of the party rejects the assessment of the American electorate offered by Rush Limbaugh, Dick Armey and for that matter Erick Erickson.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#3. To: Ignore Amos (#2)
(Edited)
#4. To: war (#3)
Christie is like a dumb carpenter. He has the remodeling plan but he doesn't understand basic engineering.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#5. To: Ignore Amos (#4)
#6. To: Ignore Amos (#2)
Anyway, I can't find anything in this article to really disagree with. I know you're a partisan Dim. Me? As a conservative, I think I hate the republican party more than the dems.
And the Conservative plan to create jobs is......?????
#7. To: go65 (#1)
#8. To: All (#7)
#9. To: war (#5)
Towns suffering from budget shortfalls...
Why? Who runs the towns? Are taxpayers leaving those towns? Do you want Christie to build a fence around NJ to keep the "taxpayer" class from voting with their feet? pension plan severely underfunded.
Why? Who runs the pension plans? Who promised perpetual funding? And his administration can't fill out a basic form.
So? Tim Geitner - GOOD GREIF!the TREASURY SEC'Y - can't do Turbo Tax. BFD He's facing a continuing deficit with nothing left to cut and a credit rating that is going to make borrowing difficult.
Bullbarack! There's always room to cut. Now he wants to cut taxes.
NJ has one of the highest - if not THE highest - tax rates in the nation. Again, do you propose the Christie build a fence around NJ to keep taxpayers in? How is this fat fuck different from Kean or Whitman or Bush or Reagan?
Classy. So you now hate him because he's fat?
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#10. To: go65 (#6)
However there are a lot of folks here who think that it will be different "this time" as they ignore that a GOP take over of Congress means that guys like Boehner, Kantor and McDonnell, who all voted for Medicare Part D and TARP, will take the leadership reigns.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#11. To: mcgowanjm (#8)
#12. To: go65 (#1)
#13. To: Ignore Amos (#9)
Why? Who runs the towns?
#14. To: Ignore Amos (#10)
The only thing is - we ARE broke. The laws of economics may finally kick in and force things to be different.
And the Conservative plan to create jobs is......?????
#15. To: go65 (#14)
as long as you can print more money you aren't broke.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#16. To: Ignore Amos (#15)
#17. To: war (#13)
Why? Who runs the towns?
OK - so 25 years ago, a plan was put into place to delay the inevitable. Now the day of reckoning is here. Why? Who runs the pension plans? Who promised perpetual funding?
It's a pretty piss-poor way to run a state, don't you think? To take on obligations that you cannot properly fund? So? Tim Geitner - GOOD GREIF!the TREASURY SEC'Y - can't do Turbo Tax. BFD
OF COURSE they all do it. YOU'RE the one who holds Rs to different standards than Ds Bullbarack! There's always room to cut.
And some spending isn't mandatory. Start there. Classy. So you now hate him because he's fat?
Lack of self-control can manifest itself in many ways. He apparently struggles with over-eating.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#18. To: war (#16)
Weimar did just fine . . .
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#19. To: Ignore Amos, war (#17)
Lack of self-control can manifest itself in many ways. He apparently struggles with over-eating.
#20. To: Ignore Amos (#18)
#21. To: Ignore Amos (#17)
To take on obligations that you cannot properly fund?
#22. To: Ignore Amos (#17)
Do you struggle with anything?
#23. To: war, mininggold (#22)
I get really bad gas...
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#24. To: Ignore Amos (#23)
OK - that explains why mininggold showed up in post #19
#25. To: mininggold, war (#24)
(Edited)
Yeah right troll. You are the gas.
Hmmm . . . I've been told that before, yes. Of course when posters are compared to the candidates they are discussing (as if any of that is relevant) that's okay with you.
It's as relevant as war's pointing out that Christie is fat. Or is being fat now a dis-qualifier for holding office?
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#26. To: Ignore Amos (#25)
It's as relevant as war's pointing out that Christie is fat. Or is being fat now a dis-qualifier for holding office? And are you okay with that?
#27. To: Ignore Amos (#25)
#28. To: Ignore Amos (#15)
How'd that work out for the Weimar Republic?
And the Conservative plan to create jobs is......?????
#29. To: go65 (#1)
#30. To: lucysmom (#29)
#31. To: lucysmom (#29)
Homeland Security (I wish they'd dump that name).
#32. To: A K A Stone (#30)
How about a 20 percent across the board spending cut then freeze
#33. To: mininggold (#26)
And you are always trying to manipulate the discourse here.
If you don't like what I have to say, then that's what the filter is for. If he's 400 pounds or on the way to it you betcha! And it's relevant as long as he's running for office or remains in the public domain.
It's so good to hear that candidates on your planet are perfect - no flaws. Character, physical, or otherwise.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#34. To: war (#27)
But I do believe that you and [. . . ] are opposite sides of the same coin...
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#35. To: go65 (#28)
How'd that work out for the Weimar Republic?
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#36. To: Ignore Amos (#35)
If you keep printing money, doesn't the value of the money (compared against other currencies or a commodity like gold) go down?
And the Conservative plan to create jobs is......?????
#37. To: go65 (#36)
That depends on the demand for the dollars. We've printed a lot of cash in the last few years and yet inflation is flat.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#38. To: Ignore Amos (#34)
#39. To: Ignore Amos (#35)
If you keep printing money, doesn't the value of the money (compared against other currencies or a commodity like gold) go down?
#40. To: A K A Stone (#30)
How about a 20 percent across the board spending cut then freeze
#41. To: A K A Stone (#30)
How about a 20 percent across the board spending cut then freeze
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]