Let’s not talk about spending?
[Posted by Karl]
Ramnesh Ponnuru responded to my views on his most recent Bloomberg column, which argued that the GOP continues to make mistakes because they misdiagnose the party’s failures as stemming from a failure to be sufficiently conservative. He generally argees with me that (excepting Iraq) GOP policy had little to do with the party’s losses in 2006 and 2008. However, he pleads innocence to my charge that he overestimates the importance of specific policy positions. On that point, it is worth revisiting the conclusion of his Bloomberg column:
Meanwhile, the real mistakes of the Bush years keep being made. Republicans had nothing to say about wage stagnation then and are saying nothing about it now. The real cost of Republicans’ fixation on ideological purity is that it distracts them from their real problems, and the nation’s.
I think it was a fair reading that Ponnuru was suggesting at least one of the GOP’s “real mistakes” was and is that it had and has nothing to say on issues like wage stagnation. And if Ponnuru agrees GOP’s performance in 2006 and 2008 had little to do with those sorts of issues, I think it was fair to conclude he was overestimating the magnitude of the GOP’s “real mistakes.” However, taking Ponnuru’s response at face value, if I misread the original column, what is his real beef with the “ideological purity” segment of the party?
At the risk of over-simplifying, perhaps Ponnuru is really saying, “Republicans, dial down the emphasis on restraining popular government spending.”
After all, at the outset of his original Bloomberg column, Ponnuru criticizes GOP leadership for claiming the party’s electoral failures were related to insufficient fiscal discipline, even though he also concedes that “Bush-era Republicans did spend too much.” In his response, Ponnuru mentions Republicans’ popular tax policy as a contrast.
At Bloomberg, he claims GOP primary candidates “have, to an unusual extent, showcased unpopular ideas that have no chance of going anywhere, such as abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency.” It’s far from clear to me that the candidates have been showcasing such ideas to an unusual extent. Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann want to eliminate the EPA; Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain have spoken of replacing it with something better; Rick Perry does not want to eliminate it, nor does Mitt Romney (perhaps Ponnuru was reading the hype at the NYT). Moreover, GOP platforms have advocated eliminating departments and agencies for the better part of 30 years; I cannot recall a single election where those positions were a major voting issue.
On the other hand, I can recall many elections where Democratic attacks on entitlement reform have been an issue, so it might be worth asking how far the “let’s be more quiet about popular spending programs” principle might extend. In May, Ponnuru argued the House GOP should not have backed the budget and Medicare reforms put forth by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, although he called that support both brave and right. He argued House Republicans “should have recruited presidential candidates to raise the issue in 2012, when they will have a megaphone as big as President Barack Obama’s.” But if the GOP candidates should not be proposing eliminating the EPA, why should they be proposing major reforms of Social Security and Medicare? Is serious entitlement reform going anywhere until the GOP controls the presidency, House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate?
As a matter of raw politics, Ponnuru may be entirely correct about avoiding spending issues. There is an argument for simply waiting until the debt bomb explodes. However, it is unfair to then also argue “[t]he real cost of Republicans’ fixation on ideological purity is that it distracts them from their real problems, and the nation’s.” The ideological purity crowd’s emphasis on unsustainable government spending is not a distraction from the nation’s real problems, but a recognition of them. Indeed, one of the nation’s real problems is the degree to which the public wants to avoid unpopular, inevitable budgetary choices.
—
Update: Ponnuru responds again, but he’s on a cruise, so I’ll keep my reply short. In my initial response, consistent with my prior writing (and my point about partisan vs. independent voting behavior), I actively agreed that GOP policy (except Iraq) had little effect on the outcome in 2006 and 2008, so it’s not a concession on my part. However, it’s debatable whether it’s the prevailing view that the GOP lost by failing to be more conservative. When discussing Ponnuru’s quotes of current GOP leadership on that point, perhaps I should have raised the very real possibility of lip service.
Ponnuru suggests, based on exit polling, that the GOP “platform promise to end the Department of Education did seem to hurt in 1996,” compared to 2000, when Bush showily ditched the plank. Bush certainly did much better than Dole with those who named education as the top issue. We then got stuck with Ted Kennedy’s version of NCLB. In return, Kerry ’04 got about the same share as Clinton ’96 among those who prioritized education.
Ponnuru asks whether I think entitlement reform is more likely in the next 5-15 years than abolishing the EPA. Based on current polling, I think it’s most likely that neither will happen until the debt bomb explodes, at which point we’ll get entitlement reform and a radically restructured, shrunken EPA. I also think that Ponnuru may be overestimating the degree to which voters take political hyperbole seriously.
Finally, Ponnuru notes that his prior column on the Ryan Medicare reforms was addressing a purely tactical question. Indeed. But his current argument certainly seems to link the development of a policy agenda to political tactics and electoral outcomes, which is why I asked how far the argument extends. I am heartened that he still backs entitlement reform as an issue in 2012, but I presume he knows that however much emphasis or de-emphasis he might give it: the Dems will likely demagogue the issue and it will remain a more politically salient issue than education or the environment. Thus, maintaining that it’s “much more worth bringing up in a presidential campaign” puts Ponnuru de facto closer to the purists than he might like.
–Karl
Yeah, that is the most maddening bit, pretending that spending is a distraction from real problems?
outside of constitutional issues, it doesn’t get much more real in politics than stopping our country from being bankrupted.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/18/2011 @ 11:15 amKarl, you forgot to ring the Dinner Bell!
But, to the subject at hand:
Mr. Ponnuru continues to pontificate on the American Condition, yet has only the most tenuous connection to most of what he writes about,
in that he has selectively chosen to stay cloistered among The Ruling Class without becoming “contaminated” by The Country Class.
Ramnesh, take a tip from Tocqueville, and get out among the populace –
AD-RtR/OS! (e69ef4) — 11/18/2011 @ 11:16 amwhich you will not find at that “Round Table” at the Algonquin, or at Elaine’s, or in Georgetown.
BTW, I had overlooked this:
I’m increasingly confident in my assessment.
Karl (f07e38) — 11/18/2011 @ 12:06 pmMore here.
Karl (f07e38) — 11/18/2011 @ 12:09 pmAD-RtR/OS,
Although you may be right about Ponnuru being cloistered, I think his raw political assessment about entitlement reform is correct. There’s a reason Dems keep going back to the Mediscare campaign; it works.
Karl (f07e38) — 11/18/2011 @ 12:12 pmPerhaps Ponnuru’s criticisms would have more impact if they were addressed to the true party of governmental (over)spending:
AD-RtR/OS! (e69ef4) — 11/18/2011 @ 12:13 pmThe Democrats.
yeah, the more i think about it the more r—-ded that sounds to me. yes, maybe you don’t talk about spending as spending. so you talk about the debt, and you talk about the waste. you talk about soylandra and the other green companies that have failed. you talk about 15 trillion in debt. you talk about how obama promised that if we gave him the stimulus unemployment would not hit 9%. maybe that is the right way to do it.
But if you don’t talk about spending at all, you are giving up one of the best weapons against him.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/18/2011 @ 12:16 pmKarl, realists (can we, in the wake of Iraq, still use that word?) recognize that entitlements are driving a great deal of the spending in DC, and that sans reform, the outlook is pretty hopeless.
AD-RtR/OS! (e69ef4) — 11/18/2011 @ 12:23 pmBut, who is it that completely blocks-out when it comes to contemplating any reforms to entitlements, and why doesn’t Mr. Ponnuru address them, but instead harps against the GOP for a lack of purity (is he auditioning for a part in a remake of “Strangelove”?)?
AD-RtR/OS,
He’s not harping on a lack of purity, he’s harping against purity.
Karl (f07e38) — 11/18/2011 @ 12:30 pmKarl, to me that is even worse (I’m sorry I misunderstood), for it entirely justifies the go-with-the-flow BS that is the Left, and which is destroying this country.
AD-RtR/OS! (e69ef4) — 11/18/2011 @ 12:41 pmIt reinforces my plea to him to climb down from his Ivory Tower, and smell a few roses and the things it takes to grow those “roses”.
Karl wrote:
It didn’t? There were a lot of Republicans who bouight into the notion, in 2004, that yeah, the republicans were spending too much, but the Democrats would be way worse. By 2006, a lot of people gave up on that one, and if they didn’t necessarily vote Democratic, plenty of them just stayed home.
The Dana who voted in 2006 and 2008. (f68855) — 11/18/2011 @ 3:34 pmI think it was a fair reading, too, but the response also has me puzzled. Ponnuru’s response begins:
Is it true that most Republican politicians believe voters punished them in 2006 and 2008 because of spending? I think spending was an important issue in 2010 and it will be in 2012, but I don’t recall it was important in 2006 or 2008. In 2007, spending wasn’t among the top 3 issues for GOP voters (“terrorism and national security was paramount, followed by immigration and Iraq”). By October 2008, a Newsweek/Princeton poll listed “taxes and government spending” as tied for 3rd with McCain voters (behind “terrorism and national security” and the Iraq War, and tied with “issues like abortion, guns, and same-sex marriage.”)
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/18/2011 @ 4:13 pmLet us talk about spending.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/18/2011 @ 4:18 pmWhy not let the state AGS and the DOJ prosecute people for harming the environment.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/18/2011 @ 4:45 pmAttorney Generals.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/18/2011 @ 5:01 pmDoh, they do if they have a state EPA.
AD-RtR/OS! (e69ef4) — 11/18/2011 @ 5:29 pmIsn’t that like ‘Don’t talk about the War’
john faulty (ef1619) — 11/18/2011 @ 5:35 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CEjmwLy9_M
Colonel Haiku (09a0f9) — 11/18/2011 @ 5:42 pmQuite a few Republicans have been sounding this theme since the 90’s, and the electorate has been unwilling to listen. Each time, the warning is that if we don’t get a handle on this now, it will be harder later. And we put it off.
Now, we are here again, and the pain is real. Anyone with half a brain (this includes some liberals) can see that if we put it off yet again, there might not be a next time where we still have choices.
Sure, we could get on another 20 years, and manage the decline. But anyone under, say, 50 has got to understand that it will be them that gets stuck with the (much larger) bill, and they won’t be able to stick it on someone else.
And some folks think we should pretend the problem isn’t there? On the contrary. We should be screaming it from the rooftops.
Winter is coming.
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/18/2011 @ 6:04 pmDRJ,
That was my point about lip service. The fact that Boehner and Cantor are now saying the GOP wasn’t sufficiently thrifty before doesn’t mean they thought so at the time… or now.
Ponnuru is essentially taking a potshot at the segment of the base (likely not a majority, but a vocal minority) that thinks the GOP loses when it goes squishy. The trap he falls into is that if ideology doesn’t matter to electoral outcome all that much, then you can bet whatever policy he likes to address wage stagnation doesn’t matter much either. Of course, everything matters in a razor-close election, which is why he changed the subject to education in 2000 (and not 2004).
Karl (f8f210) — 11/18/2011 @ 6:26 pmTrying to follow his logic makes my head hurt.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/18/2011 @ 6:35 pm==He generally argees(sic) with me that (excepting Iraq) GOP policy had little to do with the party’s losses in 2006 and 2008.==
I don’t know how many R’s were raising a ruckus about the Bush era spending in the mid 2000’s but I sure was! I remember being in a car driving somewhere with a bunch of left leaning friends and they couldn’t believe how I was going on about it.
How much the spending frenzy may have impacted the 06 and 08 elections by demoralizing R voters is hard to calculate. But no one can argue that the spending didn’t set the US on the wrong path– a path which Obama has now turned into a superhighway of lawlessness, mayhem, and debt.
elissa (ecba76) — 11/18/2011 @ 6:56 pmComment by DRJ — 11/18/2011 @ 6:35 pm
The best tracker in the world cannot follow a trail that does not exist.
AD-RtR/OS! (e69ef4) — 11/18/2011 @ 7:00 pmComment by elissa — 11/18/2011 @ 6:56 pm
’06:
I think I recall Rove actually getting his little white-board out and showing that a great deal of the winning margin enjoyed by the Dems in the off-year election was from the reduced participation of Republicans v. their turnout in ’04.
If you don’t vote, you have no grounds to complain on.
AD-RtR/OS! (e69ef4) — 11/18/2011 @ 7:03 pmelissa, I think the proto Tea Party was bloggers joining Porkbusters in 2005 to protest spending, and certainly protesting both sides of the aisle.
I do think it’s a tough, tough nut to crack with spending purists. Dems are worse than the GOP, yet both appear to be sending us in the wrong direction. Where’s the acceptable choice? The only truly acceptable choice is, at least, a Paul Ryan level sanity. If you can vote for that kind of Republican, that makes the decision very easy. If you can’t, do you support the GOP that is basically standing in place of a conservative political party?
Usually, we don’t get a third party option that’s worth consideration anyway, so the answer is obviously yes, you support the RINO and hope for the next primary to turn out a little better.
But this isn’t working.
Dusitn (cb3719) — 11/18/2011 @ 7:24 pmNo need to.
The voting public are well aware what Republicans mean by ‘entitlement reform’ and they don’t want any part of it. How did W’s ‘private accounts’ idea work out?
Spartacvs (ba8282) — 11/18/2011 @ 7:33 pmWell, the voting public will be a whole lot less enthusiastic about the democrat plan, which is to ignore the entitlement bomb until the system breaks down and there are no entitlements anyway.
Not that being right will be much comfort to me.
Dusitn (cb3719) — 11/18/2011 @ 7:41 pmThe Republican vote was depressed while the Democratic vote was invigorated. Who’d a thunk it only 6 years in on the glorious Republican revolution? What on earth could have precipitated such a paradigm shift in only 6 short years?
Spartacvs (ba8282) — 11/18/2011 @ 7:43 pmSo, Sparty, you think everything going forward will be all hunky dory then, without any entitlement reform? No reason to even consider it? You think Gen X and the millennials have no reason to worry? Just kicking the problem down the road to disaster is A-OK with you?
elissa (ecba76) — 11/18/2011 @ 7:45 pmI’m not sure why you’re so cheerful about this. The democrats thought they had won some kind of huge sea change in 2008. Why, you guys had the Senate, the House, the White House. And you almost had supermajorities.
And then you guys gave us Obamacare, and you lost huge in 2010.
Strangely enough, one of the biggest factors was Foley, one was the GOP failing to be a reliable conservative party (at least in my opinion), and one was simply the economy.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/18/2011 @ 7:47 pm‘Entitlement bomb’?
I think you meant to say skyrocketing health care costs.
Remind me again of the Republican plan to do anything about that, Ryancare?.
Spartacvs (ba8282) — 11/18/2011 @ 7:47 pmIf the point of entitlements is dependency and fear driving people to vote for democrats, then this kind of ‘oh no, the GOP is terrible to hint at reform’ makes perfect sense.
In other words, if someone just cares about political power, there’s not much irrational about Sparty’s pattern.
If, on the other hand, he cares about entitlements doing some kind of long term good for social democrats, then his pattern makes no sense.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/18/2011 @ 7:49 pmNope.
If you really don’t know about the tens of trillions of unfunded entitlement liabilities, ignoring Obamacare entirely, that’s hilarious. Well, perhaps sad is a better word, but I’m in a great mood this evening.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/18/2011 @ 7:50 pmIt’s funny though they knew about Foley’s improprieties months before, then they dropped the CREW complaint, and they replaced him with Mahoney
john faulty (ef1619) — 11/18/2011 @ 7:50 pm(no not the guy from Police Academy) but a fellow with two different mistresses, projection is thy name;
No offense to Ramnesh but there’s a host of economic ills to be parried before wage stagnation can be vanquished.
Since Nixon’s departure from Bretton-Woods the dollar is worth 20 cents. True technology has made up for a great deal of this in maintaining, even improving our standard of living.
My point however, is that GDP is grossly overestimated because of dollar debasement. The CPI and U6 unemployment statistics are fraudulent. We do not remotely have clear economic price information necessary to unfettered capitalism.
I submit his gloss is a transparent entreaty that government be salvaged. And he probably kisses Mom with that mouth.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 11/18/2011 @ 7:59 pmSpurtycuss never fails to be an asshate.
JD (318f81) — 11/18/2011 @ 8:08 pmHey now he doesn’t hate ass he likes to suck on Obama’s ass.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/18/2011 @ 8:16 pmDustin
SS can be made solvent decades into the future with only minor tweaks. The real problem is Medicare, which is under threat from the same contagion affecting all aspects of healthcare delivery, spiraling healthcare costs. ‘Ryancare’ does nothing to bend the cost curve.
Spartacvs (1fac92) — 11/18/2011 @ 8:31 pmelissa
Do you have any concept of what ‘RyanCare’ and the Ryan budget plan generally attempts to do?
Spartacvs (1fac92) — 11/18/2011 @ 8:37 pmI don’t believe you.
And you’re right that Paul Ryan’s path does not touch upon this issue,so why do you call it Ryancare?
That’s like bashing a train because it’s not a very good boat.
Spiraling healthcare costs, ‘eh? The only politician I’m aware of who has done much to repair that is Rick Perry. You know, medical malpractice tort reform? It’s had a nice effect on Texas’s health care.
Anyway, I think the real problem with ‘spiraling costs’ is that the US Dollar is worth less and less and less and less because of quantitative easing. Is gas really twice as expensive as it was when Obama took office? No. The dollar is half as valuable.
That plus a range of amazing new techniques that are more sophisticated than the last, and obviously would cost more as a result, lead to ‘spiraling costs’. What’s the solution to this?
Obama thinks the solution is to force healthy people who don’t need comprehensive health care to be forced into the insurance pool, so they are forced to pay for the treatment of other people. Oh, and of course the fed picks up the slack.
Eventually you run out of other people’s money. This is just three card monte. You can’t also just force new sophisticated options to be deleted, creating an illusion of cheaper health care. Is that a good idea?
Here’s my idea: stop spending money on anything we don’t need to spend money on. The dollar can retain its value better that way, and we can afford more stuff. Then you can choose whatever kind of insurance you want, or treatment, and some will be too advanced and expensive for everybody, much as some kinds of food, clothing, and shelter are too expensive for everyone.
That’s called life.
Unfair biased mean media snakes (cb3719) — 11/18/2011 @ 8:40 pmyour not unfair biased mean media snake.
Spartaccvs shove your head up obama’s ass some more.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/18/2011 @ 8:44 pmI think the proto Tea Party was bloggers joining Porkbusters in 2005
The Ur-Tea-Party was the 1992 Perot campaign. The same middle age bourgeoisie, aghast at the Bush Sr social spending and the mounting (over THREE TRILLION) national debt. They didn’t elect anyone, the carried no state, but they put the fear of God into both parties which led inexorably to Clinton’s tax hikes, the 1994 election, the Gingrich Congress and 4 balanced budgets.
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/18/2011 @ 8:44 pmSparticVs, how ’bout you answer my question first?
elissa (ecba76) — 11/18/2011 @ 8:48 pmSS can be made solvent decades into the future with only minor tweaks.
If by “minor” you mean tax the dickens out of those that are currently minors, once they start working , yeah, sure.
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/18/2011 @ 8:48 pmYes, Kevin, that’s a great way to see the Reform Party.
You’re right about their positive effects.
However, if only more Republicans had supported the Reform party, perhaps the GOP would be no more Perhaps the democrats would be more like the democratic republicans, with a lot of the John Mccains and Lindsey Grahams, and the reform party would have the Jeff Flakes, Sarah Palins, and Herman Cains.
In the short term, this might have some negative effects (in hindsight, I sincerely doubt we would be in a worse position than we find ourselves in today on the debt level, at least).
But long term, America would have a choice between sanity and insanity. Instead of choosing pistol or slow acting poison, we could choose life.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/18/2011 @ 8:49 pmMinor Tweaks? I’ve never heard of huge tax increases described that way
EricPWJohnson (4380b4) — 11/18/2011 @ 9:06 pmIf you’re a bum living off the work of others, tax increases for doers is a minor tweak, Eric.
He probably means some kind of mythical tax on the rich that takes care of the whole problem. Just assume the rich have 800 zillion, and are only taxed 1 zillion. You just increase that to 2 zillion and the problem is solved.
They don’t realize just how impossible it is to pay for what the current government insists we are “entitled” to.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/18/2011 @ 9:15 pmBarckyCare bends the cost curve up. How is that working out?
JD (318f81) — 11/18/2011 @ 9:26 pmWe need to reform Medicaid Medicare and SS.
If we do not privatize these tree we are doomed.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/18/2011 @ 9:28 pmSigh, he’s actually not that far from the truth, but seriously you can’t be winging everything on a wing and a prayer
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/18/cain-we-dont-want-taliban-in-the-new-libyan-government/
narciso (ef1619) — 11/18/2011 @ 9:28 pmhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/17/us-libya-government-idUSTRE7AG24520111117
narciso (ef1619) — 11/18/2011 @ 9:32 pmYou don’t have to agree with gun ownership to believe in 2nd amendment rights.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/18/2011 @ 9:33 pmActually, it’s more like you don’t have to own a gun, to be for the 2nd Amendment
narciso (ef1619) — 11/18/2011 @ 9:40 pmlet’s talk about all the good things and the bad things that may be
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/18/2011 @ 10:02 pmthat is true too narciso.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/18/2011 @ 10:04 pmpikachu, you know in the end you deserve a Cameron lite mannikin like Romney, as much as you protest,
narciso (ef1619) — 11/18/2011 @ 10:09 pmseeing as who your true hatred is for,
You do not have to like guns to know the 2nd amendment is a good thing.
Honsetly there are people who have different methods of defending themselves.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/18/2011 @ 10:12 pmYou know, all these arguments come back to a false premise.
The question always seems to be how much the government should spend on making everyone is OK.
Of course, the real question is why should the government spend any money on that at all.
Government is not a parent. It is a system of rules and laws to protect its citizens.
How citizens choose to live their lives is an individual choice.
Ag80 (ec45d6) — 11/18/2011 @ 10:14 pm“making sure”
Sorry, Walking Dead is on.
Ag80 (ec45d6) — 11/18/2011 @ 10:15 pmAmen, AG.
Why do politicians think they have the right to fix this problem, anyway? Well, I guess at this point it’s because citizens have been taught they are entitled to a government that generously fixes everything because they are just taking it from infinitely rich people no one likes.
Just leave the whole mess alone, and suddenly it’s not as big of a mess.
"Dustin" (cb3719) — 11/18/2011 @ 10:21 pmMr. narciso I’m already making peace with Wall Street Romney at least to the extent that I no longer hope for better for my little country.
Team R has made such a monstrous hash of things this time around – same as last time.
you know what is key Mr. narciso? That the next Team R president person – whether it’s Wall Street Romney or one of the other lame-ass douchebags, uses his administration to cultivate political talent.
Aside from Condi, name one superstar of the Bush Administration. I bet you’re hard-pressed. Cause of Bush didn’t cultivate any talent.
Probably partly cause Karl Rove is an ungodly insecure twat, but also cause that’s just not how they thought.
The next president has to be future-minded.
That is what the times demand.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/18/2011 @ 10:32 pmremember that after the George HW Bush admin Lamar Alexander and Liz Dole and Jack Kemp all went on to run for president, and they were all more or less credible candidates. W, God love him, didn’t incubate in the same way I don’t think, and I think our little country is paying a price for that.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/18/2011 @ 10:37 pmActually, happy, I think that W was exactly what was needed, and he would be welcome again.
His problem wasn’t the nation, his problem was the concentrated effort of the left to condemn a little soul because he wasn’t like them.
Our little country isn’t paying a price for W’s transgressions. It is paying the price for electing a state senator who knows nothing about running a country.
Ag80 (ec45d6) — 11/18/2011 @ 10:47 pmI’m only criticizing Bush’s lackluster cabinet other than that I love him more than tasty low-fat healthy alternative snack choices
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/18/2011 @ 10:57 pmOk, so for the barely competent soldier of the revolution, the Glock is the choice–no safety, fires every time, low, low maintenance, light, not a damned revolver,…
But there are a couple of dozen models, wha?
gary gulrud (d88477) — 11/19/2011 @ 3:46 amI dunno which of the candidates are on record for abolishing the EPA. TEAs are all for Rand Paul’s sunsetting all bureaucratic regulation subject to explicit renewal by elected Reps.
EPA should be reduced to a data mining operation for the enlightenment of Congressional staffers.
The Dept. of Education is the first to be terminated.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 11/19/2011 @ 4:14 amThe Texans here seem to agree on a lot of things that others don’t agree with. I guess it’s true that Texas is like a whole other country.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/19/2011 @ 6:28 amAnd well said Ag80.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/19/2011 @ 6:29 amOf the new guys, Bolton, although he had been around for a while but Lisa and George ‘the Crying
narciso (ef1619) — 11/19/2011 @ 6:36 amMan’ Voinovich stabbed him six ways from Sunday, As for Rumsfeld, he was ahead on the need for special
forces, missile defense, yet he died the death of a thousand cuts, from all the non lifeydoodles, And Cheney, the old warhorse, was a star, but his optics weren’t good.
Ponnuru spreads disinformation for the GOP establishment’s cold war against Conservatives. A list of his points reads like Dede Scozzafava,s policy platform.
ropelight (62ef71) — 11/19/2011 @ 7:09 amThis is worth a comment from Mark;
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/11/during-discussion-about-propaganda-of.html
narciso (ef1619) — 11/19/2011 @ 7:48 amElizabeth Warren: “I am NOT the Messiah!”
Bill Maher: “I say you are Lord, and I should know. I’ve followed a few.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/heaven-is-a-place-called-elizabeth-warren.html?_r=2&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all
ColonelHaiku (09a0f9) — 11/19/2011 @ 8:52 am😯 I thought you’d love alternative tasty snacks more than Bush.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 10:01 amWatching the history channel?
Naaaaaaaaaaah………only if it is Top Gear.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 10:03 amhappy #61:
“A’s hire A’s. B’s hire C’s.”
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:05 amI thought Top Gear was on BBC-America?
AD-RtR/OS! (503ea7) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:07 amI don’t know Mr. M but putting the execrable John Snow at the top of Treasury was not good for you not good for me and not good for America
it’s kinda almost inexplicable
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:42 amand then he replaced Snow with the even bigger p.o.s. Paul O’Neill
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:44 amand then he replaced Paul O’Neill with that lurchy dude what was prone to kneeling before Nancy Pelosi and begging like a dog
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:45 amHe was better than Goldman minion Paulson, and certainly better than Paul O’Neil, who was just full of fail.
narciso (ef1619) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:45 amyes I agree Mr. narciso but the point is that Bush had three chances to fill that position with a superstar and he whiffed every time
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:52 amAs opposed to Nicholas Brady, Don REgan, which one of these superstars, with the exception of Bill Simon.
narciso (ef1619) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:56 amDon Regan may not have been a superstar but he was hardly execrable
and you left out James Baker
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/19/2011 @ 12:24 pmPerhaps we need another ex-Texas Governor as SecTreas?
AD-RtR/OS! (503ea7) — 11/19/2011 @ 12:36 pmConnolly did a respectable job.
Wall Street Romney would make a good SecTreas I think… it’s right up his alley, really
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/19/2011 @ 12:39 pmHappy
I’m not fully seeing where Bush and the Treasury had much to do with the recession and overspending on entitlements and what exactly could the department of the Treasury actually do about it
EricPWJohnson (4380b4) — 11/19/2011 @ 1:04 pmPunctuation is your friend
JD (dbec08) — 11/19/2011 @ 1:06 pmmedicare prescription drug plan.
elissa (88e9f8) — 11/19/2011 @ 1:10 pm2005 article –Medicare Drug benefit plan may cost 1.2 trillion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html
elissa (88e9f8) — 11/19/2011 @ 1:15 pmEric you’re not reading
my point is that Bush was president for 8 years and did a piss-poor job of using his administration to cultivate political talent … very few people at the top levels got a meaningful leg up from serving in his administration – for all too many of them it was the last notable post they’ll ever have
he didn’t even pick a running mate what had any future prospect politically, though we would have been in exceptionally good hands should Mr. Cheney have been called to fulfill the duties of the presidency
Team R has a notably weak bench if the 2008 and 2012 presidential field is any indication, and I think in future if Team R should be entrusted with the presidency again they should work harder to cultivate and promote talent what may be of service in the future. Certainly harder than the lackluster yawners Bush appointed.
Donald Evans?
Alphonso Jackson?
Mary Peters?
Really?
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/19/2011 @ 1:22 pmSamuel effing Bodman?
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/19/2011 @ 1:24 pmHappy
All that still has nothing ever so what to do with Democrats expanding entitlements, also VP is a sucky path to the oval office
Nixon and Bush I were prominent national leaders before they were VP’s
JD,
Dorry #$%#,></ here insert your own, as you know where ;0
EricPWJohnson (4380b4) — 11/19/2011 @ 1:44 pmTop gear has an american version on history channel which i’d love to watch but my mom won’t let me.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 1:45 pmbut i wasn’t even talking about entitlements I was responding to Mr. narciso at #56
the office of VP is a much much better path to the presidency for Rs than for Ds for some reason, election-wise… but I think roughly 30% or so of all VPs historically have gone onto the presidency one way or another
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/19/2011 @ 1:48 pmOh, the outrageous spendings! Subsidies run out, wind turbines are abandoned. Taxpayer money wasted. Well, at least fewer birds and bats will die now.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46519
elissa (88e9f8) — 11/19/2011 @ 1:55 pmI always end up feeling so much better about Obama’s prospects for a second term after visiting this place. Don’t change a thing guys, the second term is going to be just a hoot.
Most insecure position in the world, Al Qaeda #2 or the ‘not Romney’ candidate? We report, you decide.
Spartacvs (314b6e) — 11/19/2011 @ 7:56 pmI always feel better about the GOP chances of retrieving the White House when I read your vapid trolls Spartacvs.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/19/2011 @ 9:07 pmAh yes the GOP is like Al Qaeda………………………..I hope you get buttraped by Bubba while in prison.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 9:10 pmNewt Gingrich is okin gmoney going to Wall Street…………….But didn’t Obama bailout Wall Street?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 9:15 pmoking money*
And tellin gpeople to get a job is not oking bailout money.
It is Obama’s fault that there is no jobs.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 9:17 pmtelling*
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 9:18 pminsane kl0wn posse
ColonelHaiku (7b2efb) — 11/19/2011 @ 9:18 pmis he human or is he CHUD?
he is spvrtacvs
I always feel better about Obama being a one-term president whenever sporty posts. Keep up the good work, girl.
I report, you protest too much.
Ag80 (ec45d6) — 11/19/2011 @ 9:22 pmcannibalistic
ColonelHaiku (7b2efb) — 11/19/2011 @ 9:24 pmthe underground humanoid
dweller spvrtacvs
Closer to uruk hai orc or nazgul, (shrieking dragon)
narciso (ef1619) — 11/19/2011 @ 9:25 pmThe rich get rich that is capitialism if you do not like it aw well.
The poor get poorer because ironically we have tax and spend liberals in power taking away their survivors benefits after their husband died.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 9:33 pmCommunists have infiltrated our country…………don’t believe me then you useful idiots deserve what you get.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 10:03 pmZonism is no tcommunism but it was sabotaged by it.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 10:11 pmnot communism*
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 10:13 pmSparticles is going to “report” something?
Well then, by all means, you put on your reporter’s tin foil hat and “report” away!
Whee!!!!
Icy (b33de9) — 11/19/2011 @ 10:59 pmHehehehehehe when you said the word Whee it made me tingle.
By the way Bella Dodd was an ex-CPUSA member.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:11 pmThe voting public are well aware what Republicans mean by ‘entitlement reform’ and they don’t want any part of it. How did W’s ‘private accounts’ idea work out?
Comment by Spartacvs — 11/18/2011 @ 7:33 pm
— It was a good idea that the liberal sheepherders simply would not allow to go forward. After all, if you allow the sheep(le) the choice of staying in a pen where the herdsman will NOT bugger them up the arse, whether it be for their vote, or their tax money, or their union dues, or their cradle-to-grave dependence on the nanny state . . . who’s gonna choose to stay with the Socialist perv?
Icy (b33de9) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:15 pmMinor Tweaks? I’ve never heard of huge tax increases described that way
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 11/18/2011 @ 9:06 pm
— Take it from the guy that
Icy (b33de9) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:21 pmtweaks minorsknows a tweak when he sees one.I’m not fully seeing where Bush and the Treasury had much to do with the recession and overspending on entitlements and what exactly could the department of the Treasury actually do about it
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 11/19/2011 @ 1:04 pm
— And yet, you can see ethereal Herman Cain ads that label his fellow Republicans as klansmen.
How are the optometrists in Jakarta? Do their eye charts have you read “2 million Jews in Iran” in very tiny print?
Icy (b33de9) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:28 pmThere’s probably a medication for that, Icy, whatever the shortcomings of O’Neil and Snow)
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 5:45 amwe were spared the backwash from the first financial scandals, Enron, Global Crossing, and World Com, yet the instigator of the first, Robert Rubin, who actually picked Ken Lay to head the new merged firm, the grey eminence, would go on to larger debacles, by peddling toxic debt to Europe,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/secrets_of_the_american_nomenklatura.html
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:27 amhttps://twitter.com/#!/jmartpolitico/status/138263930022793218
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:55 am