Sherriff Steele better get busy cleaning up and kicking butt.

re: #1 _RememberTonyC

Sherriff Steele better get busy cleaning up and kicking butt.

I'm not terribly hopeful...

re: #1 _RememberTonyC

Given that one of his most recent things he did was denying global warming, I wouldn't expect anything rational out of him any time soon.

Apparently he doesn't think the anti-science jag the GOP has been on is one of the ways it screwed up.

Where Mr Steele misses the mark in his criticisms of the party is in the utter intellectual inconsistency between rhetoric and action. On the one hand, the GOP stands for limited government, while on the other, they're pushing to get into everyone's bedroom. On one hand there is the calls to fiscal discipline, while on the other hand the Congress in GOP power spends money like drunken sailors.

A platform built on such a fractured foundation cannot long endure.

...calls for him to be fired and replaced with Sarah Palin

You know not what you ask, my friends!

Steele should come here for feedback ... he'd get smart advice ...

I'm baffled. Reagan signed the largest peacetime tax increase in United States history, but Steele says Republicans should have followed Reagan and not raised taxes?

gotta run to work lizards ... later all.

From the article:

Steele focuses much of the book on familiar GOP denunciations of President Barack Obama's overall policies

Odd way to address the problem of Republicans screwing up.

Last line of the article:

Then again, judging from the book's index, Palin is not mentioned at all in what the publisher calls Steele's ''call to arms for grassroots America.''

[Emphasis added.] The NYT published an AP review of a book by an anonymous person who has not read it?

re: #7 ssn697

I'm baffled. Reagan signed the largest peacetime tax increase in United States history, but Steele says Republicans should have followed Reagan and not raised taxes?

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it... or something like that!
//

As Ronald Reagan left the presidency in 1989, it has taken the GOP 21 years to realize it has screwed up?

That is very slow learning.

Doesn't anyone read their posts before they push the button? Can't they read these, and say, "Wow! I sound like a nutcase?"

Or is not seeing this part of being a nutcase?

re: #11 Ojoe

As Ronald Reagan left the presidency in 1989, it has taken the GOP 21 years to realize it has screwed up?

That is very slow learning.

Who ever accused them of being smart?

re: #12 EmmmieG

Doesn't anyone read their posts before they push the button? Can't they read these, and say, "Wow! I sound like a nutcase?"

Or is not seeing this part of being a nutcase?

Internet + Anonymous = total batshit crazy.

Then again, judging from the book's index, Palin is not mentioned at all in what the publisher calls Steele's ''call to arms for grassroots America.''

Why should she be? To quote President Andrew Shepherd (The American President) "This is a serious time for serious people."

I suppose all this Regan idolization begs the question what exactly did Regan do so well that George HW Bush didn't? I mean the guy was Regans' vice president for 8 years, so you'd think if Regan had some kind of magic winning governmental formula Bush 41 would have been perfectly placed to pick up on it...

Disclaimer: Liberal born in 88' so by the time I was old enough to really care about politics we were in Clinton territory so I never spent THAT much time studying presidents 40 and 41...

re: #13 MikeySDCA

I do accuse them of being stupid at this point.

They screwed up by letting Ron Paul and Huckabee have a megaphone and a 50 foot high soapbox.

Funny...I predicted this would be the response to Steele...still waiting for someone to claim he's a plant put into the GOP by the Obama administration.

re: #16 jamesfirecat

I suppose all this Regan idolization begs the question what exactly did Regan do so well that George HW Bush didn't? I mean the guy was Regans' vice president for 8 years, so you'd think if Regan had some kind of magic winning governmental formula Bush 41 would have been perfectly placed to pick up on it...

Disclaimer: Liberal born in 88' so by the time I was old enough to really care about politics we were in Clinton territory so I never spent THAT much time studying presidents 40 and 41...

*Sigh* Not even enough time to learn how to spell the name right.

re: #18 wiffersnapper

They screwed up by letting Ron Paul and Huckabee have a megaphone and a 50 foot high soapbox.

They screwed up long before that when they gave crazy Uncle Pat Buchanan a voice at the '92 RNC.

And that would be a not too subtle dig at both GHW Bush and GW Bush; seeing that 12 of the 21 years since Reagan had a GOPer in the White House.

Fiscal conservatism can and should be a fixture of the GOP, but GW Bush pushed compassionate conservatism, which included a massive expansion of entitlements.

re: #7 ssn697

The actual tax rates suggest something quite different than what you suggest by Reagan imposing the largest peacetime tax hike in US history.

The top marginal rate dropped from 70% to 50% in 1983 and then down to 38.5% and then to 33.5%. The number of brackets also dropped during the course of his Administration, and particularly after the Tax Reform of 1986 (where there were 16-17 brackets, which were condensed into 5). Some at the lowest brackets saw their tax rate rise, but others saw it drop, particularly from the middle class on up.

re: #15 SteveC

Why should she be? To quote President Andrew Shepherd (The American President) "This is a serious time for serious people."

Well, if you're going to claim the GOP "screwed up," there aren't too many better examples of that than John McCain picking Sarah Palin as his running mate.

re: #20 SteveC

Whoops, sorry about that. I've got a huge vocabulary but only know how to spell about 1/4th of the words in it. I'm using the little red lines that firefox gives you when you spell a word wrong as guidelines for most of my posts and as "Regan" didn't send up any red flags that's what I went with.

And now you know the rest of the story...

re: #22 lawhawk

And that would be a not too subtle dig at both GHW Bush and GW Bush; seeing that 12 of the 21 years since Reagan had a GOPer in the White House.

Fiscal conservatism can and should be a fixture of the GOP, but GW Bush pushed compassionate conservatism, which included a massive expansion of entitlements.

The actual tax rates suggest something quite different than what you suggest by Reagan imposing the largest peacetime tax hike in US history.

The top marginal rate dropped from 70% to 50% in 1983 and then down to 38.5% and then to 33.5%. The number of brackets also dropped during the course of his Administration, and particularly after the Tax Reform of 1986 (where there were 16-17 brackets, which were condensed into 5). Some at the lowest brackets saw their tax rate rise, but others saw it drop, particularly from the middle class on up.

I was referring to TEFRA

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

re: #23 Charles

Well, if you're going to claim the GOP "screwed up," there aren't too many better examples of that than John McCain picking Sarah Palin as his running mate.

or picking John McCain as the Republican nominee...

Personally, I think that the inability to admit when you're wrong is one of the worst character traits people can have. Yet another reason I can't stand these people.

And don't tell me I'm wrong, because I won't admit it.
/

re: #12 EmmmieG

Doesn't anyone read their posts before they push the button? Can't they read these, and say, "Wow! I sound like a nutcase?"

Or is not seeing this part of being a nutcase?

Ayou talkunnuh me?

re: #25 ssn697

I was referring to TEFRA

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Which raised rates temporarily, but kept the rates significantly lower than they were prior to Reagan taking office.

re: #27 Girth

Personally, I think that the inability to admit when you're wrong is one of the worst character traits people can have. Yet another reason I can't stand these people.

And don't tell me I'm wrong, because I won't admit it.
/

If, by chance someday, I should ever happen to be wrong, I'd gladly admit it. Sometimes I practice in front of a mirror, just so I'll be ready if it ever happens.

re: #26 rwdflynavy

or picking John McCain as the Republican nominee...

In Florida you can only pick a nominee during primaries with your party affiliation. I think McCain won Florida, but I wonder how other states have the same laws.

re: #30 The Sanity Inspector

If, by chance someday, I should ever happen to be wrong, I'd gladly admit it. Sometimes I practice in front of a mirror, just so I'll be ready if it ever happens.

And, well, I'll just go ahead and admit it...
I'm usually wrong.
/

re: #26 rwdflynavy

or picking John McCain as the Republican nominee...

We (registered Republicans for the most part) picked McCain, not the RNC.

re: #32 reine.de.tout

Sarc tag!!

re: #32 reine.de.tout

And, well, I'll just go ahead and admit it...
I'm usually wrong.
/

Once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.
/

''We must support Republican officials who assert these principles,'' he writes. ''When elected Republicans vote against Republican principles, the voters must withhold their support -- withhold it vigorously and consistently.''

Unfortunately for Mr. Steele, and so many others, he means to regress the party to a bunch of far right so-cons. He's certainly on track. I particularly like the dig on global warming.

I'd just as soon throw dirt on the party and end the suffering.

re: #33 jayzee

We (registered Republicans for the most part) picked McCain, not the RNC.

I picked Romney, I got stuck with McCain.

re: #4 Sharmuta

Where Mr Steele misses the mark in his criticisms of the party is in the utter intellectual inconsistency between rhetoric and action. On the one hand, the GOP stands for limited government, while on the other, they're pushing to get into everyone's bedroom. On one hand there is the calls to fiscal discipline, while on the other hand the Congress in GOP power spends money like drunken sailors.

A platform built on such a fractured foundation cannot long endure.

"Talk conservative, vote liberal", is how one pol explained his political M.O. some years back.

The racial comments echo a widely held right-wing view of Obama--that he only got elected president BECAUSE of his race. That the issue of race, which had been an obstacle for all previous black presidential candidates, suddenly became a huge asset just before the 2008 election.

This all fits in with the general teabagger paranoia of vague unseen un-American forces taking away our rights.

re: #22 lawhawk

And that would be a not too subtle dig at both GHW Bush and GW Bush; seeing that 12 of the 21 years since Reagan had a GOPer in the White House.

Fiscal conservatism can and should be a fixture of the GOP, but GW Bush pushed compassionate conservatism, which included a massive expansion of entitlements.

The actual tax rates suggest something quite different than what you suggest by Reagan imposing the largest peacetime tax hike in US history.

The top marginal rate dropped from 70% to 50% in 1983 and then down to 38.5% and then to 33.5%. The number of brackets also dropped during the course of his Administration, and particularly after the Tax Reform of 1986 (where there were 16-17 brackets, which were condensed into 5). Some at the lowest brackets saw their tax rate rise, but others saw it drop, particularly from the middle class on up.

The dems like to point to TEFRA as a justification for raising taxes ignoring ENITRELY the other component of fiscal conservatism which is spending cuts.

Democrats are "almost certain" to bypass the conference process to pass a merged health care bill through both chambers of Congress, according to two senior Democratic Hill staffers (one from the House and one from the Senate)...

[Link: politics.theatlantic.com...]

Republicans, please kill this hunk of shit and start over. Do not gloat, do not cheer, get serious and show me that you have an idea or two.

re: #27 Girth

You know what they say, one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

I'd be willing to go without a public/private admitting of doing wrong as long as whoever made the mistake learns something from it...

re: #37 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I wanted Rudy, but alas our primary system chose otherwise.

So pissed right now. Made all my healthcare elections back in September before the fiscal year switched. The company had been bought out and they made the official switch in November and they reset all my healthcare elections to the defaults for the new company. They never notified anyone this was going to happen. Same thing happened to a bunch of people. Everything is fucked up now.

re: #41 Girth

[Link: politics.theatlantic.com...]

Republicans, please kill this hunk of shit and start over. Do not gloat, do not cheer, get serious and show me that you have an idea or two.

There actually were some alternative Republic health care reform proposals floating around earlier this autumn. It didn't fit the "GOP is the Party of No" meme, so it didn't get widely reported in the msm.

re: #41 Girth

[Link: politics.theatlantic.com...]

Republicans, please kill this hunk of shit and start over. Do not gloat, do not cheer, get serious and show me that you have an idea or two.

Releated...
[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

O/T but possibly Reagan-related... Job satisfaction in the USA at 45%.

re: #41 Girth

[Link: politics.theatlantic.com...]

Republicans, please kill this hunk of shit and start over. Do not gloat, do not cheer, get serious and show me that you have an idea or two.

No way they can kill it, they've tried to delay it, but the Democrats are going to prevent that by just ignoring them. They Dems spent weeks voting down amendments by the GOP to kill or gut the bill, now they'll just go it alone.

re: #47 Vambo

O/T but possibly Reagan-related... Job satisfaction in the USA at 45%.

I am part of the 55%.

re: #45 The Sanity Inspector

There actually were some alternative Republic health care reform proposals floating around earlier this autumn. It didn't fit the "GOP is the Party of No" meme, so it didn't get widely reported in the msm.

such as...?

re: #41 Girth

I think you're asking unrealistic things of our party. Even if all of the Republicans voted lock step against it, there are still enough democrats to not only pass it but stop a fillibuster.

Seems to me that what will happen to the bill is more or less all in the hands of the blue dogs...

re: #23 Charles

Well, if you're going to claim the GOP "screwed up," there aren't too many better examples of that than John McCain picking Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Young attractive and untested worked for the Dems! /sort of

This thread seems to be about Republican house cleaning. Since I am not a Republican, I am going to lurk and learn.

re: #49 Cannadian Club Akbar

I am part of the 55%.

The toughest day at work is usually better than the best day job-hunting.

re: #53 prairiefire

This thread seems to be about Republican house cleaning. Since I am not a Republican, I am going to lurk and learn.

That's nice, sincerely, unlike your compatriots that like calling us stupid. Though I like hearing what liberals and dems think too. We can all learn.

re: #54 The Sanity Inspector

The toughest day at work is usually better than the best day job-hunting.

oh I agree, but a miserable work force is very bad for our country.

re: #54 The Sanity Inspector

The toughest day at work is usually better than the best day job-hunting.

If stupid really did hurt, at least I would be entertained.:)

re: #50 Vambo

such as...?

Click around here. The info is available in more digested form elsewhere, but much of the present company might regard the sources as self-damning.

re: #45 The Sanity Inspector

There actually were some alternative Republic health care reform proposals floating around earlier this autumn. It didn't fit the "GOP is the Party of No" meme, so it didn't get widely reported in the msm.

You mean the one that had no numbers in it, for example?

re: #41 Girth

[Link: politics.theatlantic.com...]

Republicans, please kill this hunk of shit and start over. Do not gloat, do not cheer, get serious and show me that you have an idea or two.

Hadn't you heard?
They're the party of NO!

"Can we come into the meetings?"
NO!
"Can we propose an amendment?"
NO!
"Can we have time to read the bill before the vote?"
NO!

re: #45 The Sanity Inspector

There actually were some alternative Republic health care reform proposals floating around earlier this autumn. It didn't fit the "GOP is the Party of No" meme, so it didn't get widely reported in the msm.

They should have picked a plan and ran with it. People ask where your plan is and your response is, well, we've got a few laying around in the back. That's not how you sell stuff. Clean it up, wax it, and put it on the floor if you want to sell it.

That's not the media's fault.

re: #53 prairiefire

This thread seems to be about Republican house cleaning. Since I am not a Republican, I am going to lurk and learn.

You are welcome to chime in. I've voted R since Reagan on the hope that the growth of big government would be slowed. The last time it was a close call but I held my nose.

I would be much more comfortable if Romney or some other fiscal conservative that leaves personal decisions and beliefs up to individuals would run on a true Right Center ticket.

However moving the congress back to a more fiscally sound position in 2010 is even more critical IMO. The Dems are the drunken sailors and the Repubs are the whores that like when they throw the quatloos their way.

The GOP DID screw up after Reagan. The party has run people who are too much in love with 'big goverment' solutions to problems, just like the left is. Oh sure, the 'big goverment' solutions of Republicans aren't as 'big goverment' as we'd get from someone like Obama, but it's a difference of degree, not a real difference in approach.

Dropping Michael Steele? I'm mixed on the idea. He's certainly not as convervative as I'd like to see, but he could be far wose, too. Thomas Sowell? Herman Cain? I honestly don't care who leads the party, as long as they're willing to stand for conservative principles, freedom, and for limited government.

re: #40 jayzee

that's a great point; thanks for the reminder. But it doesn't negate the significance of the increase Reagan did sign; Social Security taxes went way, way up. What's also important is why he did it: he felt that he needed to to shore up SS, and that SS was worth shoring up. And this--both that Reagan did raise taxes and that it was for an entitlement program--is in complete dissonance with the mythic Reagan the GOP likes to use as a template.

I don't understand the retroactive canonization of Reagan either. I never heard about him until he died, and then suddenly he was mentioned in every other sentence in right-wing media.

During his presidency we had the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, Iran-Contra (which could very well get a modern President impeached), etc. While it's true that he helped push the USSR over the brink, that was partially through the largest deficit spending since WW2. Neither he nor Bush Sr. did anything to cut overall government spending. I don't recall conservatives during the 80's bringing him up every other minute. In fact, I distinctly remember folks like my parents (who are recent converts to the cult of Reagan) grumbling he was no better than Carter most of the time.

I mean, he got good things done in the world, and doesn't seemed to have been a disaster like Bush Jr. But I just don't get the post-mortem cult of personality around him. Is it just that he looks so much better by comparison to modern conservative politicians? Or is just his speechwriting, which revolved mostly around concepts of starry-eyed American Exceptionalism which have gradually fallen out of favor?

re: #60 sattv4u2

Hadn't you heard?
They're the party of NO!

"Can we come into the meetings?"
NO!
"Can we propose an amendment?"
NO!
"Can we have time to read the bill before the vote?"
NO!

This is the most transparent Congress ever. Nancy said it would be and I believe her.
///

Andrew Sullivan links to Charles' Blogging Head video and agrees that the conservatives have to confront, what he refers to as proto-fascism.

[Link: andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com...]

re: #53 prairiefire

I think that's a bad idea. If we're going to get an effective two party system which has Democrats and Republicans working together, it behooves us Democrats to try and locate the Republicans who are willing to work with us, and do what we can to help them work their way into positions of power.

You shouldn't just stand around and do nothing if your room mate gets sick, you should help him recover so that he can return the favor.

When people get on a politicians case for simply shaking hands with the President and welcoming him to the state if he's from a different party then clearly something is going wrong somewhere...

re: #65 Jaerik

The country was very demoralized at the end of the 70s. Reagan's administration coincided with if not sparked a renewal of the the American spirit. And that's not nothin'! Inspiration is an important part of leadership.

re: #65 Jaerik

I don't understand the retroactive canonization of Reagan either. I never heard about him until he died, and then suddenly he was mentioned in every other sentence in right-wing media.

During his presidency we had the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, Iran-Contra (which could very well get a modern President impeached), etc. While it's true that he helped push the USSR over the brink, that was partially through the largest deficit spending since WW2. Neither he nor Bush Sr. did anything to cut overall government spending. I don't recall conservatives during the 80's bringing him up every other minute. In fact, I distinctly remember folks like my parents (who are recent converts to the cult of Reagan) grumbling he was no better than Carter most of the time.

I mean, he got good things done in the world, and doesn't seemed to have been a disaster like Bush Jr. But I just don't get the post-mortem cult of personality around him. Is it just that he looks so much better by comparison to modern conservative politicians? Or is just his speechwriting, which revolved mostly around concepts of starry-eyed American Exceptionalism which have gradually fallen out of favor?

be careful. People really eat up that white-picket-fence sidewalked-suburbs bullcrap.

re: #24 jamesfirecat

I'm using the little red lines that firefox gives you when you spell a word wrong as guidelines for most of my posts and as "Regan" didn't send up any red flags that's what I went with...

Firefox may have thought you were posting about the possessed girl from The Exorcist.

re: #59 Charles

You mean the one that had no numbers in it, for example?

No, Boehner posted the complete text of the GOP health care bill, with numbers. It's still up on their site. This was the combination of all GOP amendment proposals and their ability to give 100% of their own ideas in bill form.

Problem was? It was scored as being something like $300B more expensive than even a Democrat public option bill, did nothing to stop pre-existing conditions or other problems, and would not have covered any additional Americans.

They had their shot to present their ideas, and they were atrocious.

re: #65 Jaerik

I don't understand the retroactive canonization of Reagan either. I never heard about him until he died, and then suddenly he was mentioned in every other sentence in right-wing media.

I think they are looking for their FDR or JFK to invoke.

re: #64 okonkolo

that's a great point; thanks for the reminder. But it doesn't negate the significance of the increase Reagan did sign; Social Security taxes went way, way up. What's also important is why he did it: he felt that he needed to to shore up SS, and that SS was worth shoring up. And this--both that Reagan did raise taxes and that it was for an entitlement program--is in complete dissonance with the mythic Reagan the GOP likes to use as a template.

And the tax rates were still lower after this than when he started. I think the problem is we shored up SS only to have the moneys squandered elsewhere, which points to a huge, gaping hole in the system in my opinion-one that needs to be addressed as apparently, merely taking money and applying it to SS doesn't work.

BBL

re: #60 sattv4u2

Hadn't you heard?
They're the party of NO!

"Can we come into the meetings?"
NO!
"Can we propose an amendment?"
NO!
"Can we have time to read the bill before the vote?"
NO!

When did all this start happening though? The GOP made it quite clear early last year that they weren't going to vote for anything the D's put forward. I think Obama and Reid certainly would have liked to get GOP votes.

Once you know that the other side isn't going to vote for anything that you put forward, what incentive do you have in dealing with them?

re: #70 Vambo

be careful. People really eat up that white-picket-fence sidewalked-suburbs bullcrap.

Or the barbed wire fence in the country bullcrap.

re: #62 DaddyG

You are welcome to chime in. I've voted R since Reagan on the hope that the growth of big government would be slowed. The last time it was a close call but I held my nose.

I would be much more comfortable if Romney or some other fiscal conservative that leaves personal decisions and beliefs up to individuals would run on a true Right Center ticket.

However moving the congress back to a more fiscally sound position in 2010 is even more critical IMO. The Dems are the drunken sailors and the Repubs are the whores that like when they throw the quatloos their way.

Romney? less government? you must be joking.

re: #69 The Sanity Inspector

The country was very demoralized at the end of the 70s. Reagan's administration coincided with if not sparked a renewal of the the American spirit. And that's not nothin'! Inspiration is an important part of leadership.

Well sure, but Obama did arguably the same thing and he gets nothing but hell for it. I don't see how "hope and change" is any less nebulous and ridiculous than "shining city on a hill."

re: #65 Jaerik

I don't get the idolization of Reagan either. He was a decent president but he was pretty flawed in many areas. He also ran up huge deficits. Much of his legacy seems mythical to me.

Sheesh. Michael Yon facebooked that he got handcuffed at SeaTac (call it arrested or merely detained), but not for any national security issues, but rather refusing to answer questions unrelated to transportation security.

Got arrested at the Seattle airport for refusing to say how much money I make. (The uniformed ones say I was not "arrested", but they definitely handcuffed me.) Their videos and audios should show that I was polite, but simply refused questions that had nothing to do with national security. Port authority police eventually came -- they were professionals -- and rescued me from the border bullies.

I can't wait to hear TSA's excuse for this...

re: #69 The Sanity Inspector

A very good point. Watergate, Vietnam, the Energy Crisis, those two recessions with lines for gasoline (I learned to drive just in time for the second one and I remember "odd/even" license plate days for buying gas to reduce gas lines) ...then the Iran hostage crisis in 79. Important context to frame that election and beyond.

re: #68 jamesfirecat

Good points, but reality intrudes. I have to go to the grocery store before the next snowstorm hits tomorrow. Have fun, lizards. BBL

re: #76 Girth

When did all this start happening though? The GOP made it quite clear early last year that they weren't going to vote for anything the D's put forward. I think Obama and Reid certainly would have liked to get GOP votes.

Once you know that the other side isn't going to vote for anything that you put forward, what incentive do you have in dealing with them?

Why would it matter? The Dems have the numbers to pass it without one single Repub vote. Can the republicans stall things for awhile? Sure! But if all Dems were on board they would only be delaying the inevitable

That some Dems in both houses are holdimg out is the reason.

re: #81 lawhawk

Sheesh. Michael Yon facebooked that he got handcuffed at SeaTac (call it arrested or merely detained), but not for any national security issues, but rather refusing to answer questions unrelated to transportation security.

I can't wait to hear TSA's excuse for this...

Every time I visit Israel, the airport security likes to chit-chat about random topics that seem to be completely unrelated to airport security.

I would say that the GOP "screwed up" starting with Nixon and the embrace of the Southern Strategy. While it delivered wins for the party for many years the demographic trend (which should have been obvious back then) shows this to be a long term loser and has led to the crazies running the show as they think is their God given (literally) right.

re: #72 Jaerik

No, Boehner posted the complete text of the GOP health care bill, with numbers. It's still up on their site. This was the combination of all GOP amendment proposals and their ability to give 100% of their own ideas in bill form.

Problem was? It was scored as being something like $300B more expensive than even a Democrat public option bill, did nothing to stop pre-existing conditions or other problems, and would not have covered any additional Americans.

They had their shot to present their ideas, and they were atrocious.

Right, I know -- I was being slightly snarky.

But the GOP really did trot out an "alternate budget" without numbers at one point.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

re: #78 Vambo

Romney? less government? you must be joking.

No I'm not. While his personal beliefs are strong, Romney took some moderate positions on social issues and the far right sought to eat his lunch over it.

I have no illusions that there are candidates who will shrink government but we can slow the pace of the growth.

re: #59 Charles

lol,

I think the Republican health care proposal did have numbers.
[Link: www.tnr.com...]
[Link: blogcritics.org...]

It was the republican's budget proposal that didn't have any numbers and earned them a spot in the urban dictionary.

[Link: politics.theatlantic.com...]

re: #88 DaddyG

No I'm not. While his personal beliefs are strong, Romney took some moderate positions on social issues and the far right sought to eat his lunch over it.

I have no illusions that there are candidates who will shrink government but we can slow the pace of the growth.

Plus the guy was governor of an incredibly liberal state. To say he had to make some compromises is a big understatement.

A quick look at the article indicates to me he's just saying they screwed up in not ding what the Tea Party people are pushing for now. Maybe this will be an attempt to gain control of the agenda (since the tea beggars and crazies seem to have control of it). But from the posts out of Hot Air he's not off to a very good start with them.

re: #85 Alouette

Every time I visit Israel, the airport security likes to chit-chat about random topics that seem to be completely unrelated to airport security.

My guess is that they were fishing. Yon might fit some sort of profile that would attract interest. He's physically in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and making bank deposits, transfers and payments online. They might have been asking to see if he had a reasonable explanation or if he started to deflect. If he answered the questions it probably wouldn't have been an issue.

re: #58 The Sanity Inspector

Click around here. The info is available in more digested form elsewhere, but much of the present company might regard the sources as self-damning.

John McCain's health platform from 2008? that's so relevant.

re: #87 Charles

Doh, didn't catch that one on time.

It's interesting to watch the reactionary responses at Hot Air to Michael Steele's relatively tame and somewhat practical recommendations as noted in the NY Times article. I am sure they are not atypical and this is just another reflection of the revanchist hordes and their reactionary behavior. Perhaps they would like to replace him with Michelle Bachmann or some other theocrat.

re: #85 Alouette

It's all about the kind of response one would expect from someone. Shin Bet trains their people quite well on this (and JPost is reporting that they're beefing up security at Ben Gurion and on El Al because of possible threats in anticipation of the anniversary of Hizbullah thug Mughniyeh's death and concern that al Qaeda may try something against Israel's airlines and airport.

re: #92 Killgore Trout

My guess is that they were fishing. Yon might fit some sort of profile that would attract interest. He's physically in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and making bank deposits, transfers and payments online. They might have been asking to see if he had a reasonable explanation or if he started to deflect. If he answered the questions it probably wouldn't have been an issue.

Are you like the TSA's biggest fan or something?//

re: #87 Charles

But the GOP really did trot out an "alternate budget" without numbers at one point.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

...nice.

re: #85 Alouette

Every time I visit Israel, the airport security likes to chit-chat about random topics that seem to be completely unrelated to airport security.

Hi Alouette! You're more experienced in this area (visits to Israel) than I am, but I'd be willing to bet that Israeli airport security folks are probably a wee bit better trained and motivated than a good percentage of the TSA screeners in U.S. airports.

BTW, your note about random topics reminds me of something my old roommate (a police officer) told me - years ago back when I was single. I asked him what the deal was in asking drivers suspected of being inebriated to say the alphabet backwards.

He kind of grinned and said - "well, most sober people don't even try."

;-)

In the debate over which president was better for the economy I think we're missing the critical point- which is the congress that holds the purse strings. You can't discuss Reagan without Tip O'neil, Clinton without Newt Gingrich and W Bush and Obama without Pelosi.

re: #65 Jaerik

The snarky liberal democrat answer that floats around my family (and I find hard to argue with at times) is that the Republicans have no other other president to look up to.

George W. Bush... well I don't need to say much do I?

George H W Bush, was a good president, but he only managed to win one term, and right now to a certain degree his name is mud because of what his son did.

Gerald R. Ford : The only president in the US history I can think of who nobody ever voted for and thus a complete and utter accident who only got elected by the freak chance that both the President and Vice President got kicked out/resigned.

Richard Nixon: Once again, need I say more?

Dwight D. Eisenhower: A guy who seems to almost barley qualify as a republican at times, since he wasn't connected with either party before he ran. I remember reading somewhere that he only ran as a Republican because he was afraid that if he didn't we'd become a one party nation of Democrats. What I stands out about him most to me was being willing to sent in Federal Troops to enforce Integration, which seems like hardly a "limited goverment" thing to do. (If somebody can talk more about Eisenhower I'd love to hear it)

Herbert Hoover: Once again need I say more...?

If you go past Hoover when then you've traveled more or less so far back that the issues the President/Party stood for have almost no meaning to a modern audience.

So if you cross out all the Republican Presidents who can't be held up for one reason or another Regan's all that is left. Its not that he was a truly great president who should be sainted or canonized, its just that he was the best Republican President they've had recently.

re: #84 sattv4u2

Why would it matter? The Dems have the numbers to pass it without one single Repub vote. Can the republicans stall things for awhile? Sure! But if all Dems were on board they would only be delaying the inevitable

That some Dems in both houses are holdimg out is the reason.

If they were more interested in doing their jobs than carrying out their electoral strategy, they'd have gotten some concessions and we wouldn't be handing out bribes to Nebraska and Louisiana.

[Link: www.forbes.com...]

Unfortunately President George W. Bush let the government grow too large. This is what
hurt the Republicans most in 2008. After all, if we wanted a Democrat to be President let it be a REAL Democrat.

The Republican party needs only a very simple plan to become the majority party once more.

Pledge to reduce the size of the Federal Government and to reduce marginal tax rates. And this time REALLY MEAN IT!

While I loved President George W. Bush's aggressive Foreign Policy I was not in the least taken by his DOMESTIC policy.

If the GOP wants the grassroots back, it must go back to it's modern intellectual roots.
Smaller Government and Lower Taxes. It's easy-peasy. Now if we can only find some Republicans who ACTUALLY believe in that. I can only think of one right now.
And she seems to be unemployed. < sigh >

re: #81 lawhawk

Sheesh. Michael Yon facebooked that he got handcuffed at SeaTac (call it arrested or merely detained), but not for any national security issues, but rather refusing to answer questions unrelated to transportation security.

OMG!

I can't wait to hear TSA's excuse for this...

re: #102 Girth

If they were more interested in doing their jobs than carrying out their electoral strategy, they'd have gotten some concessions and we wouldn't be handing out bribes to Nebraska and Louisiana.

[Link: www.forbes.com...]

I feel the Republican senators did their job in not supporting this abomination of a bill. The bribes are common-place, just better publicized these days.

re: #102 Girth

If they were more interested in doing their jobs than carrying out their electoral strategy, they'd have gotten some concessions and we wouldn't be handing out bribes to Nebraska and Louisiana.

[Link: www.forbes.com...]

Again, those "bribes" were given out too!?!?
democrats that were NOT on board.

Again, if all dems were, they would not need 1 repub vote.

re: #100 DaddyG

In the debate over which president was better for the economy I think we're missing the critical point- which is the congress that holds the purse strings. You can't discuss Reagan without Tip O'neil, Clinton without Newt Gingrich and W Bush and Obama without Pelosi.

How about instead of W and Pelosi we go with W and Hastert, who was Speaker for the six years that Bush couldn't find his veto pen?

re: #103 pragmatist

But what would you cut to make your "smaller government?" Politicians talk all the time about shrinking g'ment, but whenever they bring up specifics, people scream and then they lose the election.

I think the dirty secret is that people may say that they want "lower taxes" and "smaller government," but they don't actually mean it.

re: #81 lawhawk

Mark Steyn, filling in for Rush, just mentioned your post.

re: #108 JoyousMN

But what would you cut to make your "smaller government?" Politicians talk all the time about shrinking g'ment, but whenever they bring up specifics, people scream and then they lose the election.

I think the dirty secret is that people may say that they want "lower taxes" and "smaller government," but they don't actually mean it.

Reagan wanted to get rid of the Dept of Education. People flipped out and the idea died.

re: #104 ggt

I flew through SEATAC on Xmas day and it was crazy, even though the airport was almost empty. The TSA people were literally shouting at the dozen or so people in line saying that they wanted to see every drop of fluid in a basket no matter how small. With only carry-on luggage, I counted 9 plastic baskets between my wife and myself (one for each computer, one for my computer bag, one for shoes, one for a coat, etc...) It was fuckin' stupid.

The woman in front of us had a baby and bottled breast milk. Of course, that required supervisor approval.

re: #110 rwdflynavy

Reagan wanted to get rid of the Dept of Education. People flipped out and the idea died.

IIRC, In a Parliment of Whores, PJ O Rourke suggested getting rid of the Department of Agriculture.

re: #110 rwdflynavy

Reagan wanted to get rid of the Dept of Education. People flipped out and the idea died.

Exactly my point.

Which may be why Republicans switched to "values."

re: #111 darthstar

I flew through SEATAC on Xmas day and it was crazy, even though the airport was almost empty. The TSA people were literally shouting at the dozen or so people in line saying that they wanted to see every drop of fluid in a basket no matter how small. With only carry-on luggage, I counted 9 plastic baskets between my wife and myself (one for each computer, one for my computer bag, one for shoes, one for a coat, etc...) It was fuckin' stupid.

The woman in front of us had a baby and bottled breast milk. Of course, that required supervisor approval.

Maybe they are a little freaked because of the large Muslim population in the area. Not an excuse, just a possible explanation.

re: #103 pragmatist

Unfortunately President George W. Bush let the government grow too large. This is what
hurt the Republicans most in 2008. After all, if we wanted a Democrat to be President let it be a REAL Democrat.

The Republican party needs only a very simple plan to become the majority party once more.

Pledge to reduce the size of the Federal Government and to reduce marginal tax rates. And this time REALLY MEAN IT!

While I loved President George W. Bush's aggressive Foreign Policy I was not in the least taken by his DOMESTIC policy.

If the GOP wants the grassroots back, it must go back to it's modern intellectual roots.
Smaller Government and Lower Taxes. It's easy-peasy. Now if we can only find some Republicans who ACTUALLY believe in that. I can only think of one right now.
And she seems to be unemployed. < sigh >

it juts. won't. die.

aggressive foreign policy is big government. What happens when the government writes a blank check to a contractor, or turns a blind a eye to all their illegal activities? What's happening right now? Why are big deficits and lawlessness ok in our defense department but unacceptable for health & human services (and ACORN)?

This is why the GOP is in free-fall, your ideas failed. Reagan's America failed. Time to get over it.

re: #79 Jaerik

Well sure, but Obama did arguably the same thing and he gets nothing but hell for it. I don't see how "hope and change" is any less nebulous and ridiculous than "shining city on a hill."

Please remember that there's more happening than what gets into the newspapers. Obama is still a huge inspiration to a lot of people. And I remember vividly how many liberals reacted to Reagan's election as if they had suddenly found themselves dropped into Dawn of the Dead.

re: #110 rwdflynavy

Reagan wanted to get rid of the Dept of Education. People flipped out and the idea died.

It's not a good idea to look at the specifics of the Reagan presidency. It kind of undercuts the "Reagan as god" theory. He wasn't a great president, or even a remarkable one. But he wasn't a totally shitty president either.

He was, however, popular at the end of his two terms in office - the lovable old coot. And that's why the wingnuts have their mythology about him being the greatest thing since sliced bread.

re: #114 ggt

Maybe they are a little freaked because of the large Muslim population in the area. Not an excuse, just a possible explanation.

I fly out of DTW, and the Muslim population is not an issue to TSA. Hell, there are Muslims in TSA. That famous photo of a Muslim TSA officer wanding an elderly nun was at DTW.

re: #117 darthstar

What was the greatest thing before sliced bread?

Joan Rivers bumped off flight in Costa Rica when Continental gate agent finds passport suspicious

re: #109 Cannadian Club Akbar

Mark Steyn, filling in for Rush, just mentioned your post.

I like Mark Steyn the times I've heard him. There's nothing bad on him is there? Radio has become a lot less fun for me since I started seeing updates on LGF re conservative personalities.

re: #119 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What was the greatest thing before sliced bread?

Mead.

re: #120 Mad Al-Jaffee

Joan Rivers bumped off flight in Costa Rica when Continental gate agent finds passport suspicious

She probably looks nothing like her pic anymore.

re: #82 okonkolo

A very good point. Watergate, Vietnam, the Energy Crisis, those two recessions with lines for gasoline (I learned to drive just in time for the second one and I remember "odd/even" license plate days for buying gas to reduce gas lines) ...then the Iran hostage crisis in 79. Important context to frame that election and beyond.

A hemorrhoid of a decade, as Doonesbury said.

re: #108 JoyousMN

But what would you cut to make your "smaller government?" Politicians talk all the time about shrinking g'ment, but whenever they bring up specifics, people scream and then they lose the election.

I think the dirty secret is that people may say that they want "lower taxes" and "smaller government," but they don't actually mean it.

I like shrinking gov't. Always thought it hard to do because I think of them as a very large voting block.

re: #119 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What was the greatest thing before sliced bread?

sliced deli meat

re: #123 jayzee

She probably looks nothing like her pic anymore.

But at least she has the same texture.

re: #121 jayzee

I like Mark Steyn the times I've heard him. There's nothing bad on him is there? Radio has become a lot less fun for me since I started seeing updates on LGF re conservative personalities.

Steyn is funny as hell. I listen to be entertained. I know where I stand on things.

re: #119 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What was the greatest thing before sliced bread?

The oven.

re: #59 Charles

You mean the one that had no numbers in it, for example?

Yeah, but it had lots of heart!!

...okay, even I'm not buying that...

It seems like a Herculean task to cut government (and by government, of course, we mean the administrative branch), as everyone likes something.

I always thought it would be interesting to try simple attrition. As federal employees retire (or resign), require department heads to restructure or reorganize to a) spread that employee's duties and responsibilities among the remaining staff and b) take a long, hard look at what the departing employee's duties were - and eliminate those which were either unproductive or duplicated.

No department head could request a replacement until he or she had been through the process, and could document it clearly.

Heck, I'd go even further. To stave off the bureaucratic mind-set that makes creating those documents a snap, I'd put in place an annual evaluation system that allowed the reviewers to deduct points for every additional person requested that year.

re: #92 Killgore Trout

My guess is that they were fishing. Yon might fit some sort of profile that would attract interest. He's physically in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and making bank deposits, transfers and payments online. They might have been asking to see if he had a reasonable explanation or if he started to deflect. If he answered the questions it probably wouldn't have been an issue.

That argument sounds eerily similar to the "if you don't have anything to hide you won't mind the police going through your things" argument. Is your argument that he should have willingly given up the rights he's fought for just to make life a little easier on TSA? Or am I reading your statement wrong?

re: #113 JoyousMN

Which may be why Republicans switched to "values."

Which works, except for one problem: Values change.

They inevitably evolve with time. Sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse, but being against any change in "traditional values" is an impossible battle to win. In hindsight, decades later, you will always be perceived as having been on the wrong side of history.

re: #132 RogueOne

That argument sounds eerily similar to the "if you don't have anything to hide you won't mind the police going through your things" argument. Is your argument that he should have willingly given up the rights he's fought for just to make life a little easier on TSA? Or am I reading your statement wrong?

Law-abiding people have nothing to fear. You aren't trying to hide anything are you?
//

re: #131 subsailor68

The one downside to this is that it sounds like you'd need to make an entirely new government office responsible for keeping track of how well run the other government offices are...

re: #135 jamesfirecat

The one downside to this is that it sounds like you'd need to make an entirely new government office responsible for keeping track of how well run the other government offices are...

Or at least a new division within each current department to monitor the program...

re: #106 sattv4u2

Again, those "bribes" were given out too!?!?
democrats that were NOT on board.

Again, if all dems were, they would not need 1 repub vote.

It would have been much more in the Dem's interest to pick off some Reps instead of paying off those Dems. The GOP rhetoric made sure that instead of having some input on the bill, the Dems would pass a worse bill without them. That's all I'm saying.

re: #136 rwdflynavy

Or at least a new division within each current department to monitor the program...

Na, just need a Czar.
/

re: #135 jamesfirecat

The one downside to this is that it sounds like you'd need to make an entirely new government office responsible for keeping track of how well run the other government offices are...

LOL! Okay, I never said the plan was perfect!

(Actually, all kidding aside, you make a good point - that would probably be exactly the way it would go. Sigh.)

;-)

re: #131 subsailor68

It seems like a Herculean task to cut government (and by government, of course, we mean the administrative branch), as everyone likes something.

I always thought it would be interesting to try simple attrition. As federal employees retire (or resign), require department heads to restructure or reorganize to a) spread that employee's duties and responsibilities among the remaining staff and b) take a long, hard look at what the departing employee's duties were - and eliminate those which were either unproductive or duplicated.

No department head could request a replacement until he or she had been through the process, and could document it clearly.

Heck, I'd go even further. To stave off the bureaucratic mind-set that makes creating those documents a snap, I'd put in place an annual evaluation system that allowed the reviewers to deduct points for every additional person requested that year.

I'd be a lot easier to cut the size of government if it were easier to start a small business. The government employees could go out on their own. If there is a need for their job, the market would support it. Working directly for the taxpayer would probably be more lucrative for the individual and cheaper for the taxpayer.

IMHO.

re: #137 Girth

It would have been much more in the Dem's interest to pick off some Reps instead of paying off those Dems. The GOP rhetoric made sure that instead of having some input on the bill, the Dems would pass a worse bill without them. That's all I'm saying.

No. From the start you were trying to lay blame on the bills passage on the repubs. This is the dems bill, 100%. Has been from the start, will be to the end.

re: #140 ggt

I'd be a lot easier to cut the size of government if it were easier to start a small business. The government employees could go out on their own. If there is a need for their job, the market would support it. Working directly for the taxpayer would probably be more lucrative for the individual and cheaper for the taxpayer.

IMHO.

DING!

re: #131 subsailor68

It seems like a Herculean task to cut government (and by government, of course, we mean the administrative branch), as everyone likes something.

This is really an example of my small understanding of 'small' gov't. as I didn't know the term was confined to the admin branch. Thanks for that.

re: #131 subsailor68

It seems like a Herculean task to cut government (and by government, of course, we mean the administrative branch), as everyone likes something.

I always thought it would be interesting to try simple attrition. As federal employees retire (or resign), require department heads to restructure or reorganize to a) spread that employee's duties and responsibilities among the remaining staff and b) take a long, hard look at what the departing employee's duties were - and eliminate those which were either unproductive or duplicated.

No department head could request a replacement until he or she had been through the process, and could document it clearly.

Heck, I'd go even further. To stave off the bureaucratic mind-set that makes creating those documents a snap, I'd put in place an annual evaluation system that allowed the reviewers to deduct points for every additional person requested that year.

I've heard of the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch but, I've never heard of the "administrative branch".

re: #119 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What was the greatest thing before sliced bread?

Bread.

re: #144 MandyManners

I've heard of the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch but, I've never heard of the "administrative branch".

a/k/a MSM

/

Nap time.

re: #144 MandyManners

I've heard of the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch but, I've never heard of the "administrative branch".

Oops!!! Got me! I meant, of course, the exec - but was thinking about administrative departments and it just spilled out o' my fingers.

Honest guys!

Heh. (Blushing.)

I'm off to the world of laundry and science fiction.

Have a great afternoon all!

re: #139 subsailor68

The sad thing is that I wasn't trying to do a "Reductio ad absurdum" to your statement. I think that what you said is a mostly reasonable idea, its just that we live in an imperfect world. One new government agency probably wouldn't be too high a price to pay for helping clear out the waste in all the others...

re: #149 ggt

I'm off to the world of laundry and science fiction.

Have a great afternoon all!

I want to see that world!

re: #132 RogueOne

My point is that there's probably a reason why they asked him. Everybody on the right is screaming for profiling and Yon's itinerary or financial transactions probably raised some sort of warning flag. If you want to complain that plots are missed by security lapses you can't also complain about thorough security screening.

re: #151 wrenchwench

I want to see that world!

It's an everyday world

Two socks enter the dryer, only one returns. Did the other end up in an alternate universe!?!?!

re: #148 subsailor68

Oops!!! Got me! I meant, of course, the exec - but was thinking about administrative departments and it just spilled out o' my fingers.

Honest guys!

Heh. (Blushing.)

Well, if you want to quibble there are almost 20 million federal employees around the country. That is one hell of an administrative branch.

re: #118 Alouette

I fly out of DTW, and the Muslim population is not an issue to TSA. Hell, there are Muslims in TSA. That famous photo of a Muslim TSA officer wanding an elderly nun was at DTW.

Here is a great quote in that thread from a guy named maddog

I read somewhere that an Israeli security consultant said that America did not have a security system, they have a system for bothering people.

re: #150 jamesfirecat

The sad thing is that I wasn't trying to do a "Reductio ad absurdum" to your statement. I think that what you said is a mostly reasonable idea, its just that we live in an imperfect world. One new government agency probably wouldn't be too high a price to pay for helping clear out the waste in all the others...

So wait, just so I can follow-you're suggesting a new separate division of government that will simply control the waste of other branches of government? What branch will we create to monitor them?

re: #148 subsailor68

Oops!!! Got me! I meant, of course, the exec - but was thinking about administrative departments and it just spilled out o' my fingers.

Honest guys!

Heh. (Blushing.)

But still, aren't the execs those who flow/administer/apply?

re: #148 subsailor68

Oops!!! Got me! I meant, of course, the exec - but was thinking about administrative departments and it just spilled out o' my fingers.

Honest guys!

Heh. (Blushing.)

Gotcha'.

re: #149 ggt

I'm off to the world of laundry and science fiction.

Have a great afternoon all!

I can see a horror movie involving Bounce sheets.

re: #150 jamesfirecat

The sad thing is that I wasn't trying to do a "Reductio ad absurdum" to your statement. I think that what you said is a mostly reasonable idea, its just that we live in an imperfect world. One new government agency probably wouldn't be too high a price to pay for helping clear out the waste in all the others...

Hi jamesfirecat! I just had to laugh because you were right on target. Hm...interesting point - a new agency might not be all bad, but I'd hope it was like a GAO with real teeth - independent etc.

re: #152 Killgore Trout

Actually I can complain and if I were Yon I'd do so loudly. If he was put in cuffs because a TSA employee wanted to know how much money he, an american citizen, made then that is wrong, wrong, wrong and someone should be fired. His civil rights (the same civil rights he put on a uniform to defend) were violated and there is no good way of getting around it.

re: #156 jayzee

Well the other possibility would be that the government hires a different independent firm to do that kind of work every year, that way you don't create long term government jobs...

re: #154 RogueOne

Well, if you want to quibble there are almost 20 million federal employees around the country. That is one hell of an administrative branch.

A) voting block
B) job "creation" apparatus
C) waste of manpower
D) all of the above

re: #141 sattv4u2

No. From the start you were trying to lay blame on the bills passage on the repubs. This is the dems bill, 100%. Has been from the start, will be to the end.

Of course it is. Elections matter. Ds own both houses, they get to pass bills.

You're misunderstanding me. Did you read the Bruce Barlett piece I linked in my #102?

headin' upstairs for (hopefully) a chuckle, then headin to bed

re: #164 Girth

Of course it is. Elections matter. Ds own both houses, they get to pass bills.

You're misunderstanding me. Did you read the Bruce Barlett piece I linked in my #102?

Yes I did, but I'm responding to your posts and you made your thoughts very clear!

re: #162 jamesfirecat

Well the other possibility would be that the government hires a different independent firm to do that kind of work every year, that way you don't create long term government jobs...

Maybe these guys?

re: #145 Alouette

Beer!

re: #164 Girth

Of course it is. Elections matter. Ds own both houses, they get to pass bills.

Hi Girth. True, but there is also the concept of "concurrent majority" - discussed here:

Concurrent Majority

(The Calhoun stuff not so important, but the U.S. Constitution section is kind of interesting.)

The D's do own both houses, but the deliberate tactics being used by Reid and Pelosi are problematic, particularly with respect to health care. BTW, I'd have the same problem with a Republican super-majority. While it looks good to folks who support the Dems or Republicans - it's probably not all that healthy for the Republic.

re: #153 sattv4u2

It's an everyday world

Two socks enter the dryer, only one returns. Did the other end up in an alternate universe!?!?!

Thunderdome!

re: #169 subsailor68

I don't think Reid is breaking any new ground with his tactics. The Reconciliation Process has been used before for non budget laws. In essence, the debate has passed and any criticisms and input the Republicans can make they have made. The Reconciliation Process brings this all to a merciful end. The Dems do have the votes. Reid could reach the same end with Reconciliation but it would just take longer.

1. Iirc Steele said this kind of thing after the election, and then felt obliged to kowtow to Rush Limbaugh.

2. Steele's heart is in the right place, but the GOP is not ready to listen.
2a. There is significant money being made by keeping the GOP base behaving like adrenalin-addicted Pavlovian lemmings.
2b. IMO the Republican establishment wants to operate in a Big Government, and they're willing to accept minority status as the price.

3. Why did this center-right nation emphatically throw out its Republican government? The GOP has successfully avoided confronting this question. The Republicans are counting on Democratic incompetence to restore them to power. In effect, the Republicans are campaigning on a promise to wreck America more slowly than their opponents will.

Good luck with that. And heaven help this country.

re: #22 lawhawk

Reagan attempted to replace the revenue lost by the high tax rate at the top margins by increasing FICA taxes. FICA taxes are regressive, and there is a top earned income above which no further SS taxes are deducted. Then Reagan borrowed from the "fund" created by the FICA tax. It wasn't fiscally conservative at all, because the tax cuts benefited the highest earners and wealthiest at the expense of the middle class who had a flat rate SS tax increase. Even then, Reagan's spending exceeded even all the revenues from the combined FICA and personal income taxes. . .

[Link: zfacts.com...]

and began years of deficit spending adding to the national debt. If Reagan had slashed spending while simultaneously lowering taxes or had offset in some other manner, he could be considered fiscally conservative.

re: #173 Opal

Welcome, hatchling.

re: #6 _RememberTonyC

Steele should come here for feedback ... he'd get smart advice ...

I like Steele.
His problem seems to be he is a nice guy.

re: #4 Sharmuta

Where Mr Steele misses the mark in his criticisms of the party is in the utter intellectual inconsistency between rhetoric and action. On the one hand, the GOP stands for limited government, while on the other, they're pushing to get into everyone's bedroom. On one hand there is the calls to fiscal discipline, while on the other hand the Congress in GOP power spends money like drunken sailors.

A platform built on such a fractured foundation cannot long endure.

True but let's wait and see how screwed up the Dems will be.

re: #174 wrenchwench

Thank you for the welcome. I've been lurking for awhile and have learned so much.

re: #26 rwdflynavy

or picking John McCain as the Republican nominee...

It's a tradition with the GOP to do that. That is why they picked Dole to run.

re: #31 Cannadian Club Akbar

In Florida you can only pick a nominee during primaries with your party affiliation. I think McCain won Florida, but I wonder how other states have the same laws.

Same in Colorado.

re: #37 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I picked Romney, I got stuck with McCain.

That's how I felt when y'all picked GWB and not McCain.

re: #41 Girth

[Link: politics.theatlantic.com...]

Republicans, please kill this hunk of shit and start over. Do not gloat, do not cheer, get serious and show me that you have an idea or two.

By the time Republicans can get their hands on it it will be to late to kill it. End of.

re: #61 Girth

They should have picked a plan and ran with it. People ask where your plan is and your response is, well, we've got a few laying around in the back. That's not how you sell stuff. Clean it up, wax it, and put it on the floor if you want to sell it.

That's not the media's fault.

They did. You weren't paying attention.

re: #175 Blueheron

Steele seemed like a nice guy until he and Maryland's governor Ehrlich got tied up in "oreogate". Ehrlich and Steele claimed that Steele was pelted with Oreo cookies at a debate at a predominantly-black college. The story didn't pan out based upon what attendees at the event claimed, and Steele was blamed for race-baiting. It was all blown out of proportion, but it managed to stake Steele against the black community in Maryland. It was brought back up when Steele was running against Cardin for the senate in 2006. The conventional wisdom at the time was that Steele was running on his race, not his qualifications. Without the minority vote, Steele took less than 45 percent of the vote.

re: #87 Charles

Right, I know -- I was being slightly snarky.

But the GOP really did trot out an "alternate budget" without numbers at one point.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Charles do we know what the Dem plan will cost? Of course we don't. So why hold the Republicans to some numbers?

re: #91 TDG2112

A quick look at the article indicates to me he's just saying they screwed up in not ding what the Tea Party people are pushing for now. Maybe this will be an attempt to gain control of the agenda (since the tea beggars and crazies seem to have control of it). But from the posts out of Hot Air he's not off to a very good start with them.

Well that does it then. Steele is OK in my book.

re: #137 Girth

It would have been much more in the Dem's interest to pick off some Reps instead of paying off those Dems. The GOP rhetoric made sure that instead of having some input on the bill, the Dems would pass a worse bill without them. That's all I'm saying.

Naw naw you aren't pushing this monster off on the Repub's back. This monster is all Democrat.

re: #173 Opal

Voodoo economics 101, my friend.

JoyousMN #108 quite rightly asks of me ...

'But what would you cut to make your "smaller government?"'

Sorry for the long delayed response but we had some database
problems and I got to fix them :-} I love my job, especially
getting paid, but I can happily do without the 'work' part of
it.

ONLY KIDDING! Solving problems is the MOST SATISFYING
thing I do.

In any case, back to the question that was asked of me.

Personally I could live without everything the Feds do
except for law enforcement and the military. OK, that
IS an exaggeration. Having the FDA inspect meat
packing plants is kinda nice.

And NASA would be really cool if they hadn't made the
most exciting thing in the history so boring. A tip of
the hat to Robert Heinlein for that!

How about a total job freeze and ask all departments to
cut 5% of their least critical projects? Except for law
enforcement and the military.

Any PRIVATE businessman can tell you that only about
80% of what they is vital to a company ( hat tip to Pareto )
Maybe they can even do without MySQL DBAS!

So surely even the Fed gummint must have some things that
aren't absolutely vital.

Like funding the UN or NPR perhaps?
Or spending stimulus money on FOREIGN automakers?

I'd rather cut THOSE than Head Start.

amen to that pragmatist, you hit the nail on the head