• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

On K Street Conservatism

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9629463/site/newsweek/

Oct. 17, 2005 issue - For a few conservatives, the accumulation of discontents may have begun building toward today's critical mass in December 2001 with the No Child Left Behind law, which intruded the federal government deeply into the state and local responsibility of education, grades K through 12. That intrusion has been accompanied by a 51 percent increase in the budget of the Education Department that conservatives once aspired to abolish.

The accumulation accelerated in December 2003, when the Republican House leadership held open for three hours the vote on adding a prescription-drug benefit to Medicare. The time was needed to browbeat enough conservatives to pass the largest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ?an entitlement with an unfunded liability larger than that of Social Security. The president's only believable veto threat in nearly five years was made to deter an attempt to cut spending by trimming the drug entitlement.

Agriculture subsidies increased 40 percent while farm income was doubling. Conservatives concerned about promiscuous uses of government were appalled when congressional Republicans waded into the Terri Schiavo tragedy. Then came the conjunction of the transportation bill and Katrina. The transportation bill's cost, honestly calculated, exceeded the threshold that the president had said would trigger his first veto. (He is the first president in 176 years to serve a full term without vetoing anything. His father cast 44 vetoes. Ronald Reagan's eight-year total was 78.) In 1987 Reagan vetoed a transportation bill because it contained 152 earmarks?pork?costing $1.4 billion. The bill President Bush signed contained 6,371, costing $24 billion. The total cost of the bill?$286 billion?is more, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than the combined costs of the Marshall Plan and the interstate highway system.

With Katrina, "nation building"?a phrase as sensible as "orchid building," and an undertaking expressive of extravagant confidence in government?has come home. It is one thing to invoke, as Reagan frequently did for national inspiration, the Puritans' image of building a "shining city upon a hill." It is another thing to adopt the policy of rebuilding a tarnished city?it was badly tarnished even before the inundation?that sits below sea level.

Could Katrina's costs be paid by budget cuts, perhaps starting with $24 billion of transportation earmarks? No, said the then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay?"The Hammer"?because Republicans have cut all inessential spending. With that, critical mass became explosive.

The indictments of DeLay?although certainly political in terms of the prosecutor's motive and probably unjust as a matter of law?are, considered solely in terms of their consequences, helpful to conservatives. DeLay, who neither knows nor cares any more about limited government than a camel knows or cares about calculus, probably will never return to the House leadership, and might even be voted out of the House in 13 months.

When hammered, people can become as flattened as veal scaloppine, or can become angry. Conservatives' anger forced Speaker Dennis Hastert to abandon his highhanded attempt to name California Rep. David Dreier as DeLay's chosen placeholder. Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt, who was named instead, will not relish turning into a pumpkin if DeLay returns. Besides, 50 Republican members can force leadership elections?what a concept?and are apt to do so in January. Furthermore, in 2004 DeLay won with an underwhelming 55 percent, running nine points behind President Bush in his district.

DeLay is exhibit A for the proposition that many Republicans have gone native in Washington. Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, leader of the more than 100 conservative members of the Republican Study Committee, charges that some Republicans think "big government is good government if it's our government." DeLay's troubles, and his party's, may multiply with coming revelations about the seamy career of uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. He is emblematic of DeLay's faux conservatism?K Street conservatism. That is Republican power in the service of lobbyists who, in their K Street habitat, are in the service of rent seekers?interests eager to bend public power for their private advantage.

Since 2000 the number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled, from 16,342 to 34,785. They have not been attracted to the seat of government, like flies to honey, for the purpose of limiting government.

Conservatives are not supposed to be cuddly, or even particularly nice. They are, however, supposed to be competent. And to know that scarcity?of money, virtue, wisdom, competence, everything?forces choices. Furthermore, they are supposed to have an unsentimental commitment to meritocracy and excellence. The fact that none of those responsible for the postwar planning, or lack thereof, in Iraq have been sacked suggests?no, shouts?that in Washington today there is no serious penalty for serious failure. Hence the multiplication of failures.

Well said. Of course he is 100% correct, but cheerleaders cheer for their team no matter what. When will the real Republicans step forward and take control of their party?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Well said. Of course he is 100% correct, but cheerleaders cheer for their team no matter what. When will the real Republicans step forward and take control of their party?

Maybe you missed the memo, the republican party isnt run by conservatives anymore.

And why do you want the conservatives to step forward and take control of the republican party? You are on here 24/7 crying about how the fundie right is taking over this country. You really want a strong conservative movement to really be controlling this country by taking back the republican party?
 

azazyel

Diamond Member
Oct 6, 2000
5,872
1
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Well said. Of course he is 100% correct, but cheerleaders cheer for their team no matter what. When will the real Republicans step forward and take control of their party?

Maybe you missed the memo, the republican party isnt run by conservatives anymore.

And why do you want the conservatives to step forward and take control of the republican party? You are on here 24/7 crying about how the fundie right is taking over this country. You really want a strong conservative movement to really be controlling this country by taking back the republican party?

You can be a conservative and not be a fundie. In fact true conservatism is smaller government so less power for the fundies.
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
Right,

Most label anything that they disagree with as "Liberal" or "Conservative", when most true Conservatives cringe at extremists and fundamentalists for their shallow self-centered views. True Conservatives weigh the whole as more important than the screaming "me-first' crowds, no matter how vocal they become. Imagine your stodgy uncle Theo, and you get the picture. Amish and Shakers are Conservative, Spring Breakers are Liberal. Somewhere in-between lies everyone else.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: Genx87

Maybe you missed the memo, the republican party isnt run by conservatives anymore.

And why do you want the conservatives to step forward and take control of the republican party? You are on here 24/7 crying about how the fundie right is taking over this country. You really want a strong conservative movement to really be controlling this country by taking back the republican party?

You make an interesting point - many (though not all) of the people decrying the decline of conservatism in the Republican party are liberals (myself included). Nevertheless, as a person who grew up in the Reagan/GHWB era, it's jarring to have Republican leadership that has drifted so far from the traditional Republican values of small government and personal liberty.

Speaking for myself, I have come as I've aged to embrace these ideals more and more, but now they virtually no longer exist on the national stage (and, to the extent anyone is espousing them, it's the moderate Democrats and relatively liberal Republicans). Instead, the Republican agenda is being set by people who embrace values and concerns I find repugnant.

George Will is, as always, one smart cookie, and his editorial speaks to the frustration of many old-school conservatives.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
And why do you want the conservatives to step forward and take control of the republican party? You are on here 24/7 crying about how the fundie right is taking over this country. You really want a strong conservative movement to really be controlling this country by taking back the republican party?

Yes, I want a real conservative party. Not a Christian crusade. I don't care about gays or abortion.

 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Well said. Of course he is 100% correct, but cheerleaders cheer for their team no matter what. When will the real Republicans step forward and take control of their party?

Maybe you missed the memo, the republican party isnt run by conservatives anymore.

And why do you want the conservatives to step forward and take control of the republican party? You are on here 24/7 crying about how the fundie right is taking over this country. You really want a strong conservative movement to really be controlling this country by taking back the republican party?

I would. A true conservative movement, you know the kind that favors fiscal conservatism, isn't in bed with the religious right or PNAC and would be very supportive of freedom and democracy. I'd vote for someone from that kind of party. Its too bad that the Democrats are closer to those ideals than the Republicans.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Genx87
Well said. Of course he is 100% correct, but cheerleaders cheer for their team no matter what. When will the real Republicans step forward and take control of their party?

Maybe you missed the memo, the republican party isnt run by conservatives anymore.

And why do you want the conservatives to step forward and take control of the republican party? You are on here 24/7 crying about how the fundie right is taking over this country. You really want a strong conservative movement to really be controlling this country by taking back the republican party?

I would. A true conservative movement, you know the kind that favors fiscal conservatism, isn't in bed with the religious right or PNAC and would be very supportive of freedom and democracy. I'd vote for someone from that kind of party. Its too bad that the Democrats are closer to those ideals than the Republicans.

I'd vote for either party that went that way. But neither party wants to, in fear of "alienating their base".

I wish they'd realize that their stupid fringes will offset each other, and they're gonna vote regardless. And I think the Dems could do this better than the republicans, but they won't. Cause their fringe is just as entrenched as the Republicans is.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Genx87
Well said. Of course he is 100% correct, but cheerleaders cheer for their team no matter what. When will the real Republicans step forward and take control of their party?

Maybe you missed the memo, the republican party isnt run by conservatives anymore.

And why do you want the conservatives to step forward and take control of the republican party? You are on here 24/7 crying about how the fundie right is taking over this country. You really want a strong conservative movement to really be controlling this country by taking back the republican party?

I would. A true conservative movement, you know the kind that favors fiscal conservatism, isn't in bed with the religious right or PNAC and would be very supportive of freedom and democracy. I'd vote for someone from that kind of party. Its too bad that the Democrats are closer to those ideals than the Republicans.

Sounds like you are talking about Liberarians ;) Vote for them when those who are running in your area espouses the same ideas such as these~ I know I do!
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: magomago
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Genx87
Well said. Of course he is 100% correct, but cheerleaders cheer for their team no matter what. When will the real Republicans step forward and take control of their party?

Maybe you missed the memo, the republican party isnt run by conservatives anymore.

And why do you want the conservatives to step forward and take control of the republican party? You are on here 24/7 crying about how the fundie right is taking over this country. You really want a strong conservative movement to really be controlling this country by taking back the republican party?

I would. A true conservative movement, you know the kind that favors fiscal conservatism, isn't in bed with the religious right or PNAC and would be very supportive of freedom and democracy. I'd vote for someone from that kind of party. Its too bad that the Democrats are closer to those ideals than the Republicans.

Sounds like you are talking about Liberarians ;) Vote for them when those who are running in your area espouses the same ideas such as these~ I know I do!

Libertarians? I'd consider a vote for them except they support open borders. :thumbsdown:
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: azazyel
Originally posted by: Genx87
Well said. Of course he is 100% correct, but cheerleaders cheer for their team no matter what. When will the real Republicans step forward and take control of their party?

Maybe you missed the memo, the republican party isnt run by conservatives anymore.

And why do you want the conservatives to step forward and take control of the republican party? You are on here 24/7 crying about how the fundie right is taking over this country. You really want a strong conservative movement to really be controlling this country by taking back the republican party?

You can be a conservative and not be a fundie. In fact true conservatism is smaller government so less power for the fundies.


News to me, seems like everybody right of Stalin on this msgboard is a fundie.


 

NJDevil

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
952
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: azazyel
Originally posted by: Genx87
Well said. Of course he is 100% correct, but cheerleaders cheer for their team no matter what. When will the real Republicans step forward and take control of their party?

Maybe you missed the memo, the republican party isnt run by conservatives anymore.

And why do you want the conservatives to step forward and take control of the republican party? You are on here 24/7 crying about how the fundie right is taking over this country. You really want a strong conservative movement to really be controlling this country by taking back the republican party?

You can be a conservative and not be a fundie. In fact true conservatism is smaller government so less power for the fundies.


News to me, seems like everybody right of Stalin on this msgboard is a fundie.

I think only a small minority on the left of this board would say that. I would call Rip (when he was here) a fundie, and the other radical rightists who post here, but that's about it on the fundamentals. There are plenty of rabid republicans though (and more democrats).

Don't play yourself as the victim ;) ... that's the job of the democrats :).