The American Spectator

Red Phillips| 2.7.09 @ 8:12AM

Amen. This has ALWAYS been the Republican Party's MO. Even when they were in the majority they offered up slightly less socialist alternatives so as to seem "reasonable."

Any of you conservatives out there regretting not supporting Ron Paul yet?

Jeremiah| 2.7.09 @ 8:56AM

Just a quick note:

I notice Stalin's old definition of "liberals" as "useful idiots" gets used a great deal around here.

Just so you all know, by "liberals" he did NOT mean exactly what you all mean when you talk about "liberals."

In political philosophy and in other countries generally, "liberal" describes a form of rights based government.

In this country, "conservatives" and "liberals" are both "liberal" -- they just differ in which rights they hold as priorities.

Ron Paul -- a libertarian -- would presumably be the most useful of the useful idiots.

Jeremiah| 2.7.09 @ 8:59AM

Stalin's thinking ultimately perverts a notion in Marx.

Marx believed that "liberal democracy" (that is, modern western democracies in general) would pave the way towards socialism because of the freedom they have allowed people and their enormous wealth.

Some people debate this, but most believe Marx's idea was that great wealth and freedom would eventually wear down oppressive state forces, leading to socialism first and eventually the "withering" of the state entirely.

Solo| 2.7.09 @ 9:02AM

Out of the total of republican representation in both the House and the Senate, three (Collins, Snowe and Specter)- the three most liberal "republicans" in the Senate- jumped ship and voted with the democrats. Big surprise!

The "useful idiots" in this travesty are the ones who stood "on principle" by sitting on their hands in '06 and '08- or worse yet, throwing away their votes on some anachronistic conspiracy crank- under a policy of allowing the good to become the enemy of the perfect.

Now...the three most liberal republicans in the Senate are the most powerful republicans in the Senate.

"We" sure taught those RINOs a lesson, huh?

Jeremiah| 2.7.09 @ 9:03AM

It's interesting to note, while I'm at it, that the "goal" of Marx's political vision was ultimately the destruction of the state.

It's not unlike some people's Jeffersonian idealization of an agricultural political economy, although it happens without the slavery.

J. Kelley| 2.7.09 @ 9:04AM

Democrats can always peal off two or three RINOS. So they in fact do have the 60 vote majorty. Now is the time for Republicans to replace the Collins, Snow and Specter "moderats".Mccain is a pleasant suprise in this matter.

Basil Plumley| 2.7.09 @ 9:05AM

Oh yeah, I'm supposed to support a guy who since he was elected to Congress in 1996, he has not voted for a single Defense Authorization Bill, not one, not ever.
I guess we could all go to bed feeling safer with that guy as POTUS.

But wait? Weren't you a Huckabee guy?

Basil Plumley| 2.7.09 @ 9:13AM

@Jeremiah

If there is anyone on this board who knows Marx, I would have bet the farm it was you. Perhaps you can take some of your ilk and move to Fredonia with the other Marxists.
Hail! Hail! Fredonia!!

Sean| 2.7.09 @ 10:08AM

I wish more Republicans were like Ron Paul. Most Republicans do not mind voting for wasteful spending we saw that when GWB was in charge. At least now that Obama is in office some of them will act like they are conservatives.

Eric Dondero| 2.7.09 @ 11:12AM

Wow! What a bass ackwards piece. Bandow blasts the entire Republican Party for the actions of three barely Republican RINOs, instead of taking the opportunity to thank and praise the other 178 in the House and 38 in the Senate, including shockingly McCain!, who fiercely opposed it.

Bandow's hatred for the GOP is starting to show. It's that old, "leftwing libertarians can't show any allegiance to the Republicans" deal. Gotta play up the "not a dimes worth of difference..." line. Or else, libertarians just won't be above it all.

Like, we don't notice that Bandow?

Interested Conservative| 2.7.09 @ 11:15AM

Nice try Jeremiah. Stalin knew who he meant.

WendyG| 2.7.09 @ 11:17AM

>>>Any of you conservatives out there regretting not supporting Ron Paul yet?

Nope. He is not the answer by any means.

I am regretting that Romney wasn't the GOP nominee.

Real American| 2.7.09 @ 11:19AM

Pat Toomey, you ready again?

Paul McGrath| 2.7.09 @ 12:10PM

The Republicans had a chance to shelve Specter in favor of Santorum in 2002 (I believe). But the great George Bush leaped into the fray to save him. Another thing to be thankful for from this tinwit. God, what a disaster he was.

james| 2.7.09 @ 12:10PM

Useful Idiots was coined by Lenin, not Stalin. No difference, but still.

Red Phillips| 2.7.09 @ 12:19PM

Basil, me a Huckabee guy? No way. I just wasn't as anti-Huckabee as some. Huckabee, whatever his faults, had good enemies. A lot of the anti-Huck hysteria was thinnly disguised elitism, anti-Christian and anti-Southern bigotry.

But Paul is right to vote against bloated defense spending, much of which goes to fund unconstitutional, unhelpful, and often immoral interventionism.

Jeremiah| 2.7.09 @ 12:43PM

James --

True enough. My mistake.

There is a difference, however. Lenin was a dictator and not a very likeable guy, to me: however, he was no Stalin.

The Rev| 2.7.09 @ 1:12PM

We are moving, I think, toward a tipping point. As the 'crisis' deepens and the vast stimulus package fails, we may see even more of the economy moved to direct government control. Right now, only a select group of executives have compensation caps, soon that number will increase. Either the Republicans will show themselves to be an actual opposition, or they will merely put a smiley face on the death mask the Obama administration is fashioning for the Republic.

Any of N| 2.7.09 @ 2:41PM

Our last six Republican presidential nominees were, moving backwards: John McCain, George W. Bush, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, George H. W. Bush, and George H. W. Bush. Not exactly a pantheon of Libertarian Backbone, is it? There is hardly any reason to be surprised with the rollover on the stimulus package. Much more interesting is the way Am Spec seems to be finally iterating back to its old 80's views. Ah, those were the days. When free markets were advocated and the words didn't seem ridiculously hollow.

ConservativeWanderer| 2.7.09 @ 3:31PM

Jeremiah is just upset that with the Dems controlling both the House and Senate, and a Democrat in the Oval Office, even 3 GOP defectors won't allow the Party of the Donkey to blame the coming failure of the stimulus on the Party of the Elephant.

In short, he's figured out that life is hard when you can't blame the other party.

ruth| 2.7.09 @ 4:55PM

Stop blaming the GOP--they are no more to blame than the voters who elected them. I'm sick and tired of blaming each other. Let the stupid liberals own this mess. "The people get the government they deserve," Thomas Jefferson and, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters," Benjamin Franklin. Uh oh.

Marc Jeric| 2.7.09 @ 6:32PM

Being old enough to have experienced Hitler's brown shirts and Stalin's soviets or block committees, I am interested in those $5.1 billion in the Economic Stimulus bill dedicated to ACORN community organizers. It is not unexpected that President Obama is heavily engaged in ensuring that those $5.1 billion be voted on favorably by our Congress. After all, he started his career as community organizer himself, then as a lawyer for them, and finaly as law instructor for future lawyers for community organizers. His election campaign gave about $800,000 to ACORN community organizers last year. What disturbs me is that those ACORN community organizers remind me forcefully of Hitler's brown shirts and Stalin's block committees.

BD57| 2.7.09 @ 7:04PM

I'd like to go one step beyond being upset with Specter, et al - frankly, they've done this too many times for me to be "disappointed" or "upset" ... it's SOP for them.

Here's the question - is there any tactical advantage they could claim to be pursuing?

I suppose the Republicans en masse could filibuster, with the result that there would be no bill ..... but I can't see that happening. Even if the caucus voted 100% against the bill, I can't see them sustaining a filibuster.

Which would mean AT SOME POINT a bill would pass in the Senate and then go on to conference committee.

Is there any tactical advantage re: conference having a Republican voting for the bill?

I don't know.

Can Republicans filibuster the reconciled bill when it comes back from conference?

S.L. Toddard| 2.7.09 @ 8:20PM

Jeremiah stands so much for marxism that despite its unavoidable failures to produce wealth and maintain the most basic human rights, he's still ready to experiment over and over again. Guess he'll be the first one to export it to Mars.

What a fake. Just a liberal.

Interloper| 2.7.09 @ 8:25PM

It is more than a little contradictory to claim to oppose the size of the stimulus package, and then, complain about an agreement to reduce its size. Weird, even.

A reminder: The goal of the stimulus package is to SAVE an estimated four million jobs. Just helping the confused.

ConservativeWanderer| 2.7.09 @ 8:36PM

Interloper, the bill that the House passed was $780 billion. How can you say that an $827 billion bill has been REDUCED in size?

By the way, over the long haul, the Congressional Budget Office says that the effects of this bill on jobs will be negligible... and it will cause a LOSS of GDP in the long-term.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

No wonder the Democrats didn't mention this in their campaign ads and/or speeches... it's hardly a vote-getter to say "I'm gonna make the economy SMALLER!"

Basil Plumley| 2.7.09 @ 10:25PM

@Interloper

Here is a portion of Obama's remarks in Williamsburg a couple of days ago:

"So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? (Laughter and applause.) That's the whole point. No, seriously. (Laughter.) That's the point."

Spending our way out of a problem economy. This was the GOP idea to counter the stock market crash in 1929. Despite FDR's spending, unemployment was still in the double digits. Those who refuse to learn from history are damned to repeat it.
Saving 4Million jobs? Of course, if you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth, eh?

Actually folks, this game isn't over. This bill may still not pass. The Dems are damned if they pass this monster and damned if they don't.

Interloper| 2.7.09 @ 10:26PM

The projected stimulus package before the proposed cuts was approaching $1 trillion. If the huge tax credits for new car purchases are reduced, among other things, it could go as low as $700 million.

The stimulus package is meant to sustain the economy for the foreseeable future - now through 2012. Projections beyond that are not reliable. Even if the size of the GNP grows more slowly in the long-run, the perils of a depression will have been avoided.

ruth| 2.7.09 @ 10:47PM

Baloney, this 'stimulus package' is for big time liberal payoffs. Stop lying. When it goes down in flames, I hope it takes you stupid Marxists with it.

Alan Brooks| 2.8.09 @ 12:05AM

Jeremiah's comment on Jeffersonian small govt-- relating such to Marx's withering away of the state-- was dopey-- the sort of halfbaked comment i write when i'm in a hurry and not thinking straight.
no more, will be careful from now on; i dont want any connection to Dopemiah, however remote.

Alan Brooks| 2.8.09 @ 12:27AM

to link Jefferson's "idealized agricultural political economy" to Marx's Communism
(hint: Marx was an urban-oriented commie, not an agrarian)
was losel-witted.

and if it's you trolling in my name, dopemiah, you'd better stop it.

Alan Brooks| 2.8.09 @ 12:57AM

"although it happens without the slavery"

what a dope.

Robert Camp| 2.8.09 @ 1:04AM

House & Senate Republicans are the reason we are in the mess we have now. If they would have just said "NO" to President Bush the Republicans would probably still be in charge of government. When is the Republican Party going to exact some skin from those RINO's that vote against the best interest of the country and the Republican Party. Don't tell me that this Spending Bill is good for the country. What did those RINO's get from BO for siding with the Socialists Democrats.

HomelessLeRino| 2.8.09 @ 9:12AM

OK J Kelly, go run two real conservatives in Maine. Go ahead do it, and you will have 2 less GOP senate seats. Did you learn nothing from the recent slaughters ? The GOPs in business to win elections, not stay true to the cherished principles of a dwindling minority. Movement conservatives please leave the GOP. Form your own party and get slaughtered without bringing down the GOP. The job of the GOP is to build a competative party not be the modern political equivalent of the Titanic. Those of you who wish to drown in the cold sea, go ahead, make my day.

NHdissident| 2.8.09 @ 9:36AM

This article is stupid. The reason Collins, Snow and Spector are so powerful is because Republicans need to win more Senate Seats. We all have known these people are RINOS. Remember the RINO is a "politician" first Republican second. The Republican Party has to be rebuilt from the ground up. If Republicans want to stop spending bills like this they have to win elections first. Stop whining about spilt milk.

ConservativeWanderer| 2.8.09 @ 10:11AM

Interloper, whether you realize it or not (I suspect you do), you're comparing apples and oranges.

The $1 trillion price tag is actually still valid, as is the $827 billion price tag. The difference is that the first one includes the interest payments on the increased national debt that we'll incur, the second doesn't.

BD57| 2.8.09 @ 4:19PM

Robert, you've got it backwards ... or at least "wrong".

The Republicans in Congress had no stomach for spending discipline. The Executive can't force Congress to spend a dime - you can fault Bush for putting forth some questionable policies (new entitlements, etc.), you can fault him for refusing to exercise his veto, but (imo, at least) he's not to blame for Republicans losing their majorities in Congress.

Republicans bought into the idea that reelection can be bought. That's where the budget busting bills came from, that's where earmarks came from.

HomelessLeRino| 2.8.09 @ 8:35PM

A republican majority composed of true blue conservatives, RINOS, Libertarians, All others would produce a better answer to out woes than this idiocy and larceny we see here. That is reality. The mighty middle rules, just wake up to it. They tilted to the democrats big time for two cycles. They need a reason. Telling them they must submit to right wing ideology is not gonna do it. The Mighty Middle has pride and backbone. Don't listen to that idiotic spaceshot Limbaugh who calls them linguine spined. That is reality conservative absolutist and if you do not like it screw and form your own little insignificant party. You'd win squat at the election polls.

Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 2.8.09 @ 9:24PM

The mighty middle rules,...

You misspelled "mushy".

ConservativeWanderer| 2.8.09 @ 9:46PM

LeRino, we ran your kind of candidate in 2008... how well did that work out?

The GOP congress governed as Democrat-Lite for years... how'd that work out in the 2006 and 2008 elections?

Face it, you're a hopeless advocate for a losing cause.

Either that or a lefty troll... I lean towards the latter.

ruth| 2.8.09 @ 10:58PM

Homeless, your moniker should be brainless.