The American Spectator

Greg Scandlen| 12.24.09 @ 9:18AM

My goodness, you have been prolific lately!
I agree with you 100% on the Republican mismanagement of heath care over the past 15 years. They just never "got it" because they weren't interested in the topic.
Yes, they passed HSAs, but they didn't understand the point. They treated HSAs as just a new program and a sop to conservatives. They never understood that HSAs were just a baby step in unraveling the grip of Third-Party Payment (TPP) on the health care system.
If they had understood that, they would have applied the same principle to Part D Medicare, SCHIP, HIPAA, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid reform (as Mitch Daniels did in Indiana.)
These were all Republican "reforms" that failed to reform anything. If anything they all made TPP more powerful and reduced consumer control.
It is a national tragedy that 15 years of governance were squandered.

Dell| 12.24.09 @ 9:44AM

Republicans never learned a thing when the "Obstructionist In Chief" - Tom Daschle - was the Democrat's leader (both minority and majority) in the Senate. Daschle almost single-handedly destroyed every Republican initiative by using every dirty, low down, conniving, political back-stabbing trick in the book. He took his cues from the "Clinton Team", headed by Paul Begala and James Carville and ruthless would be a serious understatement as to how those two operated (and continue to operate).

Until Republicans grow a pair THAT size, they'll continue to get steam-rolled in the Senate, and let's face it - that's where it really counts.

JP| 12.24.09 @ 10:10AM

Dell,
You make good points. The GOP (especially the Republicans in the Senate) wasted many oppurtunities from 1995-2001, and again 2003-2006. Many Republicans made false assumptions:

1)Collegiality trumps politics. The GOP members bent over backwards when in the majority to cut deals, make compromises, and generally be the good guys. The Democrats, on the otherhand, pushed every advantage they could to get thier way. Yes, the MSM gave the Dems a big assist; however, it is a rule of thumb that the Republicans in the Senate are chumps. Not even Harry Reid's behavior during this session has prevented Lindsay Gramm from coming to the rescue of Obama concerning Cap and Trade. He now is working with Sen. Kerry in forgin a new Cap and Trade Bill.

2)Once ensconced in the Beltway, the GOP like the Dems believe thier most important constituients are K-St Lobbyists. If there is one change that could be done, it would be the repeal of the 17th Amendment. Senators no longer represent thier state's interests, and with the exception of a few months every 6 years, don't even bother meeting with state leaders. We should return to the days of Senate appointments. While this wouldn't matter in one party state like Vermont and Mass., overall it would serve as an effective way to make Senators more open to thier own state's interests.

If if there is a big turn-over in the Senate the next 2 election cycles, people like Dick Lugar, Lindsay Gramm, John McCain, and Mitch McConnell would still run things. Even if there would be an overwhelming desire of over turn ObamaCare, we could count on these men to cut a deal and again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I believe what Mark Steyn recently said, "The Dems think strategically, while the GOP thinks tactically.

Warrior| 12.24.09 @ 11:03AM

There you have it. Even if there are seats picked up, the liberal Republicans will be the leadership and keep attempting to cut deals with their "friends" across the aisle.

What gets glossed over is the nagging question, if there 42 Republicans in the senate, does anyone believe this still doesn't get passed? All it would have taken was a few hundred million more for Maine or even Arizona and this goes through easily. Those who keep pulling on the congressional side because it only passed by 3 votes are delusional. Pelosi keeps close tabs on the numbers and allows, that's right, allows the democrats she feels most exposed to vote no. If five more votes are needed, she will get them without question.

You can't fight an enemy like the liberals who are using tanks and bombers with the bow and arrows the republicans bring to the table.

Just wait, 12% unemployment is just around the corner. Of course, it will be Bush's fault.

BD57| 12.24.09 @ 12:04PM

I agree with the sentiments expressed, so don't let anything that follows mislead you.

IMO, "our" side's problem isn't Senators like Snowe & Collins (as exasperating as they can be at times) - that they win in Maine is a pretty good indication that they , so I think they're in touch with THEIR constituents, even if a non-constituent like me disagrees with them quite often. In fact, I think conservatives should thank Snowe & Collins for holding firm against Obamacare (yes, I believe thanking people for doing the right thing - even if that's what you 'expect' of them - is a good idea).

IMO, the issue is party ineptitude in states & races where conservative Republicans can and should win. In other words, the problem isn't the existence of 'moderate' Republicans, it's the shortage of conservative ones.

For conservatives, I think that means support the right-most candidate who can win in primaries (yes, I think an honest appraisal of the candidate's potential for winning the general election is important) and then, in the general, support the right-most candidate. To move politics to the right, the pressure has to be constant - sitting out a general election because we don't like the primary result hurts the cause.

Roy| 12.24.09 @ 1:16PM

Problem isn't the existence of moderates, but the lack of conservatives - I agree.

Dell| 12.24.09 @ 10:47AM

Just one minor "adjustment", JP. Vermont is a whacked out state, for sure. It's controlled entirely by Liberals....and the further left they are, the quicker they get elected. EXCEPT for the Governor's mansion (and Vermont doesn't have a governor's mansion, either!).

While the Statehouse and the Senate are strongly Liberal, the governor is a centrist Republican. He vetoes legislation and then both houses override his veto the next day. It's a crazy political scene, to say the least. The governor is more or less a ceremonial position, at best.

How and why Vermonters vote this way is beyond anything I can figure out.

On the other hand, Taxachusetts is most certainly one of THE most Liberal states in the entire world....and has been since Joe Kennedy moved in.

Thomas| 12.24.09 @ 11:41AM

I'm sorry, but some people have not been paying attention. There is no healthcare crisis in the US. There never was a healthcare crisis in the US. However, with the passage of this legislation, there is sure as shootin' gonna be a healthcare crisis in the US. In fact, this bill does not address ANY healthcare concerns until 2013. It begins to relieve citizens of their personal wealth in 2010 by either direct taxation, fines and increased out-of-pocket health costs and insurance costs at a time when unemployment is skyrocketing and the economy is foundering. Such a deal.

There is only about 10% of the population of the US that are unable to pay for comprehensive health insurance and are not eligible for public healthcare. And less than 1/10 of 1% of the people of this country have suffered a healthcare dilemma that has left them destitute. Where is the crisis? Only in the minds of the media. Not even the people feel that there is a significant healthcare crisis, even after being bombarded with media propaganda concerning the "crisis" for forty years.

Republican politicians are no different than Democrats when it comes to maintaining personal power, except in one regard. The Republicans listen to their constituents better. They did this with healthcare. Few voters actually wanted any real change to healthcare and only slightly more really wanted meaningful change in insurance regulation. The Republicans did what their constituents wanted, they left the healthcare and insurance system alone.

Now, Democrats did not get elected on the promises to change the healthcare delivery system. None of them. And, they didn't "fix" anything in either of these two bills. The only thing that these bills accomplish is to force private insurance companies to fold their tents; small business to downsize, eliminate employee healthcare or close their doors, doctors to work for the same money as fast food employees and make the electorate dependent upon the federal government for a significant portion of their welfare.

The Democrats in Congress and the White House are something that is largely foreign to American politics, on the national stage. They are autocrats. They care nothing for the wants, needs and desires of their constituents. All they want is naked personal power and they are determined to get it at any and all costs. This country is a representative Republic, not an autocratic oligarchy. Yet, it appears that that has changed

Where the Republicans went wrong was in ignoring the desires of their electoral power base, conservative voters. They adopted a "go along to get along" mentality where liberal Democrats were concerned. They convinced themselves that "moderate" voters where their best hope for election in the 21st century. How did that work out for them? Liberal-lite, socialist-lite and even Dem-lite isn't going to work for the Republicans, because why vote for a reflection of the real thing, when you can vote Democrat and get the real thing. All the Republicans succeeded in doing, by becoming a pale reflection of what they thought the Dems were, is to lose power. And, the main reason they lost was because they alienated their base, conservatives, and these conservative voters had no one to vote for so they simply stayed home.

And, now when the Republicans have a chance to actually stand-up for their constituents and make the Dems fight for every scrap of yardage on the healthcare bill, they "cut a deal" to simply walk away for the promise (?) of later concessions. Promises made by a man that has yet to keep any of his promises to Republican members. How do you spell STUPID? R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N.

Merry Christmas, y'all, and a whatever New Year.

Mary Louise| 12.24.09 @ 12:45PM

War gave GW a reason for his presidency; without it he was just a wheeling, dealing Texas businessman. Medicare D was part of the stay-in-power, prosecute-the-War effort. I understand why he, Rove and others thought it was necessary, but that kind of deal can have serious repercussions.

If Matt Latimer is right, if GW did believe he 're-invented' the Republican party he did so at the expense of responsible, enlightened government. And because of that, History is likely to record the War as the cause of our demise. Not necessarily the War itself; had GW understood what it meant to plunge a Nation into a brand new kind of War he would have treated it rhetorically and actually with the dreaded respect it merited.

When all is said and done though, the American people are responsible for the fate of the Nation. Any revolution that comes will not be because of a lack of the consent of the governed. You don't get to where we are right now except by decades of neglect and bad judgment. And paradoxically, it's not just conservatives who make the Nation run or make it great. You watch an EMT in action, and you'll witness the blood and guts of the common good.

I'm not sure McConnell should be criticized for present lack of action, but he should be criticized for campaigning as a 'bring home the bacon to my State' kind of legislator that was on display at his website during the last election. It's up to the American people to realize what kind of sin against the Nation that kind of dishonoring of a man's property and labor is. GW and Rovian politics doesn't escape this judgment either.

McCotter is right when he says that politics is the art of the possible. But any kind of art can't exist without science, without tools. Establishing yourselves as the 'compassionate conservatives' is anti-science as it relates to the art. It's predicated on a lie so as to win. Intelligent and honorable statesmen avoid this because it's cheap, and it's tactical as opposed to strategic.

Nelson's gambit and grab didn't surprise me at all. Now he's just the whore you can call a whore when you him in broad daylight. May he go down to spectacular defeat! And may the American people wake up and throw all of these people out of office, Republican or Democrat, and continue to throw them out if for no other reason than it will make good use of chaos.

Lynn2008| 12.24.09 @ 12:47PM

While it is the favorite sport of conservatives to beat up Republicans, and while they justly deserve it, it seems to me that it is time to acknowledge that the people who pushed this socialistic bill and passed it are all Democrats.

What do we want in 2010?

Do we want to continue enjoying drawing Republican blood or do we want the radical socialists out of office?

I know my answer and I'm afraid I know yours. Yours will likely keep Pelosi, Reid and other radicals in office because you prefer them to RINOs.

SoCon| 12.24.09 @ 4:28PM

We 'preferred' a RINO in 2008, Lynn2008--what did it get us? Obama. Can the evidence be any clearer?

I'm afraid you, and other republicans like you, will never get it: Why would Americans vote for democrat-lite when they can vote for the real thing?

They don't call us the 'Stupid Party' for nothin'.

Fred J| 12.25.09 @ 1:12AM

SoCon:

I think that there is a flaw in your argument. You seem to be saying that voters will prefer a "real" democrat to a less ideological "democrat lite." You thus appear to suggest that voters prefer pure liberals over more moderate liberals. So, if people prefer candidates on the left, as opposed to the center-left, why would they do an about face and pick someone from the right?

SoCon| 12.25.09 @ 11:12PM

Regardless of ideology, people desire strength in their leaders; and whether you agreed with him or not, Obama presented himself as a strong liberal candidate, a clear choice. McCain, as a wishy-washy moderate (RINO), played both sides of the aisle and never offered a clear message. No one knew where he stood, so he lost.

Roadkill is found in the middle of the road.

Argue all you want, but we ran a RINO in 2008 and we lost--keep running weak candidates and it'll continue. It's not rocket science.

Roy| 12.24.09 @ 1:27PM

Yeah, the Democrats just socialized 15% of the economy and the answer is not for Republicans to turn on each other.

I think the alleged era of "Republican dominance" needs to be kept in perspective. Republicans actually controlled all three branches of government for exactly 4 years - 2002-2006. In the first two of those years, they had exactly 51 senators. Look how much trouble Reid had getting anything passed with 60 senators of his own party! Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman were the last ones he needed to make a supermajority; Lincoln Chafee and Arlen Specter were the ones Repubs needed to make a SIMPLE MAJORITY.

The greatest strength Repubs ever had was I believe 55 senators in 2005. So GW started trying to reform entitlements - starting with social security. He got his butt thoroughly kicked, drubbed so hard up and down the country that people barely even remember it. Maybe he could have done better - who knows? But it's not that he didn't try. After that it was Katrina, George Will caving to Code Pink on Iraq, etc etc.

Other than that, maybe they had a chance in 1995? Even though Clinton was president, he had just lost bigtime in Congressional elections and maybe they could have gotten an agreement on something. What do you know, they tried! They raised a moderate proposal to slow the rate of growth of Medicare. Clinton kicked their butts so hard that they still feel it.

Ultimately, the public sees Medicare as free money that they are entitled to. Republicans can be faulted, but conservative ideologues can, too, for not changing the public's mind on this. Ultimately, the ones who are at fault are the voters, but ya know..no use trying to dissolve the people and elect a new one..

Oldefarte| 12.24.09 @ 1:45PM

Our current political crisis is due to [1] the American voters/taxpayers that overreacted to their rupulsion for any/all wars by blindly choosing a falsified [for partisan political purposes] message of CHANGE; and allowing these socialisits/terrorists to take over our government; and [2] entrenched Republican congressmen who have become too comfortable with the Washington DC political/social life and ignorantly [or purposely] forgotten the back home constituents that put them into their current position of political power. Hopefully, [1] have finally woken up to the realization of the political corruption that has now taken over their country/government; and [2] have come to the realization that their constituents are their bosses and are who they owe their loyalty to [as opposed to their politial leaders in DC]. If both do their jobs going forward, America will benefit and its problems will begin to become solved. If [2] continues its prior failures, they will join the currently 10-20% unemployment ranks of this country!!!!!

Mike Shaw| 12.24.09 @ 1:59PM

I haven't heard anything from the GOP telling me they have seen the error in their ways of compromise and high spending. I won't vote a straight GOP ticket like I used to. I don't want a Congressman who reaches across the isle and gives away my Rights in a mutually agreeable solution to a leftist issue, I want Congress to go back to working within the framework of the Constitution. If the left doesn't like Free Enterprise, Capitalism, Christianity, and the Freedoms our Founders set forth in the Constitution, let them leave the country. There are plenty of socialist utopias they can live.

Mary Louise| 12.24.09 @ 2:02PM

I’d give a year’s salary, ok, maybe just half to any Senator who would sing Honey Don't in the Well of the Senate. All dressed up for Ben Nelson.

The great Carl Perkins made even bigger by the Beatles!

P.S. Though you might not celebrate it, Merry Christmas, Mr. Klein. No doubt about it, you're one of the good guys.

Richard Baker| 12.24.09 @ 2:03PM

Unfortunately, in the present iteration of the GOP the spirit of Bob Michel lives and not the spirit of Barry Goldwater.

Martin j smith| 12.24.09 @ 3:42PM

Just an observation from one of those independents you have heard about: During the GWB years I had the impression that Bush and the Republican especially senate leadership and RINOS tried to bend so far backwards to try to work with the Democrat Party that they may have been , the minority party. And change themselves to be called Democrat Lite or like. Who needs that ? I want a viable opposition party to protect the people against tyranny which is what we have now. Thus me I intend to vote against any Democrat in sight. But, The Republican Party needs to change. First they have to look at the Democrat Party not as one to make Bi-Partisanship with but as the political enemy which they are. They must show that they hear the people and have a set of principals and ideas that capture the imagination. Most voter look at two things: Are we better or worse off than we were ( economics) and are more or less safe than we were( national security ) . If they are less secure in these areas they vote against the incumbent provided that the challenger offers something viable. It is the Republican Party's responsibility to respond to events unfolding with Bold ideas, challenge the Democrat Party with criticism of such issues as the so called healthcare bill and offer alternatives. Stop trying to work with your enemy--be civil, but be assertive and do not take Democrat lies silently.

J.C.Eaton| 12.24.09 @ 11:18PM

Martin, Roger that! Harry Reid and San Fran Nan understand one and only one political move: A right hook to the jaw!!!

TPL| 12.25.09 @ 12:18PM

Absolutely. Everyone knew the Holy Grail of the left was to impose government health care on everyone - they've been dreaming of this since FDR. They never would have had a chance to get in if it weren't for Bush and his wars, spending, constitutional contempt, and arrogance.

Even now, the GOP shows little evidence of having learned anything. For example, their scornful and contemptuous treatment of Ron Paul (who has 'Old Right' views similar to Barry Goldwater and Robert Taft). Or the endless new proposed wars and military Keynesian economics they never tire of advocating.

The GOP needs to clean house - the beltway Republicans have nothing to offer America. They are corrupt, unprincipled buffoons.

Michael Tomlinson| 12.25.09 @ 8:51PM

The reason we have a Democrat in the White House and overwhelming majorities in Congress is precisely, because of self-identified conservatives as Philip Klein. In their haste to do the Democrat's dirty work for them since 2005 they have helped create this radical nightmare. In a nation where a third of voters are shaky independents and some of the conservative movement is just as flighty Republicans stood no chance in 2006 and 2008. With so-called conservatives working hand in glove with Chuck Schumer for their defeat we're lucky the Democrats only have 60 seats in the Senate. Even CBS couldn't have buried the knife deeper in their back than conservative pundits.

Had conservatives stayed united with the GOP we would not be in our present situation. What was the sin of the GOP? Spending, comprehensive immigration reform, fighting Muslim tyranny or some other transgression?

The Republican President who had the highest deficits in comparison to GDP was not George W. Bush, but Ronald Reagan (Obma has buried Reagan's deficits in red ink). The same Reagan who granted blanket amnesty and immediate citizenship to millions of illegal aliens. The same Reagan who refused to attack Iran or her surrogates for murdering hundreds of Americans. Why the silence from the right about these "transgressions" of Reagan?

As for Ron Paul, the earmark king, he is as far removed from Barry Goldwater as Dan Rather. Goldwater when his nation was at war was a supporter and defender of the war not an apologist for tyrants and dictators. Ron Paul seems to have more in common with Kusinich than any of the stalwarts of the Republican Party.

These silly and self-aggrandizing attacks on Republicans are apparently written by those who can spew, but can't do. If they are so brilliant then by all means run for public office, win a seat in Congress and lead the nation out of the wilderness. But they can't or won't.

Long ago the elder statesman of our movement boldly told conservatives to "grow up." As the son of a Goldwater Republican and a lifelong Republican conservative I hope we'll finally do that before we help Obama win a second term.

SoCon| 12.25.09 @ 11:29PM

Not true, Tomlinson. Republicans are in disarray because we've weakened, chickened out on our message and have run RINOs. George W is a RINO and so is McCain--both have been recipes for disaster.

I'm tired of republican apologists for poor leadership; McCain and Bush are good men but poor leaders in matters of domestic policy.

All I know is that we didn't have this problem when Reagan was our party's standard-bearer, but we did when George HW followed him.

As long as we insist on bringing knives to gunfights, we're screwed.

Uriel| 12.26.09 @ 1:44PM

It comes down to individual votes in individual elections. And ACTUAL votes FOR candidate X cannot legitimately be counted as de facto votes FOR candidate Y simply because it is not a vote FOR candidate Z.

Here are some options:
1) Candidate is neither a Conservative nor a Republican.
2) Candidate is a Conservative but not a Republican.
3) Candidate is a Republican but not a Conservative.

It seems that a large number of both writers and commenters here would choose to vote FOR candidate #3 as opposed to candidate #2. And, would further claim that any vote FOR candidate #2 is actually a de facto vote for candidate #1 simply because it is not a vote for their favored candidate #3.

Meanwhile, such authors and commenters would reject the notion that their vote FOR candidate #3 is a de facto vote FOR candidate #1 simply because it is not a vote FOR candidate #2 -- even though it is the exact same argument and equally valid (invalid) in both directions.

The simple fact is that many here will continue to vote FOR a Republican, rather than vote FOR a Conservative. And the logic behind this appears to be as follows:
I cannot vote for candidate #2 because he will not win (although they always say "cannot" win). Of course, it is so plain as to be clear to the dimmest child that the REASON that candidate #2 will not (or "cannot") win is BECAUSE they will not vote for him.
So, the argument is simplified as this:
I can't vote for candidate #2 because nobody else will vote for him.

I'm not sure on what planet or in which universe this argument qualifies as "logic" or even simple rationality and sense; but it's the universe in which live those individuals who invariably vote (R), regardless of a candidate's principles, character, or agenda.

It is this kind of ANTI-LOGIC which keeps the nation in thrall to both Democrats and RINOs; it is NOT those with the conviction of their principles to demand conservatism in candidates.

Nobama| 12.26.09 @ 9:11PM

You sound like you've got your head on straight, Uriel. It's past time that we send a message to our leadership--run RINOs at your own peril!

Margie| 12.26.09 @ 5:22PM

The answer my friend, is not blowing in the winds of a third party.
The answer is planted firmly in the actions of conservative republicans to get to work backing conservatives who want to run in the Republican Party. We need them and they need us.
So 2010 here we come. Better to look for those candidates and get behind them. Or sit back and throw stones.
We're all either part of the problem or part of the solution.

Uriel| 12.26.09 @ 9:08PM

Ah, Margie,
Following the anti-logic to a tee. To a tee.

"Everyone must vote within the existing party structure, or they're part of the problem."

In other words, "Vote for who I think you should vote for or I'll blame you for everything that goes wrong -- even if it's really MY fault because I refused to vote outside the existing party structure."

Not really surprising that you didn't understand it the first time I said it. Repeating myself probably won't help you , either; but, maybe somebody else out there can grasp what I'm saying.

Nobama| 12.26.09 @ 9:16PM

Some people are so rigid they can't see the forest for the trees, Uriel. I understood your post and I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments!

Sometimes you have to shake things up to get results. I'm not afraid and won't be bullied by those republicans who are afraid of their own shadows! Principles first.

Good posts. Thank you.

Margie| 12.27.09 @ 3:29PM

I see, there oh condescending One. You are advocating a third party then?
You are contributing to the delinquency of the Left, then.

victor| 12.27.09 @ 7:40PM

"maybe somebody else out there can grasp what I'm saying."

I don't like some Republicans so I will stay home or write Sir Paul's name in crayon on my ballot.

Third parties do not have a stellar history in the United States.
Maybe in Canada, the UK or Frawnce, but not here.
Move out if you want to vote for a Thoid Pahty.
And yes, we will hang a Scarlet "L", for LilyLiver on your forehead if you stay home or don't vote Republican.
Perhaps it should be the letter "Q"?
You want better Republicans, start now and influence the local party bosses and vote in the primaries.
Stay home and you will get Obama 2.0.
And it will get uglier.

Marjgie| 12.27.09 @ 3:25PM

Reality just bites, doesn't it?

Nobama| 12.28.09 @ 2:16AM

No one said anything about a third party but you!

Obama was elected because we ran a RINO. We ran a RINO because GOP leadership knew we wouldn't hold them accountable. I say we instill the fear of God into the GOP leadership morons and maybe, just maybe, we'll nominate a real Conservative.

All I know is that it certainly HASN'T worked out too well for us doing things your way.

The definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over again hoping you'll get a different outcome. You might be insane, but folks like Uriel and I aren't--I just hope that our republican numbers are greater than yours or our country is lost for sure.

Principles first or we might as well be democrats.

Margie| 12.28.09 @ 12:25PM

You're playing games the, "Nobama"..and you too "Uriel"... because what I said in my original post if you would have read it thoroughly, was that we needed to back conservatives to run in the Party.. so what's your gripe with me? It seems you just want to pick a fight.
Grow up.
I'm not responding to you again. say what you may!

Uriel| 12.28.09 @ 10:24PM

Pot calling the kettle black.

Stop bleating about a third party and you've got a deal, Ms. pugnacious. You're always looking for a fight, especially where there isn't one.

laptop accessories | 12.28.09 @ 3:25AM

The definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over again hoping you'll get a different outcome.

zhaoyizhan| 12.29.09 @ 2:23AM

The definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over again hoping you'll get a different outcome.

racking| 1.4.10 @ 11:14PM

http://www.racking-shelving.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com

as a whole contractor for cold store equipment, design, manufacturing, installation.

professional racking & shelving manufacturer, pallet racking, drive in racking,
cantilever racking, longspan shelving, dexion racking,