-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Eric Cantor, the House minority whip from Virginia, went on The Daily Show two nights ago to plug his new book with Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy, Young Guns. During his interview with host Jon Stewart, Cantor repeatedly acknowledged that Congressional Republicans had erred during the Bush years and argued that they were contrite, and newly committed to limited government. Stewart, who is fairly far along the other side of the political spectrum, pounced on Cantor for claiming that he would shrink the government, noting that Cantor’s record includes votes for Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and a number of other big-government programs.
Stewart, who spoke more than Cantor during the interview, went on to argue that the Republicans would only expand government more once they regained office, and criticized Cantor’s appeals to limited government and personal freedom as mere campaign rhetoric.
Cantor defended himself fairly well, considering that he was on Stewart’s home turf and trying to match Stewart’s lightning-fast wit. But ultimately he was constrained by his unwillingness to mention any of the serious reforms that the Republicans would be in position to enact if they retook power in Congress. As the No. 2 Republican in the House, Cantor is prominent enough that he doesn’t want to do anything to hurt the party’s electoral chances, especially by alienating constituencies that would feel threatened by the prospect of specific spending cuts.
But if it had been Paul Ryan or another Republican already committed to spelling out the hard choices involved in cutting government spending, he would have had no trouble fielding Stewart’s questions.
Parts two and three are below the fold:
View all comments (29) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/14/stewart-attacks-cantor-from-th
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Siegfried X| 10.14.10 @ 3:53PM
"if it had been Paul Ryan or another Republican already committed to spelling out the hard choices involved in cutting government spending, he would have had no trouble fielding Stewart's questions. "
Do you really think that Ryan has a full budget with specific cuts outlined? And he has detailed legislation all ready to reform social security, medicare, etc?
I don't see what the purpose of these artificially high standards is. We had a decade of RINO neo-con Republicanism, aided by publications like Am Spec. They had nothing but praise for the big spending liberalism, and supported the RINO candidates.
But now that the Tea Parties have begun to turn the ship around they are held to artificially high standards, expected to name each and every detailed cut three weeks before an election.
Siegfried X| 10.14.10 @ 3:58PM
In the last election, two years ago, Republican publications were talking about cuts of anything. Instead they had nothing but praise of John McCain, who was running on nearly the same program as Obama, including cap & trade.
Brenda| 10.14.10 @ 4:16PM
Seriously, Jon Stewart attacks Cantor. Were we watching the same show???? Jon Stewart is intellegent and it is hard to get the "word of the day, party line" passed him. Saying were not going to do that again but really meaning we will but it will be different this time, is great if your on Fox News and no one will call you on it. Jon Stewart was doing what Journalist should do but don't not since Tim Russert died. Now there is only Stewart.
Jose| 10.14.10 @ 4:22PM
is Cantor the best we can do?
The guy just seems slippery as a snake, can't be pinned down on anything, and is a career politician.
DRed| 10.14.10 @ 4:28PM
Perhaps he wasn't constrained by his unwillingness to mention any of the serious reforms because he doesn't actually know of any. What in his record suggests he is? I'm 34. The Republican party has been talking about shrinking government my entire life and hasn't done a thing about it yet. Tax cuts for the rich? You betcha. Reckless deregulation? You betcha. Serious cuts in entitlement programs? Try again next election.
dc| 10.14.10 @ 4:44PM
Idiot, give one example of an industry or area of the economy, or anything, that Bush (while he had a Republican Congress) "recklessly deregulated."
Bush was not a conservative. This is not news to actual conservatives.
And, just to make sure we're all clear: name one area of life (other than porn and hard drugs) that statists like you do not want to ration, tax, regulate, and kill.
DRed| 10.14.10 @ 5:35PM
dc, find the word Bush in my post and point it out to me. I don't see it anywhere. Perhaps that's because I'm an idiot.
Ghost| 10.15.10 @ 3:35PM
"Idiot, give one example of an industry or area of the economy, or anything, that Bush (while he had a Republican Congress) 'recklessly deregulated.'"
Wall Street.
Patriot| 10.14.10 @ 5:11PM
The wealthy paid more taxes during W's tenure than any time in history.
You are an idiot--and a liar.
Foo| 10.18.10 @ 12:36PM
Citation? You can claim anything you want on the web isn't that fun?
Of course, taking you at your word you must realize how much of a non-statement that is? Maybe they paid more taxes than at any other time in history - but how much did they bring in? What percentage of their income did they give away in taxes? That seems far more relevant...
Siegfried X| 10.14.10 @ 5:17PM
" Cantor repeatedly acknowledged that Congressional Republicans had erred during the Bush years and argued that they were contrite, and newly committed to limited government"
Siegfried X| 10.14.10 @ 5:20PM
So you don't remember Newt's budget cutting when you were 10 years old?
DRed| 10.14.10 @ 5:40PM
I remember Newt and Billy Clint balancing the budget, but I don't remember them doing much to reduce the size of government. But as you say, I was young so correct me if I'm wrong.
Titus Curendaro| 10.14.10 @ 4:37PM
Honestly, I don't think the Tea Party nor the Republicans are truly going to be fiscally conservative. The rhetoric of late has been about gay rights, allowing single mothers to teach and masterbation. Enforcement of social morals is expensive to enforce and I can feel a Young Gun Tea Party tax increase coming. Hating wankers and witches means more spending by our instrusive government.
Stewart is correct in saying that Republicans are a different breed of big government politicians, and having FBI agents peeking into my bedroom or medical files, is not my idea of conservatism, and thats what we had under the Republicans during the Bush years. What is Kantor and the Tea Party people smoking? And are we going to expand government to take their tobbaco or pot or soda pops from them? When will it end?
As Seigfried noted about Obama/McCain, the Bush/Gore campaign platforms were almost identical as well.
JCfromDC| 10.14.10 @ 4:52PM
I can't see where much has changed concerning peeking into bedrooms, med files, wiretaps and now even more so with Bills on the table for invasive internet "peeking" and an "Emergency internet shut down license" by the present Admin. IF there's any comparison with Bush, get over it. It's much worse under Obama and the last 4 years of Democrat controlled government, including reinstatement of the so-called Patriot Act (II). Obama has even called for assasinations of American citizens overseas. Who needs terrorists with leaders like that?
Siegfried X| 10.14.10 @ 5:18PM
But the Reagan and 1994 Contract With America Republicans WERE real budget cutters.
They also passed important social legislation like Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act.
Bruce Berger| 10.14.10 @ 7:08PM
Titus,
Please cite some actual examples of agents peeking into bedrooms and medical files during Bush's administration. It may have happened, but I certainly didn't read about in the NY Times, a paper that I read every day during the Bush years.
I thought Bush was only a so-so President, mainly because he turned out to be a reckless spender, but one thing that always impressed me about his administration was that it didn't seem like it ever used the power of government to intimidate, bully or harass its political opponents. It was a very classy administration in that respect. (If the only case you can bring up to refute my claim is Valerie Plame, you are both lazy and wrong).
Remember how all of Clinton's bimbos were audited by the IRS? That may have been a coincidence of course, but, if so, it seems like a strange one.
By the way, I have been very impressed with the Tea Party's (the rank and file) focus on the nature of an individual's relationship with his government. There has been very little of the social issue stuff, despite your claim. In fact, if anything, it is the Democrats in this cycle who have been trying to dredge up social wedge issues, because they know their record over the last two years has been so terrible.
DRed| 10.14.10 @ 7:39PM
http://documents.nytimes.com/j.....f=politics
Bruce Berger| 10.14.10 @ 7:50PM
I will read the 209 pages in due course. The summary said that the investigation largely exonerated the FBI. Is there something here that is particularly nefarious? If so, please direct me to the correct pages to save me time. Thanks.
James| 10.15.10 @ 11:24AM
Haha I love stuffing this ideologues with their own words.
Bruce, are you forgetting, intimidating US Attorneys!? The NSA Domestic Wiretapping?! All the controversies, of abuse of power in the Bush Justice Department that caused him to lose two Attorneys-General to resignation?
Classy? You must be joking.
The Obama administration is classy. People regularly say the most foul things about him, I haven't heard about Rush getting audited or Beck getting checked out by the DEA to see if he's back on the wacky weed.
Come off it.
Bruce Berger| 10.15.10 @ 12:38PM
James,
Your examples are pathetic. Did the domestic wiretapping cases ever result in the targeting of an individual or group that was a political opponent of Bush? Or for that matter, was any of the wire-tapping evidence used to prosecute people for any crimes unrelated to acts of violence? Of course not, but why would the facts bother you? The facts don't square with your narrative.
I would have been the first in line to say that Bush should be impeached if the wiretapping had been used for any purpose other than its intended use, which was to try and discover terrorist plots before they actually occur. However, it was not.
You are the one that should come off it. You have no idea what you are talking about.
PS. He fired US attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the President, just as Clinton fired them when he assumed office.
Sean| 10.14.10 @ 7:08PM
Cantor is your typical Neocon liberal. He should be stripped of all leadership positions. He is already selling out Republican candidates. He isn't willing to fight back.
Paul Zummo| 10.14.10 @ 7:24PM
Cantor is your typical Neocon liberal
Oh for the love of humanity, some of the commenters on this site aren't happy unless they're bitching about something. No one is good enough, no one is truly purely conservative enough.
And what exactly is "neocon" about Cantor? Oh, that's right, he's Jewish. String him up!
Sean| 10.14.10 @ 8:26PM
So you want liberals in the Republican leadership spots? You don't have to be Jewish to be a Neocon.
macdaddy| 10.15.10 @ 8:33AM
You guys are always bitchin' and moanin' about something....get us into power, get the right leadership in play, and they'll get the job done. Never let the perfert be the enemy of the good....
Trinity31| 10.15.10 @ 9:13AM
Interestingly, the Republicans have one choice and one chance. But being the "Stupid Party" (as opposed to the "Evil Party"), they don't get it. The Dems hate the Tea Party because it threatens their style of government; the Repubs should FEAR the Tea Party because it threatens to supplant them. If the Repubs can't (or won't) get it done this time around -- and I think they'll pick up 70 seats in the house -- I think they'll not be a factor beyond 2012. Think of Federalists and Whigs. The 800 lb gorilla is waiting in the wings, but I don't think the "Stupid Party" (and name your politician) hears the breathing behind them.
James| 10.15.10 @ 11:36AM
Democrats don't fear the Tea Party because they threaten our 'style of government.' We fear the Tea Party, as all modern people should, because they have a childlike belief in simple solutions to complex problems in a complex world. the Republicans don't fear the Tea Party, they just seem them as a way to get easily back in power, soon. The Tea Party can't stand on its own two feet, look at its candidates! Sharon Engle, Christine O'Donnell, Rand Paul. People with such extreme views they have to spend more time explaining their comments than proposing ideas(thank god). They don't talk to the media anymore because they embarrass themselves. They think asking 'gotcha questions' like what do you read? Are the liberal media trying to 'trip them up.' Though even my 5 year old can give you a list of what she reads.
The Tea Party will fizzle out as the economy improves, which it will because economies rise and fall cyclically. And then its sane members will leave and go back to work and it will be left with the crazy people who always populate the fringes.
I fear the Tea Party, and I am one of the people who voted against Palin by voting for Obama, and no I'm still not sorry! Because the only thing that scares me worse than an imposter illegal immigrant african anti colonialist secret muslim for president, is a group of people who apparently want to under the last 600 years of Western Civilization.
The Enlightenment was the greastest thing to happen in the Western World, and these Tea Partiers, whose limited understanding of history is shown by their somehow understanding the founding fathers to populist, men of god; when in fact they were elitist, agnostics, seem to want to overturn, reason, science, and go back to just doing what the bible tells us.
And to that I say, you know its easier to move to Iran than one might think!
And if you think the Republicans will pick up 70 seats you must be smoking Glen Becks old weed stash.
James| 10.15.10 @ 11:39AM
Oh I forgot he's a socialist too! haha, if you think Obama's a socialist, you obviously have no idea what one is. It reminds me of that episode of Seinfeld when Jerry thinks his dentist converted to Judaism purely for jokes, and he says no it doesn't offend me as a jew, it offends me as a comedian!
When people say Obama is a socialist, it offends me as an economist! Regardless of how ill begotten I think of his policies, to call them socialist is off the mark.