George W. Bush, liberal

Ezra Klein confirms as much:

Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum are chewing over the hefty bipartisan support Bush got for his various domestic initiatives. The roll call is impressive: No Child Left Behind, the 2001 tax cut, the post-9/11 war resolution, Sarbanes-Oxley, McCain-Feingold, the Iraq war resolution, the 2003 tax cut, the Medicare prescription drug bill and the bankruptcy bill.

To make a bit of a heretical point, most of those cases prove that Bush’s domestic agenda was a capitulation to liberalism, not that Democrats were spineless wimps. NCLB and the Medicare prescription drug bill were both longtime Democratic ideas.

The problem with NCLB was implementation, and while the problem with Medicare Part D was that its design was a giveaway to drug companies, it was also hundreds and hundreds of billions funneled towards the largest expansions of Medicare since the program’s creation.

Health-care reform, in particular, would likely be impossible if the prescription drug benefit hadn’t been accomplished. There’d be no way to add that money to the bottom line of the bill and pay for everything. Democrats owe Bush a debt of gratitude for tossing that onto the deficit.

 I can pretty much agree with most, if not all, of what Klein says here. 

To me, this helps to dismantle some of the fallacies of last year’s election.  The notion that Bush Administration represented true conservatism in its governance is, and always was, a lie.  It lends credence to my belief that the massive growth of government, the expansion of regulation, the endless and mindless spending of the last eight years were traits more reminiscent of modern liberalism than conservatism.   Throw in nearly eight years of constant wars and a financial crisis at exactly the worst time for the party of an eight-year president, and the American people acted accordingly.

Keep in mind, it doesn’t mean that liberalism will work just because Barack Obama is President.

The GOP Commandments

Released yesterday by the GOP, the ten commandments of Republican purity:

According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues– in votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire – would be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement.

Wonderful:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

This initially struck me as odd.  These seem to be nothing more than  a tactical, knee-jerk reaction to the politics of the moment, rather than a long-strategy for electoral relevance, and for future majorities.

I have a problem with the GOP issuing a list of directives that its candidates must follow—and that 8 of 10 is the minimum they must follow, lest they get no financial support from the party apparatus.  It all seems so clinical.  And the Steele-led RNC is an inept and brain-dead operation right now—I can’t imagine them making any headway with this.

Specifically, I have issues with a few of the 10—namely the DOMA requirement.  It’s bad enough that conservatives need the Republican party as a vehicle to elect true conservatives into office.  Do we really need more of the Bush-era “compassionate” conservatism, where the federal government somehow can dictate conservative ideals on the population?  Why can’t issues like gay-marriage be left to the states where it belongs?  I don’t think this is a road the Republican party wants to follow after the last eight six years.

Also, number six—-We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges ??

Crikey!  Talk about painting yourself into a corner.  I understand the end-game here, but this needs to be clarified a bit more.  Actually, a LOT more.  

It makes it sound like that the party’s policy decisions in Af-Pak and Iraq are solely at the behest of the military.  No room for debate?  Not sure I’d want to sign up for that without all the facts, especially with regards to Afghanistan.   And wasn’t there already a surge in Iraq? 

Again, this all appears to be strictly off the cuff rather than anything well thought out.

WSJ: Paul Ryan is dreamy

The WSJ prostrates itself before the faux conservative temple of Paul Ryan.  The paper opens its piece entitled “Wisconsin Lawmaker Emerges as GOP Seeks New Voices” as follows:

WASHINGTON — As Republicans search for messengers to reintroduce the beleaguered party to disaffected voters, they could do worse than Rep. Paul Ryan.

The 39-year-old from Wisconsin, who is the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, cruised to re-election last year in a district that voted for Barack Obama for president. The 6-foot-2, blue-eyed lawmaker was recently named one of the “50 most beautiful people on Capitol Hill” by the Hill newspaper, and his shock of black hair stands out in Congress’s sea of gray

The piece goes on along the usual narrative of younger, fresher voices of the party, new blood, etc., and then this sticks out:

As Republicans search for a path to power, Mr. Ryan says the GOP must re-establish itself as the party of economic common sense, rather than a group seen as overly focused on rewarding its supporters and contributors.

I’ve been reading the Journal for years, and it’s reporting is still insightful and credible.  But let’s be clear—this was a fluff piece on Paul Ryan.  It mentions a Wisconsin Democratic party leader refuting the point of the piece, that Ryan represents a fresh face of conservatism.  But that’s it.  Nowhere in the article does it mention that Paul Ryan voted for the original TARP, the use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry and the 90% tax on AIG bonuses.

 If it was trying to publish a fair and credible debate on the merits of Paul Ryan as a conservative, then the Journal does its readers a disservice by failing to note any of these votes.  Anyone voting for any of these measures is not voting for “economic common sense”, let alone committing to tenets of fiscal conservatism.

Jack Kemp, RIP

Via WaPo, Jack Kemp has died:

WASHINGTON — Jack Kemp, the ex-quarterback, congressman, one-time vice-presidential nominee and self-described “bleeding-heart conservative” died Saturday.

His spokeswoman Bona Park and longtime friend and former campaign adviser Edwin J. Feulner confirmed that Kemp died after a lengthy illness.

Kemp had announced in January 2009 that he had been diagnosed with cancer. He said he was undergoing tests but gave no other detail.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called Kemp “one of the nation’s most distinguished public servants, Jack was a powerful voice in American politics for more than four decades.”

Kemp, a former quarterback for the Buffalo Bills, represented western New York for nine terms in Congress, leaving the House for an unsuccessful presidential bid in 1988.

Eight years later, after serving a term as President George H.W. Bush’s housing secretary, he made it onto the national ticket as Bob Dole’s running-mate.

With that loss, the Republican bowed out of political office, but not out of politics. In speaking engagements and a syndicated column, he continued to advocate for the tax reform and supply-side policies _ the idea that the more taxes are cut the more the economy will grow _ that he pioneered.

Months ago, I read this piece on Jack Kemp over at AmSpec (thanks to Hot Air for helping me where I had read it), and it certainly deserves another read.  This excerpt stands out, in light of today’s rudderless Republican party:

With what Washington would eventually realize was the typical Kemp passion, Kemp took an idea about tax cuts and made of it a gospel. In legislative form it became what was called Kemp-Roth, named respectively after Kemp the House sponsor and Delaware GOP Senator William Roth, its Senate champion. At its core, the idea proposed to slash personal income tax rates — and cut them big time by 30 percent over three years.

It was 1978, the middle of the Carter malaise years, and after what Bartley calls a “stormy debate” the bill failed in a conference committee. Kemp kept going. By 1980 he had convinced candidate Ronald Reagan, and the concept was written into the 1980 Republican platform. By August of 1981 President Ronald Reagan was signing Kemp’s cause into law.

By 1983, the American economy had begun to shake off recession and, in a startling reversal, roared to life. The results were so powerful that Reagan later said France’s Socialist President François Mitterrand, Reagan’s guest at the 1983 Williamsburg G-7 Summit, wanted to know just exactly what went into America’s blossoming and quite vivid economic growth.

Kemp was a fervent believer in the individual, a conservative stalwart and one of the foot-soldiers in Reagan’s economic revolution.  But no matter which side of the political spectrum you reside, and listening to Kemp speak, it’s hard to mistake his enthusiasm and overall love of our country.

Rest In Peace.

What Sullivan Said…

It’s not very often that I find myself agreeing with Andrew Sullivan but here goes.  In response to a reader who wrote him regarding debate over the stimulus package, and how conservatism relates to that debate:

This is largely why I wrote last week that I would have voted “no” on the House bill. But the extreme danger of this downturn does seem to me to require some temporary, pragmatic attempt to mitigate it a little.

I don’t think broad tax cuts will do that – most people will save them, no? Feldstein-targeted tax breaks might work. I don’t have a big problem with re-sodding the national Mall (no snickers from the back, please) or worthwhile government-backed infrastructure projects. Finding a way to direct the money to the poor who will spend it quickly is also obviously key.

[...]

More to the point, Americans elected a new president and Congress with a clear mandate for tackling his crisis. Nothing is not an option.

Republicans in the House did the right thing, if getting back to the tenets of conservatism is the goal.  Politically, it’s obviously a different story with the 2010 midterms on the horizon–Republicans are still politicians and electoral victory is always the goal it seems (as it is for Democrats).  Nevertheless, I still think Republicans have a long road ahead of them if said electoral victory is the key.  The establishment GOP has rotted to the core, and I think it will take more than 2 years to flush it out. 

Back to Sulllivan’s post, I don’t think anyone knows what the effects of this stimulus package will be–and there will be a stimulus bill passed.  I’m sure most conservatives would think to do nothing, I know I have.  But Sullivan makes the point very clear: doing nothing is not an option.  The American people spoke loud and clear this past November and the Republican party needs to accept this as lesson number one in their rebuilding process–if there is to be a rebuilding process.  I say “if” because as much of a step forward as the House took in voting down this bill, I see Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans proposing a GOP version of government-sponsored home ownership, and we are back to square one again.

Read his whole post here.

(UPDATE)

And speaking of destroying what’s left of rebuilding the GOP, Senate Republicans are ready to “compromise” on the stimulus cave-in. 

Via Allahpundit:  Reid supposedly has 2 or 3 GOP fence-sitters, with neither of them committing out of fear of being the 60th vote.  Take whatever Reid says with a grain of salt.

(UPDATE II)

Malkin notes that Democrats will likely bring back all the cut pork once the house and senate bills go to conference…

Mitch McConnell Mails It In For Senate Republicans

What’s that sucking sound you hear?  It’s the air seeping out of what’s left of the GOP balloon:

The U.S. Congress’s most powerful Republican on Friday backed President Barack Obama’s call to set aside political differences and cooperate on efforts to revitalize the economy and resolve other issues.
…
“People want their leaders to work together to solve problems, not to set traps,” McConnell said in a speech to the National Press Club. “The challenge now is for both parties to cooperate, not just in word but in deed.”
…
McConnell said Obama may have what it takes. “Most people think that ideas should be assessed on their merits, not on the senator or the president who proposes them. Our new president seems to think the same thing,” McConnell said.

 Meanwhile, Obama is showing Republicans who’s in charge in Washington:

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning – but he also left no doubt about who’s in charge of these negotiations. “I won,” Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

Don’t look now, but it looks like Obama has the Republicans in a box.  Leading up to the inauguration, the Obama transition deceptively built the facade of unity (dinner with conservative columnists) in Washington between the political parties.  And the liberal surrogates in the media played along, developing the bi-partisanship narrative that winds its way in the background of the debate over the stimulus and the TARP.  Now, any objection on the part of the GOP will be seen as obstruction.  The President and the Democrats will forge ahead with their massive government expansion and the Republicans will have to play along.  Any objection by Republicans will be seen as obstruction.  Any question as to the size of welfare checks tax cuts in the stimulus package or to the size of the package itself, will be seen as partisan.  With regards to the stimulus, the Democrats will need to make the effort seem bipartisan, as they don’t want to be the only ones on the boat when it starts to sink–even if they have to lie about it.

Maybe its just me, but its pretty obvious that Obama is playing the congressional Republicans like a fiddle.  And of course, the sheep in the Republican party don’t even realize it.  They’ve been getting ready to cave for weeks now.  Its been stated over and over again, how the Republicans are scared of confrontation, scared of being called racist, obstructionist, the party of no, etc.  Apparently it’s true.  How else do you explain the above message from Mitch McConnell?  In the wake of a disastrous election, after the GOP nominated the most moderate maverick as a presidential candidate, who’s strong point was to be able to reach across party lines and was at odds with the “conservative” President Bush; after the drubbing that establishment Republicans took in the 2008 election?  THIS is their response? More moderation? More backtracking?  A trillion dollar stimulus?  Sure, Mr. President, we’ll work with you on that!  Expanded, “efficient” government to work for the people? Sure, Mr. President.  Millions of dollars on contraceptives? Sure thing…

This is no longer merely about winning elections.  It’s about conservative principles and finding political leaders to carry them out, because the current batch of Republicans are not discernable from most Blue Dog Democrats.  Establishment Republicans have been crashing and burning in slow motion for the better part of a decade now.  I used to be one of those conservatives who believed that the GOP needed to “rebuild” on its way to some sort of victory in 2010.  It’s not even close.  It appears that GOP rot is worse than I thought, and the party is still getting rid of the excess waste of hubris, lethargy and a lackadaisical attitude towards anything even resembling a firm stance on anything.

For the silver lining on this gray cloud, Jules Crittenden notes that President Bush was just as brazen over his electoral victories, and still managed to blow his party’s majorities in Congress.  Crittenden makes a good point.  Obama could actually blow it by the midterm elections–I know he’s arrogant enough.  And I still have the suspicion that he and the Democrats will be branded with this gargantuan stimulus package (and TARP II) once it fails…and it will fail. 

Allahpundit thinks that the Republicans won’t play wet rag on Obama’s honeymoon–enjoying enormous favorable ratings in the polls and all the momentum in the world.  Politically speaking, a good move for Republicans perhaps.  But this approach doesn’t sit well with me right now.  There’s too much at stake here.

 (UPDATE)  Behold, the Party of Supplication

(UPDATE II)  No surprise here.  McConnell is proposing more Big Government to fix a Big Government debacle.  Like I’ve been saying, there’s no real leadership here with these DC Establishment Republicans.  There’s nothing about this plan that differentiates the GOP from liberal Democrats–get used to being in the minority.

An Underwhelming Inaugural Speech…A Wake-up Call For Republicans

I wish all the best to President Obama personally, to the First Lady and to the Obama children.  I wish them well.  But as for President’s Obama’s policies, his plans for governing this country–I pray that they fail miserably. 

Make no mistake about it, and you didn’t need some pedestrian Inaugural speech to deduce as much, Obama plans to expand the Federal government to stifling levels.  The Federal government will extend its reach to the point that will put the past eight years of incremental statism to shame.  And make no mistake, this is not Obama’s fault, it is the fault of weak-kneed and rudderless Republicans and their reckless attitude towards spending and the expansion of government.  Even now, after a debilitating election, they still can’t muster up the courage to stand for what’s right.  No guts. 

After the election, I had to listen to Reagan’s “A Time For Choosing” speech from 1964.  Tonight, even more so than on November 4th, it deserves to be listened to again:

 

Read the transcript here.  The money quotes:

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government”-this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

[...]

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer-and they’ve had almost 30 years of it-shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

[...]

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things-we’re never “for” anything.

[...]

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

RS  McCain agrees.  Obama’s much anticipated Inaugural speech fell flat.  Read his whole piece here.

The battle for the GOP begins now…(Part 2)

We wrote about this two weeks ago:

Whether McCain wins or loses, the party needs a massive overhaul and there needs to be a push to make Reagan conservatism the focal point of the platform.  That is the only forumla for success in elections; this goes not only for general elections, but for elections at the state and local levels.  The reason why states such as Virginia and North Carolina could be turning blue is that the Democrats have spent the past few years developing Democrat strongholds in state governments and municipalities.  The Republican party needs to focus on organization and efficiency, bound together by a coherent platform and message. 

Perhaps the Republicans need a few years in the political wilderness.  However, the costs of defeat are high and any policies set in place by a liberal Congress and liberal President will take years to reverse.  They’re already ecstatic at the prospect of spending even more taxpayer money.  The media and leftist bloggers are full of hatred for Republicans and conservatives, but they will claim that this is a victory for big government and liberalism in general.  As Balko notes, this election is not a repudiation of smaller government, just more big government under the GOP banner.

During the primaries, a lot of the establishment Republican pundits and talking heads were bloviating about what a great choice John McCain would be, as he has experience reaching across the aisle, appealing to bipartisan sensibilities in Congress like Joe Lieberman and the like.  Apparently, that strategy did not turn out so well in the general election, and an all too accommodating media were obliged to incessantly point out the opposite; the Obama talking point that McCain was too partisan, a clone of President Bush.  No surprise, the very same people who supported McCain for this very reason (read Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckley) were busy jumping ship at the eleventh hour. 

As Malkin puts it, the Republican Party does not need  to water down our conservative principles; it needs to refocus on them.  Those responsible for letting Republicans in the Senate and House turn into an abyss of bi-partisan spendthrifts, need to be held accountable.

The inclination will be to throw President Bush under the bus as well, but this is not acceptable either.  The President is lambasted for reaching over the aisle, while succumbing to liberal inclinations in policy as well (NCLB, immigration, etc)  The WSJ:

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, “Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust.”

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

The president’s original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Do Republicans Need To Lose?

Radley Balko on why the Republicans must lose:

While I’m not thrilled at the prospect of an Obama administration (especially with a friendly Congress), the Republicans still need to get their clocks cleaned in two weeks, for a couple of reasons.

First, they had their shot at holding power, and they failed. They’ve failed in staying true to their principles of limited government and free markets. They’ve failed in preventing elected leaders of their party from becoming corrupted by the trappings of power, and they’ve failed to hold those leaders accountable after the fact. Congressional Republicans failed to rein in the Bush administration’s naked bid to vastly expand the power of the presidency (a failure they’re going to come to regret should Obama take office in January). They failed to apply due scrutiny and skepticism to the administration’s claims before undertaking Congress’ most solemn task—sending the nation to war. I could go on.

As for the Bush administration, the only consistent principle we’ve seen from the White House over the last eight years is that of elevating the American president (and, I guess, the vice president) to that of an elected dictator. That isn’t hyperbole. This administration believes that on any issue that can remotely be tied to foreign policy or national security (and on quite a few other issues as well), the president has boundless, limitless, unchecked power to do anything he wants. They believe that on these matters, neither Congress nor the courts can restrain him.

That’s the second reason the GOP needs to lose. American voters need to send a clear, convincing repudiation of these dangerous ideas.

If they do lose, the GOP would be wise to regroup and rebuild from scratch, scrap the current leadership, and, most importantly, purge the party of the “national greatness,” neoconservative influence. Big-government conservatism has bloated the federal government, bogged us down in what will ultimately be a trillion-dollar war, and set us down the road to European-style socialism. It’s hard to think of how Obama could be worse. He’ll just be bad in different ways.

Whether McCain wins or loses, the party needs a massive overhaul and there needs to be a push to make Reagan conservatism the focal point of the platform.  That is the only forumla for success in elections; this goes not only for general elections, but for elections at the state and local levels.  The reason why states such as Virginia and North Carolina could be turning blue is that the Democrats have spent the past few years developing Democrat strongholds in state governments and municipalities.  The Republican party needs to focus on organization and efficiency, bound together by a coherent platform and message. 

Perhaps the Republicans need a few years in the political wilderness.  However, the costs of defeat are high and any policies set in place by a liberal Congress and liberal President will take years to reverse.  They’re already ecstatic at the prospect of spending even more taxpayer money.  The media and leftist bloggers are full of hatred for Republicans and conservatives, but they will claim that this is a victory for big government and liberalism in general.  As Balko notes, this election is not a repudiation of smaller government, just more big government under the GOP banner.