When you have no power, you have principles
David Brooks is now shilling for limited government and fiscal restraint. A bit of a different tune from back when his guys ran the show. And now Republican Senators decide to fight out of control spending.
Why, it was just like yesterday that the Democrats were the party of smaller government.
One of my issues with the tea party movement is that of timing. After all, they want limited government and all that. So, where were they from about, say, late 2002 until recently? You know, back when Bush and the republican led congress was busy growing the federal government to the biggest it’s ever been in the history of the country? Anyone?
Also, Bush’s Third Term? Hope and change.
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:20 am
I’m really starting to worry that to many people, “Smaller, less-intrusive Government” is usually just code for “I want my favorite set of elected officials back”
Where, indeed, were the Tea Parties during the mostly-out-of-control Bush administration? I’ll bet 90% of the people at the tea parties thought Bush was doing just great, but Obama can’t be allowed to spend and intrude like Bush.
KsR
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:25 am
Even now, the Republicans calling for shrinking government aren’t sincere about it. If you listen to the details, all that ‘shrinking government’ means to them is going back to the start of the Obama administration. The bar has now been reset so that Bush’s administration no qualifies as ‘small government’. Thus you get absurd speeches where someone will decry government waste in one breath and champion the Republican prescription drug entitlement in the next.
And if the Republican get back in power, the bar will reset again. The government won’t get any smaller than it was at the end if the Obama administration, but they’ll point to having it grow more slowly as proof of how dedicated they are to shrinking government.
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:30 am
I, being one of the people who was blinded by the big “R” on G-dubs uniform, woke up during the Bush bailouts. After that I back tracked and saw how out of control it all got. After applying palm to forehead numerous times, I got involved and tossed out my “R” team gear. I like to think that many tea partiers came about it the same way. But there will never be a lack of “R” team supporters or “D” team supporters at any rally.
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:52 am
People like Tom Delay (soon to be a Dancing with the Stars/Gong Show contestant) are the reason that the Republican Party lost the trust of the people, including lifelong strident conservatives like me.
The Republican Party’s only hope for a true resurgence is for people who have had not involvement in the politics of Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay, et al to step up an run on an anti-big government platform in 2010.
Running the same retreads (e.g. Lamar Alexander, Lindsay Graham, etc.) doesn’t interest me a bit.
I think that the public should start by voting out of office anyone who voted for TARP, period.
The Republican Party needs to be a party of citizen legislators and not of political hacks.
But I am not holding my breath.
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:03 am
People DID complain about Bush the democrat and his big government excesses. He had to back down on his idiotic pick of Harriet Miers. Folks screamed about the medicare drug expansion and the formation of the TSA, et, et. When Bush didn’t respond, they withdrew their support from Republicans across the board.
And we got Obama, the Shining One. Or the shining one.
Bush and Rove ruined the Republicans, who where happy to be ruined. The Dems are worse by orders of magnitude, but oh, what could have been if Bush had just had a little bit red blood in his veins.
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:09 am
“I’ll bet 90% of the people at the tea parties thought Bush was doing just great, but Obama can’t be allowed to spend and intrude like Bush.”
No offense, but that’s a load of crap. Bush’s approval ratings were so low because nobody liked him. Once you get below the 40s, you’re losing your own voters, not just the folks on the other side. Republicans thought he spent too much and lacked fiscal restraint. Democrats thought he was too socially conservative and hawkish on foreign policy. Everybody hated something about Bush, it was just different strokes for different folks.
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:18 am
Why do you think the republicans lost in 2006? We pulled our support because they stopped being conservative.
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:25 am
Yeah, they complained, but did they DO anything? Like run another candidate in 2004?
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:44 am
It’s a case of who runs the R party. The answer is the R “leadership” and not the actual conservative base. That’s why McCain chased everyone away and Palin brought alot back. McCain clearly was not conservative in ANY way. Palin is clearly conservative in just about every way. But it’s still the party bigwigs that control. Until that changes the usual political corruption and pandering and such will continue.
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:59 am
Early Prediction: The Democrat-Lites at the helm of the USS Pachyderm don’t relinquish the helm, Palin goes Bull Moose, Obama beats Romney (R) and Palin (I) by a plurality in ’12, despite Bushian approval figures in the midst of Recession Year Five.
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:02 am
The last real “leader” the Republican party had was Newt Gingrich. He brought new ideas to the table which is more than I can say about the current R leadership.
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:21 am
I don’t think it takes a partisan hack to note the difference between on President spending like a drunken sailor and another spending like a crack whore on speed.
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
Xrlq,
I had a coworker who made the same excuse about her boyfriend: “He doesn’t hit me that much.“
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
There were plenty of people angry at Bush’s big government shenanigans from 2003-2008, the problem was that the alternative that was on offer was usually far worse.
When the republicans turn on you, who are you going to elect that will give you small government? The Libertarians are basically inept Reaganite Republicans when they aren’t batshit insane. Ron Paul is the closest the movement has to a role model.
I also think that people are finally protesting because Obama is so much worse than Bush on the big government front. While Bush’s big crime was giving us a somewhat expensive and possibly unnecessary war, Obama outspent that by several orders of magnitude in his first 3 months in office! And this is despite the fact that his biggest programs are being blocked by protests.
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Also, there’s no way a Republican candidate could have beaten Bush in the 2004 primary. That’s ridiculous.
Even assuming we could have found a big name candidate to against Bush on a smaller government platform, it would not have swung the election results by more than a percentage point or two. Even in a “best” case scenario, if 10x more people had voted libertarian in 2004, this “victory” would only have thrown the election to Kerry. And I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to see that Kerry would have been nearly as bad as Obama from a small government perspective.
As I said above, a no-win situation.
The only winning outcome in the long term was for
* big government republicans lose elections (done)
* we get something worth protesting (done, see tea parties, health care protests)
* small government republicans come out of woodwork and start running for office, winning elections due to popular rage over big government democrats
* Obama doesn’t coopt this movement like Clinton did in the mid 90s but instead pointlessly fights it, keeping people angry.
* We get some significant shrinkage in the tax burden and the intrusiveness of federal government.
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Jeff, I saw war/torture protests aplenty in the last 8 years, but I missed all the fiscal responsibility in government protests during the Bush administration. No giant groups of WASPs convening and yelling for Bush to slash his huge operating budget. I don’t seem to recall a nationwide trend of Republicans showing up at “repeal the patriot act” protests right after 9/11 either.
No, it’s like I said. People might whine, but don’t actually do anything about the fuckups, as long as they perceive them to be on “their side”. I think we know who’s side politicians are on, and it’s not the general public’s.
KsR
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Teddy Roosevelt versus V.I. Lenin. Take your pick.
September 3rd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Pro-Eugenics Big Government Progressive Imperialist vs. Murderous Collectivist…
Can I have “rat poison” for a third choice, or do I have to abstain?
September 3rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Soooooooo, does this mean that nobody should do anything about anything because of this? That is why I hate thoughts like this. Rather than cheer people who are starting to do something, make fun of them for not doing it early enough.
Are we going to start yelling at newly minted funnies because they may have nor been sufficiently pro-gun 10 years ago? Some people are never happy.
September 3rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Gunnies. Sorry, stupid auto-correction.
September 3rd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I’m not making fun of them. But don’t expect me to jump on your bandwagon when you didn’t even look at mine.
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Agreed. Because most of the conservative base liked Bush.
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
I’m not making fun of them. But don’t expect me to jump on your bandwagon when you didn’t even look at mine.
So what’s the solution then? Because people were not as loud during Bush’s reign, that should mean people have to accept whatever Obama does? Because Bush had big deficits, we have to accept larger deficits, socialized medicine, cap and trade, and a submission to anti-American nations?
Are you saying people protesting these issues really do not care about the issues, but protest now only because they are Republican hacks? All of them?
I do not buy that they are just pawns of the republican machine at all.
September 4th, 2009 at 12:45 am
No, just most of them.
September 4th, 2009 at 11:52 am
As a member of the local Tea Party in Richmond, VA, I can say that the CONSERVATIVES were complaining about Bush. The Republican mainstream…not so much. However, the key thing about the Tea Parties is that its made up of non-political people, ones that have never protested anything before, and are both DEM and GOP. Our favorite idea is to VOTE THEM ALL OUT. No incumbents. We need to be more active in the primaries. Now, as I said, the party is made up of non-political types. We needed a unifying, coordinating idea. At least locally, those that listen to Glenn Beck took his ideas about networking and ran with it. His 9-12 project was a coordinating factor. While Bush overspent, Obama was a shock to the system that forced many to react. And Congress’s stupidity in passing unread and unfinished bills was the icing on that cake.
Instead of worrying about why Republicans didn’t “protest” Bush or how many Tea Party members are “GOP hack”, lets get behind the only force that might influence those politicians into common sense voting.
Let’s NOT eat our own this time.
September 4th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Yes, yes, no true scotsman…
Yes, let’s not worry about whether or not anyone is actually doing anything; what’s important now is the lip service!
This is just the same old usual suspects trying the same old speeches to once again try and trick people into once again putting them back in power. The same people who one hand cry about Obama Care being just like Nazi Germany while on the other holding up the medicare prescription drug plan as an example of great reform. On one hand crying about government overspending while on the other hand demanding the one thing Obama did cut (farm subsidies) get restored.
And Glenn Beck? Really? You proudly point out you’re inspired by Glenn Beck and you expect me to take you seriously when you claim to be a critic of the Bush administration?
I’ll believe you when I see you do something.