« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Dismal Science – (Part 1 of 3): Michele Bachmann on Jobs and the Economy.

James MacDonald of ForeignPolicy.com describes the current Seldon Crisis occurring in Western economies as the end of a seven decade experiment. This seven decade experiment is described by Walter Russell Mead as The Blue Social Model. He talks us through its particulars below.

Graduate from high school and you were pretty much guaranteed lifetime employment in a job that gave you a comfortable lower middle class lifestyle; graduate from college and you would be better paid and equally secure. Life would just go on getting better. From generation to generation we would live a life of incremental improvements — the details of life would keep getting better but the broad outlines of our society would stay the same.

This system has been irretrievably holed below the water line. The fundamental organizing principal of the American Economy will have to be moved away from the rudiments of the now-failed Blue Social Model. The GOP candidates competing with Barack Obama for the presidency will have to demonstrate they can effectively drive this transformation. Today we discuss the pros and cons of Michele Bachmann’s stated policies and past actions with regard to this monumental task.

We begin with Michele Bachmann’s stated positions on how to resurrect the US economy. She has not been bashful. You will not have to walk around wondering what the Congresswoman really thinks. On the front of the Issues Page of her primary campaign website, Congresswoman Bachmann lays out five top priorities as a constitutional conservative. Three of these five issues relate directly to economics.

Restore our economy and create millions of new jobs.
Repeal Obamacare and its unconstitutional mandates.
Achieve deep cuts in spending to reduce America’s debt.

She has taken an obvious stand against massive government involvement in revitalizing economic growth. She is further critical of the current policy prescriptions being employed by President Obama below.

President Obama’s economic policies have failed: employers are paralyzed by record spending and debt, a weakened dollar, exploding energy prices, the explicit threat of new tax increases on top of the highest corporate rates in the world, Obamacare with its burdens on businesses, and a flood of new rules such as carbon regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency – which should be renamed the Jobs Killing Agency.

She issues a specific set of political promises on the same page of her blog as the critique.

I will lead the way in cutting spending, reducing taxes and deep-sixing our 3.8 million-word Internal Revenue Code so companies can invest again. As a first order of business, I will direct the elimination of counterproductive regulations, repeal Obamacare and stop cap-and-trade in its tracks so companies can operate again.

I next move to an examination of Michele Bachmann’s Congressional record to determine if these stated views are reflected in her actual political work. She has authored legislation to simplify the tax code and make it more business friendly. She Sponsored HR 86: End Tax Uncertainty Act of 2011. According to THOMAS, this bill was intended to accomplish the following.

Makes permanent: (1) the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001; (2) provisions of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 that reduce income tax rates on dividend and capital gains income; and (3) the repeal of the estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer taxes.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) repeal the alternative minimum tax (AMT) on individual taxpayers; and (2) reduce to 25% the maximum income tax rate on corporations, including personal service corporations.

She also championed regulatory reduction by sponsoring HR 87: To Repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The name of this bill describes well its intended course of action.

Her final major economic bill was H.R. 1286: Healthcare Fiscal Accountability Act of 2011. This was her attempt to effect the repeal of ObamaCare. In essence, Michele Bachmann’s legislative record pretty much reads like her campaign promise. She wants to reduce and simplify taxes, offer regulatory relief and reduce domestic spending by nuking ObamaCare from close-Earth orbit.

There really isn’t a whole lot that needs to be said in summary. She’s laid out a set of proposals that she believes. She has attempted to leverage her limited power as a Congressional Representative to get these priorities enacted into law. She is now running for The Presidency to step up to the Bully Pulpit and ram-rod these policy proscriptions through.

It’s a direct and blunt approach and the ideas are the essence of traditional, Conservative economic policy. If you like meat-and-potatoes, limited government conservatism this should appeal. If you believe lower corporate taxes, coupled with regulatory relief will solve a lot of America’s unemployment problems, Michele Bachmann’s economic views are 180 degrees different than what the government is trying right now.

COMMENTS

  • tea4me

    This is why she has the full support of Tea Partiers such as me. Anyone who’s paid a lick of attention to her the past 2 and a half years, knew this already.

    She has my full support.. And it will not be dislodged.

    • Jim Tomasik

      This is why she has the full support of Tea Partiers such as me.

      Sorry, we did not get that memo over here.

      Speaking strictly for me, at this time, she is about number four down the list.

      • Flagstaff

        like tea4me. You are different, so you get different memos.

        • mikeymike143

          and michele is my number one choice.

          • Jim Tomasik

            You spoke for yourself.

            Also, I should have said number three down the list.

            Perry
            Cain
            Bachmann

            or

            Cain
            Perry
            Bachmann

        • Jim Tomasik

          That pigeon-hole thing never worked well for me anyhow.

  • runner12

    miles better than Palin. If she does not win the nomination, whoever beats Obama in 2012 should appoint her head of the IRS and let her take an instrumental role in reforming the tax code.

    She is a breath of fresh air in Washington.

    • acat

      the Minnesota Governor’s mansion. That fool Dayton needs to go, and a tax-code-savvy Minnesotan with a healthy war chest could well be the one.

      Mew

      • runner12

        Can you imagine her as a Gov.? I think that she would be quite successful and the people of Minnesota would be freed from the clutches of their current liberal Governor.

        Bachman is definitely a rising conservative superstar.

  • http://www.pointofdebate.blogspot.com psu145

    I love Michele. There are so few that stand on principle. I can’t guarantee Michele would either, because quite frankly, when good folks get to Washington they become pawns in a game to keep their jobs, hold their power, and legislate over the rest of us.

    Plus, no House member has jumped to President since the 1800′s. If she were to win the nomination, I would be out there telling everybody I know about her. The Tea Party’s biggest threat is folding into the republican establishment which I fear a few of the larger names might already be doing.

    The ditch is pretty deep and I worry it might already be too late. We owe so much money. By 2020 it will take 19% of the world’s GDP to pay our debt. I fear nothing can get back our standard of living.

    Love Redstate since I found it last week! I write about these issues too on my blog. Check it out at www. pointofdebate.blogspot.com

    • tea4me

      The same was said about Reagan. He can’t win.

      Why would I want to check out your site? Doesn’t look like anything to offer to me.

      • Flagstaff

        But let’s think a bit. The Reagan who “can’t win” had a lot more going for him than the Bachmann who “can’t win.” We’ll find out if she can win or not by whether she does or not.

        Still, Michelle Bachmann’s biggest asset is the knowledge that all of us have that she is a 100% true-blue conservative. Not just that she IS, but that we KNOW it. There is no doubt about it, so if she is elected to any office, we can be sure she will behave in a responsible, conservative way. That also means she has ideas about how to solve many problems that we approve of, and if she comes up with some new ones, we’ll almost certainly approve of them, too. This is a BIG asset. She is also smart and not afraid of a fight.

        However—-these are just about her ONLY assets, and she does have some offsetting liabilities. And as yet she hasn’t bested Romney in any surveys, and she’s been passed by Perry as if standing still. Why is this? Why does she fall behind even RonPaul in the latest head-to-head matchup poll (of registered voters) with Barry? She needs to figure out those answers and do something about it.

  • Raven

    Then Governor Bachmann.
    Then President Bachmann.

    I would love to see that.
    Especially Speaker Bachmann to President Perry.

    • runner12

      just be the tipping point forvthe Leftists to follow through on their threat and move to Canada.

      One can only hope…..

      • drothgery

        I mean, Cannuck Conservatives aren’t Real Conservatives, but even they have standards…

        • runner12

          Yes, I guess that would be rather mean to our neighbors to the North to subject them to such misery. They are trying to right their own ship.

          Maybe there is a small island out in the Pacific somewhere…..

    • runner12

      just be the tipping point forvthe Leftists to follow through on their threat and move to Canada.

      One can only hope….

      • runner12

        That would be ” for the Leftists”

  • scottinsc

    IF all those who are of like mind – which are many – VOTE for her! The LIE that she can’t win is pushed heavily by the blogs and writers of the left. They don’t want her so their best bet is to persuade conservatives NOT to vote for her.

    She has been consistent on her policies since she came to the US Congress and particularly since 2008. I’d venture to say that no Republicans have been as forthright and adamant about their beliefs than she has – only Jim DeMint in the US Senate rivals her, in my opinion.

    Bachmann needs to run a better campaign, however. She also runs the risk of getting “Palined” like happened to Sarah in 2008. She needs to be assertive, direct and get her name out there every chance she gets – press conferences, new statements in campaign events (saying the same thing every time – a classic stump speech – gets no coverage. Ask Herman Cain).

    She is the country’s best chance. Rick Perry is a stuffed shirt who is late to the game. Bachmann has been in it to win it since she entered the Congress.

    And because a member of the House has never won the presidency means that one can’t? Heck no! It just means one hasn’t yet! A woman hasn’t won yet either. Neither had an African-American until 2008.

    Bachmann CAN win – but only IF we vote for her and don’t cower to the lies of the leftist media and take their bait that she can’t.

    • gekster

      Could you elaborate on that statement.

    • pttx333

      scottinsc, that is really an out-there statement. It is obvious you don’t know anything about Rick Perry. I did have a good laugh, though – thank you.

      • scottinsc

        Perhaps that wasn’t the best term! While he’s done a good job as governor, he has done nothing as a presidential candidate other than announce. He has faced no media pressure and has been in no debates or forums. He has not been challenged at all yet. He’s polling high right now because he’s new and he’s attracted a lot of media attention – not as much because of his policies.

        Bachmann has been significantly challenged, even within her own party, and has come through well (though she could have done better, IMHO). She has also been 100% consistent in her opposition to the Obama administration. Perry has not been nearly as out front and vocal in that respect.

        Perhaps “stuffed shirt” wasn’t the most appropriate term – my apologies! I like him – and would gladly vote for him over Obama – but at this point he is very much unproven and, to much of the population, unknown.

        • pttx333

          Perry has been vetted many times over and is still standing tall. Texas politics is not exactly kindergarten stuff. Yep, they’ve been out with the long knives for many and year now and even before he announced as a Presidential candidate they began in earnest. Whoa, you wouldn’t believe the vile and vicious stuff out there. It simply means that they view him as a very serious threat – and rightfully so because he is.

          No apologies necessary, scottinsc. It was nice to have a good laugh. You will get up to speed on things and find out about Perry. May we succeed in overthrowing this evil regime that exists in D.C.!

          • scottinsc

            His reputation is well earned, but I’m going to reserve judgement until he has been in the campaign for well more than a week! Texas politics isn’t baby stuff – you’re right – but it’s also not the national stage. He and Bachmann are definitely my top two – but Bachmann has been under fire and come through, and her plans and proposals are very specific and concise. We’ll see what happens!

          • gekster

            Go ahead and say it, we all know.

        • gekster

          You havn’t got a clue, do you.

  • bobojake

    It is not if any one of the Republican Candidates can beat obama, All of them can except Huntsman and Paul. Now with the rest of them it is who can set this Nation back on course and give obama the biggest politicallly arse-kickin he has ever had and will never recover from in my lifetime and my grand childrens life time. Nov 2012 can not come one day to soon. OLAY obama.

    • pttx333

      We will prevail because we must.

      • pttx333

        in that Moe isn’t the poster and unsure about the reply except that Nov. 2012 cannot come too soon.

  • Wayne

    and will continue to unless it becomes painfully obvious that she isn’t going to get the Republican node. Unfortunately, the word on the tip of all Republicans I talk to is “Perry”. One has to wonder whether the vast majority Republicans are really any smarter than the vast majority of Democrats. I get the impression that it’s a popularity contest where substance is not on the table and a persons adherence to their core values are not recognized as part of their credentials.

    Really!

    • tea4me

    • gekster

      What do you base that on.

      • Wayne

        Gek. I’m not saying Perry has no substance. Bachmann has demonstrated that she is a Constitutional conservative committed to her core values and I respect that. To date she has done everything to earn my vote. I don’t know enough about Perry except what his campaign PR machine is pumping out and in order for me to make an informed decision I will need much more than that. This is the most important election of my lifetime and I don’t intend to waste my vote. The comment was simply that the Republican Party seems to ride on their emotions no differently than the Democrats when it comes to the candidates. I’ve been a Bachmann fan for a long time. I’m not jumping ship at the first sign of foul weather. I want a candidate that reflects my core values, not a politician willing to say what is necessary to win.

        I’m only now learning about Perry and so far, I like Bachmann more.

  • Adjoran

    and eventually made it into law.

    Putting your name on bills with good-sounding summaries isn’t leadership if the bills fail and just help pump your thin resume.

    “Deep spending cuts” are needed, but they can’t really be accomplished without entitlement reform. Didn’t see it mentioned.

    Far more important than tax rates on economic growth is the devastating impact of regulation. Didn’t see it mentioned.

    • snowshooze

      So consider that ain’t much of an indicator.

  • 1stRichard

    Wealth in short is created by supply and demand, a supply that is dug or grown then divided in the many stages of processing and transportation to where it is exchanged, in demand. In reality, it is much more complicated yet it is important to recognize that this is the determining factor, this supply and demand of every civilization is how wealth is created or destroyed. Regrettably, we have moved away from this gold standard in determining our wealth and have become addicted to borrowing and printing wealth. Our government was only supposed to provide a service, notes that represent wealth, loans and infrastructure, but now has crossed the line in to wealth redistribution. This is a huge complicated mess compounded by the loss of a skilled labor force from years of underemployment and unemployment. With over fourteen trillion in debt and over a hundred trillion in unfunded liabilities that has to come from the real creation of wealth the federal government has destroyed our national wealth over the past hundred years or so. In consideration of the mess we are in, I think it is going to take a bit more

  • clarioncaller

    And I support her.After reading story’s of the American Revolution…you know anythings possible. Go Michelle !

  • renl57

    I like Michele Bachmann too.

    But one of the GOP’s strongest arguments against Obama was that he had no executive experience–and it shows in his failures as President.

    That argument will be undercut if the GOP nominates Bachmann, whose executive experience is limited too.

    If Obama is this year’s Jimmy Carter, then let’s remember that the two front-runners for the GOP nomination in 1980–Reagan and GHWB–both used their respective experience in government to advantage against Carter.

    Either Perry or Romney can claim he knows a thing or two about how to manage a large government organization. Bachmann cannot.

    • Wayne

      and any Republican that is put in the white house isn’t to “manage” it but to dismantle it.

      The President doesn’t manage government. It’s too large and departmentalized for anyone at the top to affectively manage. It needs to be reduced in size so that it is actually “manageable”.

      I believe Bachman can and will do that and have not developed the confidence that any other candidate will.

      The most employees I have had in my company has been about 100 and I learned very fast that it is who you surround yourself with that will determine success or failure. Most executives are not good managers but need them on their staff. The person on top has the vision and should know how to get from where they are to where they want to be. They cannot be caught up in the “managing” the organization.

    • tea4me

      Carter was a governor too. Remember?

      So was Bush. How well did that work out? Instead of standing strong…he caved to the left at the first sign of trouble.

      Executive experience…blah, blah, blah

      • tea4me

        People get sucked in by the media gibberish. In both parties.

      • JSobieski

        so who in the heck should care whether or not their surgeon completed medical school?

        Nobody is saying that being a governor is some kind of guarantee of anything. What they are saying is that governors are tested in ways that legislators are not.

        Its easy to just vote knowing that your vote ultimately makes no difference, and thus knowing that you aren’t accountable for the impact of the vote.

        There is a reason why Reagan never chose to become a legislator.

        • tea4me

          Kennedy was a legislator.

          And he actually reduced taxes a la Reagan.

          Palin was a governor…and forget she broke the oil company monopoly in her state. She’s unelectable. And why? Cause she didn’t finish her term.

          Perry may be a great candidate. But his executive experience has little to do with it. It’s his conservative principles and his record of standing on them that matter,

          All the rest is bunk.

          • JSobieski

            Serving as an executive, i.e. actually governing is a skill set in and of itself.

            Kennedy was a crappy President. The fact that he had a couple of good ideas doesn’t change that fact.

            The federal government is a monstrously large mess. If you think that someone with no management skills outside of managing their Congressional staff or campaign staff is going to be just as tested as a governor or general, then we disagree.

            Governors deal with hostile legislatures—like a president.
            Governors use or misuse executive authority—like a president.
            Governors negotiate—like a president.

            Legislators talk and vote.

            I don’t necessarily want the best candidate. I want the best potential president.

          • tea4me

            It’s that it happens to be aligned with all the squishy RINO comentators with an agenda who use it to try and sell the public that because of this Bachmann isn’t electable. That’s utter BS.

            I hear Rove do it, Kristol do it. And many many others. I even heard Medved BLATANTLY do it. It’s hog wash.

            btw…

            …negotiation is now a dirty word with conservatives. It’s why we’re in this mess. Dems never do it if they can help it. Repubs always do.

            And we keep going farther and farther left as a nation.

          • JSobieski

            A legislator can stay “pure” because (like Bachmann) the individual legislator’s vote doesn’t make a difference.

            Basically, what you are saying is that if Rove says something or does something, say “X” then you are against X.

            X=
            Supported several tea party candidates, such as Rubio
            Been a vocal opponent of Obama in numerous media settings
            Explained how Obama has been a big “zero” as a leader
            Supports entitlement reform

            Are we to conclude that you disagree with Rove on ALL things. I presume that answer is no. So that being the case, why does what Rove say or do matter at all? Why not evaluate arguments and candidates on the merits.

            Do not export judgment to third parties. Make up your own mind using the facts. To support or not support something based on what Rove says or does is to outsource your own judgment and intelligence.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            nearly any of our candidates except Newt and RP would be electable this time around. But having said that, there is a larger hurdle for her because of running from the House. So there is a bit of truth in all of that.

            I am actually leaning in her direction but it will all take care of itself. Both Romney and Perry are men, they have executive experience, they look and talk presidential, and they have good hair.

            So, if she can knock them off in the primaries that will prove she has what it takes, so it is a situation that will sort itself out.

          • tea4me

            …of putting words in other’s mouth,

            I never said any such thing…

            “Basically, what you are saying is that if Rove says something or does something, say ?X? then you are against X.”

          • Jim Tomasik

            .

          • JSobieski

            “It?s that it happens to be aligned with all the squishy RINO comentators with an agenda who use it to try and sell the public that because of this Bachmann isn?t electable. That?s utter BS.

            I hear Rove do it, Kristol do it. And many many others. I even heard Medved BLATANTLY do it. It?s hog wash.”

            To me, it appears that you have stated that things “aligned” with Rove in some way should be discounted on that basis. For example, was Rove’s support of Rubio “aligned” with some squishy political goal?

            Using a broad brush to Rove or anyone else who is center-right is an error in my view. People have arguments and points of view. Sometimes they make sense. Sometimes they don’t.

            Whether Rove or Kristol says something doesn’t make it true or false.

          • JSobieski

            are in fact an example of logical extrapolation. The purpose of citing such people is to discredit other people who may sound like Rove or Kristol on a particular issue.

            So you don’t like being characterized by your disagreement with them on some things any more than other people dislike being characterized by their agreement with them on some things.

          • tea4me

            He supported Crist. As did all the establisment Republicans. Especially the Republican Senatorial Committee. Just like Rove is currently taking back handed shots at Perry and Bachmann.

            Rove is a biased establisment Republican. He’s no conservative. When he attacks the Dems he makes a lot of sense. He’s lost me though as a shrill for Bush’s guys.

            You seem to be a Perry supporter. Rove was behind all the RINO agenda items GW pushed thru (and Erick listed today). He was also with Bush in endorsing Hutchison over Perry in the Gov race.

            How do you square yourself with that?

            Rove is definitely trying to steer the debate for the establisment candidate (Romney). Just like Kristol, and Medved, and all the other RINOs in the media.

          • tea4me

            I see Rove did support Rubio as early as Oct 09. Although the RSC didn’t. Not sure what his motives were.

            Doesn’t change my mind about him though. He took the charge against a lot of Tea Party candidates before the last election.

          • tea4me

            …whenever I hear someone say Bachmann can’t win (Primary or General)…they’ve lost me.

            George Will was so blatant as to say this weekend that there’s no such thing as an establisment republican. What utter BS that is.

            None of these guys, Rove, Will, Krauthammer, Kristol etc, etc, etc were Reagan supporters. Infact they all took the same line as they do now with Bachmann.

            Reagan can’t win. It’s BS.

          • JSobieski

            You sure do a fair amount of it yourself.

            As an FYI, Rove WORKED for Reagan’s 80 campaign. He has also given several speaches as to why the GOP needs candidates “like Reagan”.

            I realize that you are fully invested in your “establishment” meme in an emotional way.

            FYI Bachmann is no Reagan.

          • JSobieski

            How do you reconcile Rove’s support of Rubio?

          • tea4me

            Rove was selected President of College Republicans in 1973 by G HW Bush. He founded a direct mail company (Karl Rove & Co) in 1981 and the worked for Reagan/BUSH on their DIRECT mail campaign.

            He did that for his own business with Bush as his connection. Not due to any fielty to Reagan. LOL!!

            As for Rubio. Way to spin from answering my Hutchinson question.

            Maybe he saw the writing on the wall with Crist. You know…that picture with Obama and all. Ole Jeb knew to play both sides of that one as ex-Fla governor.

          • tea4me

            …not 1980. He was late to the party for Reagan. And only latched on to it in 1984 due to HW.

            He was no Reagan supporter in 1980. He was a BUSH supporter!

            lol

          • tea4me

            I couldn’t believe Reagan selected HW as his VP. Despite his war record and background with the CIA. I always considered HW weasley. I held my nose to vote for a Bush 3 times. Because i’m a staunch conservative Republican. Not cause I was ever a Bush fan

            I’ve never voted for a Bush in a Primary. What is that? Three shots on goal? And that’s only cause Bush wasn’t primaried his second term.

            The Bushes are the epitomy of the establishment Republicans. And as they say…Rove is the architect.

          • tea4me

            …that I held my nose.

          • JSobieski

            Obviously Rove detested Reagan, and thought he had no chance of winning.

            I never voted for a Bush in a primary until 1992.

            Too bad your accuracy with the facts is not as good as you voting record.

            Your shots on goal would be more impressive if there was a contested net.

          • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

            Rove worked for Bush in the primaries until Bush was out. Only then did he work for Reagan, after Reagan picked Bush as a running mate.

            It was in the same Wikipedia article you cited, but you left that part out.

          • JSobieski

            I said he worked on the Reagan 1980 campaign.

            Who is being more accurate?

            The person who says Rove worked on the 1980 campaign for President? Which is true.

            Or ther person who says Rove didn’t work on Reagan’s 1980 campaign for President? Which is not true.

            The idea that Rove had some deep dislike for Reagan or thought he couldn’t win is incorrect.

            The idea that Rove didn’t support Rubio and other tea party candidates with money is also incorrect.

            I never said that Rove was some kind of Reaganite-saint.

            I simply repeat that he is hardly the devil some people make him out to be.

          • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

            Every bad idea that damaged the Republican brand at the hands of Bush 41 and Bush 43 had Rove’s fingerprints on it.

          • JSobieski

            I don’t think Rove is some braniac, but neither is he Darth Vader. If is inheresting how many people love Palin because the left hates her. The left also hates Rove (he is on their top 5 list), but people find that last endearing.

            Rove raises a lot of money for conservative candidates. Rubio has far nicer things so say about Rove then the folks here who think that Rove is the cause of all of our problems.

            The cause of our problems is us.

          • tea4me

            “None of these guys, Rove, Will, Krauthammer, Kristol etc, etc, etc were Reagan supporters. Infact they all took the same line as they do now with Bachmann.

            Reagan can?t win. It?s BS.”

            And you’ve done nothing to disproved that point. Just a lot of blather about Rove latching on to Reagan’s rodeo

            Which he only did “thru Bush” to garner a paycheck and advance his own career..

          • tea4me

            Rove was a political social climber?

            Of course! I agree. And establisment politician!

          • JSobieski

            http://books.google.com/books?id=Aw4tOs-x85YC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=Karl+Rove+on+the+1980+campaign&source=bl&ots=FBhgZKO-LK&sig=0E8Tk4_FJqxGu9WXUEyNfRjLFag&hl=en&ei=GUtUTtT0H8rGgAfW7rVN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

            If you google Rove 1980 campaign you will find lots of relevant links.

            I am no Rove fan, but your case against him would be far stronger if you just stuck with the facts as they exist. When you say stuff that turns out to be wrong, it undercuts your argument on the things you are right about.

            So Rove thought Reagan couldn’t win in 1980 despite the fact that he worked on the Reagan 1980 campaign.

            So Rove is a status quo elitist despite the fact that in 2010 he supported and gave money to Rubio and other tea party candidates.

            My point is simply that you paint with a brush that is overly broad. Just as it would be incorrect for me to insinuate that you are factually wrong all the time, when in fact I have only proven you wrong twice.

            P.S. If you remember 1980, you would remember that Bush was probably a step up from Ford. Bush as VP was certainly better than the Ford as co-Pres that Ford was requesting.

          • tea4me

            And Reagan set him straight in short order.

            Rove did NOT think Reagan could win in 1980. If he did…he wouldn’t have signed up with Bush. LOL!!

            And you’re STILL dodging Hutchinson!

          • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

            Do you suppose Rove talked George HW Bush into using that, or out of using that? It was a broadside aimed at Reagan, pure and simple. I mean, it’s the only thing anyone remembers about the 1980 GOP primaries, thanks to Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller’s Day Of.

          • tea4me

            I’d forgotten that point. But it all flashes back now. That is the primary reason why I was against Reagan picking Bush.

            It was the same type of thing the left later did when they mocked Reagan’s SDI as Star Wars.

            I was a young man back then. Just out of college with my first job. But I still remember both of those things.

            Especially the Star Wars mocking. That more than anything cemented my views against liberals

          • JSobieski

            Wow. So much for a philosophy of individual responsibility.

            Look, my point is simply this: You and Rove agree at least 90% of the policies in dispute at the current time. You probably disagree on strategy a bit more than that.

            Why not just disagree where it makes sense to disagree and stay out of the blanket condemnation business? This whole fight against “the establishment” (leftists like to call it “the man”) isn’t particuarly helpful.

            If every intra-party argument results in someone calling someone else an “establishment” republican, we had better pray to God that Palin not run for President. Otherwise, Palin, Bachmann, and Perry supporters will each use the phrase in extremely broad ways that make no sense, and in ways that will be hard to recover from.

          • tea4me

            Because they use the tactics of the left (albeit in a more subtle way)….to slander, discredit, diminish true conservatism in order to maintain the status quo and their own power base.

            It’s the lack of principled conservatism in the Republican party that has allowed the advancement of statism by the left. We get it in leaps and bounds when the left is in charge. We get it at an attenuated pace when these Republicans are in charge.

            And i’ve had many adult years to observe it.

            I’ve had it with them.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            cave or have absolutely no understanding of history.

            Both sides use the same tactics to win. The left is better at it, to our dismay. I could cite you chapter and verse but it would be pearls before swine.

          • tea4me

            “Otherwise, Palin, Bachmann, and Perry supporters will each use the phrase in extremely broad ways that make no sense”

            I support all those candidates. It’s those in the body politic who do what I said above, who make blanket statements that he/she isn’t electable or can’t win, for lame reasons such as he/she doesn’t have executive experience, that I have a problem with.

            And those followers of the body politic that fall for this tripe don’t do us any favors.

          • tea4me

            The slop exists in your own post

  • tea4me

    Nixon was a legislator too. And got re-elected as one.

    bunk

  • tea4me

    Ford was a legislato

    FDR never got elected to higher than a STATE legislator!

    bunk, bunk, bunk.

    People are simply so easily manipulated by the media.

    • aesthete

      FDR was Governor of NY, and headed up a handful of bureaucratic agencies, besides. (Not that I’d make his administration the go-to example of conservative competence, but I digress…)

  • tea4me

    But we have to believe only governors are qualified. And why? Cause those who believe this is true can point to an example of what? 2-3?

    The ONLY governor that can be held up as a high example of a great President was Reagan.

    And it WASN’T cause he was a governor. It was cause he was a TRUE conservative!

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      we only had two great presidents in the last nearly 100 years. Reagan and Coolidge. All the others, including republicans, were people who looked to government first to try and solve all problems.

      • aesthete

        Though maybe you were lumping him in with Coolidge…