What's That Thumping?
It's Time We Get Back To First Principles
By Tom DeLay Posted in Republicans — Comments (198) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
RedState is pleased to welcome the Hon. Tom DeLay, former Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, to the front page.
The cable television pundits and the editorial columnists of America’s major daily newspapers would have us believe that the election of 2006 was a broad repudiation of America’s foreign policy, of our prosecution of the war against terrorists, and of a Republican majority that either did too little or too much depending upon each particular pundit’s world view.
Some self-described conservatives have even said that the House and Senate spent too much time on ‘wedge issues’ like illegal immigration and gay marriage rather than engaging in protracted battles on social security and entitlement reform.
It seems to me that the protection of our border and the legal definition of the fundamental building block of our society are issues at least worthy of consideration in the public square. These fundamental issues are at least as important as retirement security and revamping a broad range of government programs. In fact, the 109th Congress raised all of those issues, and I believe that our nation’s public life was richer for the debate.
I would assert that this election was not so much won by the Democrats as it was lost by the Republicans.
Read on . . .
Too many Republicans failed to continue an aggressive fight for the principles which bring us together as Republicans and as conservatives. As the great political theorist Russell Kirk points out, we conservatives believe in a society built on three first principles: Order, Justice and Freedom. These principles are the three legs of the stool upon which our society rests. With anyone of these legs removed the stool, and our society, topples.
As we go forward to regain our majority and reconnect with the voters, Republicans and conservatives must remember that our society, our government, and our policies must align in a way that promotes and protects these three intertwined principles.
It seems to me that we can reunite and reenergize a majority of Americans by confronting and addressing five major challenges to the principles of Order, Justice and Freedom.
First, we must be able to protect our citizens and our allies from attack and ensure our domestic, national and international security.
America faces threats from committed terrorists who are dedicated to the destruction of our society and all that it represents. We face a growing nuclear threat from rogue nations with irresponsible leaders who seem intent on using nuclear blackmail and regional destabilization as tools in their effort to maintain power.
The primary responsibility of government is to ensure the protection of its citizens and as conservatives we must lead the effort to strengthen our nation’s military and homeland defense capabilities to protect our citizens from attack. This means a thorough modernization of America’s military and the deployment of strategic defenses against missile attack.
Second, we must lead an effort to radically redesign government and return it to its constitutional roots. The problem with our government isn’t simply that it has gotten too big or that it spends too much – but that it is involved in aspects of our lives and our economy in which it has no business. Further, our government has almost become a self-sustaining organism which continues to grow and propagate programs without accountability and without results for the people it is supposed to serve.
We need to completely restructure government to make it more results-oriented, performance-based and accountable to the American people. This is how you reduce spending.
Thirdly, conservatives must fight for fundamental tax reform. While some progress has been made to reduce marginal tax rates, meaningful tax reform will only occur with a radically redesigned tax code. Far too many dollars are taken out of the productive sectors of our economy by trying to interpret and avoid the complicated and onerous nature of today’s internal revenue code. It is time America had a 21st Century tax code so it can compete in a 21st Century global economy.
Fourth, in order to achieve true justice, we must make every effort to reverse the culture of death that threatens the weakest and the most infirm among us. Conservatives want a society that respects and protects all innocent human life regardless of some political activists notion that some lives may not be of sufficient quality to avoid termination at the hands of an abortionist or a euthanizer.
Fifth, conservatives are united in their agreement that we must bring into check the powers of an increasingly imperial judiciary which seeks to manufacture, rather than interpret the law. The Judicial Branch must be returned to coequal status with the Legislative and the Executive, lest we undermine the very principles of Order, Justice and Freedom upon which we believe our society to be built.
As a conservative I share much of Ronald Reagan’s world view; of an America that is strong and free; an America that is a beacon of liberty where individual responsibility is respected and rewarded; and of a government limited in its size, scope and power over people’s lives. Perhaps more importantly, I share Ronald Reagan’s optimism about the future.
I believe as Bismarck said that, “Politics is the art of the possible”. We must be dedicated to our principles, certain in our direction, bold in our action and relentless in our struggle to advance our cause.
So for me, and I hope for many conservatives, this week is a time of reflection and rededication and not one of recrimination and retreat. The ‘thumping’ I hear is of a conservative movement with a strongly beating heart.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | Blog Call with Mike Pence — Comments (6) »
What's That Thumping? 198 Comments (0 topical, 198 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Only, I hope your future endeavours do not include association with the Republican Party.
Where was the following sentiment when we had control of both houses?
[...] conservatives must fight for fundamental tax reform. While some progress has been made to reduce marginal tax rates, meaningful tax reform will only occur with a radically redesigned tax code.
I became involved with this party when I heard this sort of talk- that the republicans would make it a priority to fundamentally reform our tax policy. To be frank, after 6 years in control of both houses while not seeing any sign of fundamental tax reform I'm more than a little dismayed- both at the lack of progress and at the lost opportunity. The talk remained talk. What happened?
It seems to me that the protection of our border and the legal definition of the fundamental building block of our society are issues at least worthy of consideration in the public square. These fundamental issues are at least as important as retirement security and revamping a broad range of government programs. In fact, the 109th Congress raised all of those issues, and I believe that our nation’s public life was richer for the debate.
Kindly, Sir: This statement is freakin' nuts, and this kind of thinking is exactly why Republicans got their "thumpin'". Social Security reform is a hugely important economic issue -- particularly in light of its cost, inefficiencies, and general unsustainability. Ditto revamping government programs. Immigration reform/border security may be slightly less important in the grand scheme of things -- the importance of an issue is not measured by how many Congressmen hyperventilate over it -- but it is at least some relevant function of the Federal Government. Amending the Constitute to ban gay marriage? Possibly the least important activity for Congress to undertake in this, a time of war.
Indeed, DOMA is already in place. Numerous state initiatives have addressed the subject.* There's been no mass exercise in judicial overreaching. To even mention gay marriage as "at least as important" as SS reform or "revamping" -- and here I'll be gracious and assume you mean "eliminating" -- government programs betrays a profound lack of lucidity on your part.
The so-called wedge issues that you defend are what will make the Republican party a minority (Southern) party for a long time to come. Republicans need the moderates and libertarians to win everywhere outside the South -- and that includes traditionally red states (see, e.g., Indiana, where Republicans lost 3 [?] seats).
Let's hope that Adam C.'s analaysis (http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2006/election_analysis_the_cen...), not yours, carries the day.**
von
*And shouldn't gay marriage be an issue properly debated and decided at the local level? If Ohio bans gay marriage but Vermont allows it, why should Congress care? Indeed, isn't that the peculiar beauty of our putative system of limited government. Aside from letting the states do what they will (thereby eliminating the possibility that the citizens/judiciary of MA can set policy for the citizens SC, etc.), why is this even Congress's business?
**I admit, of course, that endorsing Adam C.'s analysis is in my self interest, given my libertarian/liberal social leanings. [Full disclosure.]
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Tom is exactly right on this. Life is more than economics. This is where Republican strength lies. We are on the right side of the culture wars. Otherwise, the parties are not that much different. It wasn't very long ago that people would have laughed when someone brought up so called "gay marriage". We would not even be having a "gay marriage" debate if it was not forced on us by the judiciary. That is what is freakin' nuts. And the way our government has evolved, these issues cannot be solved at the state level, no matter how much we might like.
Social conservatives have not hurt the republican party. They are the strength of the party. Those that have hurt the party are the extreme part of the libertarian movement and the most radical of the so called "free traders". Those so extreme that they nearly call for social anarchy, who complain when government tries to defend the helpless, to install order. Those so extreme that they say the "labor needs" for illegal immigrants demand that we ignore our national sovereignty and any resulting impact on our culture. These are the people who are hurting the Republican Party.
Strong families are extremely important to a strong society. Look what an epidemic of fatherlessness has done to the black community. And who can argue that the rampant increase in divorce rates the last 40 years haven't been terrible for society? Families are important so marriage is important.
The nature of sociology is such that it is difficult to prove/predict what the ultimate effects will be from major changes in the the social order. Just because the full effects of sanctioning gay marriage may not be immediately apparent doesn't mean the effects won't be significant, especially long-term.
And as to the 'it should be left to the states' bit, consider these words from Mitt Romney:
Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states--which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary.
of local and state laws on marriage and on a vast number of other things. Somehow life goes on and America functions indeed, functions much better than over-centralized, top-heavy societies. And while life may be more than economics I do not see where it follows that therefore the federal government should or may barge itself into every aspect of life like some pontificating nanny-god from on high who just always knows what's best for everyone everywhere.
Ladies and gentlemen, that was never a view the GOP stood for and if it's becoming acceptable now, then I submit that's part of the problem.
And what about marriage? I've heard people here rant about "government" schools. Well, what about "governmnent" marriages? Do you really think having the state run with such intimate matters has improved the institution? Sure, some laws are necessary in this area, generally in matters that involve the government already (taxes, inheritances etc.) But as a general matter it is better to do too little than to do too much.
There have been, at least until the Mass. Supreme Court decision, great similarities between marriage laws between all states. Age of consent varies some, but by the time you are 21, you are old enough to enter into it anywhere. Generally speaking you can't enter into it before you are 14 elsewhere, even with parental consent. You enter into a legally binding entity in which either spouse commits both to contracts which are signed. Unless there is a pre-nup, if you split up, you divide stuff up 50-50 except if both parties are willing to do otherwise. Even on divorce, there is general agreement in laws. Once upon a time there pretty much had to be cause, now following California's lead, its pretty much no-fault across the board. Sure the 'for cause' laws are still there, but they are mostly as anachronistic as the pooper scooper laws for horses. And it's the combination of the California's lead and the full faith and credit section of the constitution that translates what would otherwise be the Mass. courts, um..., eccentricity into a national problem. We aren't a patchwork of states, we are a national entity, whether we want to be or not.
What happens if a 15 year old wants to get divorced in a state where the age of consent is 18 (having previously, of course, married elsewhere)?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
gets divorced. This presumes that the complainant is residing in the state and the marriage is of a sort legally recognized by the state in which he or she resides when making the complaint. That said, there better not be an attempt at "reconcilliation" after the divorce is final if the complainant is still under 18.
Most states recognize any marriage sanctioned by another, but same sex is beginning to complicate that. Most states also recognize the "common law" marriages of other states, though mine does not. "Palimony" doctrines have made this a distinction without a difference in most cases though. Don't ask me how I know!
In Vino Veritas
>>Don't ask me how I know!
Okay, I won't. But you raise another interesting point. If a married couple move to another state they might find themselves residing under a different age of consent in which consummation of the marriage - or its continued consummation - would be illegal. Presumably those laws apply to them, just as they would if they were not married? If this were not the case, people could simply evade age of consent laws by travelling (with the double L, Moe) to another state and marrying there.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
of my knowledge on this. I learned far more than I ever wanted to know about state residency laws and restrictions on travelling between states a few years ago when we went after a bunch of our maritime employees for claiming AK residency and resident pay but living elsewhere. I think I'll go to my grave being able to quote AS 01.10.055, Alaska's residency definition. We had to dig into where and whether they were married, where the spouse or "spousal equivalent" resided, etc.
Some states require that a person be domiciled in that state to marry in that state, some do not. Las Vegas became a marriage hot spot because NV had no residency or waiting period requirment. States once took marriage laws pretty seriously and many still have them on the books, but my sense is that they're enforced about as much as spitting on the sidewalk laws. In the sixties and seventies, the states seemed to just do everything they could to get out of the marriage and divorce business.
Generally, sexual consent age laws have an exception for lawful marriage, e.g., the case in GA a few years ago where the woman tried to avoid the rape charge by marrying her 15 year old sex toy. So, if the marriage is of a form recognized by the state in which the couple resides and the sexual consent law has the usual exception for lawful marriage, the couple can consumate to their heart's content legally.
In Vino Veritas
Introducing government into the realm which belonged to family played an unquestonable role in the epidemic of fatherlessness in the black community you mentioned.
If you're nervous over the possible effects of change and the unpredictability of major changes of the social order, it doesn't follow that more changes in regulation are in order.
Government isn't the solution. Any time we empower government to control anything, that's just one more thing we have to prevent being abused.
In 1994 we ran as the party opposed to the corruption and entrenched Beltway attitude of the Democrats. It is time to return to those principles as well. We should not be the party of well-heeled lobbyists, beset by ethical scandals and criminal convictions of Congressmen. We're no worse than the Democrats, but we ought to be so much, much better.
Well said, now how do we get the republican leadership to embrace this simple principal?
I take issue with the tax reform (to display what I think is a common concern). Not the goal of reforming it, but a skepticism born of a similar promise and zero results. In a declaration which states that one desires to "re"-gain the majority through a return to principles, it seems prudent to analyze what led us astray the first time and why goals which appear today as they did before were not accomplished.
I regret that you find yourself outside of Congress right now. But given that you have time to post here and hopefully read the responses, let me offer a few thoughts that I would tell you if we were meeting face to face.
When you said "Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an 'ongoing victory,' and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget," you showed to me that you had been in Washington too long. I highly recommended you take the time to read Senator Coburn's book: Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders. Your quote came also immediately after the House passed an outrageous Transportation Bill with pork barrel earmarks flowing from it. I think the belief that somehow Republicans had trimmed any fat, much less all of it, showed that leadership was not seeing the world how voters were seeing it.
Many things went wrong in 2006, but a leadership that had given up on the 1994 revolution and cared more about pork than principle was a big part of the Republican loss. It would be appropriate for those who were in leadership at the time to admit that problem and apologize for it.
It seems now you understand this a bit:
Second, we must lead an effort to radically redesign government and return it to its constitutional roots. The problem with our government isn’t simply that it has gotten too big or that it spends too much – but that it is involved in aspects of our lives and our economy in which it has no business. Further, our government has almost become a self-sustaining organism which continues to grow and propagate programs without accountability and without results for the people it is supposed to serve.
It is just too bad that it took being an Outsider again before those words were written. If that philosophy is ever able to make the trip from Outsider's writing to Insider's practice, it will revolutionize government. That's what people thought we were getting in 1994. Maybe next time it will work.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
While I certainly believe the analysis of Mr. Delay is right on, it doesn't match what he did in power. Nor would I say that his idea that there was a choice between fighting hard for Social Security reform and defending Marriage is even nearly reasonable. Congress was out of session longer than any time in recent memory. We could have done both in terms of fighting for social security.
What bothers me about Mr. DeLay's rhetoric and to be honest, Mr. Gingrich's as well is that they come full of these great swelling words about how Congress has done this and that which didn't work is that they never take ownership of any of the problems they had a part in. Instead, we fire arrows at Congress.
I'd be more impressed if he took some responsiility for what happened rather than merely placing blame. It would give his writing far more honesty and credability.
Adam's Blog
The Adam Graham Program
Absolutely agree with your comments. Delay et al. should look at themselves as a significant cause for the results of this election. Even ignoring Earle's ridiculous prosecution, the Republicans in the house darn near turned into the demoncrats they were supposed to replace. Corruption, lining the pockets of family and friends, protecting their own who failed the American people, all are hallmarks of leadership that lost its way.
"Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an 'ongoing victory,' and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget,"
With all due respect, Mr. Delay was part of the problem. Government did not shrink, spending was not reduced, social security was not reformed.
It still does not appear that the R's are really listening and accepting responsibility.
You can see what I want here.
The "redesigned tax code" topic brings out the Flat Taxers, the Fair Taxers, VAT-heads, and other psychotics. While I think a flat tax on anything above a certain income level (indexed to ZIP code) would be healthier than this monstrous game of hide and seek we play with Washington, the yearly bitter fight over which ZIP codes get which rate would make current pork battles look like so many church socials.
Another problem (that will never get any political daylight) is the levied tax on interest-bearing bank accounts. It's a stupid idea to tax savings interest, and caused the economy no small problem when it was introduced. We've adjusted to it with IRAs, mutual funds with check-writing, and other gimmicks. But its real effects have been discouraging savings, complicating banking, driving people to money managers, and generally inserting government where it doesn't belong. And I bet it doesn't make much money for the Treasury, either, compared to its drag on the economy.
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
I think much of the corruption was due to the Republican's willingness to embrace pork-barrel projects and log-rolling to keep their majority.
If the Republican Party rejected this type of spending, the pay-to-play type corruption would nearly evaporate.
Usually, congressional lobbyists are looking for some sort of specific subsidy or project.
If a Republican politician says he needs a pork-barrel project for his district to keep his seat, well, he wasn't worth much anyway, let him lose it.
What we need in the House of Representatives is some sort of Commission to revaluate the usefulness of government projects and programs in the Federal Budjet, much like the Military Base Commission that Dick Armey devised, similar to a Congressional line item veto.
Republicans should also push for "sunsets" of all government programs, to make sure these "temporary" projects don't become permanent.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
One thing that ticks me off, about Congress, is this: I fail to see any advantage in all the happy talk--frankly, just lying--on the House floor about the "virtue" of your colleagues--the other side, who constantly stabs you in the back. All this "I would ask my good friend, the honorable gentleman from New Jersey...." or "I want to thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Louisiana,..." is obviously pure BS, and everyone knows it. For goodness sakes, call a lying snake a lying snake. Lying is not good manners. Everyone and their uncle knows it's not true, and I think it’s the case, that a little BS is like being a little pregnant. Tell the truth. Call people what they are. If they're liars, say they're liars. They can handle it. The public can handle it. It would be so refreshing to hear the unvarnished truth for a change. Can't we at least get that much?
I'd rather OUR Congress not be dirtied like some legislatures are. England's jeering and Taiwan's fistfights we don't need.
It's bad enough that the Congressional Record is polluted with nonsense from filibusters...
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
American legislatures lack the tradition of boisterous repartee. In a battle of verbal thrusts such as Parliamentary debate a Tom DeLay would be unarmed. In certain segments of American society being inarticulate is considered "manly," though in fact it's merely lumpen.
(yakko)
Annoying, isn't it?
(/yakko)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
My observation about American legislative debate was prompted by a poster's wish that ours was less restrained; my point--that Americans lack the tradition of the rapier verbal thrust, hence require elaborate protocol lest debate degenerate into mindless name-calling--is nicely illustrated by "And yet, we run the world." If one's repartee is limited to "Nah, nah, so's your mother," better it be a ritualistic: "And so's my honorable friend's mother."
...is precisely the same in both cases; your method merely takes longer to not get to the point.
At any rate, this may be all due to a cultural disconnect: we've generally found that people in these parts who use the word 'lumpen' without snickering tend to have other bad habits. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Well, I don't know where "these parts" are, but my fellow travellers favor limited government, not limited vocabularies, and the former isn't served by sneering at those who fail to boast the latter. Indeed, the whole "I'm jus' a simple country boy snickerin' at the fast-talkin' city slicker" thing is as dysfunctional as George Allen's cowboy boots.:)
Or, presumably, "non-British Commonwealth". The extra 'l' in 'traveler' is what they call diagnostic, you see. Which would make your definition of limited government fascinating, as what we would call 'liberal' is usually called 'reactionary' in either England or Canada. Although I suppose you might be Australian, but that would make this conversation even weirder than it is already.
Also, I'm actually originally from New Jersey, to Bostonian parents.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Notice the missing 'u' in 'favor'.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
The double l thing is more obscure. Not that I'm anything more than amused by this. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Thanks--I never knew the double L in "traveller" was an anglicism. I'm a native-born American, resident in New Hampshire, and I'm always gllad to llearn something. And for those speculating on my politics, I'm what Mr. Lane says--accurately, I think--would be known as reactionary in Canada or the UK, 19th century liberal in my book. Not sure how this grew out of my objection to one poster's belief that the political process would be improved if legislators went around calling each other liars, but it's intriguing that you favor vocabulary and spelling tests to determine ideological soundness. Glad our causes are doing so well.
Yours, for example. Assuming that your debate opponents would all be country boys; tsk, tsk. For shame.
Full humor points on the double l use, btw (and sincerely), but next time include llamas somehow. Excuse me, llllamas.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Come and visit me in Wales. The double L is very common in Welsh. The longest place name in the British Isles has five pairs of L's, including two adjacent to eachother.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
I know many people with rich vocabularies with whom I would not care to share a croissant. While there are other less articulate individuals, hayseeds, no doubt, with whom I would be proud to share a crust of bread.
Class is funny. You either have it or you don't.
We seem to save the mindless name calling for a few months every two years, then immediately say I didn't mean it Tuesday night or Wednesday morning, a bit two-faced on both sides. I'd rather the GOP be agressive in going after the oppostition 365 days a year not just during election season. We really need to stop playing nice. Though I don't regularly listen to Rush he had a great point during the whole Michael J Fox debacle, just becuase you are famous, have a disease and have beliefs doesn't mean I don't get to question you and your motives. You attack me and my position don't pretend to be offended when I strike back and claim to be a victim of my assault. When the opposition starts a fight its time the GOP finishes it.
The "sound bite debate" is a very recent creature in American politics and is attributable to mass media. Historically, the Congress and the legislatures have had spirited, pointed debate by members with impressive rhetorical and argumentative skills. Most legislative argument has been moved to caucus and away from the prying eye of television. Consequently, by the time anything gets to the floor, there really isn't any debate. Each side gets up and records its sound bites, but there is no reason to debate in any classical sense. The votes were already counted or the matter wouldn't be on the floor.
In Vino Veritas
In days gone by, before television and radio, keeping the inner workings of government from the masses was not only easier, but necessary. Who wanted to travel for weeks by carriage, just to ask how a particular measure would sit with this merchant or that farmer?
We have the internet now. The time for 'business as usual' is over.The more that they hide from us, the fewer of 'them' there should be.
And, yes; I am aware of the grammatical challenges above.
Have you ever observed the Houses of Parliament?
You cannot seriously be saying they lack elaborate protocol. The fact that the protocol is different from that on Capitol Hill is neither here nor there.
Members, or friends, are not merely 'honourable' but frequently 'right honourable', sometimes 'learned', rarely these days 'gallant', in the Lords, of course, 'noble', and in one notable Commons occasion 'close'.
You also have to wear a hat to raise a point of order and the Serjeant at Arms carries a collapsible top hat to loan to anyone who doesn't have one.
The distance between the government and opposition front benches is deliberately set at more than twice the length of a standard sword, so that only the wit is rapier like.
Anyone, by the way, who can translate the above Parliamentary terms wins a free subscription to my newsletter.
And if you watch the Queen's Speech on Thursday, see if you can pick out Rouge Dragon Pursuivant and the Maltravers Herald Extraordinary. They get much better seats than Tony Blair, being so much more important. Do you know what they do?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
comment I ever heard on RS. Gee, it took you about 49 minutes, that must be some kind of record.
Ever watch CSPAN? While painful you might see that many are not "unarmed" as reported in your rant.
Perhaps where you come from being inarticulate is "manly", but that's not the case here. One sagacious comment; sometimes it's better not to speak at all. A point made by your post.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Brisk verbal combat does indeed encourage a sharpness of thought I sometimes find lacking in our elected representatives.
That's wit, or at the very least, intact critical faculties. A prime minister who cannot emerge victorious --- or at least unscathed --- from Question Time does not deserve the title. It hardly sinks to the silliness of the fillibuster, and it's the one thing our constitution could really use. Oh, but then, if you're a constitutional fundamentalist you could get strung up for suggestion that our constitution ISN'T already perfect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_Time
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine
Three things seem to happen in Question Time:
1. Members stand up and rant about some issue for a constituent, looking for big government to come in and help with their particular problem.
2. Members taunt the Prime Minister with sound bite questions.
3. The Prime Minister dodges the questions with vague assurances that he'll look into things, and by repeating the stock party line answers to the issues at hand.
Not useful, no thanks.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
the legendary Virginia Daring; thought you were long dead. And, yes, Virginia, it is perfect, at least in its original form. Some of the "progressive" amendments are troublesome.
In Vino Veritas
Unfortunately, those who are screaming the loudest for civility today, are the ones who showed NONE for the previous six years.
Maybe a donnybrook in the Senate well is in order, n'cest pas?
Can we once again be the party of small government? The only counter to the Democrat's vision of a Federal government that is all things to all people is a Federal government that is only a few things to most people.
Americans still buy the notion of individualism, and it will sell. By trying to push for solutions at the national level, we are playing on the Democrats turf and will be doomed to permanent minority status.
By rolling back government Republicans can shape policy at the state and regional level, where solutions will seem more palatable to voters, because they are uniquely tailored. California voters do not want Georgian solutions and I am sure Georgia doesn't want Californian solutions. It will then be possible to once again win elections in places such as the West coast and the Northeast, without sacrificing the values of the South and Midwest.
Then, as the Democrats push there one size does not fit all national solution agenda, there will be a great deal of contrast with the Republicans and the moderates will return, assuring a majority.
We never *were* the party of small government. The Specters, Chafees, and Bushes have been with us for a long time.
Sway them. Challenge them in primaries. That's the way to get a party of small government. That's the only way to get it.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Well, I hate to do this, but I'm going to...
Mr. DeLay, you are one of the chief reasons that Republicans lost the House of Representatives. You came to symbolize everything that was wrong with politics in general.
If there is any reason why the House was lost, it begins with the name, Tom DeLay. If there is such a thing as karma, you will end up joining your allies Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, Tony Rudy, etc in some form of federal prison time.
You abused power in ways that made Democrats look meek. You took what people like Newt Gingrich and Bob Walker created and trashed it for your own greed and personal benefit, and in the process hurt people that didn't agree or go along with your vision.
What is even more unfortunate, is that many times you invoked things like morality and God in doing so. It is that hypocrisy, in addition to your absolute corruption, that brought down the House of Representatives.
Hopefully, the first thing that the new Republican leadership will do is to turn the page from the era of Tom DeLay and invoke a new sense of dignity and respect for service. Maybe then, Republicans can begin to reestablish a level of trust and respect with the American public and regain the Majority sometime in the next 10 years.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you had a lot of nerve coming on here and blaming everyone and everything but yourself for the loss of Congress.
On what basis do you lay the blame at Mr Delay's feet? He was railroaded, charged with things that were not crimes when he didn't do them. He resigned, taking one for the team.
On what basis do you make the claim of greed?
On what basis do you make any of your other claims, such as that he committed a Federal (or any other) crime, personally trashed Gingrich's work, and hurt people who opposed his vision?
If anything, Mr Delay is guilty of being too loyal to a President sharing his party during a time of national crisis. Why did the President not veto anything? He never got sent anything he wouldn't sign. Going along with the President ("carrying his water") is nothing to be ashamed of -- in fact, it's something a lot of us did.
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
as a conserative. I second your thought that Delay was just being a good solder. I doubt Medicare part D was his Brainchild
You are exactly right. The Bush family has severely damaged the Republican Party.
On 41: Beyond simply stating it, there is no reason to belabor the travesty that "read my lips" represents.
On 43: No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, looking the other way (and not using the veto pen) as Congress engaged in go-along-get-along earmarking and pork barrel at unprecedented levels (thereby putting us into massive debt), and a less-than-robust use of legislative oversight -- the whole nightmare unfolded per instructions from the White House.
Some believe that we should not fault the Republicans in Congress who, out of a claimed loyalty to the president, behaved in these obviously anti-conservative, sometimes unethical ways. I strongly disagree. Those who rose to the top of Capitol Hill by obliging W when he proposed items they had to have known were inconsistent with the visions of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan must pay a steep price now (by, for instance, being defeated for Minority Leader). Only in this way can we 1) prevent a repeat of this disgrace in the future and 2) return the party to its principles.
I agree with you in principle rhatican but unfortunately, I myself have been caught up in circling the wagons no matter what when doing battle with the combined media, party and intellectual opposition arrayed against us. You sometimes forget what your fighting for when survival is at stake which goes back to posts from a few days ago on the need for conservatives to infiltrate media/academia so we can maintain our values on an even playing field.
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire
Founded or unfounded I think the post saying Delay's name was part of the problem is correct. I'd bet big $ that a national poll on name recognition and favorable/unfavorable would go big against Mr. Delay. Again I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, but the electorate had the impression that he was guilty as soon as Ronnie Earl got his face on TV. Most on here should now in politics fact doesn't have a lot to do with perception. Allegations make the front page, correction or retractions make A-17.
Tom Delay did nothing wrong. He was merely punished for resisting the Democrats. There was absolutely no taint of corruption in him at all; no one even accused him of putting money in his own pocket. All the charges against him involved playing politics too tough.
What a bunch of crap: he was "admonished" for supposedly promising to personally endorse a republican running for office in exchange for a vote on the house floor.
Even the charges against him in Texas involve being too tough on the democrats, supposedly transferring money from one political committee to another. No one profited from it. The only reason why a big deal is being made about it is because the money was used against the democrats, so the MSM and democrats decided to punish Delay.
The real problem is not Delay but his fellow Republicans, who were too wimpy and agreed with these crappy ethics charges. Unfortunately that is the way so many republicans are, focus on the trees, the little details, so much that they ignore the forest, the big picture.
So speaker Hastert ends up supporting the democrat with stolen cash in his freezer from a valid FBI search warrant while supporting phony ethics charges against Tom Delay for nothing more than playing smash mouth politics against the democrats.
an epiphany on the road to Dallas?
He certainly did not legislate in accordance to 'his' conservative talking points laid out above. While it's true he was unfairly railroaded out of office on trumped up charges, he was a leader of the Republican party that, while in control of the House and Senate, set an agenda to make government bigger, more invasive, expand earmarks and so on. A conservative he is not, at least he didn't behave as one while in office. If he was a conservative he would have stood up against Medicare part D, NCLB, expanding farm handouts etc.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
The only reason why accusations are made against Delay is that he worked in the real world, passing real legislation and winning real elections, instead of a libertarian fantasy world in which we can return to the stone age with a single roll call vote.
No one else in his shoes could have done better for small government. Indeed, no one has, including Ronald Reagan.
The reality is that small government is just a fantasy, which has no votes supporting it and many against. Blaming Delay for the way the real world is, is not fair, and won't change anything.
Do you agree with his statement that there was no more pork to cut in the transportation bill?
Sure Delay passed 'real' legislation - real BAD legislation. That's why he's home now watching from the sidelines. Frankly I found his press release post disturbing in that he still does not admit to the roll he played as a leader who supported the largest increase in government greed in recent history. He's is a major contributor to why the Republicans lost big this election - I don't think he realizes the damage he has personally done to the party and the country.
All pigs eventually go to the slaughter house - even the big greedy ones.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
Are we talking about a libertarian fantasy world where all the highways are privately owned, so there would be no need for government highway funding at all?
I guess that would be the one in which "$2.3 million for landscaping enhancements along the Ronald Reagan Freeway in Ventura County, $1.8 million to construct a visitor interpretive center at the Gray Fossil Site in Gray, Tennessee, and $432,000 to establish a transportation museum on the Navy Pier in Chicago" [all among the earmarks in the highway bill, see here] are no longer considered worthwile concerns for Congress and left to the respective special interests to raise funds from citizens who agree that these are important projects, without the coercive power of federal taxation to do it for them.
[rolls eyes]
a federal transportation bill that was over $280 billion dollars and had 6000+ earmarks for special projects, many of which have nothing to do with transportation. Why should the federal government transportation bill fund a $6 million snow mobile trail in Vermont or various museums etc, etc, etc, etc, etc?
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
Yes I agree with his statement inasmuch as I agree with the sarcasm of it. To me that statement was a pointy stick at his fellow republicans. Everyone was crying for less pork, he asked for specific places to cut (put up or shut up) and then, surprise, nobody came forward, hence his comment:
"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet."
Of course I would like to know if it really was sarcastic or genuine.
and would like to see the same attention turned to the "non-profits" that provide sustenance to the Democrats. That said, when one associates with dogs, there is considerable exposure to fleas, and unfortunately some Republicans got fleas. Mr. DeLay et al. were doing a good thing, but some Republicans should have been better people.
As to the rest of your attack, lets wait for some real evidence adduced in an adversarial environment.
In Vino Veritas
Tom Delay was the single biggest problem in Washington. It turned out that the number one issue on voters minds was not Iraq, but corruption in congress. And Tom Delay and his way of doing things was what put off so many people. I agree that what he did to get charged probably wasn't a crime - he was only skirting the law rather than breaking it - but thank God it happened because if he had still been leading the party in the House, I think we would have lost a lot more seats. I hope he is never in a position to influcence the GOP again.
I'm not convinced that it is the number one issue. I'm not entirely sure that Mr. DeLay is the devil that you're looking for...
Okay, I don't fuly trust exit polls, but the showed it was the number one issue for voters. Even if they got it slightly wrong, it was still a huge issue.
> It turned out that the number one issue on voters minds was not Iraq, but corruption in congress.
That's why Tom DeLay might have saved the Congress for us if he were still in power. Unlike speaker Hastert, he would have used the democrat's cash-in-the-freezer scandal to turn the tables on them.
DeLay was exactly what republicans needed, a smash mouth street fighter.
Delay would have had absolutly no room to talk. Even if the charges against him were trumped up, he was still being charged. he tried to change the rules to suit himself. He had people kicked of the ethics panel for voting to repremand him. Yes, the Dems played nasty with him, but he was no better - using the FAA to track down where the Texas Dems had flown to.
I loved Newt. I hated, hated, HATED Tom Delay. He was the worst thing that ever happened to the GOP. He totally trashed the spirit of 1994. He belongs in some sewer with Jim Wright and Tony Cuello.
I mean for goodness sake, Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert changed the rules of the House of Representatives so that INDICTED FELONS could remain in elected leadership positions.
Heck, I say, the rules should be that INDICTED FELONS have their voting rights in the House suspended pending the outcome of their trials. And if they resign from office because of their indictments, if found guilty, they should lose their pensions.
We cannot tolerate this hypocrisy any further than we already have.
The Republican conference made it Conference policy (not House policy) that a leader had to step down if indicted. Tom DeLay followed this, despite the obvious political nature of the indictment. He resigned as Majority leader, and eventually resigned completely from the house.
---
Say if ever thou didst find a woman with a constant mind
along with Dollar Bill and we'll see if the culture of corruption really means anything.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Pelosi and the rest of her comrades will demand his resignation just like they did Jefferson's when they found the bribe cash in his freezer. And they'd never support anybody who had any connection to a certified FBI bribery sting for a leadership position.
No, I think Delay got a bum rap on the corruption charges from a political hack of a DA. I think the stupid people deserted him instead of making clear that the indictment rule applied to real police investigations as opposed to political witch hunts. I also think that was the moment Dems smelled blood in the water and realized they just might be able to take back control of congress. I mean, if Reps were willing to throw a man who fought Dem gerrymandering to gain FIVE seats in the House to the crocodiles, who else might they throw to save their own seats? Santorum? Talent? Maybe even Burns.
I may not be happy with everything Tom Delay has done for us, but on the whole, I'd rather he were still on the front lines fighting for us.
corruption poster-boy Alan Mollohan was re-elected, easily. And Harry Reid has yet to resign in disgrace.
Patrick Kennedy was also re-elected, easily. Ted Kennedy was re-elected in a landslide.
You have to thank the media for burying stories about corrupt Democrats and for calling on the rest of us to pity them rather than punish them.
Corruption in the majority party always gets more press. Jim Wright and Tony Cuello were both brought down by corruption when the Dems were holding the Congress and there was plenty in the press about it. And you can't say 'Freezer' Jefferson didn't get a lot of press, either. We put up a weak candidate against Alan Mollohan - as for Harry Ried - now as majority leader, he'll be more under the microscope.
Mr. Delay hits the pertinent points. However in the political arena many show up for the power, the perks and the esteem regardless of party affliation. The opium of big government is too addictive for most to overcome, let alone withstand. And job security comes from pandering to the lowest common denominator of constituent's instant gratification.
The dream of decades, holding the Presidency, the House and the Senate amounted to, well...not much really. If again, will it be for naught again?
Well it looks like a pretty tough crowd around here. I wouldn’t be blaming Mr. Delay for the failures of the republican congress over the past six years. The problem has always been the Senate with the filibusters and the complicit RINO’s that occupy it. When Mr. Delay was majority leader in the house he was able to get just about anything conservatives wanted passed only to see the Senate or White House kill it. As for the lobbing scandal, it seems to me to be a bit overblown. When Mr. Delay is convicted of something, let me know. Lobbyists were here before Mr. Delay and will be here after Mr. Delay. Now that the Dems are running the place they will be renamed things like “consumer advocates” and “civil rights leaders” and “environmentalist” and “union leaders”, and so on. We take our eye off the ball when we take Democratic and msm talking points and use them against out own. I’m certainly not a fan of Big Government Conservatism, but I don’t blame Tom Delay for what has happened. He was majority leader, not house dictator. He could only deal with the hand he was dealt.
We haven't been tough enough with our elected representatives, and yes Mr.Delay does deserve some blame. Not for the false things he was accused of, but for having a cavalier attitude toward pork, earmarks, and big government.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
The libertarian party would win more than 1% of the vote...
Big government John McCain and Rudy Guiliani would not be the leading contenders for the republican nomination...
No one could have done better than Tom Delay for small government. Ultimately small government republicans will need to make a choice between sitting on the sidelines with a theory and 1% of the vote like the Libertarians, or working to cut small government an inch at a time, in the face of a hostile media like Ronald Reagan did.
and the GOP could not even defund NPR. At this point I am not even sure that we cut gvernement even an inch at a time. So far there has been a lot of talk small government but no effort to make it happen.
and comparing the talk of small government to the libertarian goals is ridiculous.
Growing our government size by 7%+ each year is "no one could have done better ... for small government"??? If that's the best GOP can do for the principles of regular conservatism then stick a fork in us, we are done.
At least go back to what Gingrich was doing. Cutting the rate of growth would've been an improvement but even that was not done.
Libertarian? Bleh.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
but yes, it was the best that could be done. Every time we conservatives run a viable candidate against a "moderate" the party leaders tell us to shut our traps and stop screwing up party unity. They tell us we have to support Snarlin Arlen, Lincoln Chafee, and Olympia Snowe, because even if they only vote right once in the whole term, on that one vote we get to elect the Speaker or the President pro Tem (sp?). Then the rest of the term those same people it was so critical to elect sabotaged good legislation that Delay and other like him tried to pass. Four years of trying to twist arms in that kind of environment and I'd probably say something more sarcastic and potentially stupid sounding as Delay did when he said there was obviously no pork left to cut because nobody was offering any.
That being said, you were, in the end, a major reason we lost the Congress last week. Your risible statement that there was no fat left to trim from the Federal budget; your attempt to get the Rostenkowski rule changed when your indictment was at hand; your active collaboration with the Administration on big-spending boondoggles like Medicare Part D; and your willingness to encourage the idea, when you were fighting to keep your post, that support for you was the functional equivalent of conservatism(!) -- all these things were intrinsic to our loss of power on Tuesday, 7 November.
You're saying all the right things here. What a pity you didn't display the same principled vision in your final years in power. You -- and we -- might still be there.
We are but warriors for the working-day.
You should hand out tourniquets with those.
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
Tom Delay was a strong champion of small government, and had impeccable ethics. No one, conservative or liberal, has ever produced any evidence otherwise.
The only reason why accusations are made against Delay is that he worked in the real world, passing real legislation and winning real elections, instead of a libertarian fantasy world in which we can return to the stone age with a single roll call vote.
No one could have done any better than Delay. No one has. There is just a double standard in which Delay is held to tougher standards than other republicans, say real big government ones like John McCain and Rudy Guiliani who support massive new entitlements yet are in first place for the republican nomination.
Or we criticize Delay for being tough while today's republican leaders get rolled and run over by the democrats because they are too soft. Republicans should have supported knocking down the Rostenkowski rule so that their leaders could be as tough as democratic ones. If we let our leaders get knocked down by trumped-up democratic charges, how can we expect them to fight and win for us? They can't, which is one reason the election was lost. Without someone tough like Delay, we end up with Hastert's weak response to the money-in-the-freezer scandal.
Did you perchance pay attention to the government Tom DeLay helped create in the past six years?
Thank you for that refreshing and reinvigorating message, sir, I feel even more confident than I already did that our party has what it takes to regain our majority swiftly.
The best of luck to you and Godspeed in all your future endeavours.
Julian
www.thearmchairpolitician.com