Redstate

... do moderates get to post attack squibs on caricatures of the more conservative members of the caucus?  And then the libertarians can attack the evangelicals, the realists and go after the neocons, and so on?  That should work pretty well in '06.  I can even see the bumper stickers:  vote for me, because everyone else in my party is an idiot.

Put this post and cartoon in the "needless intramural conflict" file -- it's the round one on the floor by the desk.

Blanton's purpose on this site seems to be to drag down the average quality level, so the good posters like Nick Danger and Leon H look even better by comparison.

All I draw from this cartoon is how big W's ears are.  Other than that, I got nothing.

After all, we allow the muggle-born to post here . . .

That is the dumbest thing I have seen all morning.

Are moderate Republicans in charge of the House or the Senate?  Let's quit pretending that conservatives aren't responsible for passing bloated budgets to the President, for his signature.  It IS they who are overspending, focused on a social agenda that a majority of the American people oppose while abandoning the biggest Republican principle of them all, fiscal responsibility.  You can count the number of fiscal conservatives in Congress on one hand, and they are mostly those individuals from both parties who are considered to be moderate or centrist.

If the GOP loses either the House or the Senate in 2006, it will be the fault of Conservative Republican leadership that forgot about the contract they agreed to in 1994.  It took them only ten years, where it took the Democrats 40, to adopt the spending habits of a Beverly Hills housewife.

Furthermore, the insinuation that this President has done anything to mollify moderates in the Republican Party is a damn joke.

That is the dumbest thing I have seen all morning.

Good thing you weren't here to see me put the Neosporin on my toothbrush. It seems I can't even brush my teeth anymore without a cup of coffee first.

...we petitioned for intravenous java machines at the cafe tables. Who can operate a coffee machine before you've had a cup of coffee?

What's dumb is when people make assumptions without doing basic research to determine whether their scurrilous charges have even the remotest basis in fact.

And, given that your point is 180 degrees dead wrong, I'm not feeling generous with your language, either.

I've seen the same word used more than once on RedHot.

I'm required to put up with it from some people. Out of courtesy towards others that I respect, I voluntarily put up with it.

Other people, not so much.  :-)

I'm happy that the Social Conservatives decided to wake up a month-or-so ago and embrace their fiscally conservative roots.  Really, I am.  But the point being made is that for the last five years socially conservative Republicans have been in charge of the House, Senate, and WH (albeit in the "compassionately" conservative form -- whatever that is).  That the SoCons turned around a couple weeks ago doesn't erase this past history, which is substantial and, frankly, really, really annoying.

Now, as my initial post suggested, I think that the absolute worst thing for Republicans to do right now is to continue finger-pointing -- as this post, Matpruitt's comment, your reply, and my present retort all do.  At the same time, I find it very difficult to turn the other cheek when the folks start spouting nonsense.  

Or, more simply:  A single vote on a not-entirely wise-or-defensible set of spending cutbacks is not the litmus test for Fiscon cred.

So, erm, let's drop it and move on.

Finally, FTR, this moderate (or even -- gasp -- liberal) Republican thinks that Alito is a splendid choice.  But, if you'd rather me play to type, I can work up a crank about Alito's membership in the loathesome CAP and decide to open a diary so that the world may read my long-delayed masterwork:  The Love Song of Alex "J" Kozkinski.*  But the former would be to judge a man based on his activities thirty freakin' years ago and the latter would be more than a bit disturbing.  So let's not.

Thanks.

von

*My personal choice, though Easterbrook or Posner would be fine as well.

for Senator Coburn.  I disagree with him on various social issues, but he is one of the few in the conservative movement that actually backs up the fiscal responsibility rhetoric that he campaigns on.  He is a hero in regards to government spending in my book, and I support his efforts.  I do not understand the reasoning of those who call themselves fiscally conservative, but opposed his amendment.  However, I don't think one vote proves your case.  

Is the leadership in the House and the Senate not socially conservative?  Are they not responsible for submitting budgets to the President?  Did they not expand the "Great Society" by passing the "Medicare Bill," or increase farm subsidies by passing the "Farm Bill," or produce more layers of government by creating the Department of Homeland Security or the Director of National Intelligence?  Did they not pass a bloated transportation package, and did they not whine when the President didn't do their dirty work for them by using the veto, a fact he should be ashamed of.

I have admiration for people like Senator Coburn, Congressman Flake, Congressman Feeney, Senator Kyl, former Congressman Toomey (who as a moderate I supported against Senator Specter), and a few others who IMO are some that are right when it comes to spending issues.  This is not a defense of all moderates in Congress, as I believe there are some just as guilty of bringing home the pork; however, social conservatives are running the country that is currently producing record deficits.  The buck stops with them.    

I'm looking at the Congressional rolls, and I see one heck of a lot of moderate/liberal Republicans doing the spend-like-madmen thing. Oh, I'll be the first to lambaste the so-cons for so doing, but let's not pretend that the great waves of spending are washing over unprepared "moderates" like Chafee, Snowe, Specter, Hagel, et al., and all emanating from the social cons.

Please. The whole Party bears responsibility for this debacle.

Really, I am.  But the point being made is that for the last five years socially conservative Republicans have been in charge of the House, Senate, and WH (albeit in the "compassionately" conservative form -- whatever that is).

Really? They have? This passed me by. Did they outlaw cloning? Stem cell research? Oh! I know! They forced through every Bush nominee to the Courts, right?

That the SoCons turned around a couple weeks ago doesn't erase this past history, which is substantial and, frankly, really, really annoying.

This, incidentally, puts them ahead of the "moderates." Everyone takes the mud on this one; let's not pretend one wing is cleaner than another.

That is why it has hit a nerve.  The problem in the republican party are the old rockefeller blue blood republicans.  The "moderates"....  This has been true as long as I can remember, going back to the 60's.  And nice try libertarians to hang this spending on social conservatives.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Amen brother.

You are correct that in the positions of leadership in the House we have a slew of socially conservative members.  Speaker Hastert, Majority leader DeLay, Majority Leader/Whip Blunt, GOP Conference Chair Pryce, yup they are all socially conservative.  In the senate, well, not so much.  McConnell, Kyl, Santorum, sure.  But Frist, the jury is out.

But being in charge doesn't mean you always win.

In the House you need 218 votes to pass a bill.  There aren't 218 social conservatives or fiscal conservatives in the House.  So the leadership has to win over the moderates in the party.  Winning their votes usally means giving them something, whether its spending, programs, or buildings (or bridges).

In the Senate you need at least 50 votes (assuming VP Cheney would vote with you), but you really need at least 60 to block a filibuster.  There aren't 50 or 60 social or fiscal conservatives in the senate.  So they have to wheel and deal as well.

So to try to place the blame of the exorbitant spending surge solely on the backs of the social or fiscal conservatives is ludicrous.

But neither is it just the moderates at fault.  Why didn't the conservatives say no to some of the bloated spending bills prior to this year?  Why the Farm bill, the Medicare bill, the Transportation bill?

While I would state with certainty that the Dems would be no better and would, in fact, be much much worse, that's not very reassuring to me.

This is the sign of a weak majority... Denny Hastert and Senator Frist have the power to stop any bill moving through Congress.  The problem is their reluctance to lead.

I don't know or care if any particular faction of our party is to blame, but it scares the hell out of me that China is buying up American debt.

They are losing money doing so. Their return is 4-4.5% while their inflation is 8-9%.

or inflation relative to the dollar?  If it's inflation of their currency, then they're smart to hold dollar denominated assets.

The real problem is when/if they decide that they're strong enough to withstand the losses they would take by dumping all those T-bills on the market, causing the Bank of Japan to do the same and crushing the U.S. economy in the process.

If you're blaming a handful of moderates for your troubles, you have a serious martyr complex.  Y'all complain about being trod upon, cast out, oppressed, etc., but, frankly, y'all have as much power in this country as anyone (and more power in the Republican party than anyone).  If you want to continue to play the victim, fine.  The squeaky wheel gig has worked in the past, so why not get an NEA grant and call it performance art?  

This is a pointless game because it distracts from the areas of common ground where we could make progress.  

One further thought:  There are a handful of fiscally conservative Democrats out there.  The leadership would be more effective in this area if they took advantage of that fact.

since the Yuan now can move (slightly), but at some point it will float.

Compare:

If you're blaming a handful of moderates for your troubles, you have a serious martyr complex.

With:

Oh, I'll be the first to lambaste the so-cons for so doing, but let's not pretend that the great waves of spending are washing over unprepared "moderates" like Chafee, Snowe, Specter, Hagel, et al., and all emanating from the social cons.

And, compare:

If you want to continue to play the victim, fine.

With:

The whole Party bears responsibility for this debacle.

And, finally:

This is a pointless game because it distracts from the areas of common ground where we could make progress.

With:

This, incidentally, puts them ahead of the "moderates." Everyone takes the mud on this one; let's not pretend one wing is cleaner than another.

It looks like English. I even sounded it out to be safe.

yIDoghQo'

I of course meant klingonaase.

If the Chinese were to dump debt to crush the US economy, wouldn't one result be that we would no longer have the $$$ to buy much at all from the Chinese factories we have outsourced to, thus slamming their own economy?

The Chinese are no doubt devious, but boy they would have to be economically suicidial to do that.

hence my "strong enough to withstand the losses they would take" qualifier (though I should have been more explicit on what I meant by "losses").  

I take it back, Thomas.  I read quickly and not well enough.

Pelosi won't let the fiscally responsible Dems work with the fiscally responsible GOPers for fear of a deal being reached.  (Of course that only gets about 20 votes total as of late...)

I'd retire my Bar license and donate a couple mil a year to RedState.

In any case, I am not aplauding the cartoon at the top of this article, I'm just saying I am not happy about what is happening with the national debt.  China buying the debt is suspicious, but even if that were not happening, it is not a good thing to borrow and spend.

Why is the Republican party permitting this kind of financial irresponsiblity?  People will think we care more about the stupid monkey trials in Kansas than we do about the national economy.

He's spending like a DRUNKEN Democrat. If he were spending like a sober Democrat, like say, Bill Clinton, we wouldn't have this monster of national debt that he's created, right?