Incrementalism or all or nothing?
- Monday, May 11, 2009, 6:06
- Constitution Daily
- 681 views
- 56 comments
Democrats win. Republicans lose. Those four words sum up the recent history of this country pretty well. Sure Republicans have won a few battles but the war is definitely going to the Democrats. Whether we are talking about social or fiscal issues, the Democrats’ record is stellar. Ours on the other hand, couldn’t be much worse. So that got me thinking, why?
Of course there are numerous reasons why we continue to lose but I’d like to hit on strategy first. In fact, we’ve been having this argument in Iowa since gay marriage happened. Do we go the all-or-nothing approach or do we take what we can get and live to fight another day?
Democrats have incrementally increased our taxes, killed our babies, redefined the family, environmentally handicapped us, grown government, and basically stripped us of any real sense of personal responsibility. We didn’t just wake up one day and get to where our government currently is. It happened slowly and purposefully and I want it to turn around. So, let’s copy them.
I know it goes against the grain of many of us to run the ball rather than throw a Hail Mary pass. But when the other team has intercepted everything you’ve thrown at them and ran it back for a touchdown, you better have something else in the playbook.
To continue with the football analogy, we obviously have our backs up against the goal line. It is nothing new to us but rather than continue down the same road, we absolutely must pursue a better strategy. And the one that seems to work the best is incrementalism.
Let’s look at what Democrats have done with socialized health care. In the 90s, Hillary Clinton introduced and pursued Hillary Care. It failed miserably and was widely thought of as a blow to Hillary Clinton’s political leverage. That couldn’t have been more inaccurate. On their side of the aisle, she has been a hero for almost two decades. But the main point is, they didn’t stop after they lost the initial debate. They kept running the ball and passing minor pieces of legislation to help attain their true goal of socialized health care. The most recent example is SCHIP. They take the path of least resistance, children’s’ health care, and keep taking small bites until sooner or later, they’ve consumed the whole pie.
Now onto our side. I’ll use taxes for my example. Republicans all agree our taxes are too high and too complicated. There are two approaches. The first is to cut a tax here and there without introducing major reform. The other is to only introduce major reform with a FairTax or flat tax. Of course we can’t get consensus within our own party to only push one or the other. But the main point stands. Wouldn’t it be stupid for us to never introduce legislation to decrease taxes and only introduce the FairTax? Wouldn’t it also be stupid to only introduce small cuts here and there and never introduce major reform? What would have happened to taxes in the past almost 100 years if Republicans weren’t there reducing taxes at both the state and federal levels? Of course they didn’t do enough when they had a chance but you know the Democrats would have our tax system even more screwed up than it already is. If you look through history when our tax rate is increased, almost every time it is when the White House and Congress was controlled by Democrats. The reverse is true when Republicans were in control.
According to some on our side, since we are still losing the issue of taxation, an incrementalist strategy is doomed to failure. But I ask them, how can that be true only for Republicans and not Democrats? I also ask this: What major all or nothing approaches have worked for the Democrats?
What rubs me wrong the most is those who are most engaged in the process are taking most of the heat from some on our side. Even worse is when good conservatives are labeled as capitulators or RINOs for advancing conservative ideals at a step by step basis. That doesn’t mean they aren’t for the final goal, it just means they understand the system, society, and history well enough to utilize the best strategy to advance our platform.
Now I know when I say RINO, many of you are rolling names around in your head like John McCain or Arlen Specter. And you are assuming I’m advising to go along and get along with these folks. But I’m not saying that at all. When Republicans go against the platform, jump them and don’t let up the pressure. But when a strategy is pursued that goes with our platform but doesn’t automatically and swiftly reach our main goal, we must support it. For if we don’t, we will fail.
And I’ll leave you with this final thought. If the tables were turned and Republicans had huge majorities at all levels of government and had the necessary support from the people to abolish the IRS and institute a new tax system, what do you think would happen? Could Republicans agree on a new system? Do you honestly think we could even compromise within our own party and pass a good piece of legislation? If your answers are the same as mine, maybe the real root of our problem is we don’t have major reform items that we all agree on. It’s kind of hard to throw a Hail Mary when you don’t have a football. Just like it is kind of hard to run in the right direction when you don’t know where the goal line is.
About the Author
Constitution Daily has written 96 stories on this site.
An Iowa based blog with the purpose of giving incentive to those actively engaged in conservative causes. Content will include Iowa and national issues ranging from politics to everyday society, but in every case you will know where Constitution Daily stands. Please feel free to contact me anytime at constitutiondaily@gmail.com.
56 Comments on “Incrementalism or all or nothing?”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Strategy? Why would our side want to employ some kind of strategy? We’re far more into assassinating our own than using strategy?
In order to build a “pure” party, we must purge anyone who is not 100% with us.
Why, Congressman King is not even pure enough. He’s gotta go. (too much sarcasm, huh?)
Don’t forget, all of this will take time. We will have to pay some penance for the excesses of the Bush administration–profligate spending, an adventurous foreign policy, ridiculous government meddling in private affairs (Shiavo affair) etc. The electorate is ready to give the dems a chance right now so we need to be careful about throwing bombs and looking obstructionist.
Mod: Can you name one thing Democrats are doing that you like?
Getting out of Iraq. That’s about it.
RATS haven’t gotten out of Iraq. Obama has tried to disguise what he’s doing to appease his base. He’s a phony here, too.
I’m an old Brent Scowcroft James Baker guy. We shouldn’t have been there in the first place. That’s what I mean about Bush 43 betraying fundamental precepts of Republicanism–here a cautious foreign policy. To hear the words “nation building” being uttered by a Bush nauseated me.
Democrats are the grow-the-government Party and Republicans are trying to reduce it. As it is, too many Americans are perfectly willing to sit back and let ‘the government’ take care of things and will continue to vote for the candidate promising the goodies.
We’ve lost a culture war.
Remember Peggy. We need the government to stay out of our private lives also. That’s why the gay marriage issue is such a loser.
Remember, Mod, it was the homosexuals who went to the Supreme Court seeking approval. They were the aggressors.
Democrats are winning because they’ve been right. When the civil rights act passed, where did the segregationists go? To the GOP. That should tell you something.
Social conservatives will never win in the long term. By definition, they are trying to preserve the status quo of yesterday. But humanity eventually progresses. (Even the Amish have decided they can use power tools as long as someone else owns them.) The best social conservatives can hope for is to not incrementalism, it’s obstructionism.
/
But humanity eventually progresses. /
LOL!
Yes, the legalization of abortion resulted in MORE abortions.
Access to artificial contraceptives led to MORE out-of-wedlock births.
Unbridled spending on welfare created MORE impoverished people.
Sign me up for that “obstructionism” gig!
Peggy: Get over the gay thing. They won. We lost. Plus, the government needs to stay out of such matters.
Mod,
You’re the one who brought up “the gay thing.”
What does that even mean anyway?
Gay marriage. Leave it alone. The government doesn’t need to be sticking its big nose into private matters.
Same sex ‘marriage’ is not a private matter. No marriage is.
And don’t try to censor me.
Peggy: I am not trying to censor you. I welcome your insight. All I’m trying to do is to get the party on track to win, What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is no business of yours nor the government.
We’ve had that conversation on here enough. Can we stay on track a little today, please?
Yeah, Mod, stick to the topic.
Let’s leave it a this. Let’s keep our powder dry. We have no bona fides with the middle because our leadership let us down. We have no bitch because for most of the Bush years we controlled all three branches of government and have NOTHING to show for it. We have to move slowly because we have no other choice. Nobody trusts us with the reins of government. Only until it is shown that the Obama policies are failing will we have a shot.
I think Mod is pretty close to the real crux of the problem. Republicans have had control in the recent past. And what did we get? Bigger government. If we are going to have bigger government, might as well go for the real thing (dems).
What republicans needs (and many long for) are real leaders who can articulate a problem and a workable solution that is a clear alternative to what the dems are saying.
If reverse incrementalism worked, why haven’t republicans been able to stop or reverse the gains the dems have made as they were being made?
Incrementalism is a game plan that dems are far more skilled at. They have practiced that play book far longer. Republicans need to come up with better plays.
KC – I agree with most of that. And the reason are side hasn’t been successful is because we have no major reforms we all agree on. We have no consensus on taxation, health care, social security, and the list goes on and on. Dems on the other hand know where they want to end up and slowly get there.
So is the solution to find leaders? Or is the solution to find small things we can agree on?
I guess if we can not come up with leaders, than the small items become easier to advance. The problem I have with that approach is we seem to gain 10 yards only to loose 20 to the dems later. The most recent example would be DOMA. Conservatives were out flanked.
I don’t think we need to adopt the dems plan of incrementalism, we need a BETTER playbook.
KC – the solution is to find big things we agree on and enact the small things to reach our big goal…that is exactly what the dems do. They also advance their issues at the fastest pace possible when they get the power. We don’t – or haven’t and that is what has gotten us in the spot we are in today.
And on the leaders thing…I don’t know that we can just create a leader. I’m thinking a solution will come from someone who becomes the leader by creating the solutions. Our problem in Iowa is we are so cynical no candidate will be good enough for some of us. That makes it really tough to allow a leader to emerge.
Are you willing to support a pro life, pro family candidate who may be more incremental in their fiscal approach? Just curious as it seems all the conversation seems to be directed at toning down the social agenda.
I agree we can’t create a leader. Not possible. However, the party can help nourish future leaders by supporting all republican candidates in one form or another. At lease it won’t look like the party disapproves. I think that hurt several last cycle. Never know where that future leader is going to come from.
KC – yes I’d support a pro-life, pro-family candidate like that. I’d have absolutely no problem doing so. And by the way, I’m more of a type who likes the run and gun over the incrementalist aproach but I think we need to do both. I don’t know why we wouldn’t. We have guys and gals on our side who are good at each and we should make it easier for both types to do what they do best.
And I do realize some of my readers are assuming I’m supporting a toning down of our social agenda. I am not. I think we need to shout louder on every issue we believe in. I’ve written words to that in almost every post but for some reason they aren’t getting heard as well as I’d like.
con daily, the social issues are losers right now when the economy is in the tank. I think with the younger generations caring less about them, they will be losers in the future as well. The republicans lost their identity under bush, rove, and cheney, they became nation builders, spenders, they became too beholder to the chritian right on social issues, but really had no respect for them. the republicans need quite the makeover if you ask me.
silence
Silence: Do you think we’re going to take the word of an Obama lover who is in the process of destroying the American economy and also a Democrat who votes for these economic illiterates destroying the state of Iowa.
We know how much to trust he judgement of someone who can’t even tell when their own economy is being destroyed.
And as far as the “social” issues are concerned, at least 60% of the people in Iowa are opposed to “gay” marriage. You know it and you’re trying to bluff your way through.
The people of Iowa are waking up to the idea that Democrats are destroying our economy and want to do even more damage by putting labor unions in control. They also know it is Democrats who are defending “gay” marriage. You are the one who needs to start looking inward. Your time is up.
The social issues are not losers people just don’t arm themselves with logic and reason.
Many young people do “feel” they don’t care about these things because they think it doesn’t affect them if people of the same gender want to pretend they are married.
Of course it does and if freedom of expression and religion start to be limited further than they already have been by current hate crime legislation and legislation like Chet’s Bully Bill then it will affect everyone and already has affected many. If it were as simple as a couple of people wanting to act out an old Prince song then it wouldn’t matter at all but the truth is they want to play house and make us accept it is real.
The abortion issue has been allowed to be discussed as a choice vs. religion issue for years but rarely do I hear anyone on the pro-life side discussing what the science is and at what stages we can support developing infants outside the womb.
The science to justify abortion just isn’t there the science to suggest it is not a life is just not there. Contradictions in our laws are everywhere as well. If someone causes an un-willful termination of a pregnancy what can they be charged with?
It is all highly illogical but instead of taking that approach we take one of emotion and religion both of which mean little to people who grew up being told their emotions are what matters, not yours and that their concept of reality is all that matters and they can define their own morality.
What we face in a lot of young people are folks with no critical thinking skills and no ability to rationalize the things or understand any concept of natural law or morality outside their own. They have no idea how to apply reason and logic to what they have been told or challenge things they have been instructed to believe about our country, it’s history and our government. They very generation that used to say it was for challenging authority is succeeding in creating entire generations incapable of doing that very thing.
That is where we should come in but usually fail. Our founders understood the need to have healthy skepticism about our government and our institutions of authority and I fear we are dangerously close to losing that for good to entire generations who think Government is the only answer to the problems that face them.
Deace obviously you must have been asleep the past eight years or so, I will update you, the republicans controlled the white house for eight years, for 6 of those years they also contolled both houses of congress. They got us into an unnecessary war, spent more than any other administration, and let wall street run the economy into the ground with no regulation. I know your latest talking points memo is trying to blame the democrats, but no rational person can believe this when they weren’t in control of the government. As for gay marriage, ask those 60% where it ranks on their issue priority list, i would guess that for most it is behind the economy, national security, education, job growth, healthcare and probably a few local ones. That is why it is a losing issue.
your apocalyptical language is amusing but unfounded.
Silence
SD: You need some serious educating. First, name one year Bush was in office when he had a senate with 60 Republicans.
If you think the war in Iraq was unnecessary, maybe you should stop to think that we haven’t had a terrorist attack since 2001. Everyone of these Muzzies we kill over there is one less wanting to kill us here.
We’ll see how the next 4 years works out. It’s off to a pretty shaky start. Violence is escalating and Zero has seen fit to fire the General who is killing Taliban. This many does not care about protecting the people of America. These wackos care more about protecting terrorists.
If you want to get into the cause of this economic meltdown, you have to look no farther than at Dodd, Frank, Gorelick, Johnson, Emanuel and other Democrats who pressured lending institutions to make risky loans to people who should never have had loans.
I fear they have learned nothing as we still hear about “affordable housing”. I could give you volumes on this but don’t have time now.
This whole economic meltdown can be laid directly at the feet of Democrats who are being protected by the press.
Let’s see, do you really feel good about having DEMOCRATS in control of the economy? They Know NOTHING about economics. They are spending, spending, spending. They believe you can actually spend and tax your way to prosperity. They want to micromanage every aspect of the economy. Do you want Zero managing American financial institutions and the auto industry? I don’t
This is the guy of ACORN–the corrupt, lying criminal eneterprise whose job it is to register phony voters and make sure there is enough voter fraud to ensure Democrats are elected by many means possible.
I know something about voter fraud and I can tell you that where there are Democrats–there is voter fraud.
The idea of Democrats being in charge of our national security ought to scare the daylights out of every thinking person. They will dismantle the military by defunding them all the while playing cozy with terrorists. Good luck with that one. The thing you and other Democrats don’t understand is that your rear is on the line as well as Republicans.
These terrorists don’t care what political party you belong to, they don’t even care if you’re Muslim.
Job growth, you have to be kidding.
I don’t have time now but I”ll get back to this later.
wow, deace, paranoia personified, obama is a muslim terrorist sympathizer??? Cares little for the military??? Let’s see, how many terror attacks by muslims occurred on Bush’s and the republican’s watch, mmmm, one, how many for obama, zero.
Gates wanted to dump the general too, and he is highly respected by the military, but I guess general DEACE knows more.
It is completely illogical to blame the democrats who weren’t in power for the economy, additionally, the deregulation of the banking industry was done by a republican congress in 2000, during their lame duck session when one phil graham snuck in the legislation on a bill. I know your pamphlets want to blame democrats for strong arming lending to the poor, but that is hard to do when you are not in power. Additionally, many of these bad loans were given to middle class and middle upper class, not just the poor. And finally, breaking out ACORN, I am not even sure where they come into an economic debate. Are you actually trying to blame ACORN for the economic situation?? I guess you also feel that job growth in not a concern right now, I guess everyone you know has a job, but OK.
I’ll bring this back to the point of the article – incrementalism.
These are just general observations and based on the little I know of history. But then it is only meant to be part of my illistartion –
1920’s seemed to be pretty liberal
1950’s seemed to be pretty conservative
late 60’s and early 70’s pretty liberal
80’s and into 90’s seemed pretty conservative.
The pendulum is now swinging liberal.
With each swing, the fulcrum seems to move to the left. This leaves the resulting right swing to not be as far right as it was the last time. This is one of the reasons I do not believe reverse incrementalism works.
KC – I agree with your timeline but can’t say I agree with your statement. And what is reverse incrementalism? I think the reason why Republicans haven’t been as successful is because we’ve offered so few ideas for major reform. We haven’t been working toward a bigger goal other than to obstruct what the liberals want to do. We can’t win without offering something to the voters. Once we have the big ideas, we can incrementally move toward the final goal.
Con Daily I agree with you assessment, you can’t win anything if you don’t offer real alternatives. I disagree with KC on this point, i think the republican party has swung more right. Nixon in an interview soon before his death, that he would be considered too liberal to get the republican nomination for president. I think both parties can be guilty of moving to their right or left too far, but I think history shows that the country moves to the party that returns to the middle. Both bushes, clinton, obama, all won by running in the middle.
Silence
Silence – how is saying you are for the redistribution of wealth running to the middle? Obama is the left of your party. McCain was the left of our party and got spanked.
Incrementalism has generally been associated with the approach liberals have used for a while now. Rather that be associated with liberal tactics (and a reversing of some of the more liberal ideas) = reverse incrementalism. What every you want to call it.
50 years ago we did not have gay marriage or abortion as major topics as far as I am aware. The size of government was far smaller, and I am guessing overall spending was less (I would have to do some research to correct for inflation). Look at the overall number of regulations and laws on the books. How about health care soon to be handed out by the government. These are not examples of the middle moving left?
The problem is we have reached a point where every problem must be solved by the government. We no longer ask ourselves, “is this the function of government?” The concept of having big ideas and solutions within a political party geared toward getting elected to a government seat seems to be counter to that basic question.
I agree republicans have not had good alternatives. Nor have they been eloquent when trying to explain why something being proposed by the dems is wrong for the country. Not everything needs a government solution.
So is the answer to have big ideas that ultimately increase the size of government in order to get back in power, then what? Then incrementally try to make it smaller? How do we make that work?
con daily, number one, taxes haven’t been raised, the only taxes that may go up is a return to the clinton level for people earning over $250,000 with is still significantly less than what they were under reagan. Number two, mccain is a lot more conservative than he was made out to be, his mavericky image is one that the media has helped him cultivate. Obama isn’t that liberal, look who he surrounded himself with, moderates who are pragmatists, in fact, the liberal wing of the party was more upset with his selections than were republicans.
Con daily the government has to tax to provide basic services, and yes that means to help the poor too, and of course all the poor starving corn farmers of Iowa that get all those lucrative subsidies.
I will still say as a whole, the country is probably more conservative than it was in the 60s and 70s, I think the republican party over the last decade has moved right. Part of why McCain got spanked is the right wing of the party never fully supported him.
Silence
KC, the problem the republicans have with the size of government argument, is that under bush and a republican congress, the government spent more and grew the government more than any other administration, and did not have a way to pay for it. All those tax cuts did not work to raise the revenue to cover the bills. I also think states have become more dependant on the feds for what used to be state issues, and to be fair, (I am not going to look state by state) both parties probably share some guilt in this.
Silence
Yes, Bush did grow the government. What I am trying to say is a political party running on a platform of limiting itself is counter intuitive. When have we ever seen the government actually shrink – under either party.
That is part of why I contend that incrementalism really only works when advancing a liberal agenda. While we may see temporary gains, it seems over time those gains are compromised away and we lose ground. We can’t incrementally move the ball far enough fast enough.
Don’t get me wrong. From a pragmatic standpoint, I would accept any gain we can get as long as those gains are conservative in nature.
I think what we see KC, is that whoever is in power, will grow the government because they will think they are doing what is right. Its hard to run and get votes and tell people they will do less for them.
silence
SD – Thats my point. Incrementalism as a strategy to reduce government likely isn’t going to work. Small limited government being one of the basic planks of the republican party.
Reagan had no problem winning with the message of smaller government. And KC, we don’t have to have our big ideas increase the size of government. I’ve said the opposite the entire time. The best example of a big idea to reduce the size of government is the FairTax but unfortunately, not all Republicans can get behind that right now. I think it has something to do with not being able to manipulate society with the tax code.
con daily, repubs don’t like the fair tax because there are no loopholes. Reagan too increased the size of government. Particularly with military spending.
Silence
KC, whether big or small, many government programs need reform or can be thrown out in their entirety. growing it, downsizing, is somewhat irrelevant, it needs to be streamlined and made more efficient in what it spends on. I think you saw some of this when gates presented his new budget for military spending and cutting programs that don’t reflect the needs of the modern military, like the f-22.
silence
Now if only the Democrats would decrease the size of government – too bad they are going the exact opposite way at a record pace!
con daily, the dems have a way to go to beat your golden boy, W.
Silence
Actually they don’t. And W isn’t even close to my golden boy. He did do some great things but the spending I just can’t get over.
is it fair to count the ongoing Iraq war expenditures and bailout on Obama??? This would seem to be still W’s problems that obama inherited in fall fairness. what great things???? just curious.
Silence
Bear in mind that the ongoing war expenses were always “hidden” and not “counted” till now.
Silence,
When is it going to stop being Bush’s fault?
Did Bush make Obama stay the course on the same bailout policy? How is it that he is still running our domestic policy? I thought we were going to get Change(tm) I shure Hope(tm)ed that we would but I haven’t seen a lot of it where it really matters.
The bailouts were a bad idea when Bush was saying we had to do it, Obama kept telling us Bush’s polices were failures but he keeps on with them…
You explain that one.
Dean not that hard, first we are still paying billions heading into trillions for Iraq, a war we didn’t need to jump into blindfolded, this has also made afghanistan much more costly and drug out, which has led to severe problems in Pakistan who now wants our aid to take out the taliban there. As for the economy, the first bailout was a mess under bush and Paulson, of the original 700 billion, there is no accounting on where the first 350 billion went, as best can be figured it went into ceo pockets and other investors, not to restore the credit industry and get the economy going. so under obama, this had to be redone.
What is really funny dean, is obama is barely over a hundred days into his presidency, and of course he is having to deal with the ramifications of the bush legacy, however, you republicans were still complaining about clinton (trying to blame him for the banking crisis) 8 years after he left. Now, we just have to forget what bush did??? It is Bush who??? Never heard of the guy. The hypocracy runs deep.
Silence
Who said we had to forget what Bush did?
You also did not answer my question that is something you do a lot. When will it stop being Bush’s fault?
You also ignored that following a disastrous bailout, that Obama voted for sans accounting and everything, Obama proceeded to do the same things only at greater speeds and costs. I know they say there is accounting now but since when has the Government ever really accounted for anything? Do you really believe it is different just because he has D after his name? Most of the people in Congress are not even reading these bills so how do you have so much faith it is any different?
I never said we had to forget what happened under Bush but likewise I don’t see any reason to ignore that it is still happening under Mr. Hope(tm) and Change(tm). The only thing that has changed is who is in the oval office.
Half the current Presidents appointments aren’t even smart enough to file their taxes so let’s just say I have little hope things are really going to change because of anything these people do. The economy will probably rebound in spite of the brain trust in Washington the only questions is will their actions delay the recovery or are they delaying it now?
This is what happens when government fails to stay in its legal bounds. This is what we get when government ignores the constitution and it happens under both parties. This is what happens when Republic Presidents sell out the Republican Party on several of the key issues like limited government, entitlements and being a nation of laws.
You keep jabbing at the war saying it was not necessary but the real problem I have with it is that it was not legal. Democrats like Kerry, Clinton, Biden and many many others voted to give President Bush authority to use force instead of insisting that we either declare the war legally according to the constitution or not go. You know they do that so they can take credit if the war goes well politically and blame it on Bush if it does not so get off that high horse it won’t get you any points with me.
Lies are lies no matter if they are told by a liar with D behind his name or one with R behind it. Who is going to hold these people accountable if we keep making excuses for them because they are on our team rah rah rah!!!!
Getting back to whether or not we should use an incremental approach, my suggestion is that we make a very large move beck toward law and order in this nation. I am not sure how you can be incremental in whether or not the constitution should be followed or not but that is at the root of many of the problems discussed here on a regular basis.
It will stop being bush’s fault when we don’t have to pay for his mistakes anymore, and that will probably take a while. I don’t give the democrats a break who voted for the war. Some (I will include some republicans) were probably were lied too, some didn’t investigate enough on their own. But as truman said the buck stops here, and that was bush who was by far and away the most negligent in this matter. I answer more questions than most on this board.
Silence
Back to the incremental argument, first I will surmise there is a difference in what we believe to be constitutional, I believe in law and order, so is there a particular issue you want to discuss an incremental approach too???
I will say this generally, the way washington works, usually only incremental change can happen because that is all the system allows. It will be interesting to see if the democrats can make any sweeping changes in say healthcare for example, given their big majorities. (I bring this up more from by old political science background, not to get into a healthcare debate)
Silence
One last point Dean, if you look back in the thread con daily and I were discussing increased spending, and I do think it is fair to at least mention that obama’s administration is having to spend (the iraq war for sure, and the bailouts) for things that bush and his people screwed up. That was the main point.
silence
Silence,
You and I already discussed your idea of rule of law and I know you think the court can just make it up as they go along and evolve the meaning of the constitution to suit their current mood so what is the point of having that discussion again?
It doesn’t matter to you what the original intent was, they can evolve the meaning of words and change the intent anytime they jolly well please so there is no rule of law there is rule of courts.
I don’t think you can incrementally shift back to constitutional government, we either will abide by it or we will not. Much of the time today we do not and that is why we have many of the problems we have right down to failing schools and out of control federal spending.
Obama did not have to keep spending like a drunken Bush and what can you point to that we are getting out of this anyhow?
Did you see the latest headlines on his automaker bailout disaster? Remember that came after he was elected and he told us we had to bail out GM and Chrysler. We were told we had to do it because so many jobs would be lost and no one would buy cars from bankrupt automakers.
Well sir, what has happened to Chrysler since then? What is very likely to happen to GM? And today we get news that GM may start importing cars made in China while they close US plants. It seems his plan is even going to fail to do what it really was meant to do which is keep Unions in charge and keep money flowing to the Union and therefore to the DNC.
I suppose all of that is Bush’s fault?
Bush made Obama do this and made him stand there in front of cameras and blatantly lie to all of us about what this bailout was really about and what it would do just like he stood up and lied to people at Caterpillar about how their jobs would be saved with is big fat pork laden stimulus package we had to pass. What did we hear about Caterpillar just a couple weeks ago? I suppose it was Bush’s fault that Obama lied about these things because he had to know nothing he was saying was accurate.
I fail to see how Bush made Obama do any of this.
So let’s get to what we probably agree on. Yes the economy was in bad shape, yes things looked pretty grim and yes some things needed to be done and some reforms are needed. It is also clear that Bush administration was asleep at the wheel on much of this.
But none of that means we have to do the things Bush told us we had to do and it does not mean we must do the same sort of silly things under Obama. The need to do something seems to be getting translated into the need to do this thing and only this thing that is where we disagree.
That is MY point.
If it was bad policy under W its bad policy under Obama. Changing the man in the White house dose not make throwing good money after bad suddenly a great idea. I am not interested in parties winning or losing I am interested in what is right for Iowa and right for the United States and if the President is wrong and is spending our future into a black hole then I think that’s a bad thing no matter what party he or she is from.