Redstate

I hate to be cynical but these guys have no more intention of actually reducing the size of government than they do of foregoing their weekly trips back home to take a break from all that government-building. John McCain is addicted to it too, and the next Republican Congress isn't going to be any better: all these guys are just gameplayers. Boehner, Shadegg, et. al., are just people who like to talk on the phone while voting for measures that keep them popular with their constituencies by funneling money to them.

My sincere prediction is that without a groundswell in opposition to the growth of government they'll do precisely nothing. And there won't be that groundswell because right now, the public wants MORE government, not less -- on everything from healtcare to taxes to education to energy. The "Republican Brand" has been shattered by these jokers. They had the chance -- they had both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and did nothing with it.

Now we're all going to reap the whirlwind.

Like you, I think it's going to have to get a lot worse before there is a chance of it getting better. "...reap the whirlwind.." is just about right--unfortunately.

I really do, because I genuinely believe in Reagan's mantra, but unfortunately right now Barack Obama is the Early '60s Beatles and everyone is cheering for More Government.

Unless we can find an nominee who is willing to really articulate why that is the wrong direction for the country to take -- and do it forcefully, based on their own examples, we're in for four to eight more years of the same.

The people who want more government set-asides have become the majority in this country. Our task as Republicans is to break them of the habit. And we're not doing very well.

The other day I was scrolling through the New York Times' website and there was an article about why the government isn't doing enough to help minorities with set-aside contracts for women and minority business owners. Their example of someone who is being "hurt" by their refusal to set aside more contracts was a woman in Virginia who runs a waste-disposal firm with 3 other people and makes more than $1 million a year.

With three people.
On government set-asides.
And that's not enough for her.
On the front page of the New York Times

If you go to the United States SBA website, you'll read that the U.S. Government is the largest consumer of products and services in the *world*. And it is.

None of the people we've elected to Congress have the balls to try to counteract that. John McCain is running on a shell of a campaign, saying he does, but he hasn't shown anything other than rhetorical moxie in the past eight years. And on virtually everything else, McCain has been a complete sellout. Now people are trusting him to run the country.

At some point it will stop, just because there aren't enough people to pay the bills. But none of these jokers are about to stick their necks out before it's absolutely necessary to do so, and then they'll try to take credit for averting it when in fact they all participated in the wreckage.

Here's the article from the Times.

Note the last paragraph:

''I'm pulling in $1 million in revenues a year now, but if I just had the opportunity to compete, I could triple that -- and give the government a better deal for its dollar.''

Nobody in the Republican Party right now has shown any willingness to confront this kind of spending or set asides of contracts based on race and gender. It's an entrenched philosophy of our government now, and it's only going to continue to expand.

demonstrating here is one of the reasons why Fred Thompson's candidacy was so fervently hoped for and so bitterly mourned when it ended. I also think it is one of the reasons why it never got more traction as well. ( Yes, yes, I know the mistakes he made in campaigning, but I also know that those who should have applauded his efforts and jumped on board instead chose to avoid participating.)

In my opinion, what he indicated in terms of entitlement reform was deeply disturbing to the status quo and they wouldn't tolerate it. It pointed out to many of us the huge chasm in this party--those who stand on one side and accept the entitlements as the cost of doing business and those of us who stand on the other and know that it will ruin us, and not only financially but philosophically.

I really do. I think Fred Thompson was hopefully the candidate that would hopefully finally do something about this, hopefully.

Unfortunately the reality didn't match the hopes. I'm still bitter about it. Between Romney and Thompson I would have put everything I had into Fred Thompson if his campaign had showed even the slightest chance of actually persuading people and winning. Unfortunately Thompson came out of the gate without the real message of change that this country needed to hear, and without the real *motivation* to convince people that he should be the one they supported.

He was lacksadaisacal. He was lethargic. And he seemed to think that a country addicted to government spending was going to rally around him without him becoming a real leader on the stump -- in front of crowds, in front of people who needed to be convinced that his direction was the best direction. The American people are addicted to government spending and without a powerful figure who is willing to fight hard they aren't going to give it up even to the extent of just stopping the growth. He wasn't forceful enough. He wasn't engaged enough.

I don't hold anything against Fred Thompson supporters for their belief that he represented what the country needed on the merits, sitting in a chair and reading his statements.

On the campaign trail, however, he wasn't willing to put forth the extra effort. Maybe he decided that it wasn't a lesson Americans are ready to hear.

At some point, though, it will be. I hope when it is that we'll have a better candidate than Thompson to carry it through.

In the meantime, I'm going with someone who actually knows about finance and understands how to run a business outside of Washington -- and that's Mitt Romney.

I'd still try to claim a loss though...;) One of the few benefits of being an independent contractor.

Jack Bauer For President 2008

"I really do, because I genuinely believe in Reagan's mantra, but unfortunately right now Barack Obama is the Early '60s Beatles and everyone is cheering for More Government."

So you are saying that we need a crazy woman to show up and break up the band?

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

It seems the Democrats themselves have had enough of the Clintons. Counting on Hillary to be the candidate that Republicans can attack is wishful thinking, I believe now. I really think Obama's cult of personality is going to carry him all the way to the nomination.

Besides, Ted Kennedy never wanted the Clintons to have a third term. There can only be one Kingmaker in the Democratic Party, and he wants to be it. I expect all stops to be pulled out of all bungholes in support of Obama-Rama.

Obama has proven thus far that he can ride a wave of gushing platitudes all the way to anything he wants. The wave hasn't crested yet, because he's a manufactured candidate: he's almost a figment of people's imagination.

And I know how badly that must hurt Bill Clinton, who thinks that politics is the "Art of the Possible." But the time for schadenfreude about Clinton's despair is rapidly ending. Very, very soon we're going to be faced as a party with a guy who literally has nothing except myth behind him. It's very tough to attack the fog effectively.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Jack Bauer For President 2008

Shadegg is actually one of the real conservatives in Congress.

Blunt got it instead for some reason that only political insiders know. I certainly can't understand why except that Blunt threatened people. Well, heck of a lot of good that got him, and us.

Romney has a pretty solid record of fighting the liberal Massachusetts legislature on spending.

John McCain is running advertisements about $700 million in "new taxes" which he picked up courtesy of Princeton University economists (who are almost all Democrats) and never mentions the rest of the budget cuts and austerity measures, or the fact that fees are really not taxes, because they're paid for *specific* things, like boat licenses.

It's just another one of McCain's continuing series of falsehoods. The guy is getting desparate. I think he might snap any day now.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Rep. Shadegg was the longshot conservative pick, Rep. Boehner was the major challenger, and Rep. Blunt was the early frontrunner.

HTML Help for Red Staters

That's right, it was Shaddegg. So ultimately I guess Blunt was never the pick of conservatives, which means that list of earmarks is.....

....pretty much what we would expect then.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Or at least I lobbied for Shadegg, because I transcribed his conference call. I thought he should have gotten the leadership role. I still think that.

BTW it's becoming increasingly difficult to find the transcript of Shadegg in that conference call but I still have my copy. You can read about how enthusiastic the Republican blogosphere was about his prospective leadership here.

If anyone would like a copy of the conference call transcript in which our own Mike Krempasky asked Shadegg about "reducing the size of Government" and how we actually hadn't begun to do that, please send me a note. I don't think it's available on the internet any more.

I don't mean to insinuate any malfeasance on the part of anyone here at RedState or at N.Z. Bear's website about that turn of events. I know that all of these folks lobbied hard for Shadegg and that's why I was asked to do the transcription. And I would be happy to do it again, because he was the right choice. But things didn't work out that way.

Next time, maybe.

Regardless of how well-meaning this program might be, how can it possibly be an appropriate Federal expenditure? If the people of the Great State of Missouri want to fund the program, then by all means, they should. But to take taxes from Ohio and New York and California and elsewhere for this program is just wrong.

Gar

but the libertarian party is full of a bunch of ideologues who never miss a chance to miss a chance. And some of them are just plain spooky.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Small government Republicanism declines despite Libertarian party defections.

These headlines are more alike than different, I'm convinced.

HTML Help for Red Staters