Republican Revolution Over?

Cesko · Nov 9, 2006

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

With the election results in, we appear to have an environment that has often proven diastrous for the party holding the White House. The pattern is one party in the last two years of a two term presidency and the opposing party holding both houses of congress. It occurred in the Eisenhour, Nixon/Ford and Clinton administrations. Each time the party controlling congress went on to win the subsequent presidential election. I don't recall if Democrats controlled both houses during Reagan's last term, since Senate control changed hands during his term. I believe Democrats did hold both houses then, however making his administration the sole exception. His successor, George Bush Sr, proved to be a one term president however.

The potential good news for the Republicans is that Democrats' hold on congress may prove tenuous. Clearly the main issue Tuesday was Iraq, a situation that is likely to be resolved by the next election. Republicans were tainted by scandals which are unlikely to reoccur. Their core voters were annoyed with them and or demoralized. Two years of Nancy Pelosi are likely to get these voters motivated again.

It will be crucial for Republicans to rebuild trust with their base. Immigration reform is the thin ice of that task however. If Bush's "comprehensive" immigration reform, also known as amnesty for 11 million illegals, passes and is signed, the Republicans could be staring permanent minority party status in the face. They would face the inevitable thrid party campaign of a Minuteman-backed anti-immigration campaigner. Republicans would have zero chance of winning the presidency and could easily lose more House seats.

I think it has been over for a long time.

dddooo · Nov 9, 2006

Interesting, several responses (Arnie, Cesco, AAA) and I am yet to hear what specific government programs/services conservatives plan to eliminate or cut. That's exactly what I was talking about, "small government" is a good (albeit empty) campaign slogan and nothing more than that.

Hombre · Nov 9, 2006

Quote from dddooo:

Interesting, several responses (Arnie, Cesco, AAA) and I am yet to hear what specific government programs/services they plan to eliminate or cut. That's exactly what I was talking about, "small government" is a good (albeit empty) campaign slogan and nothing more than that.

Nobody will eliminate any programs in total. They will just reinvent them under other names, close the books and let's the new party time begin. It is all about spending taxpayers money on governement contracts with companies employing their friends and families. there is no difference who runs the show. Your money goes to different thief but result is the same. You , the taxpayer , are screwed .

Arnie · Nov 9, 2006

dddooo,

Well, for starters, the Dept of Education. Now, don't jump to conclusions! I just think the further away the control, the less effective. Can anyone really argue that education ON A NATIONAL LEVEL is better than it was before we had a Dept of Education? Think of all the money that gets spent on administrative tasks versus actual instruction.

Another redundant dept is Homeland Security. We already have a dept of defense for external threats, FBI for internal and FEMA for natural disasters. Why not just streamline what we already have? Why do we need a new dept for every threat?

Dept of Energy. Why not a Dept of Groceries? I could go on........

dddooo · Nov 9, 2006

Quote from Arnie:

dddooo,

Well, for starters, the Dept of Education. Now, don't jump to conclusions! I just think the further away the control, the less effective. Can anyone really argue that education ON A NATIONAL LEVEL is better than it was before we had a Dept of Education? Think of all the money that gets spent on administrative tasks versus actual instruction.

Another redundant dept is Homeland Security. We already have a dept of defense for external threats, FBI for internal and FEMA for natural disasters. Why not just streamline what we already have? Why do we need a new dept for every threat?

Dept of Energy. Why not a Dept of Groceries? I could go on........

There is a very good reason why no mainstream conservative politician ever talks about eliminating these departments - they will never get elected if they do. There is a very good reason why elected conservative politicians don't even try to eliminate these programs - first they'll fail because americans love those programs and won't let them do it, second they will never be relected.

That's exactly why I said that conservative philosophy is unusable, they want small government but in order to achieve it they'd need to eliminate a bunch of programs and services which are extremely popular with the american public.

james_bond_3rd · Nov 9, 2006

Quote from Arnie:

dddooo,

Well, for starters, the Dept of Education. Now, don't jump to conclusions! I just think the further away the control, the less effective. Can anyone really argue that education ON A NATIONAL LEVEL is better than it was before we had a Dept of Education? Think of all the money that gets spent on administrative tasks versus actual instruction.

Another redundant dept is Homeland Security. We already have a dept of defense for external threats, FBI for internal and FEMA for natural disasters. Why not just streamline what we already have? Why do we need a new dept for every threat?

Dept of Energy. Why not a Dept of Groceries? I could go on........

Do you have any idea what the Dept of Energy does? Sure, it's easy to talk about cutting something that you know nothing about.

In addition to running all of the big weapon's labs (Livermore, Los Alamos, Sandia), DOE also runs most of the national labs conducting research on military as well as civilian technologies. It also funds a big chunk of research activities in the universities that are deemed important to national interest.

If you cut DOE, you will say bye-bye to technology leadership in almost everything that has any national strategic importance, from nuclear weapons, to airplane turbines, to nanotechnology.

You want the US to become a 3rd world country, then go ahead and cut DOE.

AAAintheBeltway · Nov 9, 2006

Quote from Arnie:

dddooo,

Well, for starters, the Dept of Education. Now, don't jump to conclusions! I just think the further away the control, the less effective. Can anyone really argue that education ON A NATIONAL LEVEL is better than it was before we had a Dept of Education? Think of all the money that gets spent on administrative tasks versus actual instruction.

Another redundant dept is Homeland Security. We already have a dept of defense for external threats, FBI for internal and FEMA for natural disasters. Why not just streamline what we already have? Why do we need a new dept for every threat?

Dept of Energy. Why not a Dept of Groceries? I could go on........

I think a compelling argument could be made for elimnating virtually every cabinet department except for Justice, Defense, State and Treasury. In other words, the ones with a Constitutional basis. Get rid of the other ones and few will notice a difference.

There would be benefits beyond budget savings. Most do things that are either counter-productive, eg Education, unnecessary, HUD or better left to private business, Commerce.

One famous budget battle concerned public broadcasting. A lot of voters looked at it as one of the few subsidies they benefitted from and were very vocal in their desire to see it continued. If you couldn't cut spending for another liberal network that could self-finance easily, then you don't even bother with something big like ag subsidies.

Pa(b)st Prime · Nov 9, 2006

Once again you're the one who get's it.......

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I think a compelling argument could be made for elimnating virtually every cabinet department except for Justice, Defense, State and Treasury. In other words, the ones with a Constitutional basis. Get rid of the other ones and few will notice a difference.

There would be benefits beyond budget savings. Most do things that are either counter-productive, eg Education, unnecessary, HUD or better left to private business, Commerce.

One famous budget battle concerned public broadcasting. A lot of voters looked at it as one of the few subsidies they benefitted from and were very vocal in their desire to see it continued. If you couldn't cut spending for another liberal network that could self-finance easily, then you don't even bother with something big like ag subsidies.

dddooo · Nov 9, 2006

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I think a compelling argument could be made for elimnating virtually every cabinet department except for Justice, Defense, State and Treasury. In other words, the ones with a Constitutional basis. Get rid of the other ones and few will notice a difference.

So why don't conservatives openly and honestly campaign on this platform and try to sell these ideas to the american people, I wish you did. When you come out and say you want small government you get about 50% of the vote. If you ever come out and say that in order to shrink the government you want to eliminate the Dept of Labor, Energy, Education, EPA, FDIC, SEC, SSI - you'll be lucky to receive 10% of the vote and you'll have to divide it with libertarians.

No wonder you're disappointed that conservative leaders don't even try to deliver when elected. They are wrong, not politically suicidal. Do you seriously believe that the american public would let them eliminate the dept of transportation, FAA and Medicare? Get real.

Pa(b)st Prime · Nov 9, 2006

You act as if the American public has a clue. Self interests, i.e. private contractors, unions, educators, researchers and benefit laden bureaucrats throw around code words that an electorate, with their own self interests, fears and hopes then embrace.

It all sounds good. Kids, schools, our future, mapping DNA, evil empires, first to outta space, staying the course, but the average American has no idea what these programs cost, if there's a tangible benefit or what the imposition on future budgets will be.

Here's an adage you can take to the bank. People want everything always and for free. That's the starting point in negotiations. Do you believe that a society of irresponsible credit card using, ARM borrowing, gas guzzler vehicle leasing, bourgeois intelligentsia are the ultimate arbiters of responsible fiscal government spending?

DooDoo I see many of your ideas are straight out of the DNC playbook of the 1960's. Like the flea flicker and the power I formation, some things are past their heyday. The average $100,000 a year household, the one's who've TRULY benefited by the Bush tax cut, are strapped. The LAST thing those independent voting folks are going to put up with, is an extra 5k a year or so leaving their paychecks. Those advocating this "new left" Clintonesque panacea had best dream on.

Quote from dddooo:

There is a very good reason why no mainstream conservative politician ever talks about eliminating these departments - they will never get elected if they do. There is a very good reason why elected conservative politicians don't even try to eliminate these programs - first they'll fail because americans love those programs and won't let them do it, second they will never be relected.

That's exactly why I said that conservative philosophy is unusable, they want small government but in order to achieve it they'd need to eliminate a bunch of programs and services which are extremely popular with the american public.