The Republican retreat on core principles

Cal Thomas's picture

The aptly named Republican “retreat” last weekend at the ritzy Greenbrier resort in West Virginia should have included Democrats because Republicans are behaving just like them.

There was President Bush arguing for his “bipartisan stimulus package” and supporting government handouts with borrowed money. Republicans can always cut a bipartisan deal if they behave like Democrats.

House Republican Leader John Boehner implored his fellow Republicans to “sacrifice” by agreeing to a one-year moratorium on earmarks to “prove” that Republicans are the party that can fix Washington. Someone should have pointed out to Boehner that the word “fix” is also used to describe the neutering that occurs at a veterinarian’s office to keep a pet from reproducing. The Republican Party is engaging in self-mutilation.

President Bush, according to The Wall Street Journal, chose to “use his State of the Union address to lay down his toughest anti-earmarking pledge to date ... tell Congress that he will veto any fiscal 2009 spending bill that doesn’t cut earmarks in half from 2008 levels” and issue “a Presidential order informing executive departments that from now on they should refuse to fund earmarks that aren’t explicitly mentioned in statutory language.”

This would have been more credible and more effective had it occurred when Republicans controlled Congress. Too many Republicans continue to embrace the notion that more spending on pork barrel projects will keep them in office.

They should have been disabused of that notion when they lost control of Congress in the 2006 election, largely because their collusion with President Bush on spending and expansion of government mimicked the Democrats. The Republican rank and file and Independent voters prefer their liberalism straight up rather than diluted by party leaders.

The best opportunity Republicans had at their retreat to prove they see the light on spending was to name the tireless anti-pork crusader Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, to the powerful Appropriations Committee. This would have been the equivalent of placing a preacher at the entrance to a house of ill repute, or a member of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union on an alcohol beverage and control board.

The analogies are apt because too many politicians are drunk on power and behave like harlots with other people’s money.

Flake, who was passed over for the post, would be the conscience of the committee, which has been devoid of a moral compass no matter which party controls the House. He sends out news releases spotlighting the “Egregious Earmark of the Week.” Last week’s was $1.12 million for potato research, which he characterized as “a waste of money no matter how you spell it.”

In a phone call from the retreat, Flake told me his colleagues rejected an earmark moratorium after hearing pleas from some members that earmarks were the only way they can get re-elected (whatever happened to ideas?).

He said Republicans called on Democrats to act first and that by doing so they missed an opportunity to stand on principle and win political points. Flake predicted, “we’ll get there” on earmark restraint, but not until after more Republicans are indicted and “an anti-earmark crusader like John McCain or Mitt Romney is nominated and elected president.”

What Republicans need is a dose of Barack Obama, who recently praised Ronald Reagan to the consternation of leading Democrats. Obama correctly noted that “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not.” That’s because Reagan had core principles from which he rarely deviated.

Instead of standing in front of those silly signs they use to promote whatever it is they are talking about, Republicans should use backdrops that promote some of Reagan’s greatest sayings. These include:

“Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.”

“Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.”

“Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.”

“Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

My personal favorite is: “Man is not free unless government is limited.”

That last one should be tattooed on every Republican member of Congress. Have any of these core principles been proved wrong, outdated or unworkable? Did not these ideas promote economic growth and Republican electoral prosperity?

They did, so why aren’t Republicans advancing them again, instead of retreating and trying to buy votes with “stimulus” packages and pork barrel projects?

[Email Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.] ©2008 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

login to post comments | Cal Thomas's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Spear Road Guy's picture
Submitted by Spear Road Guy on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 10:23pm.

I guess Cal Thomas doesn't care for the Richard Hobbs GOP types. "If we only had more Republican lawyers in Congress, we could really mess things up bad."

Vote Republican


Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Thu, 01/31/2008 - 9:36am.

Spear Road Guy- I have no idea of what or who you are referring to. I have no idea why you think I'd be supporting the types of GOP members that Cal shuns.

Personally, I'm so very disgusted with George Bush and his absolute ignorance of how much damage he has done compared to how much good he could have done if only he had been a true leader.

Bush let Congress run loose. McCain-Feingold-Medicare prescription-Kennedy Education bill-Amnesty for illegals. The Republicans chose a conservative talking moderate to run our country. I have only been happy with Bush on his strong foreign policy stance and on two of the three nominees to the Supreme Court, my God, he almost put Harriet Myers on the bench.

I really have to be careful of what I hope for. Jimmy Carter was the best thing that ever happened to America. He convincingly showed how his liberal principles were worthless, once acted upon. Bill Clinton gave us a Republican Congress-the first in 50 years- who then squandered their power. So maybe having Barack or Hillary take control might not be the worst thing.

The fact is, the difference between what a elected Republican and elected Democrat does is often minor and is in stark contrast to what a Republican candidate and Democrat candidate "says" they will do if elected.

So your aspersions about me and the GOP are somewhat misplaced.
It appears the Republican Party that I believed in, died with the Gipper.

Come to think of it, actually, all of this mess is Jimmy Carter's fault.*

In Late 1980, Carter was winning in the polls, Reagan's people were worried. They considered even having Ford run as VP. But then they thought the only way to win was to bring in the moderates of the Republican Party by having George Bush run as the VP. All because the media was reporting Carter was trounching the nasty Reagan in the polls.

So Bush became the heir apparent, and his wishy-washy "Carter-like" means of governing, gave us Clinton. The story goes on and on.

So thank Jimmy Carter for George Bush, and probably for the next President, Hillary or McCann, two peas from the same pod.

*Hey JeffC, didn't want you to feel left out.


Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Thu, 01/31/2008 - 12:59pm.

The recent evolution of the Republican Party, into contentious, over-spending, militaristic neocons, can only be attributed to George W. Bush. You can TRY and blame the current failed policies doled out by the White House on Carter or Bush, Sr., however, the blame lies solely with Dubya and his administration. Your post, Richard, made me curious as to the real reason for the recent demise and splintering of the Republican Party. And I found some thought-provoking essays and editorials.

“Public allegiance to the Republican Party has plunged during George W. Bush's presidency, as attitudes have edged away from some of the conservative values that fueled GOP political victories, a major survey has found. The survey, by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, found a "dramatic shift" in political party identification since 2002, when Republicans and Democrats were at rough parity. Now, 50% of those surveyed identified with or leaned toward Democrats, whereas 35% aligned with Republicans.” – L.A. Times

Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal adds:

“George W. Bush has succeeded what even a scandal ridden President like Richard Nixon could not do. He has completely shattered the Republican Party alliance, alienated both its libertarian and conservative wings, and tainted nearly every Republican official on the national level with the stink of an Administration that is clearly, as Noonan notes, not at all concerned with preserving anything resembling a Republican majority”

And what are some of the reasons George W. Bush has alienated so many within his own party? Larry Beinhart of the Huffington Post, offers three positions that the neocons have taken during the two Bush administrations, that have contributed to the splintering of the Republican Party:

1) The first is “corporatism” which is “based on the belief that whatever makes money is good — and should not be restrained.” This corporate megalomania is expressed as the worship of righteous corporate profit for which the individual should never get in the way. (i.e. Enron, Worldcom, Halliburton, subprime mortgage fiasco)

2) The second area of belief is that American power is absolute, irresistible, and always good, and should therefore be used — without restraint. Military hegemony or otherwise known as “regime change” is the staple of current day foreign policy. The Neocons stand as a giant, power-hungry, out-of-control, military general with boots that spare no one who gets in his way.

3) The last area, and the most important, is the right-wing religion or Evangelical Christians, the largest religious group in the United States, who proclaim from their Christian beliefs that they are God-commanded; therefore it rules America and the world by way of lobbying groups and/or special interest groups (Faith and Values Coalition, Traditional Values Coalition) — any restraint against it is opposition to God.

Many believe, myself included, that the GOP has swung too far to the right because of the current administration, resulting in the alienation of moderates and independents. Only time will tell if the Republican pendulum can right itself again.


yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Thu, 01/31/2008 - 1:40pm.

the concept of the "unitary executive", Main, that goes against the entire concept of checks and balances, not to mention the separation of powers {the two linchpins upon which our government is built}. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 01/31/2008 - 12:21pm.

Sometimes I forget the extent in Georgia to which the far-right fringe has taken over and represents the Republican Party. Then I read ole beaver here accusing McCain of being a traitor because of his immigration policies and it suddenly snaps into focus again: the face of modern Republicanism.

If Reagan was running today, he would have already been driven out of the race by you and your cohorts with the help of the Rush/Hannity/Savage/O’Reilly etc. cabal under orders from Rupert Murdoch. I can only imagine with glee how y’all would have viciously savaged him for giving outright amnesty to illegal immigrants!

Assuming the “fence around the country” wing didn’t tar and feather poor Reagan, the “let’s tax our grandkids instead of us” wing would brutally attack him for enacting not one but two (!) tax increases. Lawdy, lawdy can you even begin to imagine the clamor?

Then, the third leg of the modern Republican Party, the “maybe if we vote for them 100 times instead of 99 they’ll finally keep their promises” family values wing would have mercilessly assaulted him for signing into law the most liberal abortion bill in history when he was Governor. (True they would have then voted for him. Hope springs eternal).

You and the other fringe wing-nuts who have taken over the Republican Party would string Reagan up in a tree if he ran today. It would be a sight to see! Warms my heart just thinking about it.

Reagan would have had to hide out with Salman Rushdie in a cave to get away from all of you fanatics. We’d be able to find bin Laden sooner.

You’re right that the Gipper’s Republican Party died with him. Y’all strangled it.


Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Thu, 01/31/2008 - 6:13pm.

I've got a hit man coming down on you now. You have dissed my hero, and there will be no mercy for your blasphemy.

Now on to your accusations.
Reagan did sign an amnesty bill in 86.
I could blame it on the Democratic controlled congress who wrote the bill, but I'll just say this was done with the assurances and promises from Washington that we would come down hard on those that violated our borders. Of Course, as usual Washington D.C. lied to us in 86 and they almost lied to us this past year. We had problems with the illegals back then, but I dare say we have a real issue with them now.

The rest of your post was just rhetoric.
As to Bush, I'd say with the exception of the War on Terror, on his tax cuts, and his Supreme Court nominees, he's probably a spitting image of your father.
Governmental programs for medicare prescriptions.
Governmental programs for no child left behind, written by Kennedy.
Governmental restrictions on free speech, McCain Feingold.

As far as your comments regarding the Republican Right wing, well, I'd suggest to you that the Christian Right actually is responsible for your father getting elected in the first place. Ford was a moderate Republican, and the Christian base thought your father was a good and honest christian man. Boy did your Dad pull a fast one over the American People on that one. I just wish your old man would go back to building cheap houses for people who then trash them after a couple years, and stay out of embarrassing himself and our country with his constant desire to again be a darling of the media.

Have you actually held the award he got for being a traitor to his country yet? I know that socialists all over the world think very highly of his many accomplishments in destroying the world's opinion of America.

Oh well, thats my opinion, if you don't like it, I have others.


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Fri, 02/01/2008 - 3:40pm.

Wait, let me get this straight: Reagan signed the illegal immigrant amnesty bill “with the assurances and promises from Washington that we would come down hard on those that violated our borders.”

Uh, Richard… He was the President of the United States at the time. He was the top guy in Washington. He was the one making all promises and giving all those assurances. You make it sound like he was phoning it in from France or something. But maybe you are right and he was just duped, seemingly a defining character trait of his. I’m not arguing, have it your way.

I give you credit for the low blow. Equating Carter with the head of your party and the veritable face of modern conservatism, President Bush, was a first! I’m glad that it was such a stretch that even you had to preface it with a list of exceptions. I can only imagine your frustration in that when you want to disparage someone, the worst of the worst comparisons and insults you can make is to compare him to the guy you and your side have so slavishly supported and elected. Twice. That’s gotta be a bummer.

Thanks for the encouraging words about Habitat for Humanity! I will be going with him next month to the Gulf coast to participate in his yearly blitz build. We’re going to build 112 houses in 5 days (we’ll have help) mostly around Mobile and Pascagoula. It’ll be in all the MSM so I guess you’ll miss it. I’ll update you when I get back if you want.

Richard, I have to say that I am somewhat hurt that you might even entertain the possibility that I wouldn’t like your opinions. You think receiving the Noble Peace Prize is traitorous, that Carter embarrasses himself and our country and that among some of his many accomplishments is destroying the world's opinion of America. All this while supporting Bush! Your opinions validate mine! Whenever you and the rest of the far right, fringe, extremists start agreeing with those of my ilk, I will have to seriously re-evaluate my positions.

I suspect, though, that it won’t happen soon.

Anyway, good to hear from you! Just the thought of the despair on your side from the imminent nomination of John McCain by your party will brighten my weekend.

I hope you have a nice weekend too.

Peace


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Thu, 01/31/2008 - 11:54pm.

Jeff once told me, "Really Denise, if you read this and care to respond in the future, you should do your own homework and know or semi-know what you're for or against (and why) to the point of defending it beyond one post. Sometimes, using facts will help, especially if they are on your side. Study Richard Hobbs blogs."

I'll follow his advice: this post of yours is excellent! Laughing out loud


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.