Watch the Republicans disintegrate

[TexasTiger 12,958]

It was only a matter of time for a party with no true unifying ideology.

October 20, 2006

Republican Woes Lead to Feuding by Conservatives

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 — Tax-cutters are calling evangelicals bullies. Christian conservatives say Republicans in Congress have let them down. Hawks say President Bush is bungling the war in Iraq. And many conservatives blame Representative Mark Foley’s sexual messages to teenage pages.

With polls showing Republican control of Congress in jeopardy, conservative leaders are pointing fingers at one other in an increasingly testy circle of blame for potential Republican losses this fall.

“It is one of those rare defeats that will have many fathers,” said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, expressing the gloomy view of many conservatives about the outcome on Election Day. “And they will all be somebody else.”

Whether the election will bear out their pessimism remains to be seen, and the factors that contribute to an electoral defeat are often complex and even contradictory. But the post-mortem recriminations can influence politics and policy for years after the fact. After 1992, Republicans shunned tax increases. After 1994, Democrats avoided gun control and health care reform. And 2004 led some Democrats to start quoting Scripture and rethinking abortion rights, while others opened an intraparty debate about the national security that is not yet resolved.

In the case of the Republican Party this year, the skirmish among conservatives over what is going wrong has begun unusually early and turned unusually personal.

But almost regardless of the outcome on Nov. 7, many conservatives express frustration that the party has lost its ideological focus. And after six years of nearly continuous control over the White House and Congress, conservatives are having a hard time finding anyone but one another to blame.

“It is pre-criminations,” said Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, the conservative magazine. “If a party looks like it is going to take a real pounding, this sort of debate is healthy. What is unusual is that it is happening beforehand.”

Some conservative leaders have often been quicker in the past to turn on Republican officials and one another than their rank-and-file supporters. But this year polls show broad disaffection at the grass roots, prompting some Republicans — including former Speaker Newt Gingrich — to worry that the public sparring could dampen turnout.

This year’s antagonists also include some new critics, including Mr. Gingrich’s one-time lieutenant, Dick Armey, the former House Republican majority leader.

In recent weeks, Mr. Armey has stepped up a public campaign against the influence of Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and an influential voice among evangelical protestants. In an interview published last month in “The Elephant in the Room,” a book by Ryan Sager about splits among conservatives, Mr. Armey accused Congressional Republicans of “blatant pandering to James Dobson” and “his gang of thugs,” whom Mr. Armey called “real nasty bullies” — arguments he reprised on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and in an open letter on the Web site organization FreedomWorks.

In an interview this week, Mr. Armey said catering to Dr. Dobson and his allies had led the party to abandon budget-cutting. And he said Christian conservatives could cost Republicans seats around the country, especially in Ohio.

“The Republicans are talking about things like gay marriage and so forth, and the Democrats are talking about the things people care about, like how do I pay my bills?” he said.

Mr. Armey also pinned some of the blame on Tom DeLay, the former Republican House majority leader, who “was always more comfortable with the social conservatives, the evangelical wing of the party, than he was with the business wing.”

Mr. Armey, who identifies himself as an evangelical, said he was tired of Christian conservative leaders threatening that their supporters would stay away from the ballot box unless they got what they wanted.

“Economic conservatives,” he argued, were emerging as the swing voters in need of attention, in part because they had become more likely to vote Democratic in the years since President Bill Clinton was in office. “A lot of people believe he brought us from deficits to surpluses, and there is a certain empirical evidence there,” Mr. Armey acknowledged.

In a statement on Thursday, Dr. Dobson said Mr. Armey was “still ticked” over a long-ago House leadership race in which Dr. Dobson endorsed someone else, and he restated his warnings to Republicans that social conservative voters “would abandon them if they forgot the promises they had made.”

In a recent newsletter from Dr. Dobson’s organization, Representative Mark Souder, an Indiana Republican counting on Christian conservatives to turn out for his re-election, called Mr. Armey’s comments “disgusting” and insulting to “the many Christians around the United States who devoutly hold conservative moral beliefs.”

Christian conservatives began complaining last year that the Republicans had put proposed Social Security changes and tax changes ahead of issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, risking the support of social-issue voters.

Over the summer, Congress held a rush of votes on just those issues — an election-year ritual intended to motivate those voters — and in an interview last week Tony Perkins, president of the Christian conservative Family Research Council, said he believed it had begun to revive some grass-roots enthusiasm.

“But the Foley scandal just let the air out of the tires,” Mr. Perkins said.

Others dismissed the Foley scandal as largely irrelevant outside of Mr. Foley’s district. Several conservatives said Republican incumbents were using it as a scapegoat.

“It will make you feel better to say, I didn’t lose the election; Foley lost it for me,” said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform. “Your wife and kids will believe it.”

Mr. Norquist said the Iraq war was the biggest drag on Republican candidates even before their big wins in 2004.

“Some people think we did it just to prove we could do it, like people who go running with weights on their ankles,” he said.

Many blame neoconservatives who argued most vocally for the invasion of Iraq. “The principal sin of the neoconservatives is overbearing arrogance,” Mr. Keene said. Neoconservatives, in turn, blamed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s insistence on holding down troop levels for the fouling up of the war

“There is a bit of a battle between people who say, Hey, your tax cuts wrecked our war and people who say, Hey, your war wrecked our tax cuts,” said David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter who was among the war’s proponents.

Mr. Frum argued that the problem with the Iraq war was in its execution, not in the idea behind it. “The war has to be seen through the prism of Hurricane Katrina,” he argued, “because conservatives will support a tough war if they are confident in the war’s management.”

William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard and another prominent advocate of the invasion, said he doubted that soaring spending was turning off as many voters as tax-cutters like Mr. Norquist or Mr. Armey suggested.

“The spending bill that was supposedly going to destroy the Republican Party was the Medicare drug bill,” he said. “I have heard almost no one talk about it one way or the other.”

Mr. Kristol argued that the Bush administration was suffering politically for applying too little force, not too much. “I am struck that people have the sense in North Korea and Iran that things are spinning out of control,” he said.

Mr. Frum and others blamed the Republican Senate’s support for the president’s guest-worker immigration proposal for angering the grass-roots talk-radio crowd. But Mr. Norquist, who favored the immigration proposal, argued that the election would provide a verdict on “restrictionism” in the fate of Randy Graf, a Republican candidate in Arizona running on calls for tighter borders. Polls show Mr. Graf faces long odds.

Mr. Gingrich, for his part, made the best of the fray, saying, “I would rather have a movement active enough to bite itself rather than a movement so moribund it didn’t realize it was irritated.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/us/polit...agewanted=print

[AURaptor 1,125]

What's the true unifying idealogy for the Democrats?

[TexasTiger 12,958]

What's the true unifying idealogy for the Democrats?

Raise the minimum wage.

[DKW 86 7,430]

What's the true unifying idealogy for the Democrats?

Raise the minimum wage.

So they can have more reson to hire illegals, ala Kimba Wood et al.

Tex, lets hope that the Reps get the message this year. The wanton budget blowing is just crazy for me to not support them anymore. If I want mindless spending, I can always vote Democratic.

[AURaptor 1,125]

What's the true unifying idealogy for the Democrats?

Raise the minimum wage.

Good luck with that plan.

"Sorry pal, but since we're forced to pay more for this entry level job, I can't hire as many employees. I'd love to hire ya, but good luck finding a job somewhere else "

[TexasTiger 12,958]

What's the true unifying idealogy for the Democrats?

Raise the minimum wage.

Good luck with that plan.

"Sorry pal, but since we're forced to pay more for this entry level job, I can't hire as many employees. I'd love to hire ya, but good luck finding a job somewhere else "

The minimum wage hasn't gone up in ten years. You can afford it. You just don't want to.

[quietfan 233]

What's the true unifying idealogy for the Democrats?

Raise the minimum wage.

Good luck with that plan.

"Sorry pal, but since we're forced to pay more for this entry level job, I can't hire as many employees. I'd love to hire ya, but good luck finding a job somewhere else "

The minimum wage hasn't gone up in ten years. You can afford it. You just don't want to.

By this logic, Raptor, why don't we cut the minimum wage in half. Then we can have even more jobs for people. Of course no one could live on that wage, but we'd have no unemployment.

Just curious--How many posters on this board have NOT had a raise in ten years? (college students and retirees not in the job market don't count) How many raises has Congress given itself in ten years? How much has the cost of living risen in ten years?

But now let me apologize for contributing to this thread hijack. I don't think minimum wage was really the initial theme here. ...as indicated by Tex's " "

[otterinbham 0]

Well since the number of people on minimum wage is one third what it was 20 years ago, I'm not particularlly worried. Especially since the vast majority of minimum wage earners are teenagers. I know for a fact that McDonalds is hiring in the Birmingham market for $10.50 an hour plus benefits. The Shop-A-Snak down the road from me is looking for counter help at 25K plus 401 K and BC/BS.

The fact of the matter is that as the nation sits at full employment, wages go up. It's simple supply and demand. In Birmingham, unemployment is at 3.2%. Employers cannot find workers, so they're paying a premium to get them.

So if Minimum Wage is the unifyiing principle of the Democratic Party, it's a slender reed at best. That means your advocacy is centered around helping teenagers buy X-Boxes more quickly.

Personally, if you want a true barometer of the mood of voters today, all you have to do is look at the Lieberman/Lamont race in Connecticut. Lamont comes from the shrill left-wing of Democratic politics, has the backing of Democratic heavyweights, and is getting seriously spanked by Lieberman in the polls at this very moment who remains solidly pro-war. And this in Connecticut, about as Blue State as you get.

Personally, I think a McCain/Lieberman ticket would steamroller both parties.

Third Party NOW.

[CCTAU 3,329]

Well since the number of people on minimum wage is one third what it was 20 years ago, I'm not particularlly worried. Especially since the vast majority of minimum wage earners are teenagers. I know for a fact that McDonalds is hiring in the Birmingham market for $10.50 an hour plus benefits. The Shop-A-Snak down the road from me is looking for counter help at 25K plus 401 K and BC/BS.

The fact of the matter is that as the nation sits at full employment, wages go up. It's simple supply and demand. In Birmingham, unemployment is at 3.2%. Employers cannot find workers, so they're paying a premium to get them.

So if Minimum Wage is the unifyiing principle of the Democratic Party, it's a slender reed at best. That means your advocacy is centered around helping teenagers buy X-Boxes more quickly.

Personally, if you want a true barometer of the mood of voters today, all you have to do is look at the Lieberman/Lamont race in Connecticut. Lamont comes from the shrill left-wing of Democratic politics, has the backing of Democratic heavyweights, and is getting seriously spanked by Lieberman in the polls at this very moment who remains solidly pro-war. And this in Connecticut, about as Blue State as you get.

Personally, I think a McCain/Lieberman ticket would steamroller both parties.

Third Party NOW.

To an extent I agree. Who guaranteed a person NOT WORKING a raise fro an entry level position. If you are being paid min wage, then you just started out. If you are being paid min wage after 10 years, you are not a very smart person. So the 10 year thing was a stupid analogy.

Not sure a 3rd party wold do anything except vote in more dims. Dims love their losers, we throw ours out of office. The sad truth will be that either Republicans go and vote republican cause the alternative SUCKS, or they just stay home. But I cannot see a republican voting for a dim in a national election. Republicans are sucking wind right now, but there is hope. Dims have been sucking for some time now and there is NO hope.

People are sad about this but still see that dims will not be any better except at raising taxes. I think there is a tremendous numbe of grass roots republicans coming up today that will be the strong backbone of the party.

[TexasTiger 12,958]

Personally, if you want a true barometer of the mood of voters today, all you have to do is look at the Lieberman/Lamont race in Connecticut. Lamont comes from the shrill left-wing of Democratic politics, has the backing of Democratic heavyweights, and is getting seriously spanked by Lieberman in the polls at this very moment who remains solidly pro-war. And this in Connecticut, about as Blue State as you get.

Personally, I think a McCain/Lieberman ticket would steamroller both parties.

Third Party NOW.

Funny, Lieberman claimed Lamont leaned Republican in the primary. Joe's been flopping like a fish lately. Actually, Joe had the Dem Heavyweights in the primary, but after Dem voters make a choice, that's who the party should support unless the guy is a crook or a nut. Lamont is just a milquetoast. But, then, so is Joe. The Republican may be the best campaigner in the bunch.

McCain/Lieberman gives you two guys who STILL think going into Iraq was a good idea, i.e. a couple of morons. And I used to like McCain before he sold his soul for RNC viability. You want a indy ticket, how about Hagel/Schweitzer? Schweitzer already ran and won with a Repub LT. Gov. in Montana.

[otterinbham 0]

"Actually, Joe had the Dem Heavyweights in the primary"

You're kidding, right? Gore, Clinton, Edwards, and Clinton all abandoned him. In fact the Democratic leadership did their level best to get him to abandon his independent run.

Also, once again, you utterly miss my point. Namely, that given a non-Democratic or non-Republican choice of any gravitas, the public will vote that candidate in.

[TexasTiger 12,958]

"Actually, Joe had the Dem Heavyweights in the primary"

You're kidding, right? Gore, Clinton, Edwards, and Clinton all abandoned him. In fact the Democratic leadership did their level best to get him to abandon his independent run.

Also, once again, you utterly miss my point. Namely, that given a non-Democratic or non-Republican choice of any gravitas, the public will vote that candidate in.

No, I'm not kidding. Your just ignorant and too arrogant to realize it.

Once again, you are utterly wrong on the facts. If you get the facts right, your "points" will carry more weight. But I won't hold my breath. You seem to think something is true simply because you declare it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/24/...in1832047.shtml

Bill Clinton Campaigns For Lieberman

Former President Urges Dems To Put Aside Opposition To Iraq War

(AP) Bill Clinton, campaigning to save an old friend from defeat, appealed to Connecticut Democrats Monday to put aside their opposition to the war in Iraq and send embattled Sen. Joseph Lieberman on his way to a new term in office.

Democrats "don't agree on everything. We don't agree on Iraq," Mr. Clinton said, calling the conflict the "pink elephant in the living room."

But "the real issue is, whether you were for it or against it, what are we going to do now. And let me tell you something, no Democrat is responsible for the mistakes that have been made since the fall of Saddam Hussein that have brought us to this point."

In a 20-minute speech to a capacity crowd in an ornate theater, Mr. Clinton went easy on Ned Lamont, whose challenge gained traction when he accused Lieberman of being too close to President Bush on the war and other issues.

"He seems like a perfectly nice man. He's got every right to run and he's waged a vigorous campaign," the former president said.

By contrast, he lavished praise on Lieberman, a third-term lawmaker whose once formidable lead in the polls has vanished.

Mr. Clinton said Lieberman has long been a loyal Democratic vote on issues as diverse as organized labor and the environment.

Mr. Clinton was greeted with cheers louder than Lieberman received from the audience, and the words "Four More Years" were clearly audible in the crowd.

Lieberman wasn't nearly as deferential to Lamont as Mr. Clinton was. "My opponent is peddling what I would call a big lie, and that is I'm not a real Democrat," he said.

And he proudly recalled that Mr. Clinton first volunteered to help him in 1970, when he was running for the state legislature in his first campaign.

Both Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said they are backing Lieberman in the primary.

“We aren't going to speculate about what happens next because that would undermine our candidate,” said DSCC spokesman Phil Singer.

Senator Joe Biden, D-Del., along with Senators Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Ken Salazar, D-Colo., are also supporting Lieberman and plan to campaign for him between now and the primary.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/05/...in1774454.shtml

[AURaptor 1,125]

By this logic, Raptor, why don't we cut the minimum wage in half. Then we can have even more jobs for people. Of course no one could live on that wage, but we'd have no unemployment.

Just curious--How many posters on this board have NOT had a raise in ten years? (college students and retirees not in the job market don't count) How many raises has Congress given itself in ten years? How much has the cost of living risen in ten years?

But now let me apologize for contributing to this thread hijack. I don't think minimum wage was really the initial theme here. ...as indicated by Tex's " wink.gif"

Why don't we just elimiate the min wage completely? That's what we SHOUJLD do. The min wage isn't MEANT to raise a family on, it's meant as a ENTRY level standard by which folks can work their way up and eventually contribute to a company AND society.

[AUman43 5]

IF the democratic party is one of "tax and spend" then you can label the Republicans as a party of "Borrow and Spend." So, for subsequent generations,which is worse? With our national debt and trade deficit the highest it's been, this label no longer works for the Republicans as I think they will find out at the polls. One of the major reasons why they have been able to hand this label on democrats is that they were left to clean up the financial mess the republicans left them with and balance the budget.

[TexasTiger 12,958]

If you are being paid min wage after 10 years, you are not a very smart person. So the 10 year thing was a stupid analogy.

There's a lot of people out there who aren't very smart or particularly skilled working low-end jobs with little or no chance at advancement. They matter, too. They have to put food on the table and a roof over their heads and oftentimes the heads of family members. Look around at how many middle-aged adults there are sweeping floors, washing dishes and cleaning toilets. I've known alot of decent hard-working folks over the years that, granted, aren't that bright. If Congressmen see fit to give themselves repeated raises over the last ten years -- and many of them aren't that bright, either-- the folks doing these menial jobs certainly should have raises, too.

[DKW 86 7,430]

IF the democratic party is one of "tax and spend" then you can label the Republicans as a party of "Borrow and Spend." So, for subsequent generations,which is worse? With our national debt and trade deficit the highest it's been, this label no longer works for the Republicans as I think they will find out at the polls. One of the major reasons why they have been able to hand this label on democrats is that they were left to clean up the financial mess the republicans left them with and balance the budget.

Since when did a Democrat EVER clean up any financial mess? Clintax said for years the budget could not be balanced. When it finally did, due to the actions of the Republican Congress lead by Gingrich, he took full credit for it when in full actuality he never knew how it happened.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG1071.cfm

While Clinton claims his FY 1997 budget will eliminate the federal deficit by FY 2002 using Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, it does so only by using the same assortment of smoke, mirrors, and other gimmicks that has made taxpayers increasingly cynical about Washington's commitment to budget-making.

The budget balanced in 1998, for those too stupid or too swept up in CNN

[DKW 86 7,430]

If you are being paid min wage after 10 years, you are not a very smart person. So the 10 year thing was a stupid analogy.

There's a lot of people out there who aren't very smart or particularly skilled working low-end jobs with little or no chance at advancement. They matter, too. They have to put food on the table and a roof over their heads and oftentimes the heads of family members. Look around at how many middle-aged adults there are sweeping floors, washing dishes and cleaning toilets. I've known alot of decent hard-working folks over the years that, granted, aren't that bright. If Congressmen see fit to give themselves repeated raises over the last ten years -- and many of them aren't that bright, either-- the folks doing these menial jobs certainly should have raises, too.

We all agree with that Tex, we all do. But I think letting a bunch of Country Clubbing idiots determine the real need is kind of stupid. The way the minimum wage is determined is by Union contract. Many Unions have back door clauses that have multiples of the minimum wage as their "minimum" wage. So, giving a minimum wage increase is in effect giving them a false high floor to negotiate from with businesses, or in fact giving them real wage increases. The Union guys I know are getting hard-ons for the the new minimum wage.

As otter said above, the market has already taken care of the real minimum wage anyway. I dont trust people trying to tell you that everything you have is due to them, not your own hard work and sweat.

[TexasTiger 12,958]

Clintax

When did Clinton raise YOUR taxes?

[CCTAU 3,329]

Clintax

When did Clinton raise YOUR taxes?

You don't have to be successful at it to be scary. Sarah Brady has not taken my guns yet, but that does not make her a friend of gunowners. Clintax tried unsuccessfully to raise taxes. A smarter, than now, republican congress did not allow it.

[TexasTiger 12,958]

Clintax

When did Clinton raise YOUR taxes?

You don't have to be successful at it to be scary. Sarah Brady has not taken my guns yet, but that does not make her a friend of gunowners. Clintax tried unsuccessfully to raise taxes. A smarter, than now, republican congress did not allow it.

When did he try to raise YOUR taxes?

[DKW 86 7,430]

Clintax

When did Clinton raise YOUR taxes?

You don't have to be successful at it to be scary. Sarah Brady has not taken my guns yet, but that does not make her a friend of gunowners. Clintax tried unsuccessfully to raise taxes. A smarter, than now, republican congress did not allow it.

When did he try to raise YOUR taxes?

1993, and he raised them retrocactively to the first of that year.

http://www.urbin.net/EWW/sigs/clintonsigs.html

"I'll tell you the whole story about that budget. Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too." -- President Clinton, WASHINGTON (Oct 18, 1995 - 20:48 EDT)

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Inflation is much worse than any income tax, eventhough it is illegal.

[TexasTiger 12,958]

Clintax

When did Clinton raise YOUR taxes?

You don't have to be successful at it to be scary. Sarah Brady has not taken my guns yet, but that does not make her a friend of gunowners. Clintax tried unsuccessfully to raise taxes. A smarter, than now, republican congress did not allow it.

When did he try to raise YOUR taxes?

1993, and he raised them retrocactively to the first of that year.

http://www.urbin.net/EWW/sigs/clintonsigs.html

"I'll tell you the whole story about that budget. Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too." -- President Clinton, WASHINGTON (Oct 18, 1995 - 20:48 EDT)

You linked to a bunch a quotes. Link to something factual which references the specific taxing legislation. When did he raise YOUR taxes?

[DKW 86 7,430]

Clintax

When did Clinton raise YOUR taxes?

You don't have to be successful at it to be scary. Sarah Brady has not taken my guns yet, but that does not make her a friend of gunowners. Clintax tried unsuccessfully to raise taxes. A smarter, than now, republican congress did not allow it.

When did he try to raise YOUR taxes?

1993, and he raised them retrocactively to the first of that year.

http://www.urbin.net/EWW/sigs/clintonsigs.html

"I'll tell you the whole story about that budget. Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too." -- President Clinton, WASHINGTON (Oct 18, 1995 - 20:48 EDT)

You linked to a bunch a quotes. Link to something factual which references the specific taxing legislation. When did he raise YOUR taxes?

http://www.ncpa.org/w/w74.html

The link was for the exact date he said he raised MY taxes TOO much.

[TexasTiger 12,958]

Clintax

When did Clinton raise YOUR taxes?

You don't have to be successful at it to be scary. Sarah Brady has not taken my guns yet, but that does not make her a friend of gunowners. Clintax tried unsuccessfully to raise taxes. A smarter, than now, republican congress did not allow it.

When did he try to raise YOUR taxes?

1993, and he raised them retrocactively to the first of that year.

http://www.urbin.net/EWW/sigs/clintonsigs.html

"I'll tell you the whole story about that budget. Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too." -- President Clinton, WASHINGTON (Oct 18, 1995 - 20:48 EDT)

You linked to a bunch a quotes. Link to something factual which references the specific taxing legislation. When did he raise YOUR taxes?

http://www.ncpa.org/w/w74.html

The link was for the exact date he said he raised MY taxes TOO much.

Was your AGI over $140,000 in 1993? If not, he wasn't talking about raising YOUR taxes too much, because he didn't raise them at all. He was talking to a pretty well-heeled room that night.