Joe Scarborough was mentioned earlier in the Nancy Grace thread, and it reminded me of this piece from the Washington Monthly:
Maybe that’s because right-wing, knuckle-dragging Republicans like myself took over Congress in 1994 promising to balance the budget and limit Washington’s power. We were a nasty breed and had no problem blaming Bill and Hillary Clinton for everything from the exploding federal deficit to male pattern baldness. I suspected then, as I do now, that Hillary Clinton herself had something to do with “Love, American Style” and “Joanie Loves Chachi.” And why not blame her? Back then, Newt Gingrich felt comfortable blaming the drowning of two little children on Democratic values. Hell. It was 1994. It just seemed like the thing to do.
The terminally rumpled Dick Armey (R-Whiskey Gulch) even went so far as to suggest that the Clintons might be Marxists, drawing an angry personal rebuke from Bubba himself. But 12 years later, it is Armey’s fellow Republicans who should be sobered by the short and ugly history of Republican Supremacy.
Under Bill Clinton’s presidency, discretionary spending grew at a modest rate of 3.4 percent. Not too bad for a Marxist, even considering that his worst instincts were tempered by a Republican Congress. (Well, his worst fiscal instincts.)
***During the 1990s, conservative Republicans and the Clinton White House somehow managed to balance the budget while winning two wars, reforming welfare, and conducting an awesome impeachment trial focused on oral sex and a stained Gap dress.
The fact that both parties hated each another was healthy for our republic’s bottom line. A Democratic president who hates a Republican appropriations chairman is less likely to sign off on funding for the Midland Maggot Festival being held in the chairman’s home district. Soon, budget negotiations become nasty, brutish, and short and devolve into the legislative equivalent of Detroit, where only the strong survive.
But in Bush’s Washington, the capital is a much clubbier place where everyone in the White House knows someone on the Hill who worked with the Old Man, summered in Maine, or pledged DKE at Yale. The result? Chummy relationships, no vetoes, and record-breaking debts.
Kinda bizarre to think the nastiness of the 90’s would be desirable, but then you read stuff like this:
On Wednesday, leaders of the House prepared to take up a rule requiring individual lawmakers to sign their names to some of the pet projects they tuck into major tax and spending bills. As an internal House rule, the requirement would be in effect only until the end of the session, just a few weeks away.
While reform advocates denounced the proposal as nearly toothless, its bite was still too sharp for many in Congress. By Wednesday night the resolution appeared to be bogged down in a three-way squabble among Republicans, Democrats and the powerful members of the House Appropriations Committee.
“It has been a very pathetic showing,” said Mary Boyle, a spokeswoman for the reform group Common Cause. Even with one congressman in jail, a well-known lobbyist on the way and several other members and staff members still under investigation, she said: “The response to this has been nothing. It has been silence.”
***The final thrust of the House reform agenda was a measure to address earmarks — a favorite idea of Mr. Boehner. He initially called for substantive restrictions on their insertion in spending bills but eventually settled for a measure to at least illuminate the murky practice by requiring the public identification of the member who sought each earmark.
But the Republican leaders’ draft resolution defined earmarks only as funds for organizations outside the federal government, like cities, universities, museums or nonprofit groups. It would not apply to earmarks directing money to the Defense Department or other federal agencies to execute projects, which account for the vast majority of the federal money spent on earmarks.
THROW. THEM. ALL. OUT.
And then pour bleach down the damned streets of Washington and pray that the smell and the stain go away.
The Other Steve
SCORE!
I’m getting me a job as a defense contractor. I have a terrorist finding database I created on my computer using Lotus 123 that I think is worth at least $20 mil in consulting fees.
John D.
A post I can agree with wholeheartedly.
Pb
Thanks for posting this, John; I rather enjoyed that Scarborough piece, oddly enough. He’s had some good speeches in the past couple of years, and by ‘good’ I mean I think he has a point, I agree with at least 60% of what he says, and I think his jokes aren’t that bad besides. Like I said before, I think he can be a real dick sometimes, and ultimately I don’t agree with his politics. However, given the choice between the average House Republican today and Scarborough, I’d take Scarborough, easily. And he at least had the integrity to honor his term limit promise (unless he just didn’t want to run again because of that dead intern story, but who knows).
RSA
Nice post, John. It just occurred to me that sometime I wish, no matter how destructive it might turn out, that the ethics committees in Congress were by law to be controlled by the minority party. Ethics doesn’t enter into pork (obviously!) but it really should. . .
Pb
RSA,
Good idea. There’s definitely something very rotten about having majority rule with no oversight whatsoever.
Tsulagi
The “Sudden” Demise of Fiscal Conservatism?
Well, if you define going on six years as a “sudden” moment. Actually, it was DOA on Jan. 20, 2001.
jg
I liked this one too.
Our governements out of balance. I don’t care what party you support, our governement is on tilt and needs to be corrected.
Wasn’t there an old saying about now is the time to come to the aid of your party? Well now its time to come to the aid of your country.
Zifnab
Cheers! I’ll drink to that.
matt
Have Republicans ever been serious about fiscal responsibility? I’m not asking rhetorically, maybe they once were, I just don’t know.
It’s kind of interesting that one of the greatest and most potent frames Republicans had going for them was that they were kind of grown up, fiscally responsible, common sense folks, but that frame doesn’t really exist for my generation, in fact the opposite is seen as true. It’ll be interesting to watch how this plays out in future elections.
I wish more people would examine this.
matt
I should add that the reason I think it’s so important is because that framing wasn’t for Republicans, if was for everyone else, and almost everyone bought into it. It was the conventional wisdom of a generation of people, democrats included, evidenced by Reagan democrats.
That idea that if you’re just your every day, hard working, common sense guy, who cares about his country but isn’t really into politics, you were just a republican, or a moderate republican, it’s just the way it was for a lot of people. It was like the “default” party for millions of people
That entire dynamic that shapped politics for the last x number of years in our country is almost entirely on its way out.
matt
Duh, the perfect example of what I’m talking about is this very blog, people like John. I guess what I’m proposing is that there are millions of people my age who 10, 20 years ago would have grown up to be John, (pre-Schiavo) but instead we’re skipping the other shit altogether and coming to the conclusion that Republicans are out of their minds from the beginning, rather than following them and becoming disillusioned later.
Ok, I’ll let someone else talk now.
Bill Hicks
IS. THIS. POST. A. JOKE? Who will operate the house if we “throw them all out”? At least some of the folks in the house are willing to support this rule, should we throw them out too? Is it so hard to have a little nuance and realism in posts? Shouldn’t criticism be addressed towards the individuals who deserve it? Is it possible for a house member to oppose this rule but be worth voting for because of the member’s overall record? Considering the relatively low impact earmark abuse has had on our nation, shouldn’t we be more concerned about the votes of our congresscritters regarding authorizing conflict in Iraq or tax cuts that have created a much larger fiscal crisis than earmarks?
Mr Furious
There are several good essays at WaMo all by conservatives hoping the Republicans lose this fall. Some want the Republican party brought to heel, others want to stick dems with the mess, but all advocate a divided governement. Scarborough’s column is good, but the one from the chairman of the Cato Institute included this interesting nugget:
In some ways it’s more interesting as trivia and must include room for coincidence, but it IS interesting nonetheless.
Mr Furious
Obviously, John is only talking about the Republicans.
[tongue/cheek]
Mr Furious
Find the columns here.
Mr Furious
From the column by Christopher Buckley:
DougJ
At least some of the folks in the house are willing to support this rule, should we throw them out too?
That’s what I was thinking too.
Kimmitt
I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge that the outrage-o-meter is appropriately set for this post. Scarborough is a moronic ass, and he stupidly blames the Repubs for Clinton’s fiscal rectitude (Hint: Clinton’s Presidency did not begin in 1995), but yes, the looting of our treasury is the sort of thing which one ought to be pissed about.
chopper
which is exactly why they shopped bush, a guy whose folksy, bumbling charm won over lots of those types of people. which works fine when everything is going relatively smoothly.
of course, now we’re knee-deep in a middle eastern situation where such folksy aw-shucks politics is pretty ineffective. and the people surrounding the president, who are expected to pick up the slack, have screwed it up 6 ways from sunday. which explains bush’s dismal approval ratings; the down-home country bumpkin deal starts wearing pretty thin when the going starts getting tough and the people start looking at the egghead wonkish democrats in a new light – “well, maybe having smart guys in charge is a good idea from time to time”.
The Other Steve
Interesting, I always learned it as country. But I looked it up, and it is party. It’s a typing test to test the speed of a typewriter.
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party.
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party.
I’ve always used it as a test for the feel of a keyboard. :-)
Another one… to test every letter in the alphabet…
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
The Other Steve
No, we throw them out.
We just shoot the others out back behind the chemical shed.
Pb
Fixed.
MAX HATS
I’ve noticed that around me too. One of my close friends was a republican in our teen years, another was apolitical but conservative on every isssue. Now both rant about republicans without provication pretty much all the time. “What are they thinking” and “why would you do that,” etc.
jg
That’s close to sedition right there. I suspect those two will be seeing the inside of the Ministry of Love very soon.
Richard Bottoms
>THROW. THEM. ALL. OUT.
Bullshit. Throw out the Republicans, work to replace the problematic Democrats. After we’ve won.
We are not going to take the bait that both parties are just as bad this time around, cause last time I checked MY party doesn’t have a President who condones torture.
The last folks to do this were called Nader voters and independents for Bush. Screw that noise.
KC
Man. I just hope the Dems at least take the House. There has to be some kind of checks and balances operating right now.
CaseyL
The time when someone still supporting Republicans could get the benefit of the doubt is long past. It’s not even a matter of “taking back the Party” anymore. There’s nothing left to take back.
That’s why there are so many former-Republicans joining the Democratic Party and running as Democrats. They realize their former Party has become a moral sinkhole.
Zifnab
If I hadn’t read 1984, that would have sounded totally hot.
Zifnab
Take a look back to right after the ’94 sweep. Most of the politicians that were elected then and then again in ’02 got swept up under the wings of DeLay, Gingrich, Army, and the like and (if they had any ethics to begin with) had it squeezed out of them by pay-to-play politics.
Who’s left?
Those that survived and weren’t gutted by their own party either jumped ship or turned sour. McCain, backstabbed by Bush in ’00 has become everything he preached against six years ago, sucking Falwell Teletubby-arosed wing-wong. Or take Kansas:
link
The same claims of corruption and impotence that drove the Democrats from office in ’94 are spoiling a perfect Republican political stranglehold in ’06.
The lesson in all this? People don’t like getting cheated or screwed and it doesn’t matter what party does it. So feel free to remind your Democratic up-and-comer this fall that if anyone wants to make a new Contract With America, they better plan on keeping to it.
The Other Steve
I’m no expert, but…
But in a large number of polls in House races, the Republican incumbent is at under 50%. Even if the Republican is ahead of the Democrat, they don’t have 50% support.
Lot’s of 48%-44%, or 46% – 44% type races.
It’s a good sign. There is a strong chance, especially if Bush continues to play politics the way he has been, such as his coming out supporting torture yesterday and bleating on about islamofascist killer robots, for the Democrats to not just take the House but sweep the house.
That is… 50-75 seats.
I just don’t see the Republicans taking this election seriously. They’re running balls to the walls nutso.
Rusty Shackleford
But if you don’t kick them all out you can’t replace the reasonable Democrats with even more extreme Republicans – geesh.
Zifnab
That is… totally wishful thinking.
However, what will be funny to see is for the Republicans failing to gain even a single seat in the House. The closest race, currently, is IL-08.
I doubt we’ll pick up a full 50 House seats, but I would absolutely love to see a total Democratic shut-out. Never in the history of our nation has a majority party been completely denied gain in the House. If we can manage this while we regain the House, I’ll say the DCCC is batting 1000.