Are the Republicans Intellectually Bankrupt, or what?
My expectations have been very low; I know they are still in shock, licking their wounds, that they have played out all their old ideas, and need to develop some new ones.
But jeez, the stuff they have been coming out with is so pathetic, they are a parody of themselves, leaving no material for the comedians except to just play the tapes straight.
Steele claiming that "jobs" are different from "work" (huh?). Multiple Repubs saying we do not need any economic stimulus, that the federal government has no role to play here (debunked in the 1930s, guys). Then they solemnly declare that building schools is not the federal govt's role, they want the feds to stay out of education-- and these are the guys who passed NCLB. Then a bunch (most? all?) of them call for more tax cuts. All the while shedding crocodile tears over the deficit. They can't even make their own conservative arguments with any coherence or consistency. Are they even trying??
Then we go to the not-merely-intellectually-deficient, but also lacking in maturity/ dignity/ professional demeanor. Michael Steele's goose egg comment (truly juvenile), Limbaugh already explicitly hoping that Obama fails (okay, who can be surprised by that). Add in Barack the Magic Negro and the new video about public employee unions out of Eric Cantor's office. Honestly, a group of high school students would be embarrassed to be putting out this stuff. This is just on beyond pathetic.
Get a grip, guys! If I were a Republican party member, I'd be asking for my money back now. Bush showed that he could destroy competence in most of the federal government; the Repub leadership is now showing that they can spread incompetence throughout the party as well.
Nothing to argue with here. The Republican Party mouthpieces, both in Washington and in the media, are pathetic. Here's to the continued self-destruction of the current GOP in order to make room for a new party to rise from the ashes of failed neoconservative ideology.
February 11, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree on all counts, Jason.
February 11, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree on all counts, Jason and Ann.
February 11, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree on all counts, Jason and Ann.
February 11, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans are at least consistent, they are inept at governing, and never met an issue they didn't politicize, and nobody is allowed to exist unless they drink the El Rushbo, Fox News cool aid.
The public is catching on, unless they change their evil ways, the 2010 elections could marginalize them for a lifetime.
We want, Sarah.
February 11, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans are at least consistent, they are totally inept at governing, and never met an issue they didn't politicize, and nobody is allowed to exist unless they drink the El Rushbo, Fox News cool aid.
The public is catching on, unless they change their evil ways, the 2010 elections could marginalize them for a lifetime.
We want, Sarah.
February 11, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post. TPM not working to well for me.
February 11, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
My biggest concern is that any real measurable "stimulus" won't be clear for at least a year, which finds the country back into campaign mode for 2010. Everyone seems to want instant gratification, and the Republicans are playing on that already.
You can be sure there will be a huge media push in a year by Republicans who will be saying ad nauseam that Obama's trillion-dollar spending spree hasn't yielded the "promised" jobs, when the reality will be that not enough time has been afforded to see concrete results.
And that, my friends, is why I think some of the long-term programs should have been left out of the emergency stimulus package.
February 11, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ann - it's a very simple argument. The spending that Obama and Pelosi have architected will take the US budget deficit into unchartered territories. It's like to get close to 12% (deficit as % of GDP) which is double where it was in the 1980s. We can't afford a deficit this large (nor can our kids or grand kids).
February 11, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure we can, if it's reversed soon and used well.
The US Federal debt load is not that large as a fraction. But if the economy tanks it will grow like crazy.
February 11, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. And it's worth remembering that a third of that deficit was inherited from an administration that ran up a $400 billion tab during what was supposed to be a growth cycle, all while claiming allegiance to smaller government and fiscal prudence.
February 12, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
1/3? I though Bush doubled the debt.
But I don't see how this spending is going to pay off. My fiscal conservative side is appalled and very concerned that there seems to be no interest in paying for it nor in optimizing our current funds for best stimulative effect. That would be "smart", something Obama promised. As far as I can see he's abandoned that line entirely for the time being. Or maybe we don't need to know, maybe government will be smart without us...
February 12, 2009 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
In my example, Bush's contribution would be a third after you add in the stimulus spending.
Concern about paying it off? Blue Dogs and others who label themselves fiscal conservatives would argue that concern was reflected, for good or for ill, in the negotiation that got the bill to $789 billion. I believe economists who advocate government spending maintain that 12 percent of GDP does not represent a dangerous imbalance. If you can find one let me know.
Besides, the point is moot as neither Republicans nor Democrats advocated balancing the budget as a strategic alternative. Even Republicans solidly opposed to the spending plan advocated cutting taxes instead.
"Smart?" What emerged from Congress is not a reflection of Obama's intelligence. It's political reality. He didn't want to spend political capital pressing the issue that is essentially gave him his mandate. And he quickly realized that he did not have the votes in the Senate to do what he originally wanted to do.
February 12, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think of it as in baseball and pitcher stats. Obama has been called in to relieve Bush. Our team is down and sinking. Obama cannot take a loss unless he first succeeds in erasing the Bush points deficit and then we blow it for him after that. He can get a win.
I count TARP funds and Fed spending/loans to date, and the stimulus uh recovery bill funds, against Bush's stats. If the recovery bill doesn't pull us up to par, that's still Bush's doing.
Are you think about $5T added debt before it's over? I thought Bush started with $5T, added $5T, so 1/3 would mean we have $5T to go, in round numbers. If you add in last year's obligations plus the recovery bill, Bush gets more like $7T "credit".
February 12, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent analogy and thank you for correcting me on the debt numbers.
What inning is it, by the way? Does Obama come out of the bullpen as long relief, middle relief or the closer?
February 12, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can see it as Bush had 8 innings, or maybe we are already in extra innings, where one bad defensive play and a lack of offense could lose the game.
February 13, 2009 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you could staff your own bullpen, who would Obama be?
February 13, 2009 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand. If you're asking what classic figure from baseball history I'd see as a parallel, I don't have a name. I stopped following baseball when I was about 12 years old.
February 13, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I was asking what current reliever you'd call in with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth inning. But if you don't follow the sport it's an unfair question.
Just thought, given your analogy, that you might be one of those Dick James statistics geeks or, more palatably, a fan of one of our fine major league franchises. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
February 13, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
My choice would depend on the weather.
So far I think we should keep Obama in there, but I also think his first baseman (Geithner) may be playing for the other team.
February 13, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh heh.
Looks like the forecast calls for rain and three of your franchise players have been caught in a doping ring. The owner wants to renegotiate your contract. Good luck, pal. Been nice knowing ya.
February 13, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fortunately for Obama's team, the other side seems to be striking out a lot -- plenty of bark but no bite.
Ruff, huh!
February 13, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bluemeanie - what numbers are you looking at? I think 12% of GDP is a pretty big deficit to run and in the early 80s it was at 6%. We're not at 12% yet on a trailing basis, but we'll get there quickly with the "stimulus plan".
February 12, 2009 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, MCB. I included my followup to the deficit issue in my response to eds.
February 12, 2009 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Bill. We need to have intellectual honesty to have a real debate. Both parties has been running up the tab exponentially for our kids and their kids since Reagan's days.
The only time we even came close to a balanced budget was under Clinton and that was a mirage caused by the IT revolution and lowered labor costs through out-sourcing manufacturing, mostly to Asian sweatshops. Reagan doubled the debt load from where it was under Carter, so even our supposed fiscal conservative party spends like drunken Sailors on liberty.
This is an American problem, not just a democratic one.
February 12, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would only note that Reagan actually *tripled* the national debt. In 1981, it was around $950B; in 1989, it was around $2.6T.
(working off memory; exact numbers available at the Bureau of the Public Debt website.)
February 12, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Boyd. I knew it was something ridiculous that many America conservatives of whatever stripe fail to acknowledge because of their canonization of the man. I want everyone to be knocked off their pedestals, but Reagan especially. The last real republican president was Ike, perhaps Nixon on days when his meds were working.
February 12, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I grew up in a town that absolutely depended on a lot of the social programs that Reagan gutted. I got to see the effects of "voodoo economics" up close and personal. I'm not sure there's ever been another President I've hated more than him.
I give Reagan his due as a politician. As an executive, though, the man was as feckless as they come. He had NO economic understanding whatsoever - a fact that George H.W. Bush consistently highlighted in the 1980 primary.
February 12, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree it's an American problem. But we can't just spend our way out of it. A deficit that's 12-15% of GDP is real scary and unchartered territory.
February 12, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Alan Wolfe said:
Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well.
February 11, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conservatives can govern well. But "laissez-faire" cannot. Chicago Boys were economic liberals, Friedmanites.
February 11, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Conservatives can govern well."
Your evidence for that assertion is....?
February 12, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not all conservatives feel all government is wrong. I'm a fiscal conservative who believes in good government.
What is so hard about that??
February 12, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans have stated or at least inferred that they absolutely detest being told what to do, held accountable for their actions and having consequences for their actions. They want to do what ever they damn well please and to hell with everyone else. In other words they have as one poster here put it "the emotional maturity of a badly parented 2 year old child."
C
February 11, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is one good, decent, non-hypocritical Republican.
Ron Paul for President in 2012!
February 11, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's a radical anti-pragmatic idealist.
February 12, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take "intellectually bankrupt" for $5 trillion in deficit spending, Alex.
February 12, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that TPM works again, in answer to your opening question:
YES
February 12, 2009 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's how I'd answer your question. No, they are not intellectually bankrupt. But like naughty children, they are using their intelligence to disrupt rather than advance the social good.
February 12, 2009 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know TheraP, you give me some giggles in the morning.
February 12, 2009 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now, dd, this is not a laughing matter.
(I think you should write 20 times: I will not laugh at TheraP's serious comments.)
:-)
February 12, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You think the Republicans are a mess and need to change because you are not a Republican. If you were a Republican, you'd be cheering the Congressional Republicans who stood up for the little guy by trying to cause a depression. If you were a Republican, you'd be sure that no new ideas were needed, and the problem was that the party had strayed from its old ideas. If you were a Republican, you'd be angry that Obama wouldn't invade Iran, have all Mexicans deported and/or shot, and force rape victims to give birth.
The Republican party is not going to change. They are going to keep fighting for the same madness they have always fought for, and there will probably always be enough rank and file nutcases to keep them inside the government.
February 12, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Inasfar as this 'porkulus' is concerned, the republicans are fighting Marxism.
Marxism is intellectually as well as morally bankrupt.
From reading your post, I realize you may have some problems with the math involved in the concept I've offered. I suggest you take the rest of the day off and ponder it.
February 12, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Ann,
Work is digging holes and then filling them up again. Jobs are self sustaining and productive, like making cars.
Perhaps commenting on economic items is not the best use of your expertise. Heh.
February 12, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink