Republicans Are Just Mad
My childhood friend Jerry used to say with much indignation, "You mad...then I'm mad too." My friend comes to mind because Republicans seen to be mimicking his philosophy. They appear to be mad for no other reason except that other Republicans, especially Rush Limbaugh, seem to be mad, also.
The truth be told, Republicans are mad because they lost the presidency when the majority of Americans rejected their narrow-minded political agenda. They are mad at each other because they can't decide on a new direction for the GOP and too many of them are pursuing selfish ambitions to be the 2012 presidential nominee. The GOP is a political party in chaos.
Supposedly, they are mad at President Obama because of the make-up of the stimulus package.They are so mad in fact they a lot of their "silver spoon in mouth" governors playing politics, couldn't decide if they would accept stimulus money for their states. So while most of them don't feel the sting of a down-turned economy, they want to do the "noble" thing and reject funds that would help ease the burdens of people living in their states who are less fortunate.
The GOP are clueless right now and their "reject the stimulus money" gimmick was another ill fated strategy doomed to failure. They seem to think that being obstructionists is a good thing. But the message was clear with the election of President Obama that the American people want elected officials working together to find solutions for the good of the country. But the voice of the people is not penetrating the Republicans' deaf ears.
Someone "moved their cheese" and the GOP not being able to make the adjustment are standing pat and waiting for someone to bring it back. I predict it's going to be a long wait. Well, if it's any consolation for these obstructionists, after the mid-term elections, more of them will be waiting in the luxury of their homes away from Washington for the arrival of more cheese.
Obstructionist = someone that just votes "no" without providing an alternative plan.
Republicans may have voted against Pelosi's stimulus but they did provide an alternative stimulus plan. I don't see how that's being an obstructionist. You can't call someone an "obstructionist" if they simply disagree with your opinion
February 28, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can if the objection is just for objection sake. Their real agenda "just ask Rush" is to make sure that President Obama fails. Because if the President is successful, then it hurts their chances of being elected in 2012. It's a vicious cycle, obstructing for purely partisan reasons.
The American people have moved away from that paradigm, as in change has come to America. The GOP needs to start paying attention to the wishes of the people, stop listening to Rush, or risk becoming even more irrelevant!
February 28, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why didn't they spend more time promoting their stimulus rather than waste valuable air time demonstrating how many times a trillion dollars can be wrapped around the earth?
February 28, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
They spent plenty of time discussing their alternative. Much more time than they spent with the analogy of dollars stretching to the sun and back. Nice try. If the only thing you do is listen to MSNBC and the nutjobs known as Olberman and Matthews then you'd never know this. Maybe you should spend more time reading both sides of the arguments.
February 28, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have a link to the Republican stimulus plan? I'd like to quote it in a post I'm working on. I know there's something about saving by not monitoring volcanoes, but I don't have the whole thing.
March 1, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/stimulus/
March 1, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, that plan sucks.
March 1, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the current republican leadership offered were "solutions" that equate to more of the same crap that got us into this mess. If all they offer to counter a change in direction is for us to go back to same failed strategies, then it is nothing but obstructionism.
We need a much better brand of conservative politician if the republican party is going to become a part of the solution rather than continuing to be a part of the problem. That starts with rank and file republicans such as yourself to be a lot more demanding.
March 1, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
They offered tax cuts and spending. How did those things get us into this mess? Can you be more specific?
March 1, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the consequence of ignoring "reality." They decried the "Reality-based Community."
Madness = out of touch with reality.
February 28, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The economy may be stagnant, but the "Reality-Based Community" is growing. That's not good for obstructionists.
February 28, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how proposing an alternative stimulus plan makes them obstructionists. How is their alternative plan "just for objection sake"?? Why do you say that their real agenda is to make sure that Obama fails? Nobody wants to see the country fail and fall into a depression. But that doesn't mean people must approve of the stimulus plan as currently proposed. There are lots of people who are worried about the impact of such a large budget deficit. That's not partisan, it's just plain economics.
You talk about the "wishes of the people". What are the polls saying about the stimulus plan? I haven't seem any polls that show an overwhelming support of the stimulus plan. I have seen polls that show a small majority of people supporting the plan. The Pew poll that I saw said that 51% of respondents thought the stimulus plan was a good idea.
February 28, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill,
This is simple. They are proposing more tax cuts for the upper brackets, right? Bush and the GOP congress did that before, right? This is where that has led us. More of the same policies that have led us to this debacle, right?
Before you try to argue that tax-cuts for the top aren't what led us here you'll have to admit that they sure didn't lead us anywhere else, did they.
February 28, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
New,
They were proposing across the board tax cuts. I don't think that tax cuts "led us" to this debacle. We've also been spending like drunken sailors recently too, and that clearly hasn't helped us get out of the current debacle.
The 2003 tax cuts (I'm assuming those are what you were referring to?) did help boost tax revenues as a % of GDP in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Lots of other stuff happened in 2007 and 2008 that were independent of the 2003 tax rates.
Tax cuts did not cause the current mess we're in. Stop just repeating the rhetoric that Obama is feeding you.
February 28, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill,
The GOP has not proposed any new ideas. Their economic formula is exactly as it has been since Reagan. Trickle-down tax cuts and no investments in our national future. A formula for disaster, as is now obvious.
The dramatically increased spending of the Bush administration coupled with their tax-cut only served to produce the largest future tax bill ever. Surely, you agree that a tax-cut without commensurate spending cuts amounts to an increase in future taxes.
Regarding tax-cuts, the stimulus includes the largest tax CUT in history (proposed by Obama), almost $300B targeted at the middle class, MiddleClassBill.
The root problem is the whole idea of trickle-down prosperity. Bush Sr. had it right when he first labeled it "voodoo economics". The real income of the middle class did not rise at all under Bush, all while their productivity did rise. Their increased productivity (which went completely to the wealthy) and the missing consumption power it represents is a primary factor behind our present economic troubles.
It's this missing consumption power, which only the government can make up, that is primarily behind our present economic instability. An instability which Obama is trying to keep from becoming catastrophic.
Maybe YOU should listen to Obama, or at least stop listening to Limbaugh. Better yet, learn how to think critically for yourself.
February 28, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who said I listen to Limbaugh? And I don't think critically? Thanks for the insult. I guess you just love to throw around stereotypes.
"No investment in our future" is not true - but it's better if this is done by the private sector instead of the government.
There's two problems with your assumption that prosperity has only impacted the middle class. First is the cost of healthcare. This increased cost, which has been mainly shouldered by corporations, has never been factored into a person's "wages".
Secondly, no one looks at dynamic analysis, but people rather just focus on static analysis. People are constantly moving up into the middle class and others are moving from the middle class down to the lower class. But you fall back on the common mis-conception that the middle class income didn't rise.
I have been listening to Obama but it's scary...this "tax cut" that you highlight is a joke. Obama can't finance all this spending without increasing taxes on EVERYBODY. And the cap and trade policy is an additional tax that nobody wants to talk about. And that will impact the middle class much more significantly than the "wealthy".
You talk about "missing consumption power" that can only be fixed by the government. Do you understand that the government is you and I? The government is the taxes it receives from the people. The government cannot just "create" consumption power. It has to come from someplace.
February 28, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Who said I listen to Limbaugh?" - That would be exactly the same person who told you that I repeat the rhetoric Obama feeds me.
""No investment in our future" is not true - but it's better if this is done by the private sector instead of the government." - An axiomatic conservative position. Conversely, progressives don't feel that government is always better.
"This increased cost, which has been mainly shouldered by corporations, has never been factored into a person's "wages"." - Of course it has. It's part of your negotiated compensation & benefits package, just as your vacation is.
"But you fall back on the common mis-conception that the middle class income didn't rise." - I said REAL income, which is income adjusted for inflation. Inflation for life's basics (rent, food, fuel, healthcare) has outpaced wage increases these past eight years.
"Obama can't finance all this spending without increasing taxes on EVERYBODY." - Eventually, of course that's true. Supply-side trickle-down economics has screwed us, royally! The country now owes it's ass to Asia and the Middle-East because of Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. The only fiscally responsible president since Reagan was Democrat Bill Clinton, right? Obama doesn't want to spend money on a stimulus. He wants to invest in energy independence, healthcare reform, and the education of our children. The stimulus is a necessity FORCED by decades of Republican fiscal irresponsibility. It's time for Republicans to own up to their massive leadership failures, fiscal mismanagement, and near destruction of the economy.
"The government cannot just "create" consumption power. It has to come from someplace." - Yes, in this case, the consumption power will come from foreign borrowing. The other way to do it is by raising taxes on the wealthy (who are holding the missing consumption power). Those are the only ways I know to it without printing money (which is inflationary), or raising taxes on the middle-class, who don't have the spare income (which is the problem in the first place).
February 28, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're missing my point - the average worker's "real income" has risen because that income includes the healthcare costs paid for by his or her employer.
This stimulus is not a necessity. But in the words of Rahm Emanuel - "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste". In Obama's own terminolgy it's a "recovery". But it's not based on any economic principles to get us out of this recession. It's based on social policies
But please get back to your original point - which was about taxes - How has supply side economics screwed us royally? How has that caused this mess?
March 1, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is rich:
"Real income" means you get to spend it, Bill.
March 1, 2009 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is real income. If you're employer pays for your healthcare costs, that's part of your compensation (ie income).
March 1, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The definition of "real income:"
Income measured in terms of the goods and services it can buy.
www.crfonline.org/orc/glossary/r.html
March 1, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. Why wouldn't you include benefits such as healthcare that are provided by your employer as income? It is income that you use to buy healthcare. If you're employer didn't cover part of the cost, then you'd have to pay for it out of your regular wages.
March 1, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
As health care costs go up so does my part of the contribution, which means my "real income" has gone down.
March 1, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
But so does the cost that is borne by your employer. And at least at my job my employer pays for about 75% of the cost of my doctor and dentist bills
March 1, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what? That isn't the case for most people, which is what you were arguing about. When the discussion is about you, you change to general terms; when it is about generalities, you bring it back to Bill. Whom do you think you're fooling?
March 1, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the case for most people? Most people aren't covered by an employer sponsored plan? I don't have a number at the tip of my fingers but my guess is that most people are covered by their employer. And for most of those people, the cost borne by their employer is in excess of the amount taken out of their paychecks and the amounts they are responsible for.
Do you have any data that suggests otherwise?
March 2, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill:
"This stimulus is not a necessity...But it's not based on any economic principles to get us out of this recession." - Seriously, Bill. That is absolutely the worst Republican hogwash. Next thing you'll tell me that it wasn't government spending, but rather WWII that brought us out of the Great Depression - as if the government's huge spending on war production was not the reason.
" How has supply side economics screwed us royally? How has that caused this mess? - This is REALLY simple. In essence, trickle-down theory says that we all benefit most from any policy that makes the rich get richer. Well, the results of that experiment are in and it has been a disaster. The flaw in trickle-down is easy to see. The rich don't use their excess wealth gains to consume the increased production of the economy. From a purely practical standpoint how could they? The rich are human too and so can only live in so many homes, eat so much food, watch so many big-screen TVs, and drive so many cars.
What the rich did with the great majority of their excess wealth was to invest in more production capacity (NOT in consumption). This obviously creates an excess of production and a deficit of consumption (sound familiar yet?). This is also why all we heard from Bush was to go out buy stuff. Well, the middle class just doesn't have the income, their consumption was funded by extracting the (inflated) equity from their homes. That consumption power has evaporated with the collapse of the housing bubble.
The actual missing consumption power of the economy sitting in the hands of the wealthy must be forced in to the economy as CONSUMPTION, not as greater investment in production capacity. That's why the standard GOP tax prescription designed to increase productive investment (capital gains tax reduction, etc.) will have little effect in our current predicament.
There is a time for such investment oriented tax incentives (at the other economic extreme, when prices are rising due to high consumption and lack of production) but it would be disastrous to reflexively and ideologically apply the same medicine to every disease.
March 1, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The uber wealthy are also not using their money to create jobs; they spend it to merge companies and then fire people to "stream-line."
I wish that people would call out these jerks every time they talk about how raising someone's taxes on money ABOVE $250,000 (not on the money below that BTW) is going to stop them from creating new jobs -- what a joke! How many jobs did they create in the last 5 years with all their tax breaks? How many new oil company jobs were created?
March 1, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're confusing individual tax rates with corporate tax rates. Individuals (ie the uber wealthy you rant of) don't buy other companies. Corporations do.
But you also mentioned the $250k breakpoint. Many small businesses are subchapter S corporations and DO pay that individual rate. Raising taxes on small businesses will absolutely have an effect on their future hiring.
March 1, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
But lowering their taxes is the excuse that your pals use all the time, claiming that it will creat more jobs. Lies? Your party knows nothing else.
March 2, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it lies? The last time we cut corporate taxes in 2003, it had a favorable impact on job growth in 2004-2006. Plus it also increased the government's tax receipts as a % of GDP.
March 2, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So cap and trade needs to be part of the stimulus? That's going to create jobs and get us out of this recession? Or is that a social decision not based on sound economic principles?
And show me some data for how tax cuts caused the housing and credit crisis we're in right now. You're "theory" is just a theory with no data behind it
March 1, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, remember your claim to critical thinking ability. So far, you've demonstrated little. You've yet to effectively refute the analysis I've presented. You keep retreating into smaller and smaller issues, like cap and trade, as a means of logical evasion of the greater subject. I mean, next, you'll be asking me to prove to you that water is wet.
At some point, you're going to have to consider the real possibility that you are wrong in your thinking. That just maybe, Reaganomics has been an error all along. That's not an easy thing, to accept ones beliefs may be in fact be false. But honestly, doesn't logic and the critical analysis of the visible evidence shout this to be so?
March 1, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your claim is that tax cuts don't work because the wealthy can't spend enough to boost the economy. You said that tax cuts "didn't lead us anywhere"
My point is the the Bush corporate tax cuts created a boom in tax receipts as a share of GDP. So somehow after the tax cuts the government started collecting more taxes for every dollar of GDP. The 2003 tax cuts turned around a floundering economy. A lot has happened since so please don't try to blame these tax cuts on the current crisis we're having. Because they didn't cause the current crisis.
I'm not retreating into smaller and smaller issues. If you look back on your comments, you started this whole thing by talking about the effectiveness of tax cuts. Then you went off on a lot of other topics like consumption, spending, the stimulus' necessity, etc.
March 1, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill,
What you're referring to is known as the Laffer curve, and competent economists, of which Art Laffer is not, have dis-proven it as a the universally correct policy Laffer suggests. If you've ever listened to Laffer you know that he is ideological.
As I said, there is a time when cutting taxes on investment helps greatly. That time is when demand is growing at a rate that will soon outpace supply. What is wrong is to take that policy and apply it reflexively, as Republicans have been told to believe. Our present situation requires increased consumption on a level only the federal government can make, just as was true in the Depression.
The (economically) proper place for the govt to get the funds for such spending is, guess where, from the wealthy. Why? Not because they deserve to have it taken or not, but because they are the ones sitting on the missing consumption power. The correct prescription is, without regard to any particular political ideology, is in fact to raise taxes on them.
The worse thing we could do right now is to lower either the income taxes or investment taxes of the wealthy. The right thing is to reduce income taxes on the middle class and the poor. Why? Not because they do or don't deserve it, but because they will inject it into the economy as consumption.
March 1, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, the 2003 Bush tax cuts helped accelerate us to where we are now. How? They were capital gains tax-cuts which obviously promoted investment. That investment manifested as rampant market speculation which created the housing bubble.
Govt. tax receipts increased because everyone was CONSUMING using the equity extracted from the inflated home values. All of that just set us up for a huge fall with the collapse of the housing price bubble. Can't you see that?
How about the simplicity of the following argument? If trickle-down were the answer then we wouldn't be where we find ourselves. Bush applied trickle-down policies more than Regan did. How can doing more of the same be the solution? Is it critical thinking, or ideology that you are applying?
March 1, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I brought up the Bush 2003 corporate tax cuts and their impact on job creation and tax receipts as a % of GDP in the years 2004-2006. Are you saying that the corporate tax cuts didn't create jobs? And didn't spur greater tax revenues?
March 2, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interest rates were a much bigger driver of the housing boom than capital gains rates. A big chunk of a home's gain from a sale is already exempt from any capital gains taxes so I don't think the rate cut had as big of an impact as you suggest.
March 2, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Low interest rates and the housing bubble were created by capital looking for someplace to go. The dot.com/telecom stock market bubble burst in 2000 left vast amounts of capital looking for a safe harbor. It found the housing market.
Large amounts of newly freed capital also helped drive down interests rates (along with the Fed over-reacting against expected future inflation). Capital gains tax-cuts accelerated the investment speculation incentive and helped to create the housing price bubble.
However, you seem to be (willfully?) missing the larger picture of how the economy functions in your focus only on isolated pieces. The inter-dynamics at work (as I've clearly laid out above) are not that difficut to see and understand.
Well, you get the last word if you wish. I feel that I've had my say.
March 2, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've laid out a "theory" but it is not very convincing.
I agree that low interest rates drove the housing bubble. People lost hope in the stock market after the dot-com bubble burst and decided that housing might be a better investment.
But I fail to see how capital gains tax cuts were also a significant factor.
You say it's "obvious" but I don't see the empirical evidence that shows how it's so obvious that capital gains tax cuts drove the housing bubble.
If tax rates were such a factor, then why didn't the housing bubble start earlier when Clinton passed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997? Or are you saying that Clinton is responsible for the housing bubble and it started in 1998?
March 2, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill,
You force me to rescind my offering you the last word. Your zealotry is becoming increasingly apparent. I had hoped you would demonstrate the critical thinking skills you had claimed to possess but, no.
It's clear to me now that no amount of logic, reasoned argument, evidence, education or persuasion is going to break through your ideological filter. I will no longer try. I don't think unintelligent, just trapped by ideology. If only the two were mutually exclusive.
March 2, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's all just a bunch of gobbly-gook. What's your day job - a philosopher? College professor? You act like you've told me the sky is blue and I am refuting your claim.
You claim that Bush's capital gains tax cuts helped cause the housing mania. I suggested that tax rates for capital gains on houses was already very low (ie zero) for an initial $ amount thanks to Clinton's 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act. So Bush's tax cuts (in my opinion) didn't drive the housing mania. Did tax cuts cause the banks to loosen their lending standards? no. Did tax cuts cause the rating agencies to misunderstand risk? no. Did tax cuts cause Freddie and Fannie to buy tons of crappy mortgages? no.
From a tax perspective there was already an incentive for people to buy real estate. Bush's tax cuts for capital gains didn't unlock a bunch of newfound capital. Remember peoples' portfolios were already decimates.
The beauty of the housing bubble was that people could buy a house with so little money (ie equity) down and get some fantastically low interest rates. Many people used their HELOC to finance the "equity" component of the purchase price.
Those capital gains tax cuts that you claim drove increased investment would not have had any effect if there was very cheap financing and financing terms that allowed very little money down. That's how people stretched to buy homes they couldn't afford. They didn't bid up prices because they had a lot of equity and were willing to over-equitize the purchase prices.
March 3, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, the big mortgage withdrawals didn't really start in size until 2005. 2004 was a strong year for jobs and the economy. How much home equity withdrawals took place in 2004?
March 2, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls are skewed by the manner that the questions are asked. Initially, when the stimulus plan was identified as being sponsored by President Obama, its support was high. When Congressional Democrats were added as sponsors, support declined. I say that to make it clear that polling results are inconsistent. Watching polls is an irresponsible way to run a government. That's the old way. How about implementing a plan that may not yield an immediate turnaround but has great potential for success over the long haul. I think that is the responsible model the Obama Administration will follow.
February 28, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you be so sure that the American people are in support of this stimulus bill?
February 28, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/24/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4826615.shtml
80% approval rating is pretty much a slam dunk.
March 1, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not true. Show me a poll that shows whether people approve of the stimulus plan. I doubt it's 80%. The Pew poll from a few weeks ago was I think between 50-60%. That's not a slam dunk in my humble opinion
March 1, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
March 1, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
More fun Bwak when you are a little more up to date than others? I did like that story.
March 1, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, well, Bill had a point, 80% was people who cared enough about the country to watch the Presidents speech. In the overall population, the support is somewhat lower, but that is likely due to the fact that in general, not everyone is informed. It's still over 60% approval more or less in spite of that.
Bill is sure to be disappointed.
March 1, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
So based on your link:
1) USA Today - 40% said the stimulus size was "about right" and 14% wanted it to be bigger
2) ABC - 64% support the stimulus.
So my point was that the American public don't overwhelmingly support the stimulus as currently proposed. I think that statement is borne out by the data above. Thank you for providing it.
If people don't like polls and think Obama/Congress should ignore them, that's too bad. I don't share that opinion.
March 1, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans are always mad. Delay was mad when he was in charge although for awhile he had to deal with Clinton.
This time they are AFRAID and mad.
February 28, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto. Add "Fearful" to the post title.
February 28, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And scared children are very difficult to get along with.
C
February 28, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd argue that the anger thing goes further back. Back at least to Reagan's election, and then went stratospheric with Clinton's election. I suspect Republicans don't know any other way to feel motivated. They don't feel hope, or love, or honor, compassion. They only feel anger. Or, should I say FEAR, as their anger is only a mask to cover their rampant fear.
All of the GOP's supposed principles that we have been hearing out of the CPAC have proven to be pure hogwash. Not so much the princples as the GOP's supposed belief in them. Isn't that really the problem they have? Everyone saw that the GOP acted in a manner exactly opposite to what it now claims are it's principles. That's why they want to pretend that Bush never was president.
They want to pretend that somehow it wasn't them misusing federal power in the Terry Schiavo shame. That Reagan and Bush are not - by far - the two most financially irresponsible presidents in history. Wish as they might, no one believes them anymore. We have lived through nearly 30 years of the failed GOP experiment that is/was Reaganomics. The country gave them the chance to prove they were right and that experiment has failed disastrously.
It's clear that the only reason Republicans are talking fiscal conservatism NOW is because they are out of power. They are driven mad by their own failure.
February 28, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP has failed because of stupid ideology. When President Obama was running for the office, he warned about those who will fight tooth and nail to hold on to the status quo. "Those" and "GOP" are interchangeable.
February 28, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would say resentful. They resent the life they have chosen or rather what it has turned out to be. Not the fun and games easy ride they were either lead to believe it should be or wished it would be and government is the reason. (I'm sure they would find another reason once government was done away with.) I find it interesting that so many of them are businessmen and seem to hate the business part of it.
They are and have always been out of touch with the reality of life. So they resent it if they think anyone is going to get a free ride especially from them. After all they had to bust their ass.
It has been my experience that only a very few people actually get to spend the majority of their lives doing what they enjoy. For everyone else it's only about 20 percent. Forty percent of it is tolerable and the remaining forty percent just sucks.
C
February 28, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the last eight years have proven anything (to any and everyone but the brain dead) it's that the Republicans are destructionist.
They either brazenly destroyed, or by negligence allowed the destruction of:
the federal budget
the US economy and millions of jobs
the twin towers
thousands of lives of US service personnel
the Middle East, specifically 'the peace process'
the SEC, FEMA
US credibility in the world
US values aka torture, Abu Ghraib scandal, GITMO
a million white house e-mails
Republicans today care only about themselves and the use of their political positions for personal gain.
February 28, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans caring only about themselves is nothing new but the status quo which they are trying to protect. And get this, today at the CPAC convention, Rush Limbaugh had the gall to say they they were part of a movement. The only movement that they are a part of is trying to perpetuate the old BS.
They didn't win this time because new and younger voters refused to be duped. Sorry Limbaugh, they don't listen to talk radio!
The only segment of the population where the GOP fared well was with older white voters and that demographic is shrinking.
February 28, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only segment of the population where the GOP fared well was with older white voters and that demographic is shrinking.
Through attrition, I believe.
C
March 1, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you catch the part of Rush's speech when he said that Obama "rules" by fear and spreading lies? And of course everyone in the room hooted and clapped. Do they process anything that goes into their ears? I really don't think so.
He also said Obama would have lost if he had been running against a real conservative. The reports I had read about the CPAC noise was that they were all anti-bush they were leaving McCain alone. Then he disagreed with Pawlenty's thesis, which is that they have to appeal to the Sam's Club voters.
No, according to Rush, if they run on ideas they will lose. (Hey! Rush & I agree on that!) They have to just denigrate those who are working to make people terrified of what the "socialist dems" are doing to our country. Ideas? They don't need no stinkin' ideas!
March 1, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
CPAC represents the fringe nitwits of the American racist and hysterical right, with drug abusing Rush as their idol.
One must remember the same wingnut folks, under the guise of Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, claimed that Dwight Eisenhower was a "conscious, dedicated agent of the communist conspiracy", because he refused to start nuclear war with China, and after that, the Soviet Union.
March 1, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink