Conservatives Against Alfred E. Bushism

[Gary Sisco]

Got this one from Andrew Sullivan's blog. I agree, completely.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Conservative reform, in fact, turns out to be a lot like liberal reform. Each involves a whirlwind of government activity. Each is a formula for politics without end--splendid indeed for politicians and government employees, but a bit tiring for the rest of us. Who can blame the public for beginning to show its weariness? The fatigue came to a head in the Schiavo case, and the president's poll numbers have yet to recover ... A lack of modesty and self-restraint is one excellent reason Americans grew to despise liberals in the first place. The high-water mark of American liberalism came in 1993 and 1994, when President Clinton and his wife, under the guise of "health care reform," decided they would assume control of one-seventh of the nation's economy in order to make it more rational and fair. Voters responded by handing the federal legislature to the Republican party. History may record that what offended them wasn't liberalism but busybodyism - the endless, frenetic search by elected officials for ever-new ways to make the country more fabulous. Bush and his Republicans are close to proving that busybodyism can become a creature of the right as well as the left." - Andrew Ferguson, joining the growing resistance on the right to "big government conservatism."

********************

To me, who shares neither "side" in American politics, and won't, the most amazing thing is that the more similar the two sides become -- and they are barely distinguishable at this point, politically -- the more violent becomes the rhetoric they throw at each other.

On the positive side, the last time the Repuborrhoids forgot about "modesty and self restraint" and got to chest thumping and shoving their agenda down everyone else's throat by using the force of big gummint, was during the ill-fated and happily very shortlived Gingrich "revolution." Which lasted all of one Congressional term.

My prediction is that the Repubs are going to lose their control of Congress next year. Why? One reason above all others: Social Security. It's the third rail of American politics, the one issue that affects everyone who earns a paycheck, without exception. Fuck with it, and you're all done.

Guess what they're fucking with.

Guess who will be all done so far as absolute control of Congress goes.

And when that goes, thank goodness, Alfred E. Shithead will become the lamest duck, ever.

[walto]

splendid indeed for politicians and government employees

Goddam bureaucracts. They're (we're) the real problem.

[Gary Sisco]

Actually, economically speaking, they are, at this point. What else does deficit spending get spent on?

[groover]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

And when that goes, thank goodness, Alfred E. Shithead will become the lamest duck, ever.

Now that's music to my ears!

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

And when that goes, thank goodness, Alfred E. Shithead will become the lamest duck, ever.

Too early to tell, of course. The Democrats have a steep hill to climb to accomplish a takeover, given that in 2006, as in 2004, more Dem seats are open in the Senate than Republican ones and that in the House they face a sound and relatively inert majority (very few House races were competitive in 2004). But with Gary, passion is telling. A seismic realignment in conformity with his political wishes is always possible. And I haven't heard him sound this sure of something since he predicted (both wrongly and impossibly) that George W. Bush and pere were about to become the only father and son one-termers in American history.

[Root Doctor]

In his book "The Future of Freedom," Fareed Zakaria suggests that the influence of lobbyists makes it impossible to trim the size of government, regardless of whether there is a conservative or liberal predominance in place.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Gary,

I disagree. I think the Republicans will continue to control Congress due to inertia.

Plus there ain't going to be any Social Security "reform". Bush was a lame duck as of November 3, 2004. Congressional Republicans want to be re-elected and Bill Frist wants to be President.

Originally Posted by Satan

And I haven't heard him sound this sure of something since he predicted (both wrongly and impossibly) that George W. Bush and pere were about to become the only father and son one-termers in American history.

Well, there's that. But what about his wager that Bush would not win a true majority vote last year?

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Well, there's that. But what about his wager that Bush would not win a true majority vote last year?

Hey, anybody can be wrong. Having just lost a friendly wager with Gary over the size of Blair's new majority, I can say that in due humility.

Yeah, but you're a douchebag.

[Brian Olewnick]

We were watching Bill Maher a couple of weeks back when Sullivan was on, absolutely (and appropriately) lambasting the Bush administration on a variety of topics, and Linda asked, "I thought he was a Republican". I replied, "No, he's a conservative." And a good one.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Brian,

Yeah, but it's got to suck to be part of a movement that hates your guts.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Brian,

Yeah, but it's got to suck to be part of a movement that hates your guts.

I know, I don't envy Sullivan the amount of abuse I imagine he takes from "his own party" on a daily basis. But I'm glad he's out there.

[Gary Sisco]

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

-- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54.

[Gary Sisco]

Disagree or no, the repubs will not control Congress after the next election.

I've seen this movie before.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

We were watching Bill Maher a couple of weeks back when Sullivan was on, absolutely (and appropriately) lambasting the Bush administration on a variety of topics, and Linda asked, "I thought he was a Republican". I replied, "No, he's a conservative." And a good one.

Funny, but I think of him as an opportunist.

[Gary Sisco]

Who's not in American politics?

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Who's not in American politics?

You mean other than Richie Westman?

[Gary Sisco]

Yeah, other than Richie. Richie's not smart enough to be an opportunist. He's just a nitwit by nature.

[lynn]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

We were watching Bill Maher a couple of weeks back when Sullivan was on, absolutely (and appropriately) lambasting the Bush administration on a variety of topics, and Linda asked, "I thought he was a Republican". I replied, "No, he's a conservative." And a good one.

Iv'e seen him several times over the last six months or so and he is definitely singing a different tune. Bill Maher even asked him why the change of direction regarding Mr. Bush. He seemed pretty pissed at the current state of things.

[Gary Sisco]

Perhaps because there were so few conservatives who thought they were voting for the most spendthrift and statist administration if all of American history?

That might be one reason.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Disagree or no, the repubs will not control Congress after the next election.

I've seen this movie before.

Are you more sure or less sure of this than you were that Alfred E. Bush and his dad would be America's first one-term dynastic duo? Because if you are even more sure, I suppose that could mean something.

[walto]

Actually, economically speaking, they are, at this point. What else does deficit spending get spent on?

Weapons, Friends of Cheney & Debt Service.

[Gary Sisco]

And who, er, "administers" all of this spending, Walter? God?

Second, the cost of the wars under Bush hasn't yet been included in any federal budget, so it's not yet included in any deficit accounting. It hasn't been borrowed yet, so far as the books are concerned, the way they are being cooked.

And debt service is a very small part of the budget, indeed, clearly.

Look at it this way: Tiny Vermont, with a population of less than 630,000 people (less than Baltimore) receives more than 200 *million* dollars per year from the feds to pay for homehealthcare for people on Medicare. Now, one, of 630,000 people how many can be on Medicare at any one time, never mind be receiving homehealth services, which require as a criteria that one be nursinghome-level handicapped to begin with. Do the math. There are a fucking lot of "administers" administering. Indeed, almost all of the money goes to pay for the administering. One of the reasons why the people who actually do the homehealth *work* in the homes, are very fortunate indeed if they are being paid ten dollars an hour for their labor. Very fortunate. And no one was until Bronwyn and I finally embarassed enough people about it. It's only been in the past three years that anyone doing that kind of work -- even if they've been doing it for decades -- has received a double-digit wage.

And ten bucks an hour -- which, to hear the bureaucrats in charge describe it, one would think is a very generous wage, indeed -- is only US $20,800/year *gross* for a forty hour week. (Which is far from always the case because their bosses normally make sure they don't work more than 30 hours a week so they don't have to provide benefits for them. Only for themselves.)

Yet, hundreds of millions of dollars a year, in federal money alone, never mind state money or local money.

In short, there's a fucking long line of people feeding from that trough, all the way from Cabinet level to whoever "supervises" the woman (almost always) busy wiping a handicap person's butt. Anyone who thinks those women, even collectively, make $200 million a year is insane. Just not even on the planet.

Shit, you could likely set up a trust with $200 million and let the handicapped people themselves administer it as they see fit, and have better and more likely to be perpetual services for it, to tell the truth, if that's all you had to pay for out of the $200 million.

[tristano's ghost]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Disagree or no, the repubs will not control Congress after the next election.

I've seen this movie before.

I wish I shared your certainty. In the past mid-terms usually went against the incumbent (with the exception of '98, an oddity owing to Gingrich & co.'s obsession with All Things Clinton); but turnout is usually down compared to presidential elections, and the Rabid Right has become so good at turning out its flocks that I have a somewhat grim outlook about '06. Then there's gerrymandering (re: the House), the number of Dems vs. Repubs up for re-election (as Monte pointed out), and my suspicion that the game is rigged (see Cleland's loss in GA in '02).

I hope to be proven wrong, of course.

[Gary Sisco]

But the turnout won't be down, not with social security on the table for "reform," a word that too many people realize already is DC-speak for the English word "destruction."

And it won't be down also because the voting population is very close to 50/50 divided and very seriously divided at that. The population today is very much more angrily, and deeply, politically divided than it ever was in the demonic 60s that so haunts the repuborrhoids.

And I was just reading yesterday in The Economist that the numbers show that Bush's attempt to fuck with Social Security is even more unpopular with the peops than was ClinSatan's healthcare plan of his first term. And that is very mightily unpopular, indeed.

I'm not saying there will be anything like a landslide for the Demorrhoids. I'm just saying that the results are going to be such that the Repubs will no longer have a guaranteed lock on Congressional voting power. Their numbers will de decreased at least to a point where they are going to have to deal with other people, like it or not. They're own members also are going to start breaking ranks with much more frequency from here out, if only because so many of them want to be reelected and keep the cush life they enjoy. They're not, all of them, going to ignore that in favor of a hugely unpopular lame duck of a president.

As for Frist and the filibuster and all of that, I disagree with him and his tactic, of course, since the filibuster is one of only a tiny handful of ways for a minority to (rightly and legally) assert its opposition over serious matters. But in the end, it's a Senate rule and nothing more. It's not a Constitutional issue. It's not a part of the Constitution. And Senate rules can be changed, with a vote. Nothing new about that. Which means they can also be changed again, if so, in the same way, with a different count of the hands. It's not something that's unrepairable even if he were to succeed (which would also be stupid as, like many majorities while in power, they forget that there will one day, guaranteed, be a day when the shoe is on the other foot, and there will one day come a time when the repuborrhoids want to filibuster....).

[Jesse]

Conservatives Against Alfred E. Bushism

[Gary Sisco]

Don't worry. Bite back.