The House Passes

by Hal_10000

Posted by on 11/08/09 at 12:20 AM from

Fuuuuuuuuuuck.

Posted by Manwhore on 11/08/09 at 08:25 AM from

Both you and WVR must be very proud. This has been the culmination of your work for the last half decade, and here we are.

Pat yourselves on the back.

Posted by JimK on 11/08/09 at 09:58 AM from

God forbid we want to purge a fucking REPUBLICAN that votes for this god-damned pile of money-and-power-thievery that may very well violate the god-fucking-damned Constitution. Instead we should all bend over and take it some more because that way we give the appearance of civility and of being “moderates.”

Fuck that. I want this fucking asshole’s entire family purged from the party. And anyone else who supports this kind of bullshit.

Posted by on 11/08/09 at 10:59 AM from

Jim has a point here Hal. The Republican party as well as the Democratic party or any other party for that matter should sell itself on an ideology. If you agree with a particular ideology or at least a good amount of it you vote for the guy who supports it. If it’s a Democrat stronghold, it should stay that way then until people are convinced an alternative is better. What’s the point of some guy who runs under one platform but supports another? He could have at least abstained.

We bitch about the GOP acting like Democratic Social Christians, but then at every turn there is further excuse for why that behavior should be accepted. At least on the democratic part of that label anyhow. Within a party platform there should be some but not much room for dissent especially on major issues which directly relate to the ideology of the party. If you don’t like what the party stands for, you join another that fits your view. That’s how dissent works in this arena.

Posted by InsipiD on 11/08/09 at 11:20 AM from

Thanks, JimK.  It was really starting to smell in here again.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 11/08/09 at 01:27 PM from

Both you and WVR must be very proud. This has been the culmination of your work for the last half decade, and here we are.

Ah, Manwhore. Always reliable for ignoring 97% of what I write.  Sometimes i miss you.

Fuck that. I want this fucking asshole’s entire family purged from the party. And anyone else who supports this kind of bullshit.

If you want another extreme liberal democrat in Congress, than please do so.

The problem with the GOP has not been the moderate wing.  The problem has been the supposed conservative wing, guys like Tom Delay who spent like mad while in power and couldn’t give a shit about the Constitution.  This bill will not pas the Senate.  But a massive unfunded expansion of Medicare *did* pass with supposed conservative Republicans leading the way and supposed liberal Republicans—like Snow and McCain—trying to exercise a modicum of fiscal discipline.

If it’s a Democrat stronghold, it should stay that way then until people are convinced an alternative is better

Yes, you’re really going to convince people to your side by completely abandoning them.  That has been the GOP strategy for three decades—to ignore liberal black districts rather than run moderates and hope that the Conservative Tooth Fairy will magically turn them red.  What a success story, huh?

I’m preparing a longer post on this subject.  BUt the idea here is to move Congress more conservative.  If you can just a tiny bit of conservative into William Jefferson’s district, that moves the Congress to the right, doesn’t it?  That’s progress, no?  You guys seem to have developed this “all or nothing” philosophy that either we get “real conservatives” or fuck it.  That’s never going to happen. But what we can do is run hardliners in red districts and move blue districts ever so slightly to the right.

But that would require a patience that is sadly lacking from conservatism these days.  It would require strategy, which the GOP completely ignores these days.

Posted by InsipiD on 11/08/09 at 02:45 PM from

The problem has been the supposed conservative wing,

The key to that is the highlighted word.  They’re gone because they didn’t do what they were elected to do.  They weren’t conservative, so the constituents who voted them in understandably lost their enthusiasm and just didn’t vote next time.

Your big tent philosophy was burned down by the same people you’re saying must be embraced, and didn’t leave any room for the conservatives that we really need because the moderates in their own party were just as vicious as Democrats.  Colin Powell is the kind of moderate that you’re defending, but he jumped ship and endorsed Obama.  Arlen Specter was the type you’re defending, and he left and has become one of the most critical Democrats out there.  Every time a person switches parties, it’s one of the type that you’re defending.  Hell, I feel like they were elected under false pretenses and should pay back their campaign if they switch.  Arnold is one of those “best they would elect” types who gets it hard and fast from both sides.  Liberal as he is, he’s angrily slandered at every turn by liberals and can’t count on conservatives because he isn’t one.  “Cool Dollar Bill” Jefferson wasn’t going to win against anyone, and Cao will be out next time no matter what he does.  The least he could do is have the balls to be a real conservative.  None of the media outlets were brave enough to name him by name (pretty critical detail of the story) because they love his type.  He does almost nothing to move the congress to the right (vis a vis voting more liberal than many Democrats on a critical platform vote), but does at least twice as much to move the party to the left.  I might add that the GOP is the only hope that conservatives have right now, and it’s up to its members to make it what they want.  I am through with “good enough” and “lesser of two evils.” Listening to you will get us the early Bush years back-GOP in both houses of congress and the White House doing exactly what a Democrat would except poking the interns.  It gave the media an excuse to label anyone right of George Bush (hint: all of us) an “arch conservative,” a category usually reserved for Klansmen.  Is that what you want?

That has been the GOP strategy for three decades—to ignore liberal black districts rather than run moderates and hope that the Conservative Tooth Fairy will magically turn them red.

Conservative philosophy often polls well among blacks.  It’s only a matter of time before they become disillusioned enough to join the rest of the swing voters.

Compromise will do little but slow Democrats, and it won’t even do much of that, as we saw last night.  How can you look at that result from that vote and justify any of what you just said?  You aren’t a conservative, you’re a proud moderate trying to redefine what conservative means and throwing your shoulder out of joint trying to reach across the aisle.

Posted by Manwhore on 11/08/09 at 03:24 PM from

Ah, Manwhore. Always reliable for ignoring 97% of what I write.  Sometimes i miss you.

I’ve read just about everything you’ve written here. I just so happen to dismiss about 97 percent of it as insincere. You’ve written extensively about your family background in medicine, and your views on keeping it private.

My read of your personality (as much as anyone can infer through someone’s internet writing) is that you probably are sincere in not liking this bill being passed. For the reasons that it might affect your family’s practices, your own, and maybe even your personal life (as it will mine). However, I said that this is the culmination of your work, because it is.

Posted by HARLEY on 11/08/09 at 03:53 PM from

I would note that one Republican voted for this—Joseph Cao.  Inevitably, this will lead to calls to purge him from the party, which would be insanely stupid.  Cao is the guy who upset William Jefferson—yes, that William Jefferson.  He is about as conservative a representative as we could possibly get from that district.  That’s still pretty liberal.  But it’s better than William Jefferson.

No its not, This liberal republican voted for the biggest power grab in the history or our nation. His Ass needs to be out the door, And the GOP needs to Run the best candidate that reflects the parties principals, such as they are.
This is a Massive ass fuck for our nation, The pressure to pass this in the senate is gonna be massive!  I do not have your faith HAL that it wont, never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 11/08/09 at 03:54 PM from

None of the media outlets were brave enough to name him by name (pretty critical detail of the story) because they love his type.

That’s a strange statement, considering that every article, including the one I link to, names Cao.  It’s not like it’s a big state secret.

Posted by on 11/08/09 at 04:04 PM from

Cao probably doesn’t stand a chance as a Republican in that district either way, so this problem will likely take care of itself. The thing that really irks me is, if you’re going to vote for this piece of shit, you should be confident enough not to wait until the damn thing has enough votes that it doesn’t matter. What a coward.

Posted by InsipiD on 11/08/09 at 04:06 PM from

That’s a strange statement, considering that every article, including the one I link to, names Cao.  It’s not like it’s a big state secret.

I watched 3 flavors of network morning show and had to go to Fox News’ webpage to find out who the filthy, rotten turncoat was.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 11/08/09 at 04:29 PM from

We have a Republican leadership—not RINOs but the hardcore conservatives like Tom Delay—whose idea of fiscal policy was:

1) engage in two wars at a cost of $1 trillion
2) expand Medicare at a cost of $500 billion
3) expand Medicaid and other domestic spending progams at the cost of hundreds of billions
4) “cut taxes”

I put that last one in quotes because that is the sole extent of what is defined as “fiscal conservatism” these days.  You can run up all the debt you want, borrow from our grandchildren, saddled us with massive spending obligations.  But if you “cut taxes” you’re a conservative.  And forget that Reagan attacked the deficit with tax hikes.  Twice.

Buy you guys think the real problem is Anh Cao—the guy who got a corrupt, lying, big-spending shitbag out of Congress.  The problem is John McCain, who never takes earmarks, has one of the most anti-spending records in Congress and voted against Medicare Part D.  The problem is Olympia Snowe, who only voted for Medicare Part D because she was lied to about how much it would cost.  The problem is Snow, Specter and Collins who got hundreds of billions sliced out of the “stimulus”, which is more than the “real conservatives” managed to do (and had the real conservatives been in power, I have little doubt we could have gotten a similar “stimulus").

Without these RINOs, our situation would be even worse.  We would have Democrats in those districts.  The stimulus would have been hundreds of billions bigger, health care reform would be even more massive.  Hell, it might just be outright socialized medicine.  Hey, but at least we would have thirty “real conservatives” sitting in a circle jerk spewing two-faced rhetoric about socialism.

Which Senator is it who is continually pushing this stupid $10,00 tax credit for home purchases?  Saxby Chambliss.  Who was it who pushed for the “Bridge to Nowhere”, and then, in the face of opposition, just spent the money on different pork?  That’s Saint Sarah the Innocent.  Who was it who said we’d cut all the possible fat out of the budget?  Trent Lott.  None of those are RINOs from blue states.  They’re are “real conservatives” from red states.

Yes, guys, the problem is Republicans who are giving us moderates in very blue areas of the country instead of fire-breathing democrats.  Yeah, THAT"s the problem.  It’s not the guy from deep red places like Texas and Georgia who spend like mad.

Sorry, fellows.  It’s the “true conservatives” who are the problem, not the RINOs.  It’s the guys who spend and expand government power, but keep getting elected if they fulminate enough about “tax cuts” and gays.  The problem is not in the liberal wing of the party, but a conservative base that has suddenly gotten religion on government spending and will promptly lose it the second they are back.  You’ll excuse if my memory is not so short that I can believe them now.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 11/08/09 at 04:42 PM from

I was planning to spin off this in a later post, but I’ll link to it now:

The late-is-better-than-never laments about George W. Bush never seem to acknowledge that the missteps of the last 8 years were also the fault of people like Tom Delay, a guy you’d never hear called a “compassionate conservative” or a RINO, but who bears significant responsibility for the fiscally reckless prescription drug benefit, No Child Left Behind, the K street project, damage done to the GOP by the Jack Abramoff scandal, etc. Even a cursory look at the main players behind the scenes during the Bush Administration demonstrated that the problem wasn’t grounded in political beliefs – earmarks aren’t “compassionate conservatism,” and Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter weren’t leading the legislative agenda – it was grounded in corrupt, largely conservative partisan Republicans whose indefensible acts went unchallenged by much of movement conservatism, because Ronald Reagan commanded that Republicans should never attack each other, or the Democrats are worse, or political winners don’t unilaterally disarm themselves, or the angry liberals were so unhinged that I felt I had to defend my guys, or Okay, I see your point, but this isn’t the time.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by on 11/08/09 at 05:01 PM from

This whole discussion reminded me of some nice rules laid out by Ayn Rand in “The Anatomy of Compromise” from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, so I took the liberty of shuffling through the book for them.

1.  In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

2.  In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

3.  When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

These rules explain such ridiculous events as the Democrats attacking Bush for expanding Medicare, and getting elected while promising to do even more.  The role of government in health care is KEY to a conservative political philosophy.  The subject must therefore be approached with a firm foothold in conservative principles, or the dam breaks.  To compromise on such an issue will not only make no difference in slowing Statism in the mid to long term, but it will also work to destroy the integrity of the compromisers (the Republican party).  The best example of this is John McCain who was adored by the Statists until he was no longer useful.

Posted by on 11/08/09 at 05:25 PM from

This was Cao’s justification for his vote:

Cao wrote he obtained commitment from President Obama that he would work together to address the health care issues of Louisiana, including the FMAP crisis and community disaster loan forgiveness, as well as issues related to Charity and Methodist Hospitals. “I call on all my constituents to support me as I work with him on these issues.”

Hey, a pinky promise is a pinky promise… right?

Posted by on 11/08/09 at 05:40 PM from

If you can just a tiny bit of conservative into William Jefferson’s district, that moves the Congress to the right, doesn’t it?  That’s progress, no?

Not if the guy is going to vote just like William Jefferson on key issues. I’m not going to argue that the GOP has done a piss poor job of explaining that government is the problem, and they’ve done a piss poor job at explaining how their solutions are better, and hell they don’t even follow free market ideology for the most part anymore, and it’s been that way for years, but to sit here and claim victory because progress is being made now that it’s the GOP representative who gets to act like Jefferson in his former district is preposterous.

I read his statement. Cao thinks this will be good for his constituents. He couldn’t say he’d prefer to fight for cross state competition instead, so that his area could have better choices? He couldn’t have just abstained? He couldn’t come up with any other idea other than the Democrat’s proposal is a good one?

You can keep the labels Hal, it’s the ideology that determines how we’re going to live in this country for the future, not whether the politician who voted on our future has an R or D by their name. I don’t mind dissent to small details on big issues, or dissent on small issues. Shit, most fiscal conservative, socially liberal folks were willing to put of with the abortion and other items out of the GOP because they were supposed to be the ones who were at one time fighting for some form of free market. That was compromise, but the over all unity was for a fiscally responsible and limited government. That unity broke when acting like a Democrat on fiscal issues became the preferred method, and that’s where the party fell apart.

I understand your chipping away at the left concept, but the GOP had it all already, they were given it all a few years ago because people were ready for for a more free market philosophy and they made no progress because they were acting like Democrat Lite, not in spite of it.

We can ill afford a continued government take over and kid ourselves that it was ok because at least a Democrat wasn’t holding the seat. We don’t need so called fiscal conservative Republicans acting like Democrats, we don’t need so called moderate Republicans acting like Democrats. If they want to act like Democrats, they should have enough integrity to run as a Democrat.

But a massive unfunded expansion of Medicare *did* pass with supposed conservative Republicans leading the way and supposed liberal Republicans—like Snow and McCain—trying to exercise a modicum of fiscal discipline.

Where is Snowe’s fiscal discipline on this current health care issue that will have an even greater cost? We get it on the supposed conservative who decided to be fiscally reckless. Guess what, most of them got their asses thrown out because those of us who are fiscal conservatives realized they weren’t. They didn’t get our votes last time. Everyone understands this but it’s time to move on and continue to clean up the mess, which includes so-called moderate Republicans who act like Democrats.

I don’t know why Snowe has become your example of policy done right. She is still open to the possibility of having the government put its foot in the door under certain circumstances in this health care debate. A foot that will just barge its way in eventually if given the chance. And who knows how much more bullshit flip flopping she’ll be pulling to keep the spot light on her during this whole debate.

We need to support those who are really serious about stopping the slide to government control, and not just slowing it down a bit, or flat out blessing expansion as has been the the GOP policy for decades. That means having little tolerance for both those who claim they are fiscal conservative and aren’t (they’ve been thrown out), and those who claim they are moderate, but support policies that will grow government (they will be thrown out).

Posted by on 11/08/09 at 05:45 PM from

Hey Hal how far does you big tent theory go?  Should the GOP embrace a Congressman who openly supports a marxist revolution, the complete sublimation of US sovereignty to the UN and giving back the Southwest to Mexico?

Posted by Hal_10000 on 11/08/09 at 06:05 PM from

Should the GOP embrace a Congressman who openly supports a marxist revolution, the complete sublimation of US sovereignty to the UN and giving back the Southwest to Mexico?

In trying to purge the party of moderates who can win blue states and districts, that’s precisely the sort of Democrat they will put in office.

Posted by on 11/08/09 at 06:17 PM from

That’s not a very good argument, Hal, you might want to at least try to explain a little better. Because right now you’re basically coming off as “Well sure you’re being raped up the ass without so much as a palmful of spit rubbed on first, but at least you’re being raped up the ass dry by someone with an R by their name!”

The thing everyone is trying to get through to you is that they’re not interested in getting screwed over on the important issues just for the sake of looking like they’re inclusive and moderate. It’s not that hard a concept to grasp.

Posted by AlexinCT on 11/08/09 at 07:03 PM from

1) engage in two wars at a cost of $1 trillion

So what? You prefer we would have not fought back? How much would that have cost? And compared to the endless trillions flushed down the toilet already and slated to be flushed in the future on vote buying by the left, this is bad how? Oh, I forgot. You are one of those deluded morons that think the war was our choice.

2) expand Medicare at a cost of $500 billion

That’s because these idiots thought they were going to use the left’s own tactics against it. The funny thing is that this being a privately run government funded program, it is one of the few success stories out of DC though.

3) expand Medicaid and other domestic spending progams at the cost of hundreds of billions

I remember them fighting these programs such as S-CHIP and so on very hard not, pushing for their expansions. Maybe I am wrong here.

4) “cut taxes”

You are arguing that this was a bad thing? WTF Hal? It is the only reason we didn’t have an economic collapse after 9-11 and actually had growth. Of course it would have been much better if they had cut the wasteful spending too.

I put that last one in quotes because that is the sole extent of what is defined as “fiscal conservatism” these days.

Maybe by people that don’t get it like you Hal do. Those of us that do get it call for tax cuts AND drastic cuts in government spending (in particular the unconstitutional social spending to buy votes).

You can run up all the debt you want, borrow from our grandchildren, saddled us with massive spending obligations.

As if the democrats are not doing this at 10x speed when they are in charge and at 1x when they control congress otherwise. Maybe you need a refresher about who decides what gets spent, and when the big spending seems to happen in this country.

But if you “cut taxes” you’re a conservative.  And forget that Reagan attacked the deficit with tax hikes.  Twice.

That was not Reagan, but the democrat controlled congress, which took the boon that came from Reagan’s tax cuts, and send 150% of it immediately. Reagan wanted government shrunk. But even someone as great as him seemed to be vexed by that monumental task.

Posted by JimK on 11/08/09 at 08:00 PM from

In trying to purge the party of moderates who can win blue states and districts, that’s precisely the sort of Democrat they will put in office.

So to avoid that, you advocate that we support them if they call themselves Republican and show the tiniest slight bit of conservatism whatsoever? Because that is how you’re coming off here.

I’ve had enough of that kind of nonsense, and I’m not alone. Tick. Tock. It’s just a matter of time before Democrats shoot themselves in the foot AND Republicans start getting the message that Democrat-Lite is NOT a flavor we want to buy.

Posted by AlexinCT on 11/09/09 at 06:35 AM from

It’s just a matter of time before Democrats shoot themselves in the foot AND Republicans start getting the message that Democrat-Lite is NOT a flavor we want to buy.

The first is happening right now. And they are doing it with a machine gun as the passing of this monstrous and shameful bull proves. I seriously worry about the later though Jim. Washington seems to corrupt everyone that goes there sooner than later, and too many people have baught into the idiotic belief government should be our nanny.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 11/09/09 at 07:23 AM from

So what? You prefer we would have not fought back? How much would that have cost

No.  But I am saying that when you start two wars, you should plan to pay for them.  Cutting taxes and raising spending is not an option.  Even fucking FDR didn’t do that.  Lyndon Johnson was more fiscally responsible.

You are arguing that this was a bad thing? WTF Hal? It is the only reason we didn’t have an economic collapse after 9-11 and actually had growth.

The tax cuts were fairly arbitrary and, unlike the Reagan tax cuts, not economically targeted.  But there is no such thing as a tax cut when you don’t cut spending too.  You’re just borrowing.  Its a total shell game.

Reagan agreed to the tax hikes of the late 80’s because of concern over the deficit and agreements with Democrats to simplify the tax code.  Such simplification can massively offset the economic drag of the higher taxes.  Right now, our tax system is a $300 billion per year drag on the economy, just from the paperwork.  You could raise taxes if you simplified them and still inject hundreds of billions into the economy.

Taxes are going to have to go up one day, even if the Republicans were in power.  We have $60 trillion in liabilities for Medicare, Medicaid and Social security.  We can’t cut that, politically; defense cuts are met with cries of treason.  You can cut all the discretionary spending completely, including the stimulus, and not get a balanced budget.  What’s your idea?

Maybe by people that don’t get it like you Hal do. Those of us that do get it call for tax cuts AND drastic cuts in government spending (in particular the unconstitutional social spending to buy votes).

I agree.  But the Republican Party has not cut spending since the 90’s.  That’s the leadership, not the RINOs.  The last time the government cut spending enough to pay for all the obligations we have coming *and* tax cuts was after World War II.

As if the democrats are not doing this at 10x speed when they are in charge and at 1x when they control congress otherwise. Maybe you need a refresher about who decides what gets spent, and when the big spending seems to happen in this country.

Keep in mind that the huge deficit this year and next is heavily derived from (1) the economic downturn, which Bush’s “tax cuts” made revenue more sensitive to; (2) the TARP, which Bush signed.  It will be several years before Pelosicare starts racking up the bills.

And anyone who thinks a GOP-led Congress would not have used the recession as an excuse for a spending binge—as they did with highways, as they did with pork, as they did with farm subsidies, as they did with ethanol, as they did with defense spending—is drinking some Kool-aid.

So to avoid that, you advocate that we support them if they call themselves Republican and show the tiniest slight bit of conservatism whatsoever? Because that is how you’re coming off here.

No.  You’re crossing two different problems.  We need a tent that is both wide and tall.  Wide in the sense of winning lots of seats and keeping radical liberals out of power; tall in the sense of advancing a real conservative agenda.

Look at what I said above.  it was not the RINOs who betrayed us.  It was the leadership.  it was the hard-core conservatives.  It was Tom Delay and his boys.  And it finds its current embodiment in big-government conservatives like Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney (assuming Romney has any principles at all) who are trying to hijack the tea parties to ut their big-government, big-spending asses back in power.

The so-called RINOs, the one who make the tent wide, are actually one of the few things going right.  They are winning districts that would otherwise elect really hard-liberal Democrats and making the moderate.  That’s the cavalry.  The infantry has to be the conservative from the deep red districts.  THOSE are the guys who need to be thrown out on their ear.  THOSE are the guys who spent like mad and shredded the Constitution and have defined “conservative” as “utter loyalty to GOP leadership no matter what”.

Again, face reality.  You are not going to get 60 hard conservatives elected to the Senate.  The country is simply not that conservative.  You have to deal with the reality of a country that is center-right.  You guys are telling me you would prefer 30 real conservatives doing nothing, to 30 real conservatives and 30 moderates doing something.  WTF?

Posted by on 11/09/09 at 01:59 PM from

Hal, why don’t you tell us where you think the line should be for the GOP.  Do you think any politician who wants to should be able to call themselves a Republican and the party should be fine with it?  You tell us what the limit should be or explain why you think there shouldn’t be any limit.  How about Jerimiah Wright as the GOP candidate for congress is Illinois?