Monday, January 16, 2006

John Shadegg for Majority Leader

It's time for CONSERVATIVES to take back the house.

Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal get one dead on.

Win or lose, Mr. Shadegg's candidacy will be a measuring rod of just how much trouble congressional Republicans really think they're in. It will also serve as a leading indicator of whether House conservatives will devote the next nine months of this term to slamming the brakes on a domestic legislative policy that has careened off course. The era when Republicans promised to make government smaller and smarter by abolishing hundreds of obsolete federal agencies seems a distant memory now in this era of Bridges to Nowhere. In the last five years, Republicans have enacted the largest increase in entitlement spending in three decades, doubled the education budget, nearly tripled the number of earmarked spending projects, and turned a blind eye toward the corrosive culture of corruption on Capitol Hill that seems so eerily reminiscent of the final days of Democratic rule in the House.
One wonders whether the young-gun conservatives in the House fully appreciate what's at stake here. Few current House members even remember that the first shots in the Republican Revolution of 1994 were fired in 1989, when upstart Newt Gingrich rallied the conservative troops in the House and shockingly defeated by one vote the Bob Michel machine candidate for minority whip (the No. 2 leadership perch). The conservatives for the first time in a generation had a foothold of power. Shortly thereafter, the power structure shifted again when free-marketer Dick Armey of Texas, a longtime backbencher in the House, evicted another old bull Republican from the leadership team, Jerry Lewis of California. (It's a sign of the party's lost bearings that Mr. Lewis, the epitome of so much of what's wrong with the congressional Republicans, has been made Appropriations Committee chairman and has been even talked about as belonging back in the leadership.)

The Armey-Gingrich political coups were instigated by a gang of rebellious House conservatives and triggered a domino effect of momentous political changes. For years, Republican House leaders had suffered from Stockholm syndrome, becoming subservient to their captors, the Democratic majority. That gave way to Messrs. Gingrich and Armey devising a D-Day-type battle plan for the hostile takeover of the House in the '94 midterms. Its Republicans ran on Reaganite economics and a reform agenda of bringing squeaky clean ethics to Capitol Hill in the wake of House Democratic banking and post office scandals. Delusional Democrats thought they could merely cover the reek of scandals with disinfectants and then move on--a catastrophic blunder that Republicans may now be in danger of repeating.
House conservatives in alliance with ethics-minded GOP moderates intent on cleaning up the party's stained image are undoubtedly the force to prevent that from happening. But will they? The right-leaning Republican Study Committee has a decisive voting bloc to elevate one of their own to majority leader. Or they can cut separate deals to advance their own short-term political ambitions. Mike Pence, head of the House Republican Study Committee notes: "The political reality is that conservatives are the majority of the majority party in the House." Mr. Shadegg may not win this race, but if the conservatives don't embrace his message of reform and renewal, voters might demote them to majority of the minority

It's time to stop repeating the democrats' mistakes of 94.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dan said...

No bots allowed.

Bachbone said...

The "Washington sickness" seems to eventually overtake everyone who goes there. (Since no immunity from it exists, term limits seems the only solution.) We'll see how many Republicans have caught it.

Anonymous said...

It seems to be just like celebrities in Hollywood. The dark side of human nature can prop up successful politicians to see themselves as really hot.

There's nothing like a few prayers every day on our knees to keep us humble and aware that individually, we not really all that great.

Anonymous said...

See, some of us can't even structure a sentence.

Bachbone said...

Patrick, something I learned watching Norm Abrams on The New Yankee Workshop: "Spell [or grammar] check twice, publish once." Cheers!

Anonymous said...

This is so ironic I don’t know where to start. Since the Nixon administration, the republicans have smeared an honorable profession all in the name of a political strategy. So many people have bought into the “Liberal media” myth when in fact the media has shifted so far right it’s troubling. But this was written on the opinion page where they belong. But we know how conservative that opinion page is, so consider the source.

But here’s an even more ironic part, The writer confirms what we have been saying since 2000, like the huge deficit that’s growing everyday and turning a “..blind eye toward the corrosive culture of corruption on Capitol Hill.” But somehowe it’s the Democrats fault. Say what?

“Its Republicans ran on Reaganite economics and a reform agenda of bringing squeaky clean ethics to Capitol Hill.” What? How soon we forgert Gingrich’s ethics lapses.

Keith Richards said...

People may complain about Congress but when it comes to elections, all politics are local. In most cases voters like their own member of Congress even if they complain about Congress as a whole. We may see a few seats change parties in the fall election but there will be no big voter uprising.

And Kevin, you can complain about Republican ethics lapses all you want, after you take your blinders off and get real. History shows us that ethics lapses are a problem in politics that have dogged every political party in every nation in history. The real test of a political party comes not from discovering dishonesty within it's own ranks, it is the way in which the party handles the problem. And unlike Democrats, Republicans eagerly expel and prosecute members caught with their hands in the till.

Anonymous said...

Keith, I think you’ve spent too many years touring with the stones. “Take my blinders off and get real.” Tell me, what am I not seeing? Corruption does cross all party lines, but it seems to hit the party in power the most, and that’s why we need to get the ruling party out, especially the king in the white house.
Your last statement was so funny I almost fell out of my chair, but when I thought about it, it really scared me when I realized people really believe that crap. “republicans eagerly expel and prosecute members caught with their hands in the till.” You mean like they did with Tom Delay? The ethics committee, controlled by republicans, tried to change the rules just for him, and had to toe the line and go back to the original rules after the outcry from the public.

That’s your example of “eagerly expelling and prosecuting members caught with their hands in the till.” Keith, take off your blinders and get real.

Bachbone said...

Kevin is correct that the public, and even journalists themselves, see the major media as leaning left. That he does not see it reminds me of that old joke, "The whole world is crazy, except me, except me, except me..." Dozens of polls and statements support the proposition, though, that MSM offerings are skewed left. For example:

Pew Research Center report of 10/15/2000: "... members of the news media let their own political preferences influence the way they report the news[.]” 57% of those polled said "often," 32% said "sometimes," 8% said "seldom," 1% said "never." 47% believed reporters wanted Gore to win; 23% believed reporters wanted Bush to win.

Gallup poll of 10/22-24/2004: 35% of those polled said media coverage was biased in favor of Kerry; 16% said in favor of Bush.

Election day poll by Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates in 12 states: 32% said media coverage was biased in favor of Kerry; 14% said in favor of Bush.

During June and July 2004 (report published April 2005), the Missouri School of Journalism polled adults about the press. 85% believed there was bias in reporting; 48% believed it to be liberal bias; 30% believed it to be conservative bias; 12% "both;" 3% "other."

January 28, 2004, by John Stossel of ABC's 20/20: "Where I work at ABC, people say ‘conservative’ the way people say ‘child molester.'"

November 7, 2004, by Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes: "I know a lot of you believe that most people in the news business are liberal. Let me tell you, I know a lot of them, and they were almost evenly divided this time. Half of them liked Senator Kerry; the other half hated President Bush."

January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times by former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter: "Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”

January 10, 2005 by former CBS Exec. Producer Don Hewitt (as reported by Chris Matthews of MSNBC: "Does anybody really think there wouldn’t have been more scrutiny if this [CBS’s bogus 60 Minutes National Guard story] had been about John Kerry?"

January 11, 2005, by Howard Fineman of Newsweek: "The notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to me at least, worth holding onto. Now it’s pretty much dead, at least as the public sees things. The seeds of its demise were sown with the best of intentions in the late 1960s, when the AMMP [American Mainstream Media Party] was founded in good measure (and ironically enough) by CBS. Old folks may remember the moment: Walter Cronkite stepped from behind the podium of presumed objectivity to become an outright foe of the war in Vietnam. Later, he and CBS’s star White House reporter, Dan Rather, went to painstaking lengths to make Watergate understandable to viewers, which helped seal Richard Nixon’s fate as the first President to resign. The crusades of Vietnam and Watergate seemed like a good idea at the time, even a noble one, not only to the press but perhaps to a majority of Americans. The problem was that, once the AMMP declared its existence by taking sides, there was no going back. A party was born."

Just a few examples found in a few minutes on a dial-up ISP.

As noted, the general public and journalists themselves believe CNN, ABC, SeeBS, NBC, PBS and CPR are at the very least leftist shills.

Anonymous said...

I don’t understand the reason for your post, “backbone.” You agree with me that the republican strategy of smearing the media has worked so well that the public believes the media is leaning left, when in fact it’s shifting right as more and more corporations take over ownership. Good. You proved my point.

I never said I didn’t see the public seeing the media as leaning left, and that just shows you how well the smear machine works. Look how they smeared a decorated combat veteran.

Just because a poll of people think the media leans left does not make it so. The media is trying so hard to respond to that almost 40-year smear campaign that it’s over compensating. Also, what we are getting is more faux news imitators, like MSNBC hiring former conservative republican congressman joe scarbough.

You quote John “Everything should be privatized” Stossel as proof of liberal bias at ABC? Give me a break. Only Tony Snow, scarboug and bill o’reily are more conservative than him. That’s like offering up Bernie “I hate Dan Rather” Goldberg as proof of liberal media bias.

I don’t care what Andy Rooney says, and I don’t care if every journalist votes for nothing but Democrats, you’re asking them to suspend their professional ethics when they do their job. How about faux news that was created to be the official voice of the gop. That’s fine, but stop the lying and drop the “fair and balanced” and “you report, we decide” crap.

“Dan Rather, went to painstaking lengths to make Watergate understandable to viewers, which helped seal Richard Nixon’s fate as the first President to resign.” Gee, I thought that was what reporters were supposed to do? If that’s not the mission of journalists, please explain to me what it is. That’s a ridiculous statement. The biggest political story of our time, and what should have Mr. Rather done with it? Not make it understandable to the public?

Keith Richards said...

Kevins . . . I am glad to hear that you don't believe the mainstream media is liberal. Entire books have been written which prove this, yet you refuse to see the truth. Obviously nothing said here is going to get you to take your blinders off.

So why am I glad? Because most Liberals live in a dream world where they have developed their own version of reality and they refuse to listen to anyone who tries to clue them in on the truth. It is like someone saying "The moon is dark blue", and then refusing to listen when they are shown proof that it is not. When voters see people like you saying things that are obviously false, it alerts them that they should not support you or the causes that you advocate. So keep running around saying silly things and Republicans will be assured of staying in power for a long time.

The bottom line is that if you want people to respect your opinions, you have to have respect for the truth.

Anonymous said...

No matter how many times you repeat a myth or a lie that doesn’t make it the truth. Please, tell one book that prove the “liberal media myth?” Just one.

Accusing me of living in a dream world is very funny. I work three jobs just to pay my mortgage and keep my car on the road so II can keep those part-time jobs, and I live in a dream world. Unbelievable.

Again, Mr. Richards you have spent too many years touring with the Stones, and you need a serious reality check.

Anonymous said...

i see that the dems are attacking rep rogers. i think this is a good sign for us mid west republicans! it must mean they are terrified he might just win.

He is the one guy i have faith will do the right thing as a leader in congress and articulate the message to america.

im for a shadegg-rogers ticket!

Anonymous said...

I see why you are remaining anonymous with that misguided statement. It’s the exact opposite of your outlandish statement, “It must mean they are terrified he might just win.”
For the first time since the gop in Lansing gerrymandered the district boundaries in 2001 to make it a safe district for him, the Democrats see a chance to win, with a very good candidate. That was once a swing district where the Congressman actually had to represent the people or they would lose the seat. It produced U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, and it was so close in 2000 it was the last federally contested race in the country.
Rogers is the gop bagman in DC, and the only people he represents are the lobbyists, not the people of the 8th District.

Bachbone said...

Since you refuse to believe, "Bias," which cited Bernard Goldberg's personal experiences at SeeBS, or John Stoessel, whose personal experiences are at ABC, or Bob Zelnick, who worked 21 years at ABC before having his contact not renewed when the brass discovered he was writing a book (critical) about the Gore campaign, Kevin, try, "Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues," by James Kuypers.

Anonymous said...

Wow, an “entire” book has been written about the 30-plus year gop political strategy and smear campaign, so now I have to buy into it. An obscure Darthmouth professor writes a book about the gop lie, and suddenly the myth is validated. If I can find the book I’ll read it. I did read and believe the book by Bernie Goldberg, and he sure does hate Dan Rather. How that prove the liberal media myth I have no idea, and he proved where his bias really is with that trashy book he’s pushing now, 101 people who are hurting America.
For the sake of argument, if this liberal media bias was true, where do you go for news? Faux news? Rush Limbaugh? Is there bigger liar than rush?