Skip to comments.The Republican Revolution is Dead
Posted on 05/13/2005 8:02:45 AM PDT by MikeEdwards
Back in 1994 when the famed Republican "Contract with America" captured control of Congress for the party, Newt Gingrich, one of its authors, noted that, "Washington is like a sponge. It absorbs waves of change, and it slows them down, and it softens them, and then one morning they cease to exist."
The Republican Party regained power in the House of Representatives after forty years of Democrat domination. They had a margin of 54 House seats. It had been the largest party swing since 1948. In the Senate, they gained control with the addition of eight seats, and added a ninth when Richard Shelby of Alabama switched parties. Like many Republicans, I can recall thinking that we could now look forward to changes in domestic and foreign policies that conservatives had yearned for throughout the Reagan years.
Even Bill Clinton thought so as well. In his 1996, State of the Union address, he said, "The era of big government is over." Perhaps he was thinking about the Contract with America because the newly elected Republican majority, in the first hundred days in office, passed legislation that did make changes.
They introduced real welfare reform and the first major tax cut in sixteen years. The Contract produced the first four consecutive balanced budgets since the 1920s and the first independent financial audit of the House. The Contract resulted in House committee meetings to be open to the public, required a three-fifths majority vote to pass tax increases, and a time limit on the terms of all committee chairs. The Contracts broad promise was to "end
government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the publics money." But that was a decade ago. . . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Thats what happens when you have a bunch of limp wristed people with no backbone.
That's what happens when people who run on a platform of devolving away federal power gain the reigns of federal power. All of a sudden they ain't so interested in getting rid of what they just obtained.
Did I miss the last election or something?
Good point...we are stuck between a rock and a hard place...we vote them out, and we get a party that is running on a platform of bigger government....
As I recall it, I knew it was over when the introduced about 9 different bills regarding Term Limits so none of them would get a majority support.
The pols are just giving the addicted, "we the people", what we want. More.
It sure is. These days a Republican is a watered-down Democrat.
It was all over when the part about being "fiscal conservative" got all shot to hell. I feel like I have this huge knife, in the shape of a rolled up 1040, sticking in the middle of my back.
I'm going to puke when the Dems lead the charge back claiming "fiscal responsibility", and then do the same thing the GOP did once they got there - take a Mr. Burns/Scrooge McDuck/etc... bath in all the money they are fleecing from us.
There does not seem to be a major political party on the horizon that stands for these factors. The minority parties, probably will never be in the majority because of the large dependent population that we have created.
John: Yeah, don't forget the motorcycle guys.
Bill: The whole time they were yammering about that stupid helmet law. They didn't help us out at all when we were working on OUR stuff.
John: I served on the platform. Talk about one-note Sally's. You know, I was sitting there listening to the rest of the committee talk about how there were no minority rights in the democratic party. I just looked at all of them. I told them they were crazy. I pointed out that they were all black and hispanic and that as a white male I was the only true minority in that room.
Bill: I know what you mean. These guys don't realize that they have maybe six years to change things around before there is no longer a democratic party.
The Republican Revolution is dead because they decided to turn their back on us and do what they always do, which is kiss the asses of the RATS.
People are just so overwhelmed these days - many folks are working 2-3 jobs and many households have both parents working. People are just exhausted between working, commuting, raising kids - where do we find time to control these yahoos as well? Most of them have betrayed us and revealed their true colors, especiallly in regards to immigration issues. The sight of Gingrich sucking up to the Hildebeest is nauseating.
Sadly, big government Republicanism rules.
No one listened to him then. No one, or very few, are listening now.
Anyone who dares to openly state that the government of the United States has no right to use monies of the U.S.Treasury for welfare, or social programs is immediately drummed out of town.
Yes. You will leave your grandchildren "saddled with a large debt, a debased dollar, and a national culture that is not in the American tradition.". But therein does not lie the problem.
You will leave them totally dependent on the government for their very survival as they slide down the slope into third world status.
They won't mind. They are being prepared for it in the public school system and we have allowed it.
What happened in November, 2004?
Bump, you nailed it.
Exactly Right! I have yet to see any idiot news media report on what you point out, though I'm sure politicians do this on other matters. In this case, practically every Republican could claim he voted FOR term limits, but with a wink and nod because there were so many bills, as planned, everybody knew none of them would win.
Then Bushie decided he wanted to outspend every Democrat president in history, mental health screen all kids, destroy the culture with illegal aliens....A Kerry presidency would have been better because the Republicans would have stiffed him and held back spending. Frist, who was originally a real conservative, seems more like a Trent Lott today. I guess I could only vote for a Ron Paul.
Agreed. You know what we did? When the town became full of undesireables we moved out and commuted an hour and a half to work. We had latch key kids, who came and went without proper supervision so we could make more dough. We forced government to force industry to provide daycare centers. We allowed the schools to take over the parenting obligation to the point that parents have no rights.
We could go on and on.
I hope the money was worth it. Though I'm afraid it was not.
I have no solution. Sorry.
I would be interested to hear what a different Republican Party, one more to your (and my) liking could do to alleviate the parents having 2-3 jobs etc?
That's why the founders drafted the 10th Amendment. Too bad we basically got rid of it half a century ago.
Good grief .. the repub revolution has just begun.
These people are continuing in their wishful thinking. They're out of power and they're trying to psyche people into thinking the democrats are still in charge.
I dunno. Maybe things have gone so far that it can't be stopped. It comes down to a lot of things, partly just the high cost of living, affording a house (real estate values), high taxes, and raising/educating kids. Some of this might be changed by govt such as lowering taxes, especially locally (you just can't lower federal taxes and then increase local taxes to make up the difference) and improving public schools so people don't have to private school their kids. Maybe zoning laws or practices need to be changed - why are contractors building nothing but huge houses that are inherently expensive? I see big houses with nothing but a couple and maybe a kid or two in them. sometimes there's just one person. Cars have become much more expensive (and I think the quality has severely declined) frequently because of all the safety gizmos and enviromental doo-hickeys that have to be included now. When I was a kid we sat in the back of a station wagon and wrestled. Nobody ever got hurt. Can you imagine kids doing that nowadays?
There are some things the govt could do to stop this process, but why would they? It actually BENEFITS them as there's no one watching them anymore. They LIKE that.
Well, the party was shortlived because by November of 1995 when the Republicans had to put their money where their mouth is, they deserted Newt, who led them to the majority status, when Newt, rightly so, took on Clinton and called his bluff to shutdown the government.
That is the date I quit calling myself a Republican. I was proud to be a Reagan Republican, up to that point.
"Today the federal government continues to increase regulations, adding $800 billion to the cost of everything Americans do. Its spending programs continue to increase. Its so-called "entitlement" programs are bankrupt. And expanding! There are more and more federal crimes added to the books."
Regulations violate Amendment V (nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.)
Mandatory Social Security participation, was originally found to be unconstitutional in RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD v. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330 (1935. The reason it is not unconstitutional now is because it is VOLUNTARY.
Interdiction laws, which are federal crimes, are unconstitutional because they violate Amendment IX. (The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.)
So, what is the position of the party that says they believe in limited, delegated authority government coupled with constitutionally protected rights, on these issues?
Status quo. Just like a Democrat.
"There is less and less power at the State level where the framers of the Constitution wanted it."
This is a correct statement, with respect to the founders desires.
But the founders vision was change permamently and properly with a constitutional amendment: Amendment XIV.
I contend that the 10th amendment was rendered superfluous and in fact, for all intents and purposes, amended on July 9, 1868, when Amendmet XIV was ratified.
The good news is the "amendment" process is the correct constitutional procedure for making changes of such magnitude versus just the Congress enacted laws contrary to the covenants of the Constitution.
Amendment XIV, as you know, subjected state lawmaking authority to the Bill of Rights and, thus affected the scope of state lawmaking authority. It did not affect the scope of federal lawmaking authority, which was still limited by Art. I Sec. 8 of the Consitituion and the 10th Amendment. Even after the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court struck down many federal laws as being beyond the scope of their enumerated powers. I was referring to the Wagner Act cases in which the Supreme Court "interpreted" the Commerce Clause to allow the federal government to pass almost any law on any subject.