Skip to comments.A "Normal Party" and the Difference Between Bush and Perry
Posted on 07/11/2011 3:30:09 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
According to the New York Times David Brooks, Republican hardliners against tax increases are turning the GOP into a psychological protest rather than a normal political party. Brooks is upset that after having forced Democrats to come far closer to their position on taxes and spending in order to cut a deal to extend the national debt ceiling, there is little chance the House majority will embrace what he considers to be the deal of the century.
To Brooks, the Democrats offer on the debt ceiling is the Mother of All No-Brainers, and his anger at the GOPs insistence that no taxes, including those the columnist minimizes as mere loophole closing, is more than a bit over the top. He blasts them as insensible to the logic of compromise or the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. Those opposed to the raising of some tax rates arent merely wrong, they have no sense of moral decency, since he thinks their brinksmanship with the Democrats over the debt means they dont care if the nation defaults on its sacred pledge to pay back what it owes (even though the chances of an actual federal bankruptcy are fairly slim).
It is fascinating that a writer who usually seems more interested in sociology than in politics (and who has written brilliantly about the former in his classic Bobos in Paradise) seems so little interested in what has driven the protest movement that has transformed the Republicans.
Part of the answer comes in an article published in the Times on the same day as his column. Though ostensibly focused on the feud between Texas Governor Rick Perry and his predecessor in Austin, President George W. Bush, the piece highlights the disgust many in the GOP felt about the big-spending Republican Congress that ruled on Capitol Hill until the Democratic victory in the fall of 2006. Perrys charge that Bush was never a fiscal conservative rings true for Republicans who regretted the expansion of federal spending that took place under the 43rd president, even though his record has since been eclipsed by the schemes advocated by Barack Obama.
It is clear Bushs inner circle has no more use for Perry than Brooks has for the Tea Party, but this dispute is about more than personalities. In 1994, Republicans won the Congress pledging to fight for a smaller government but within 12 years had become as addicted to earmarks, legislative pork and massive government spending as their opponents. Many Republicans believed the 2006 election was just comeuppance for that failure and hope the GOP majority elected last fall wont make the same mistake. That fear of the slippery slope of Washington compromises is what animates the resistance from both grass roots Republicans and the GOP House caucus to the sweet deal offered by the Democrats.
Brooks may be correct this compromise could be seen (if viewed in a historical context) as a victory for Republican principles, but it is just as easy to see it as the first step toward a normal government that will inevitably raise taxes rather than cut entitlements. That sentiment may seem irresponsible to the columnist, but its the inevitable response to the GOPs recent history of abandoning principle once in office.
It isn't about Bush and Perry, it's about the economy, here and now -- policy vs personality.
...It is clear Bushs inner circle has no more use for Perry than Brooks has for the Tea Party, but this dispute is about more than personalities.
More on the "personal feud" thing is addressed here:
July 10, 2011 -- Douglas MacKinnon: Don't believe the anonymous chatter about a Perry-Bush feud
"Let the exaggerated feud continue.
As expected, some in the media and some in the sandbox of politics, are trying to make more out of some honest differences of opinion between Gov. Rick Perry and former President George W. Bush than really exist. Hey, everybody needs a hobby.
The New York Times recently offered up th headline "Perry Breaks With A Fellow Texan: Bush." Really? No, but maybe so it could amuse itself, the Grey Lady has decided to put out headlines better suited for one of the city's famous tabloids.
For all of those trying to make that into something it's not, I've got some news for you. Most Republicans, conservatives, independents and Americans who are paying attention could care less. Ultimately they just want to know two things: Is Perry going to run, and if he is, does he represent the adult leadership the voters are so desperately seeking?....
..One reason so many Americans are turned off by politics is precisely because of anonymous quotes from clowns like these. David Carney, a top adviser to Perry, has said time and again, "Nothing to see here. Move on.".....
So is Perry a part of the republican establishment, or isn’t he?
That’s part of the danger of having such a large liberal media in a conservative country. They put out so much propaganda it’s hard to know what to do or what to think.
Make that 501 or is it 502 now?
July 10, 2011/Washington Times: Job creators score in straw poll
Yes he is, and that is what condemns the Republican Establishment, to-wit, Brooks's refusal to discern what the Democrats are doing to undermine Republican commitment to principle (which gave us 2006) is also the RNC's, and that failure is the failure of the stock-in-trade of any would-be columnist and any would-be political leader. It's a failure of vision, discernment, and judgment.
Brooks earns a FAIL, and the GOP Establishment is on the verge of earning their own.
If on the other hand you view Brooks more cynically as a house patsy for the Old Grey Whore, then he's just earning his paycheck.
Blah, blah, blah -- all atmospherics. Where's the beef?!
Where does Rick Perry stand on giving Mexican nationals the vote? He wants to give them a "card" very much like the Mexican matricula consular -- very, very close to giving them Texas driver's licenses, and to giving them voter-registration cards. Motor-voter, remember?
Where does Rick Perry stand on giving away U.S. sovereignty? He talks about "states' rights" as if he thought the 10th Amendment meant something ...... but then he kowtows to the President of Mexico on the "NAFTA Highway".
Where did Rick Perry come down on (illegal) gay adoptions of kids under the orphanage care of CPS? In favor, that's where -- he didn't lift a finger to protect the whistleblower who was fired when Perry was Lite Governor with all sorts of budget and political power over CPS.
Where did Rick Perry come down on passing a law like Arizona's, to try to protect border residents who are being overrun by drug mules and coyotes transporting thousands of people and tons of narcotics across Texas's long border with Mexico?
Where's Perry on the border fence? (Hint: Nowhere!)
Start reviewing his positions one at a time, and it turns out he's only as "conservative" as he minimally needs to be to keep from being thrown out of office on his butt!
He was good for 40% of the general-election vote in 2006, and we're supposed to be overawed by his political pull?
Seen as a bridge? By whom?
I think that more than anything the thing that bothers me about Perry is that he isn’t getting the usual conservative treatment.
The media is usually the canary in the coal mine when it comes to conservatives. But they don’t react that way with Perry. It truely bothers me.
I mean, Bachmann for example. Every time she opens her mouth and speaks, and even when she says things that are 100% true, the media lies, calls it a gaffe, and then it becomes a snowball on other shows/papers. They’re Palinizing her in a way.
I think part of the problem is that he hasn’t announced yet. Everything we’re getting is third party.
I think brooks wears multiple hats. He’s a mouthpiece for big government republicans, he’s a mouthpiece for the big government media, and he’ll even be a mouthpiece for big government leftists if it’s a team up against small government constitutionalists.
Perry will say anything to get elected. He is a globalist RINO poser.
I saw Rick Parry interviewed by Jon Stewart awhile back. All you need to know about Parry is that he’s a big states’ rights guy who has little time for the intrusion of the federal government and he’s a capitalist with a capital C.
Oh, and he’s a former Air Force captain.
At this point, that’s enough for me.
How about sayin who you think is best to support instead to worrying about C-W so much.
We have a winner!
That's the best endorsement for Perry I've seen so far. The Bushleaguers have caused perhaps irreparable harm to the GOP.
I heard Rush take on Brooks.
From this article it looks like Jonathon S. Tobin agrees.
Texas makes losers pay for bringing frivolous lawsuits . [Rick] Perry is in his fourth term in Austin and thus deserves a big chunk of the credit for many of the good things happening in the Lone Star State. Texas also has implemented some of the most significant state-level reforms in the country aimed at reducing or eliminating lawsuit abuse.
The latest of these is a "loser-pays" provision requiring plaintiffs to pay the winners' legal costs in civil suits seeking punitive damages. The provision is included in the 2011 Omnibus Tort Reform Act Perry signed May 30.
In addition to the loser-pays provision, the new law:
Allows a trial judge to send a question of law directly to the appellate court without requiring all parties to agree if a ruling by a court of appeals could decide the case.
Allows plaintiffs seeking less than $100,000 in damages to request an expedited civil action.
Allows a trial court to dismiss a frivolous lawsuit immediately if there is no basis in law or fact for the lawsuit
Only 6 states have Voter Photo ID (How does your state measure up?)
Interactive State by state Voter ID Requirements
This guy in Montana has some thoughts about Rick Perry and how his state might combat environmentalists and lawyers.
July 2, 2011: Legal gamesmanship threatens our energy future (Montana looks to Rick Perry's TX model) Texas Gov. Rick Perry is able to boast about job growth under his watch, noting that over 265,000 jobs, or nearly 37 percent of the jobs created nationwide since the summer of 2009, have been created in the Lone Star state.
He credits this growth to a few simple conditions: low taxes, a regulatory climate that is fair and predictable, and a legal system that limits frivolous lawsuits. According to the Wall Street Journal, nearly one-fourth of the 70 companies that left California this year relocated to Texas.
Check out Post #18.