Live on FNC

[MicroBalrog]

They didn't fail. They said they were going to get the issues up for a vote, which they did. People see it as a fail because all the issues didn't pass.

They've essentially given up on most of their platform, remember?

[seeker_two]

They didn't fail. They said they were going to get the issues up for a vote, which they did. People see it as a fail because all the issues didn't pass.

Brad

More that that.....most of the issues passed the House, but the Senate (led by Dole, McCain, and other neo-con-artists) defeated them in a spirit of "bipartisanship"....which is why I never voted for either of them in their presidential bids.... 

[Perd Hapley]

They've essentially given up on most of their platform, remember?

OK, Paddy McRiley. 

[Gowen]

Around here the supporters of the proposed health care plan are recruited from unions and other pro-Democrat groups. They're having seminars on how to attend town hall meetings. They even get t-shirts.

The unions are going broke providing health care for their members, of course they are pimping the obama plan.  They can pass off health care to the .gov and pocket the dues money.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The unions are going broke providing health care for their members, of course they are pimping the obama plan.  They can pass off health care to the .gov and pocket the dues money.

That. 

The UAW is about to get a huge chunk of cash from the carmakers to fund a trust to pay for health care for their members.  If health care costs usddenly become the government's responsibility rather than the union's, then they get to keep the cash for themselves.

[MicroBalrog]

OK, Paddy McRiley. 

THe Republicans controlled Congress, Senate, and the Presidency simultaneously from 2000 to 2006.

The Republicans controlled some combination of the above from 1994 to 2008.

Where is all that small government?

[Gewehr98]

It was a goal of Reagan, and it definitely pales in comparison to the Bank Bailout of 2009, the Stimulus Plan of 2009, the Automaker's Cash Injection (aka, Cash for Clunkers) Plan of 2009, and the Socialized Medicine Plan of 2009, IMHO.  I dread how much my taxes are going to climb for the 2010 year.   

[Jamisjockey]

OK, Paddy McRiley. 

Dump the Ad Hom.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

THe Republicans controlled Congress, Senate, and the Presidency simultaneously from 2000 to 2006.

The Republicans controlled some combination of the above from 1994 to 2008.

Where is all that small government?

Congress was either mixed or Democrat for most of the 2000s, and even when the Republicans had a majority they still didn't have enough votes force bills through the Senate.

[makattak]

Congress was either mixed or Democrat for most of the 2000s, and even when the Republicans had a majority they still didn't have enough votes force bills through the Senate.

Precisely, the republicans were never even CLOSE to what the Democrats have now, and, if you'll note, even the Democrats are having problems with their agenda while having absolute total control of both houses and the presidency.

[MicroBalrog]

Precisely, the republicans were never even CLOSE to what the Democrats have now, and, if you'll note, even the Democrats are having problems with their agenda while having absolute total control of both houses and the presidency.

The 104th Congress was Republican controlled.

The 105th Congress was Republican controlled.

The 106th Congress was Republican controlled.


The 107th Congress was Republican controlled only in part (the House, whereas the Senate was evenly split)

The 108th Congress was Republican controlled through half the term, and the Senate was evenly split through the other.

The 109th Congress was Republican controlled only in part (the House, whereas the Senate was evenly split)

At no point from 1994 to 2006 was either house of Congress Democrat-controlled.

And yet you tell me that the Republican party bears no responsibility for the events in those years? True, in a large part their failure stems from the actions of moderate Republicans such as John McCain and others, but then when evaluating a party, one does so based upon the actions of the total of its mainstream membership (reasonably, a party cannot be held responsible for the actions of its more marginal members). John McCain, Sensenbrenner, and their ilk were part and parcel of the party.

If I were a liberal - which I am not - I would surely be blaming the Democrats for not getting my liberal agenda enacted. Why should people who supposedly want to see the conservative agenda enacted not blame the Republicans for not getting it done in decades?

[Perd Hapley]

Micro,

I don't understand how people such as yourself can obviously spend a great deal of time reading this board, and come away thinking that the membership here believe that the Republican Party is beyond reproach or can't be blamed for various problems.  We blame it every day.  We criticize it every day.  Endlessly. 

So when I called you Paddy McRiley, I wasn't just slinging insults.  I was making the point that you have developed the same attitude.  You talk about the membership here as if we were all hopelessly in love with the R party, and have total faith in the Rs to lead us to the millenium.  That doesn't even remotely correspond to reality.  You're fooling yourself. 

What's more, it's insulting and you should stop it now. 

[MicroBalrog]

Never have I implied anything of the kind about the general membership of the board. People on this very thread had argued that the GOP did not 'fail' to execute the Contract with America and could not be blamed for it not be implemented. This is the specific claim I am arguing against. I no more believe you are sheepishly following the GOP than scout26 (who also, like myself, stated the GOP was to blame), believes that. I am quite familiar with your beliefs, and oppose them on other grounds. 

[Perd Hapley]

This what I'm talking about:

And yet you tell me that the Republican party bears no responsibility for the events in those years?

Why should people who supposedly want to see the conservative agenda enacted not blame the Republicans for not getting it done in decades?

I don't see anyone trying to absolve the Republican party of any and all guilt or responsibility.  What I see is that you want to take any defense of the Republicans as a total absolution, just like some people like to take any defense of George W. Bush as a claim that he was the greatest leader in world history.  These people will remain un-named.   

[MicroBalrog]

The words "the GOP did not fail" were not my words.

It is my contention that the GOP did in fact fail to implement the Contract, and generally failed to shrink government, and that government not shrinking in these years is basically their fault. Whose fault would it be if not the people in power?

Which does not of course mean that the Democrats are nice. I do not mean this to say that the Democrats are good for America, of course they are not.

[Perd Hapley]

Oh, I see.  You misunderstood Brad's words. 

[MicroBalrog]

So, in essence, I am barking up the wrong tree?

[Perd Hapley]

It looked to me like Brad was saying that the 94 Republicans did indeed fulfill the contract terms, as they only promised that they could get the issues to a vote.  Which in the U.S. House is an accomplishment all by itself.  Since I don't remember the details, I'm just taking Brad at his word. 

The rest of the apologetics from makattak, HTG, et al, are just explaining that majority control does not necessarily mean the power to pass an whole agenda, even with a friendly president. 

[makattak]

It looked to me like Brad was saying that the 94 Republicans did indeed fulfill the contract terms, as they only promised that they could get the issues to a vote.  Which in the U.S. House is an accomplishment all by itself.  Since I don't remember the details, I'm just taking Brad at his word. 

The rest of the apologetics from makattak, HTG, et al, are just explaining that majority control does not necessarily mean the power to pass an whole agenda, even with a friendly president. 

Precisely. From your stats, Micro:

104th congress: Senate 53-47- not filibuster proof.
105th congress: Senate 55-45- not filibuster proof.
106th congress: Senate 55-45 (and then 54-46)- not filibuster proof.
107th congress: Senate 50-50 (and then 51-49)- not filibuster proof.
108th congress: Senate 51-49- not filibuster proof.
109th congress: Senate 55-45- not filibuster proof.

The Republicans NEVER had total control of the Senate like the Democrats. As has been pointed out, not only did they have to deal with their own squishy members opposing smaller government, they couldn't even get past Democrat objections. (E.g. Miguel Estrada).

Yes, not only did the Republicans fail to shrink government, they grew it during the past 8 years.

My point was not that the Republicans were our saviours and were foiled, but that they would have been blocked in such efforts, even if every Republican were for shrinking the government. And, as we well know, many Republicans are not for a smaller government.

[MicroBalrog]

My view is not that the Republicans would have succeeded at ramming through every single program that they tried. But they would have probably succeeded in some, and the trying was lacking.

[Perd Hapley]

Then we're all in agreement.   

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

At no point from 1994 to 2006 was either house of Congress Democrat-controlled.

False.  The Senate was Democrat controlled during the 107th Congress. 

Regardless, without a filibuster proof majority (which the Republicans have never had) neither party can ram anything through.  That the Democrats now have such a majority, and that they're now trying to ram through anything they want, illustrates the point.

[Gowen]

False.  The Senate was Democrat controlled during the 107th Congress. 

Regardless, without a filibuster proof majority (which the Republicans have never had) neither party can ram anything through.  That the Democrats now have such a majority, and that they're now trying to ram through anything they want, illustrates the point.

Plus, we had a President, GWB, who was not known for encouraging smaller government.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

As a side note, I think the last time either party had a full majority in congress as well as the Presidency was when the Democrats were running the show back in the 1960's.  We got the Great Society crap from that.  And the last time before that, I believe, was in the 1930's when Democrats were ramming through the the New Deal programs.

[Perd Hapley]

when Democrats were ramming through the the New Deal programs.

And they saved the country from the mean rich people!!