A GOP Pledge to Do Nothing

September 22nd, 2010 at 9:32 pm David Frum | 97 Comments |

| Print

I had a good chuckle at Erick Erickson’s enraged piece on the Republican pledge, now being circulated by Democratic spinmeisters.

Question for Erickson: What did he expect?

Here is the GOP cruising to a handsome election victory. Did you seriously imagine that they would jeopardize the prospect of victory and chairmanships by issuing big, bold promises to do deadly unpopular things?

But if the document is unsurprising, it’s also unsurprising that Erickson and those who think like him would find it enraging. The “Pledge to America” is a repudiation of the central, foundational idea behind the Tea Party. Tea Party activists have been claiming all year that there exists in the United States a potential voting majority for radically more limited government.

The Republican “Pledge to America” declares: Sorry, we don’t believe that. We shall cut spending where we can – reform the legislative process in important ways – and sever the federal guarantee for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Republicans will redirect the federal government to a new path that is less expensive and intrusive than the status quo. But if you want promises of radical change? No. Too risky. We don’t think the voters want that – not the smaller, older, richer, whiter electorate that votes in non-presidential years, much less the bigger, younger, poorer, less white electorate of presidential years. And even that smaller, older, richer, whiter electorate is highly wary of cuts to programs that benefit them, Medicare above all.

But the real news is this: You can primary a Bob Bennett, you can nominate a Sharron Angle, you can balk Karl Rove and Mike Castle – but when decision hour arrives, the leadership of the party rejects the assessment of the American electorate offered by Rush Limbaugh, Dick Armey and for that matter Erick Erickson.

Yet at the same time, we so-called RINOs can take no pleasure in this document. Yes, there is good in it. (Putting legislative language online 72 hours in advance seems Good Government 101.) The silly bits are not too silly: the promise to cite specific constitutional language is an empty sop to those so-called constitutionalists who vainly hope to revive the John Randolph school of constitutional interpretation.

But the true sad news is that this is not a document to govern with in the recessionary year 2010. It’s fine to reject Tea Party illusions. But without an alternative modern Republican affirmative program, the GOP will find itself at risk of being captured and controlled by special interests instead.

The most admirable thing about the Tea Party is its zeal to find a bigger message for the Republican Party than: do what K Street wants. The message offered by the Tea Party may have been unworkable, unrealistic, or worse – but at least it was large and public-spirited.

I’d like to see a Modern Republicanism that responds better to the needs of the country, while retaining still the Tea Party’s reforming spirit. What I fear is the worst of all worlds: a Republican majority that rejects not only extremist ideas, but all ideas.

Recent Posts by David Frum



97 Comments so far ↓

  • CD-Host

    medinnus –

    The GOP – stuck between a rock and a hard place.

    Go Tea-Party radical and never be elected to a public office outside of Deep Red, or continue the same-old crap from the Bush era.

    I’m not so sure about that. Pick up the red’s, the disaffecteds and 1/2 the liberals on a populist anti-military platform, essentially Ron Paul. If we can really drop the racism I see another 15% or so that’s easy to get. Basically 2/3rds of conservatives, 1/3-1/2 of liberals (hard left) and split the independents in any reasonable way.

    That’s a Tea Party majority.

  • easton

    I dunno CD-Host, for one thing the hard left of the Democratic base isn’t 1/2, it isn’t even 1/3. As to the anti-military platform, you will lose all the neo-cons and all of the Jewish vote, and the pretty sizeable security minded Democrats. And, of course, you can’t have Social Conservatives with Ron Paul Libertarians in any effective governing alliance, they are united in opposition but put in power will tear each other apart.

  • The Republican Obama | The Peterson Post

    [...] (he says max 6% of people polled) that ultimately will be dismissed. Even Conservative pundits David Frum (a more Modern GOPer) and Erick Erickson (a Tea Party Enthusiast) wisely suggests that the new [...]

  • easton

    TAZ and medinnus, thanks for stepping up and actually making real proposals. I don’t have to agree to at least admire concrete ideas.

  • CD-Host

    mpolito
    The Tea Party never actually listed a bunch of policy ideas, David.

    Well actually Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure .

  • WillyP

    CD-Host,
    The majority of the country will soon be affiliated with the Tea Party by any other name. Because the vast majority of the country are not left-liberal loons. It’s the ascendancy of Reaganism, once again.

    This drives the pervert easton crazy, but it’s so.

  • easton

    By the way JimBob, that was also a well written post by you. I agree with this: Social security needs to be means tested, retirement age slowly raised, and younger people need to have more options. Individual investment accounts.

    I disagree with medicare being privatized. It will never happen. NO insurance company in their right mind will insure old people, so we can either let them die early or as a society we can take care of them. And Paul Ryan is not serious. He is not advocating voucherizing Medicare now, but in 10 years, which shows he is showboating. I want school vouchers now, not in ten years, so can the BS that it will take 10 years to issue vouchers.

  • medinnus

    I think a project here at Frumforum where the readers can help formulate a set of policies would be a fascinating exercise.

  • easton

    WillyP, don’t ever change, you crack me up. You remind me of the Kevin Kline character from a Fish called Wanda, in how you think you are intelligent but are a complete boob the only difference is you are likely far more of a wimp. By the way, what is your job again? And what does your wife do? Oh wait, unemployed and single. What a surprise. Love the projection by the way, calling me a perv when I have never once written anything dodgy. Look, call me a jackass, that is fine, but if you were a man I would not hesitate to kick your ass from here to back under your mamma’s bed, but as I know you are a true sissy I simply can’t get angry. Ever hear of the aesop fable of the boy and the lion? You are that boy. So please, continue, you truly crack me up.

  • WillyP

    said easton,
    “It is kind of hard for me to be scared sitting on a tropical beach looking at some hot young women, and at Zipolite they are nude. ”

    Ah, the good, proud, brave husband and father, checking out the young girls. A lib and a pervert.

  • CD-Host

    Easton –

    Actually among liberals it is fairly large. Liberals (Pew definition) are the single biggest group and fasterest growing group in the USA, 17% of pop 19% of registered voters (again I’m using PEW so conservatives are in a bunch of subgroups). Main defining characteristic is liberal on foreign policy and social policy. Many liberals are moderates on economic policy. They are in the middle. Their motivation seems to be foreign and social.

    So in the new tea party style republican party:

    We lose the pro-gov conservatives 10% of registered voters, 86% of time vote repub
    Pick up the entire disaffecteds; 10% of registered, current 60% repub (gain 4%)
    Pick up way more liberals, 19% of registered, currently 8% repub (get 1/2 for a 9% gain)

    So that’s 13% gain. On the downside
    We lose on pro-gov conservatives who are currently with the party on social issues only
    10% of electorate 86% republican

    Lose very few conserva dem (socially conservative economic liberals) votes: 15% of registered voters, 2% of the time vote repub

    The real problem is if we lose the economic moderates who are very socially conservative:
    13% of population, 97% repub

    But…. This is Palin’s best group. I think she can hold them in.
    I think it is a winning coalition if she can. If not I’m essentially advocating for Obama’s strategy to pick up more economic moderates.

    The map is very very 50/50. The Republican strategy has been economic conservatives + people who care more about social issues than economics (on the right). But there are people who care more about social issues than economics on the left as well.

    Otherwise we are back to the pre-Reagan era. Social conservatives and economic liberals are the two most popular position. The anti-libertarian position is way more popular than the pro.

  • David Frum: New ‘Pledge to America’ is a pledge to do nothing | National Post

    [...] Frum is a writer, columnist and editor of FrumForum.com, where this first appeared. This entry was posted in Full Comment. Bookmark the [...]

  • midcon

    easton, The problem with means testing Social Security is that it would become a redistribution scheme, not much different than Earned Income Credit (EIC). I pay into Social Security; should I not be allowed to collect when the time comes? If you means test, it is no longer SS, rather it is just another income tax on some folks and a retirement system for other folks.

    I do agree that there needs to be more comprehensive planning for retirement by Americans. SS was never intended to be the primary source of income in retirement. It was only supposed to provide a basic level of subsistence for all. The question is, what is the legitimate role for government in providing the means and systems necessary to ensure sufficient retirement for Americans? Certainly the government should provide oversight, regulation, and education, but does it need to run a retirement system for all Americans as it does for federal employees? When pension funds fail, the government already steps in via the PBGC to assume responsibility. Should it do more or less? Where is the limit to what we should do and how do we pay for it?

    The fundamental question is what level of care and support does our society owe to its citizens and how shall it provide for that.

    One of the biggest complaints I have (and hear) is that the government provides for you if you have nothing or if you have everything, but the people in middle get pretty much nothing. As an example, the government’s loan modification programs seem to help only those who lied about their incomes when they bought a home and TARP provides for those on the other end who were too big to fail. What do the folks who pay their mortgage on time and are so far upside down they will never have any positive equity? NOTHING. There are no government programs for them. There are no write offs, or earned income, or deals, or benefits, or breaks, or anything else. They don’t get sqaut and they get screwed, while paying increased insurance premiums for care that others are getting for free and more taxes that were used to support those too big to fail.

    The only thing they have to count on is their Social Security that they have been forced to pay for all these years. If you put a means test in place, wouldn’t that be just one more insult, one more injury?

    Well, I guess it’s pretty obvious I’m not in favor of means testing Social Security. LOL.

  • JimBob

    “I disagree. It’s already been tried. It’s called Medicare Advantage, and it requires payout from the government of 14% more than traditional Medicare. Analysis of the supposed additional benefits showed that even the most generous plans could be handled with less than a 3% payout increase by traditional Medicare.”

    Medicare advantage is not free market health care.

    We’ve had government manipulation of health care for over 40 years and the results are obvious.

  • WillyP

    easton,
    And as for this ridiculousness about me being unemployed, not like I feel any need to prove myself to you or anyone else on this forum, but…

    I thought, since your head might explode, it might be fun to tell you that not only am I your intellectual superior (evident on every thread), but I am gainfully employed and regularly engage with medical school deans, hospital/hospital network CEOs, award winning biologists, venture capitalists, state and city governments, and top flight counsels. I do this by day, and by night I work to hand the island of Manhattan over to the conservative wing of the GOP.

    I know you hate me, but you need to hate the real me, and not your imagined version. So hate away, you big pervert.

  • easton

    midcon, yeah, I am of two minds about this, we have to get the costs under control. Personally I would like to see the retirement age upped to 70 and people over the age of 62 paying no more Social security taxes so that businesses will have incentives to hire older people. This might be a wash economically, which is why means testing has its advantages. We are talking about people who are pretty wealthy on their own rights, but I concede your point that it is punishing people who worked hard and invested, so I have no easy answers.

    CD-Host, TNR did an extensive article about the very phenomenon you are talking about, I think it was called Liberalatarians. There was one article espousing what you are talking about and another in rebuttal.

    JimBob, study the Japanese or Taiwanese health care systems. They have far more government intervention and far better results at nearly half the cost. Hard to argue with that success.

  • midcon

    easton, Actually, hiring older people and the company not having to pay for SS for them is an excellent idea. They don’t draw SS and the company gains an more economical employee. Plus older employees have much to contribute through their experience.

    See, that’s the kind of specific idea that I wish one of the parties would propose. I could get behind something like that. But no, all they come up with are things about Mom and fruit pies

  • pnumi2

    REPUBLICUNT

    Us Democraps need a better word for Republicans.

    (or are we going to be Reid/Pelosi pussys and do nothing?)

  • MSheridan

    @pnumi,

    Yes, let’s answer the ineffective childishness shown by some Republicans with identical childishness. No one wins that contest. I have never seen or read of an example of a case in which an insult changed someone’s mind. At least, not in a way the insult-thrower would like.

  • Rabiner

    Midcon:

    “easton, The problem with means testing Social Security is that it would become a redistribution scheme, not much different than Earned Income Credit (EIC). I pay into Social Security; should I not be allowed to collect when the time comes? If you means test, it is no longer SS, rather it is just another income tax on some folks and a retirement system for other folks.”

    You fail to understand the goal of Social Security. Social Security is not designed to provide people solely with a specific retirement payment after they reach a specific age but rather to provide people with a minimum standard of living so they do not live in poverty. Means testing is necessary for the survival of Social Security in the long run due to demographic changes. There are only a few ways to keep Social Security solvent: Increased payroll taxes, ending the cap of payroll taxes from the current $106,500, means testing to reduce payments to wealthy individuals who don’t need Social Security to survive, and raising the retirement age.


    easton, Actually, hiring older people and the company not having to pay for SS for them is an excellent idea. They don’t draw SS and the company gains an more economical employee. Plus older employees have much to contribute through their experience.

    See, that’s the kind of specific idea that I wish one of the parties would propose. I could get behind something like that. But no, all they come up with are things about Mom and fruit pies”

    Actually that’s a TERRIBLE idea that will suppress employment opportunities and wages for younger workers. It’s basically work-study on steroids which harms people competing for the same job who do not provide the same subsidy.

  • CD-Host

    Easton –

    Thanks for the reference. for any other lurkers Liberalatarians. Its nice to know someone else was thinking along the same lines. Arguably Obama is trying to do what Lindsey was advocating. I didn’t see the rebuttal though do you have more information?

  • midcon

    Rabiner; Further down in my post I said about SS that it was intended to provide a ” basic level of subsistence for all.” I meant that to mean as you said “a minimum standard of living.” I suggest that those are fairly equivalent.

    To be more specific about the intent of Social Security.

    “We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.”–
    President Roosevelt upon signing Social Security Act

    Finally, so you pretty much want workers to get to a certain age and then take their meager SS and go away somewhere to die quietly? Sorry, we are living longer these days and people either cannot afford to quit work or do not want to quit work. In order to provide for everyone we need job growth not job rationing. Finding a way to take advantage of experiental knowledge by older workers is too an excellent idea and many corporations are doing just that through creative working arrangements from the simple part time worker, to shadow programs where younger employees are mentored and coached by older employees, to consultive arrangements. This punch the clock model of working is been fading for sometime in the same way our industrialial capability has been fading. There are new work paradigms and shoving out older employees because a younger employee needs the job is not what is happening and nor should it.

  • WillyP

    midcon,
    What a great idea! Hey, how about we don’t use the funds to pay into the trust, but instead spend them as they come in!

    There’s the real intent. It’s been like this forever, and it was why SS was not declared unconstitutional to begin with. (Really.)

  • Rabiner

    Midcon:

    “To be more specific about the intent of Social Security.”

    And you still came to the conclusion of being against means testing even though it wouldn’t be antithetical to the purpose of Social Security. Government has to make choices on who to help and who can stand on their own since resources are scarce. The avoidance of making such choices leads to a sinking boat for all.

    On a separate note, I find your opinions and how you frame them very interesting. You seem more pragmatic than ideological and I like reading what you say even if I disagree with some of it. You are definitely right about the gaps in government services for those in the middle but alleviating those gaps would be a bureaucratic nightmare that requires such a disclosure of information as to make it cost prohibitive to government.

  • pnumi2

    MSheridan

    No doubt you are correct.

    But you may find that unless you get down in the mud with your opponent, you may lose the day.
    Did Obama win any voters by not getting personal when accused of not being a natural born citizen?
    It’s more likely he lost some.

    American elections are not Mensa conventions. The term ‘Democraps’ and other lies gets the right more votes than it looses and the Democrats doing nothing about it get them Pelosi and Reid.

  • Rabiner

    Midcon:

    I noticed after posting that you modified your post with this:

    “Finally, so you pretty much want workers to get to a certain age and then take their meager SS and go away somewhere to die quietly? Sorry, we are living longer these days and people either cannot afford to quit work or do not want to quit work. In order to provide for everyone we need job growth not job rationing. Finding a way to take advantage of experiental knowledge by older workers is too an excellent idea and many corporations are doing just that through creative working arrangements from the simple part time worker, to shadow programs where younger employees are mentored and coached by older employees, to consultive arrangements. This punch the clock model of working is been fading for sometime in the same way our industrialial capability has been fading. There are new work paradigms and shoving out older employees because a younger employee needs the job is not what is happening and nor should it.”

    I stated that government should not provide subsidies to business to hire workers who are older than 62 at the expense of younger workers. Business is more than welcome to hire workers at 62 but they should do so because they offer business a return on the investment, not because they are cheaper than alternative younger workers who could perform the same job and be just as productive. This is far different than saying older Americans should take their social security and ‘die quietly’.

  • midcon

    Rabiner,

    True. I was using hyperbole to make a point. I agree that government providing subsidies to business for older workers at the expense of younger workers is not a very sustainable plan. But wouldn’t you say the same thing about the H1B Visa program where the government essentially is subsidizing companies who hire foreign workers at the expense of younger American workers?

  • Rabiner

    Midcon:

    How is government subsidizing people in the H1B Visa program? They pay FICA taxes under the H1B Visa program. It’s added competition to the labor market but it is not unfair competition in which they are given subsidies. I’m not saying that the H1B Visa program doesn’t have issues such as lower wages for Visa holders typically since they cannot freely market their services while in this country and the costs of the Visa are typically taken into account when compensating someone but government is not subsidizing them so I don’t have an issue with it.

  • easton

    CD, here are a couple of articles:

    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/liberaltarians

    http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/liberaltarianism-revisited

    I have a subscription so I don’t know if they are behind a firewall.

  • TerryF98

    I said this thing would be written by lobbyists for corporations. I was right. Zero input from the vaunted grass roots internet scam.

    “The Republican Party’s 21-page blueprint, “Pledge to America,” was put together with oversight by a House staffer who, up till April 2010, served as a lobbyist for some of the nation’s most powerful oil, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies.

    In a draft version of The Pledge that was being passed around to reporters before the official release, the document properties list “Wild, Brian” as the “Author.” A GOP source said that Wild — who is on House Minority Leader John Boehner’s payroll — did help author the governing platform….

    Until early this year, Wild was a fairly active lobbyist on behalf of the firm the Nickles Group, the lobbying shop set up by the former Republican Senator from Oklahoma, Don Nickles. During his five years at the firm, Wild, among others, was paid $740,000 in lobbying contracts from AIG, the former insurance company at the heart of the financial collapse; $800,000 from energy giant Andarko Petroleum; more than $1.1 million from Comcast, more than $1.3 million from Exxon Mobil; and $625,000 from the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc.”

  • mickster99

    Hey Mr. Chuckles,

    You’re a little late on this one.

    The GOP has already fulfilled this pledge.
    They have already have done nothing.
    Way too easy.
    Let’s raise the bar a little bit.
    Why don’t they just go back to 2000, dust off any old legislation they have laying around.
    Say tax cuts for super rich.
    And pass those again.
    Whoops, tooooo easssy.
    Well how about privatization of Social Security.
    Karl Rove is still around. So are boehner, mcconnell.
    Delay could come back and dazzle with some snappy footwork.
    Maybe they could get some extra miles out of those old powerpoint slides.
    Might have to upgrade to a newer version of Office but Goldman Sachs would pay for it I’ll bet.
    Might have to shut down government for a few months but who’d notice really.
    Government is really for chumps anyway.

  • quanta

    “I thought, since your head might explode, it might be fun to tell you that not only am I your intellectual superior (evident on every thread), but I am gainfully employed and regularly engage with medical school deans, hospital/hospital network CEOs, award winning biologists, venture capitalists, state and city governments, and top flight counsels. I do this by day, and by night I work to hand the island of Manhattan over to the conservative wing of the GOP.” – WillyP

    Wow Mr. Palumbo such a big shot.

  • CD-Host

    Easton –

    Thank you! I could read the 2nd but not the first. And the 2nd linked off to: http://theamericanscene.com/2008/06/27/the-age-of-abundance

    And this, of course, makes libertarianism the ideology of the responsible center: supporters of both capitalism and the liberal social changes it produces. And while few independent voters self-identify as libertarians (much less Libertarians), they’re libertarian insofar as they reject the left’s antipathy to capitalism and the right’s antipathy to social tolerance. There is, of course, an element of the pundit’s fallacy here, but I think there’s a lot of truth here too. Over the last four decades, public attitudes have shifted dramatically rightward on economic issues (even with a sweeping Democratic victory this fall, it’s hard to imagine a return to the 1970s’ levels of taxes, regulations, unionization, or monetary expansion) and leftward on social issues (feminism, gay rights, and sexual openness have all made great strides). I think it’s pretty clear that the left has been gradually winning on social issues while the right has mostly won on economic issues. While neither side has been all that libertarian, the net effect has been to push things in a libertarian direction.

    I’d have to say I agree with this but it misses the key point. The key point is that there isn’t a social liberal economically liberal left so much anymore. Rather what we have on the left is a federation of:

    1) economically liberal social conservatives and moderates (generally female)
    2) economically moderate foreign policy and social liberals (identify as liberals)

    and libertarians really live on the extreme of the 2nd group. What is interesting is the 2nd group are your classic liberal Republicans. So really with the focus on social issues the two parties are just going to end up totally flip flopping with Democrats becoming the 1950s Republicans and vice versa.

  • CD-Host

    TerryF98 –

    Its obvious it didn’t include the ideas from the internet. For example, the most popular proposal on the internet was legalize Pot. That doesn’t even get mentioned.

  • chriscurrey

    I read the new pledge, and i had a “deja vu” kind of feeling. So i went and dug up the Contract for America of 1994, and some of the stuff the leadership of the GOP said today were the same things that were said 16 years ago. However, there was something else about this “new” pledge that sounded very familiar. So i asked my grandson to do a search on those of topics in this “new” pledge (he used something called nexis lexus or something like that). And lo and behold, word for word, most of this “new” pledge is as old as my pacemaker. This is, as my late wife would call it, yesteryear-leftovers. Who do they think we are? A bunch of idiots? Do we have amnesia? Do they really think that we this dumb? Maybe they do…otherwise they would not have dared.

    Oh my god, that was lame as my great grandson would say.

  • drdredel

    Chris,

    I think that sad truth is that we (and I don’t mean you and me, but you know what I mean) ARE this dumb!

    It’s a very unfortunate reality. When you listen to the debates from England, you see grown-ups, arguing in grown up terms, in front (and with) other grown-ups. The audience is not treated like either mentally challenged 8 year olds or parkinsonian 80 year olds. The issues are discussed in depth and when someone says something that is factually incorrect, they are taken to task for it, again, in very straight forward and non pandering terms.

    Cut over to the debates here. It’s like watching a conversation between Mr.Hooper and Big Bird. And as soon as someone dares speak to the masses with the assumption that they aren’t a bunch of ignorant monkeys, they are dismissed as being boring, or elitist, or nerdy.

    Haven’t you heard who the “real” Americans are? If you are smart enough not to be led around by the nose with empty slogans and appeals to your most base fears and biases you are NOT a real American.

    Sorry.

  • drdredel

    I work to hand the island of Manhattan over to the conservative wing of the GOP

    Good luck with that.

    when you’re done, perhaps you can work on handing the bulk of New York’s pork production to the conservative wing Williamsburg’s orthodox Jewry?

  • Get Ready For Biflation And The Era of Wrestling With China

    [...] enraged piece” and wonders what Erickson and other Tea Party activists expected. He wrote that the pledge rejects the Tea Party notion that “a potential voting majority for radically [...]

  • nhthinker

    “And lo and behold, word for word, most of this “new” pledge is as old as my pacemaker.”

    For a party that is supposed to represent conservative ideas- having a pledge that contains many pieces that are as old as your pacemaker is not a bad idea.

    Rejecting a policy idea because its old is typically the wheelhouse of an adolescent mind. Conservatives have to evaluate the multi-generational impacts of a new idea before warming up to it and replacing an old one.

    Ask a progressive how big government should get in the next two generations and they give you a blank stare.-
    They never consider such a thing- they only look at problems and first look to larger government to fix it.

  • CD-Host

    Drdredel –

    Well I don’t agree. I think you see very good policy debate. What we don’t have is America is a homogeneous media so the type of discussion / debate is geared to the audience.

    For independents you might hear “The Jobs kill bill”
    For partisans “Payroll adjustment act of 2014″
    For knowledgeable partisans / insiders “HR3179″

    I think that forking of conversation is useful. It allows for broader participation in our democracy. It allows media to cater to different audiences. The net result is a better understanding of policy than would otherwise occur.

    Europeans in my experience are remarkably uninformed about what their government is doing and why. I’m pretty critical of the USA in a lot of respects but this is one area I think we are getting it right. Take 2 people with the same actual education level (say an American who dropped out of school at 18 and a European who dropped out at 16) and compare their level of policy knowledge.

  • CD-Host

    As for Biflation that sounds like another word for a falling dollar. Hard to think of anything that would be better for the USA than the dollar to go down sharply.

  • easton

    WillyP: but I am gainfully employed and regularly engage with medical school deans, hospital/hospital network CEOs, award winning biologists, venture capitalists, state and city governments, and top flight counsels.

    Yes, he asks them if they want fries with their shake. Badda bum. Thank you, thank you. I will be appearing here nightly.

    For someone “gainfully employed” he sure is wasting his employers money considering the amount of time he is here. I teach 15 hours a week so I got time to burn.

  • Candy83

    I’m looking forward to a number of the tea-partiers winning seats in Congress, particularly with the Senate. They should be expected to deliver on the kind of leadership and “idea” they profess to represent. If they fall in line with just about anything and everything expected of them by the Establishment Republican Party … we’ll know the likes of Joe Miller [R-Alaska], Ken Buck [R-Colorado], Christine O’Donnell [R-Delaware], Marco Rubio [R-Florida], Rand Paul [R-Kentucky], Sharron Angle [R-Nevada], and Pat Toomey [R-Pennsylvania], et al. have been utterly full of s***.

  •   GOP’s ‘Pledge to America’ includes plan to cut federal workforce by GAOUnion.org . . . . An independent website

    [...] A GOP Pledge to Do Nothing David Frum, Frum Forum – September 22nd, 2010 at 9:32 pm [...]

  •   Analyses & Commentary on the GOP Pledge to America by GAOUnion.org . . . . An independent website

    [...] A GOP Pledge to Do Nothing David Frum, Frum Forum – September 22nd, 2010 at 9:32 pm [...]

  • independentsforkerry.org » Blog Archive » The GOP “Pledge”

    [...] the “Pledge” as a sell-out of the tea party movement; Republican curmudgeon David Frum finds it retro and short on “modern” and “affirmative” ideas for governing during [...]