Conservatives to Voters: We Don’t Feel Your Pain

February 17th, 2010 at 11:05 am David Frum | 45 Comments |

| Print

Here we are, deep into the most serious global economic crisis since 1945. We are only recently emerged from 8 years of a Republican presidency that satisfied almost nobody, Republicans very much included. You might think this would be a moment for conservative self-examination. You would be wrong.

We hear that 80 conservative leaders will gather today near George Washington’s Mt. Vernon to release a statement of principle. The statement, an advance copy of which can be read here, does a nice job of harmonizing the divergent points of view of the existing conservative establishment. But it exists in airless isolation from the actual concerns, troubles, and challenges facing the people of the country conservatives seek to lead.

* Are you an American who was earning less in 2007 than in 2000? The document has nothing to say to you.

* Did you lose your home or job or savings in the crisis of 2008-2009? Blank to you.

* Are you worried about the loss of your health insurance – or how you will pay for nursing care for your aged parents – or what 20% youth unemployment will mean for your newly graduated child’s life chances? Not our department.

* Do you wonder whether we are winning or losing the war on terror? Do you want an explanation for why it took so long for a conservative administration to react to military disaster? No answers here.

* Do you generally agree with conservatives – but wonder whether there is room in the conservative world for nonwhites, or the disabled, or the secular-minded, or the gay? The statement does not say “no,” but it does not say “yes” either.

* What about the environment? Economic competition from China? The moral implications of the biotech revolution? Illegal immigration? Educational standards? Well – what about them?

The document answers one question and one question only. If you agree that Barack Obama is engaged in a deliberate and relentless attack on the American constitutional order, well be assured: the conservative establishment is on your side. But if you think those worries are a hysterical distraction from the country’s actual problems? To you, the conservative world says: go away. We have nothing to offer you.

Recent Posts by David Frum



45 Comments so far ↓

  • Hot Air » Blog Archive » Conservative leaders release “Mount Vernon statement”

    [...] faith. (Defending the right to have faith would have been much better.) Exit question: Read David Frum’s response to the manifesto. Isn’t he right, just this one [...]

  • joemarier

    Well, Newt always has something to offer! I like this better, but not by much… http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/17/contract-renewal/

  • LFC

    David, you might toss in the fact that the GOP still claims the Obama stimulus plan was a total failure when other groups, including the CBO, claim it added over a million of jobs and is on its way to adding 2.5 million jobs. If you’re working because of that, the GOP has no answer for you other that things would have worked out just fine on their own.

  • Churl

    Interesting questions

    1 Are you an American who was earning less in 2007 than in 2000?
    2 Did you lose your home or job or savings in the crisis of 2008-2009?
    3 Are you worried about the loss of your health insurance – or how you will pay for nursing care for your aged parents – or what 20% youth unemployment will mean for your newly graduated child’s life chances?

    If the answer to 1 through 3 is “the government will take care of you and your dependents, then we don’t need conservatives at all, just further unfetter the welfare state.

    4 Do you wonder whether we are winning or losing the war on terror? Do you want an explanation for why it took so long for a conservative administration to react to military disaster?

    What military disaster, which conservative administration?

    5 Do you generally agree with conservatives – but wonder whether there is room in the conservative world for nonwhites, or the disabled, or the secular-minded, or the gay?

    What makes you think that these folks are not welcome among the conservatives? My guess is that you believe what your read in the New York Times and see on MSNBC.

    6 What about the environment? Economic competition from China? The moral implications of the biotech revolution? Illegal immigration? Educational standards?

    Indeed, what about the environment. We have an Environmental Protection Agency right now which has near dictatorial powers over many aspects of our lives. Would further empower that agency?

    China? Hey, I thought the Frum Group was going to come up with some answers about something, send us a memo on China.

    Moral implications of the biotech revolution mostly concern religious fundamentalists. You don’t like them much, so why do you care?

    Illegal immigration? Either (a) we enforce immigration laws and standards or (b) we have an uncontrolled influx of illegal immigrants. Go ahead and pick one, but if you pretend to pick (a( don’t weaken the option so that you can have cheap household help or your industrial friends can hire inexpensive slaughterhouse workers.

    Education standards? How about extending an existing compassionate conservatism program. Let’s call the new one “No Child Left Behind or Even Allowed to Lag a Bit”

  • Republicans United. » On Mount Vernon: Forget About It!

    [...] David Frum is correct in criticizing the so-called “Mount Vernon Statement” of movement conservatives.  He is correct that the document is just a rehashing of conservative nostrums and offers nothing to gays or minorities, let alone how to deal with the current economy. [...]

  • The Mount Vernon Statement « Wesley Gant

    [...] means in 2010 America. It isn’t a platform. The mistake that has been made by critics such as David Frum, or “Allahpundit” over at HotAir is assuming this is some kind of policy [...]

  • PracticalGirl

    Churl,

    Re questions 1-3…I get your point that you think too many are waiting for the government to bail them out. But do you not see any resposibility for the GOP to advance some ideas that might stem the tide?

  • mike farmer

    I know this is a futile question, because hardly any of you at FrumForum interact with your commenters — we may as well be invisibile — but, what do you propose be done about these problems?

    Do you believe that by loosening over-bearing regulations, cutting spending and lowering taxes, the private sector would rebound and start the economy toward weath creation?

    Or, do you believe the government should continue stimulating the economy throuh government spending, regulating industry much more than it’s now regulated, pass a healthcare reform bill that mandates insurance purchase, then pass cap and trade?

    Do you believe the proposals by the Obama adminsitration are the right policies for America’s future?

    Or, do you believe the opponents of progressivism are right, that we need to limit government and announce no more big spending programs, no more taxes and no more regulations, so that there is stability in the market and investors are comfortable to invest, and companies are comfortable enough to hire, with the knowledge they can predict their future costs?

    The main problem with lack of investment and economic growth is that no one with the wealth to create growth and jobs is willing to take a chance with a government that has taken on the power to change the rules and the costs at any moment. Do you think this is wise policy coming from the progressives?

  • PracticalGirl

    MikeFarmer:

    “I know this is a futile question, because hardly any of you at FrumForum interact with your commenters — we may as well be invisibile — but, what do you propose be done about these problems?”

    This is rather astute, considering this is an article about the lack of solutions…

  • sinz54

    David Frum: The statement, an advance copy of which can be read here, does a nice job of harmonizing the divergent points of view of the existing conservative establishment. But it exists in airless isolation from the actual concerns, troubles, and challenges facing the people of the country conservatives shareeek to lead.
    I totally disagree.

    If they have managed to create a Manifesto that “harmonizes the divergent points of view” of conservatives, that’s quite an achievement. (I think it’s debatable whether it does, but it’s definitely a worthy goal.) You have to start with an exciting vision statement, before you can move on to specific policies.

    You have to start there. Look at our own history. Our Declaration of Independence preceded our Constitution by 13 years.

  • sinz54

    LFC:

    The reason the stimulus package is a failure is right in the article YOU cited:

    Aid to states, unemployment benefits and some tax provisions have been more successful and account for far more of the bill.

    The real purpose of the bill was to prop up, and even expand, the payrolls of state and local governments. A blatant payoff to AFSCME and the other public-employee unions that had backed Obama for President.

    Far less of the stimulus went toward the private sector. And that kind of stimulus won’t have staying power. Once you’ve kept public-school teachers on the payroll, what happens then? That’s not how we can compete with the rapidly rising high-tech economies of India and China.

    America is a capitalist country, and its economy is driven by advances in the private sector. Sorry if you don’t like that.

  • LFC

    mike farmer said… Do you believe that by loosening over-bearing regulations…

    Do you mean loosening like they did right before the current financial system collapse, or loosening like they did right before the S&L collapse?

  • Kevin B

    Sinz54 wrote:
    You have to start there. Look at our own history. Our Declaration of Independence preceded our Constitution by 13 years.Much of that time was spent in a bloody war, to win what we had declared.

    Is that what we have to look forward to in the GOP?

    (I suppose I mean metaphorically.)

  • teabag

    Churl said.

    “5 Do you generally agree with conservatives – but wonder whether there is room in the conservative world for nonwhites, or the disabled, or the secular-minded, or the gay?

    What makes you think that these folks are not welcome among the conservatives? My guess is that you believe what your read in the New York Times and see on MSNBC.”

    Nope Churl this is real hence……..

    Gay and lesbian state workers in Virginia are no longer specifically protected against discrimination, thanks to a little-noticed change made by the new Gov. Bob McDonnell.

    Read the whole story: Talking Points Memo

  • Aaron

    “A deliberate and sustained attack on the Constitutional order” intentionally sounds conspiratorial, like a possible plan to institute a one-party dictatorship. The MVS traces attacks on the principles of the Declaration and to the concept of limited government back to “recent decades,” not to the Obama administration. Do you mean to deny that influential people have believed for many decades that Constitutionally limited government is an obsolete concept?

    It is true that the piece is not a policy manifesto, but has the world really lacked for conservative policy manifestos in recent years? The Mount Vernon Statement is not the work of a coalition-building political party; that just isn’t its purpose. If policy-minded or coalition-minded people disagree with the principles espoused by the Mount Vernonites, perhaps they ought to explain where the principles are wanting.

  • mike farmer

    “Do you mean loosening like they did right before the current financial system collapse, or loosening like they did right before the S&L collapse?”

    If you think lack of regulations caused the S&L crisis, then I don’t know what to say to you.

  • GOProud

    MikeFarmer, you could say two things: Barney Frank’s version of oversight of Fannie and Freddie; and repeated attempts at financial services reform by the Bush Administration rebutted by Congressional democrat obstructionists.

    Of course, LFC already knows that –she’s just playing Democrat Apologist Stand-in until BlankHead can get his head out of the dark, cooling sands in ostrich land and do a proper rebuttal to your impertinence.

  • The Mount Vernon Statement: A Conservative Petition To The G.O.P. To Advance Neoconservatism By Funding The Military Industrial Complex | THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™

    [...] noteworthy “must read” blogger reactions: The Frum Forum’s David Frum offers a plethora of rather IMPORTANT items the Tea Partiers Mount Vernonites left out of their charter; The Wonkette (adult content warning) [...]

  • Chekote

    The last thing we need is more statements.

  • - Macsmind – Home of the MacRanger Show

    [...] David Frum, everybody’s favorite Rockefeller Republican comments thusly on the Mount Vernon Manifesto released today. “* Are you an American who was earning less in 2007 than in 2000? The document has nothing to say to you. [...]

  • anniemargret

    chekote: “The last thing we need is more statements.”

    Ditto.

    But here’s a question for the conservatives on this blog. Are you really in need of new series of ‘statements’ to explain yourselves? Just what has changed in the new and revised Republican party for 2012 exactly?
    I don’t agree with all of Frum’s points, obviously, but he’s darn right about the persistence of homophobia, the religious-pandering in the GOP which has almost become a quasi-religious party even now, the glaringly obvious indifference about the plight of thousands facing serious problems with healthcare and insurance, the contempt it exudes for people struggling with low-income and job losses, etc.. so much of it a carryover from the Bush/Cheney years.

    Most of what I read and listen from Republicans is the same/old, same/old.

  • Jim_M

    I thinks it’s great! Hoping my signature is next to Sarah’s =)

  • anniemargret

    …and here’s what I think of Obama and the Democrats, as I am one myself.

    I think Obama has to stop playing nice. All this bipartisan stuff is pablum. Every Democrat knows that the Republicans are following the Rush Limbaugh script…”I hope he fails.” And they (Obama and Dems) did a lousy job selling the healthcare reform bill. I told my husband back in the early summer that their sales job was in the pits, and that the Republicans were framing the issue (wrongly of course…eg. Palin’s “death threats” etc..). They dropped the ball. The majority in this country would like to see a public option, but the fear-mongering has overtaken common sense .

    In the end, it’s the citizens of this country that get hurt . A pox on both houses!

  • Jim_M

    Oh yeah.

    Palin-Brown in twenty twelve !!!

  • anniemargret

    ahhhh Sarah….the “new” face of the Republican party!

  • anniemargret

    Jim_M: I think Brown has more smarts that you give him credit for.

  • mike farmer

    GOProud:

    I could also say that partial deregulation which leaves in place a government backstop for failure creates moral hazard. See Posner on S&L. If you’re going to deregulate — you have to go all the way, otherwise free market principles can’t work. It’s like playing baseball where outs don’t count — it screws up the game.

    visit: http://www.bonzai.squarespace.com

  • Chekote

    Annie

    Obama has struggled to get Dems to vote for his agenda. Nevermind about the Republicans. He was forced to cut deals with Dems like Nelson which turned in a complete PR disaster. Also, you are giving too much credit to Palin. People don’t oppose Obama’s HC bill because they fear “death panels” or because of anything Palin said.

  • balconesfault

    anniemargret // Feb 17, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    I think Obama has to stop playing nice

    As has been pointed out elsewhere, Obama’s agenda has actually been very centrist, considering the economic and geopolitical conditions that he stepped into. A radical leftist would have been setting up a government agency to act as lender of last resort, rather than propping up banks with TARP funds in hope they would do so. A radical leftist would have been pushing a single-payer healthcare system, not co-ops and limited government subsidies to make private health insurance affordable for lower class workers who don’t qualify for Medicaid. A radical leftist would have already closed Gitmo, and certainly wouldn’t have sent the first 30,000 additional troops into Iraq, much less the next 40,000. A radical leftist would NOT be using unmanned drones to strike targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A radical leftist wouldn’t have pushed stimulus spending which put government financing out there as a target for private equity firms to leverage investments off of – he’d have just used the power of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense and started massive Federally owned public programs to build new windfarms and solar farms and transmission lines.

    But amusingly, the right wing still believe that he’s a radical leftist. Which means their definition of centrist must be … oh … George W. Bush?

    In which case we’ve already proven that their definition of “centrism” is a massive loser, having brought America to the brink of financial collapse. No wonder nobody gets too excited about a Bayh, except when he announces he’s leaving the Senate.

  • GOProud

    Blankhead does a parody of stand-up comedy: “As has been pointed out elsewhere, Obama’s agenda has actually been very centrist…”

    LOL!

    Centrist where? As reported in Pravda? At the DailyKos? In staff briefings for NancyPelosi? At Code Pink headquarters? In fundraising letters for MoveOn?

    The lies these liberals have to tell themselves to stay sane in a world rushing to invalidate the Obami Mandate are incredible. BlankHead, that one takes the cake –I thought the LyinJoeBiden spin that Obama, the Warrior Prez, “won” the Iraq War was a whopper… but you went by it at lightspeed with that “Obama’s very centrist agenda” lie.

    Obama and a “very centrist” agenda? What a crock –even David Frum wouldn’t try to hoist that nonsense up the flagpole of political desperation.

  • sdspringy

    Balcon, the attempt at a massive Cap & Trade bill is not centrist. Especially since the entire science and when even the High Priest of Global Warming Phil Jones says there has been no warming for 15 years and the scientific data is misleading.

    Centrist is not taking over 1/6 of the US economy with a government run healthcare.
    Fannie and Freddie are currently government agencies which are exclusively propping up the entire mortgage market.

    Obama has bought out GM and pumped tax money into a dead company.

    And I believe you mean Afghan, however even a Lefty cannot campaign on the Necessary War then bow his way out. Kiss any hope of election wins after that.

    And a leftist most certainly would insert the government into the private sector, creating a dependency mindset. Causing the entire financial world to suckle from an enlarge taxpayer fueled tit. Sounds actually what a Leftist would do.

    Sorry to say though that even a Leftist cannot overcome the Hyper Left enviomanics when it comes to transmission lines and wind farms. You are really reaching on acouple of these examples, or maybe you are fantasying.

  • balconesfault

    The problem is that you and I have different definitions of “centrist”. I figure that if a solid majority of Americans favor something – it is centrist.

    ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Dec. 10-13, 2009. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.5 (for all adults).
    “Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?”
    Should 65%
    Should Not 29%
    Unsure 6%

    USA Today/Gallup Poll. Dec. 11-13, 2009. N=1,025 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all adults).
    “As you may know, representatives from around the world are gathering for a United Nations conference on global climate change in Copenhagen. Do you favor or oppose the U.S. signing a binding global treaty at the Copenhagen meeting that would require the U.S. to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions?”
    Favor 55%
    Oppose 38%
    Unsure 7%

    FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Dec. 8-9, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters).
    “Do you think the global warming situation is best described as a crisis, a major problem but not a crisis, a minor problem, or is it not a problem at all?”
    A Crisis 17%
    A Major Problem 33%
    A Minor Problem 25%
    Not a Problem 23%
    Unsure 2%

    Ipsos/McClatchy Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. Dec. 3-6, 2009. N=1,120 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.9 (for all adults).
    “There’s a proposed system called ‘cap and trade’ that some say would lower the pollution levels that lead to global warming. With Cap and Trade, The government would issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies can put out. Companies that did not use all their permits could sell them to other companies. The idea is that many companies would find ways to put out less greenhouse gases, because that would be cheaper than buying permits. Would you support or oppose this system?”
    Support 52%
    Oppose 41%
    Unsure 7%

    “What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 10 dollars a month? In that case would you support or oppose it?”
    Support 50%
    Oppose 48%
    Unsure 2%

  • sinz54

    balconesfault: A radical leftist would have been setting up a government agency to act as lender of last resort, rather than propping up banks with TARP funds in hope they would do so. A radical leftist would have been pushing a single-payer healthcare system, not co-ops and limited government subsidies to make private health insurance affordable for lower class workers who don’t qualify for Medicaid. …A radical leftist [would] have just used the power of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense and started massive Federally owned public programs to build new windfarms and solar farms and transmission lines.
    If Obama had the kind of Senate that LBJ did (68 Dems, overwhelmingly liberal on economic issues), he would have done all those things, because the Congress would have given him all he asked for and more.

    Obama came into office wanting to be another LBJ. Obama, like LBJ, wanted to totally remake America along liberal lines. The reason he hasn’t is because he didn’t have a Congress as sympathetic to those dreams as the one LBJ did.

    Obama, unlike LBJ, has only 59 seats in the Senate now, and many of them are Northern moderates from Red States who are sympathetic to free-market approaches to social problems like health care.

    And that’s the ONLY reason why there is still a distinguishable difference between how America handles her social problems vs. the ways that Canada and Europe do it.

    Thank heavens for Scott Brown. He destroyed Obama’s dreams.

  • GOProud

    Was the push for a public option in health scare a centrist plank?

    Was mirandizing enemy combatants engaged in blowing up a jetliner over Detroit a centrist plank?

    Was ditching the bipartisan approved, court sanctioned military court system specially crafted for terrorists a centrist plank?

    Was adopting the largest deficit in US history a centrist plank?

    Was the failed Stimulus Spending Spree and porkbarrel projects a centrist plank?

    Was bailing out about 280,000 UAW labor jobs at GM and Chrysler a centrist plank? How about rescuing from bankruptcy about 1.79m SEIU jobs? How about saving unionized teachers in failing schools who ought to lose their job for gross negligence but have it & are bailed out because they’re union members?

    You might like to quote polls that sort of somewhat distantly imply that Americans –not US voters, by the way– sort of, kind of, partially share the Obami’s view on some generalized subjects… but the simple truth you can’t escape by sticking your ample-sized head in the sand is that most Americans view Obama as inconsistent with their interests —it’s why 52% would not re-elect him in 2012.

    And frankly, if we could round up all the dead voters that ACORN got to vote for him, the number of people strongly disapproving of Obama and the Democrats would rise to maybe 59-61%.

    The Obami Agenda is “very centrist”? Yeah. Only to socialists still trying to bring back Soviet Russia from the ruins… and BlankHead.

  • sinz54

    anniemargaret:

    Obama can’t “sell” ObamaCare to Americans–because it now clearly doesn’t solve the problem they care most about, which is skyrocketing premiums.

    Polls show that a majority of Americans now oppose ObamaCare, but a majority of Americans also have an unfavorable opinion of Sarah Palin. They didn’t take direction from her on the ObamaCare issue.

    And it’s not just the shady deals to pharma companies and to Nelson that turned off Americans–though that certainly didn’t help.

    Americans also saw that the only real cost-containment feature in the bill–taxing of overly generous “Cadillac” plans–was gutted when the unions raised a stink about it. Now the bill has no real cost containment at all. And the result will be like what happened here in MA with RomneyCare: We’ll get near-universal coverage but premiums will skyrocket. (Blue Cross of MA just raised our premiums by 42%!!!) That’s the exact opposite of what Americans who already have health insurance want.

    The fault line cannot be bridged. Liberals want universal coverage, cost be damned. So they created a bill that provides for universal coverage, cost be damned.

    That will never sell with the vast majority of Americans who already have health insurance.

    Notice that premiums are skyrocketing all across America (WellPoint and Anthem both announced increases of around 40%). The Dems condemned these increases, of course. But notice that the Democrats never claim that if ObamaCare had been in effect, such increases wouldn’t happen–because they know that’s false.

    And THAT is the real reason why ObamaCare remains stuck inside the Congress. Despite all the shady deals all around it still does NOTHING for the vast majority of Americans who already have insurance. Under ObamaCare, those who are currently uninsured and those who have pre-existing conditions are the big winners. The big losers are the vast majority of Americans who aren’t seriously ill (yet) and who already have health insurance. That’s not a package that will sell.

  • GOProud

    Hey BlankHead, get a clue. “very centrist Obama agenda” is a joke.

    When you’ve lost Sinz54… you’ve lost the game, set and match. Even he doesn’t buy it and that’s saying a lot.

    By the way, on global warming caused by man faux-issue poll stats? Rasmussen, today, released the most accurate assessment of voter sentiment on that very issue… only 35% of American voters think man has caused global warming.

    What was that point you made about how to define “very centrist Obami agenda”? If a solid majority of Americans “favor something it’s centrist”?

    Yeah, you go with that.

    Bzzzzzzzzt. Another loser notch in the pistol grip for you BlankHead. Maybe the conservatives are right to stick a fork in the global warming hoax.

  • sinz54

    balconesfault:

    Obama has indeed escalated the war in Afghanistan. With one hand.
    But with the other hand, he has promised to start withdrawing troops in 2011. Which is telegraphing to the enemy that they should just withdraw into the mountains–and launch a new offensive against NATO in late 2011 just as they’re withdrawing.

    If the Afghanistan war is worth fighting, then there cannot be a calendar deadline placed on it. How long to defeat the enemy? As long as it takes but no longer.

    Like Carter’s decision to deploy the MX ICBM, I believe that Obama loathed the decision he had to make on Afghanistan, but was forced into it for his own political preservation. If terrorists were to strike America on a scale anything like 9-11 during his administration, Obama knows that his administration would be toast. And in 2013 we would have President Sarah Palin with Secretary of Homeland Security Ann Coulter and Attorney General Tom Tancredo.

  • balconesfault

    If Obama had the kind of Senate that LBJ did (68 Dems, overwhelmingly liberal on economic issues), he would have done all those things, because the Congress would have given him all he asked for and more.

    No, I think you’re absolutely wrong. There is nothing in Obama’s background that suggests, for example, that he would nationalize the banks. But your belief that he would certainly goes a long way towards explaining why you think he’s radical.

    Americans also saw that the only real cost-containment feature in the bill–taxing of overly generous “Cadillac” plans–was gutted when the unions raised a stink about it.

    This is silly. That certainly didn’t “gut” anything … since the provision would have gone into effect immediately for non-union plans, and after a time period (to allow current union contracts to expire and be renegotiated) it would have gone into effect for union plans as well.

    The most serious cost containment mechanism – public option to compete with private plans , was stripped however. I’ll grant you that.

  • GOProud

    sinz54 offers: “And in 2013 we would have President Sarah Palin with Secretary of Homeland Security Ann Coulter and Attorney General Tom Tancredo”.

    I’m sorry… weren’t you the one asking people not to confuse you with rbottoms? That sounds like vintage rbottoms farLeft screeding.

    BlankHead, never afraid to advance the next silly idea, offers: “The most serious cost containment mechanism – public option…”

    Oh my God, that almost takes the cake over the last one: “Obama’s very centrist agenda”.

    52% of American voters don’t think Obama deserves a 2nd term. Centrist? Mainstream president? Nope.

    21% of American voters think Obama and the Democrats do NOT have the consent of the governed. Centrist? Mainstream agenda? Nope.

    Spinning the public option as a “cost containment” mechanism is like asking Tiger Woods for tips on marital fidelity or Blago for tips on ethics or Obama on how to spend other peoples’ money.

    Always making the funny, BlankHead. You are a joke a thread.

  • sinz54

    balconesfault:

    Here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth (Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO):

    “Health plans covered by union contracts would not be subject to the 40 percent tax until 2018 [!!!]– a transition period union leaders said is comparable to those offered to other private insurers. The threshold for taxing other plans will be adjusted by 1 percent above the annual rate of inflation, and plans involving large numbers of women or the elderly will get breaks as well, Trumka said”

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/14/health.care.negotiations/index.html

    IOW, the vast majority of Americans (those who don’t make over $500,000 a year) will continue to get their tax-free group health care plans from their employers.

    And premiums will continue to rise sharply (up over 500% in the last 30 years).

    One thing we conservatives agree with the liberals about, is that no serious attempt to control health care costs can be made as long as we’re reduced to tinkering with the minority of Americans who don’t get group health insurance. That’s only 15% of the population. You can’t reform the system, if you’re limited to fiddling with just 15% of it.

  • sinz54

    GOProud: weren’t you the one asking people not to confuse you with rbottoms?
    Yep.
    I’ve been a conservative since I was in college.

    And I say that Tom Tancredo and Ann Coulter are part of the FAR right wing–close to the lunatic fringe.

    I’m not the only one who believes that

    Ann Coulter was FIRED by the National Review, after a column she wrote after 9-11 in which she advocated that the U.S. should forcibly convert Middle East Muslims to Christianity by armed force.

  • Right Wing Nut House » OUT WITH THE OLD, IN WITH THE NEW: CPAC 2010

    [...] problems? Here’s David Frum commenting on the vapid Mount Vernon Statement released yesterday: * Are you an American who was [...]

  • GOProud

    Sinz54 contends: “Yep. I’ve been a conservative since I was in college.”

    Well, that’s a surprise to me given some of the concepts and notions you embrace here. I would have said you’re a social liberal with a moderate fiscal bent. And an independent, unaligned voter… can’t forget that, eh?

    I was taking exception to your posit that if the USA is attacked on a scale rising to the 9/11 event, the political enviroment would usher in Palin, Coulter and Tancredo. That just sounded so rbottoms-ish it was comical. Is Coulter even a Republican? I think not. I think she’s one of your types: independent conservative.

    2012 will usher in Romney and his team. And just like all good venture capitalist business leaders, they’ll slice and dice the fed bureaucracies, constrain the judiciary to a proper role, put Congress on a diet –or a spit, it’s up to them how they respond to real executive leadership– and let the world know that America Resurgent & Glorious is back in biz.

    Ever see Romney on a horse? He looks 10x better than Ronnie in his fake brown boots and jodhpurs astride a white –gag me– steed.

  • Bebe99

    The Republican party of today does not generally take on issues of import to average Americans. They create a climate in which the average American comes to care about Republican issues. And they do it very well.

  • easteagle

    David Frum’s article shows that the CPAC people are completely out of touch with the current issues that face this country; conservativism right now is alarmingly “off the rails”, “loony-tunes”, yet CNN and others cover these Roswell New Mexico believers like they are a substantive, important new movement in America – instead of a place for conspiracy theorists and survivalists.