Republican Hypocrites
Okay, a fun little photo album here, and more hypocritical acts of “dissent” here and here from Republican protestors who just realized that massive spending and the ensuing debt might just cause problems for the next generation. So interesting that they just struck on this little pearl of wisdom now that a Democrat is in the White House.
Michelle Malkin, donning the unquiveringly brave voice of the people, writes:
The opposition will not be silenced.
Right, until the opposition happens to be those protesting unnecessary wars or disgraceful acts of torture. Then said opposition is “un-patriotic” and defeatist.
I’m sorry, this little charade is just too much for me. This guy, for instance:
Yeah, where were you the last eight years? Where was your “ethics and honor?”
In any case, here we see the new face of GOP populism once again. The boggart is out of the bag. The fiscal conservatism dragon has woken from its long sleep. Now is the time for snarky signs and sarcasm, with the economy in tatters, with two wars still on, with record job losses. No introspection needed. Just bring out the attack dogs and let them do their worst.
UPDATE: The chart below is via Balloon Juice. John Cole writes:
And none of these graphs include the violence done to the budget in the last year of the Bush administration. Long story short- even during the years of
Republican JesusRonald Reagan, Republicans were never “fiscal conservatives.” It took me some time to come to terms with it, too, because I deified Reagan with the best of them and still have my ‘Peace Through Stregnth’ buttons from the 80’s, but you just can’t argue with the facts.
Nihilism won’t be tolerated. How dare you.Report
Damn you E.D. Why did you send me to M. Malkin without some kind of heads-up? My life is ruined, ruined.Report
Didn’t you read the title, Bob? That wasn’t warning enough?Report
Your code escaped me. I thought you were being rendunant. I’ll try to read more closely next time. Once burned, twice shy.Report
How do you know these protestors haven’t been fuming over the Beltway GOP’s actions over the last decade? There’s no way to know they’re hypocrites. It’s not like they’ve been in Washington for the last eight years empowering an imperial presidency or spending money like there’s no tomorrow.
And anyway, presumably these Arizona Republicans voted for the likes of Sen. Kyl and Rep. Flake, both of whom have scored perfect 100s on the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste’s rating scale. Also, Franks and Shadegg, each of whom recently scored 98%. Hell, the Council even has McCain at 88%.
Most of Arizona’s Republican congressmen are also highly praised by Club for Growth and the National Taxpayers Union, the latter of which awarded, in 2007, Flake a 96, Frank a 93, Shadegg a 92, and Kyl an 86. Flake has topped the Club’s ratings at least once.
So, let me ask, where do you get off, Erik? (1) These people aren’t of the Beltway scene; (2) The votes they have cast, in the ballot booth, have probably been for proven fiscal hawks.
Hypocrites? Hardly.Report
So you’re saying that these people were out protesting the massive spending under the Bush administration or the expansion of Government during the past eight years? Hey maybe. Maybe you’re right. I doubt it, though. At least not in Arizona. Trust me, this is my home state, and these voters also voted McCain in – hardly the “fiscal conservative” move. Fact is, Arizonans have no idea what they want. This is just “following the leader, the leader, the leader wherever he may go….”Report
Multiple spending and tax watchdogs regularly give McCain decent scores. He’s no Kyl, but compared to much of the Senate he’s a penny pincher.
Plus, Mesa is represented by Jeff Flake:
“For the fifth consecutive year, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) was the top scorer in the House with a 96 percent rating — bringing him one year closer to Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) record of six first-place finishes from 1979 to 1984.” –NTU, April 2008Report
I bet a lot of these people really do want the guv’mint t buy them stuff though.Report
Look, Philip, this was a hot-headed post. Mainly what I’m saying is that for years and years Republicans and conservatives turned a blind eye to out of control spending and pathetic governance, and now suddenly they’ve found fiscal spine? Maybe you’re right. Maybe these protesters were doing this same thing during the Bush years, but I doubt it. This smacks of the luxury of no longer being in power.
This chart via Balloon Juice, is a visual aid for the kind of budgetary nonsense we put up with under Bush. Now only a few weeks into the new Administration we’re seeing protests like this one in Mesa? The Party of Rush is acting like a bunch of children. These signs are embarrassing, or should be. I know conservatives can do better than this. You know what I mean? Take a higher road?
Joseph–the thing about entitlements and spending programs is they make for great sloganeering. On one side they promise the world, and people like that. On the other, for those against them, they make for great targets. In the end, though, a lot of people really do enjoy the benefits that they provide, but they are provided at such a cost and with such lousy efficiency that there really must be a better way…it’s a tricky question. I think some means testing for things like social security is in order, to be sure…Report
Yeah, because Bush spent $1-3 trillion (estimates vary of the true cost) in his first two weeks in office. Please.
Are you really trying to argue that Obama and his ilk are bigger fiscal conservatives than the Republicans? They both are bad, but one is worse than the other. The R’s may be an 8 out of 10, but the D’s are a 9 and this is an exponential curve.Report
I get it. We shouldn’t criticize Bush because Obama is worse.
Sorry. It doesn’t work that way.Report
If Republicans had been consistent in criticism, instead of partaking in Helen’s tribal politics, it wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in. Perhaps, while having all strands of Federal Power, they could have urged constraint and conservatism instead of never ending club for growth glee. As it is, people like the one posted above just seem a joke.
In light of the recent discussions on the value of shame, how do you make sense of this? Is shame even available within ones ostensible group? Or, are some groups just impervious to shame?Report
Cascadian:
Such a good question. I think shame has been replaced by all-or-nothings – in other words, “you’re either with us, or against us” has become the new creed in many “groups” and “movements” and healthy shame is all but lost. So much more could be said about this….Report
“Party of Rush is acting like a bunch of children.”
First, don’t call it that. It doesn’t make any sense, it’s juvenile in its own right.
Second, I just don’t get your complaint. We live in a representative democracy. Citizens influence policy through electoral support of likeminded candidates. The people of Mesa have one of the most fiscally responsible congressmen in Washington. What more can they do?
Plus, they’re not just spontaneously protesting. The president was in town to put on a spectacle, so they figured they’d respond in kind. What’s wrong with that?Report
Does NOR and The Corner qualify as Republican? Don’t bother with an answerer I’m posting this anyway. Talk about hypocrites. To bad Jerry Taylor at The Corner did not read Montesquieu while W. was in office. Are readers of NOR so ignorant that they fail to see the dishonesty of such postings?
“Who Needs Congress? [Jerry Taylor]
Perhaps the most striking thing about Obama’s proposed housing plan is this nugget from The New York Times: ‘Except for the provision that empowers bankruptcy judges, almost all of the other elements can be enacted by Mr. Obama without further action by Congress.’
“How have we gotten to the point where hundreds of billions of dollars can be spent and major initiatives undertaken merely on presidential whim? Answer: Congress has delegated so much power to the executive branch that the old rules we learned in high-school civics are now null and void. Those old rules, remember, held that the legislature made laws and the president executed laws. Now, Congress routinely delegates massive amounts of broad law-making authority to the president in order to avoid responsibility for anything. For a book-length treatment of this, see David Schoenbrod’s Power Without Responsibility: How Congress Abuses the People Through Delegation.
“As Montesquieu once wrote, ‘When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty.’ “Report
Sorry, that should be NROReport
Bush should be taken to task (and often was by conservatives and libertarians), but Reagan had Democrats in Congress when he was president. They substantially increased non-defense spending.
I’m glad that people are protesting Obama’s antics and communism. If George Bush spent $1-3 trillion in the first few weeks then went on a tour proclaiming how joyful he was at his great accomplishment, I hope there would have been protests as well. What Obama is doing is unprecedented and the moral hazard he is encouraging with the mortgage bailout stands a good chance of bringing this country to the brink. Why should any of us work or pay our mortgage when there is free Obama money to be had?Report
Bush should be taken to task (and often was by conservatives and libertarians), but Reagan had Democrats in Congress when he was president. They substantially increased non-defense spending.
Weaksauce. The difference between the cost of Reagan’s proposed budgets and those passed by Congress was 2.8%. Reagan chose to have massive budget deficits; you can’t blame the Democrats for it. Just look at the difference between his spending and Carter’s – Carter had a large Democratic majority who he got on none too well with (partly because he did start out by vetoing a large bill he felt was overloaded with pork) and managed to control spending far more than Reagan.Report