Republican party

Please, sir, may we have some more?

Some more Ronald Reagan, maybe?

It would be nice to find SOMEBODY right now who could articulate Republican principles as clearly as Ronaldus Magnus.

His counterpart across the pond was pretty good at making the case, too.  Hillsdale College's president, Larry Arnn, spoke about Mrs. Thatcher earlier this year:

...I happened to live in England when Mrs. Thatcher’s party won the 1979 election and she became prime minister— the first woman to do so. It was better than watching sports on television. There was nothing like it. Every day she would do something big, and every day she would not apologize for it, even when reporters would press her. You just never saw anyone so direct or clear of speech...

... I’ve thought about this most of my adult life, and much of what I think about it is informed by having watched Mrs. Thatcher. We live in an age when a new kind of government has been invented, and it’s not so much that it has different aims, although it does have many different aims, but that it proceeds by a different method—through rules made by so-called experts, who gather the forces of government over themselves...

...And the weight and scale of the government run by this new method means that there’s some chance that the government is going to overwhelm the society. That is the very abnegation of liberal politics—liberal in the sense of a free people managing those who govern them because human beings are born equal, with equal rights.

The greatest defender and servant of this principle of liberal government that I have seen in my lifetime is Margaret Thatcher, and I pray that we will see the likes of her again, because the battle over this kind of government is upon us again...
Read the whole thing (scroll down to read Arnn's remarks, although Ted Cruz's commencement address is worth reading, too).
Here are some Thatcherisms that can be found in Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: A Political Marriage by Nicholas Wapshott (available in the Finger Lakes Library System and the Chemung County Library District):
“If a Tory does not believe that private property is one of the main bulwarks of individual freedom, then he had better become a socialist and have done with it.”
“Indeed, one of the reasons for our electoral failure is that people believe too many Conservatives have become socialists already….”
“If every Labour Government is prepared to reverse every Tory measure, while Conservative Governments accept nearly all socialist measures as being the ‘will of the people,’ the end result is only too plain.  Any why should anyone support a party that seems to have the courage of no convictions?  We lost because we did not appear to stand firmly for anything distinctive and positive."
“Most of [the voters] want to do a fair day’s work in a job that gives them satisfaction --- and strongly resent what they regard as state subsidies to shirkers.”
“My kind of Tory party would make no secret of its belief in individual freedom and individual prosperity, in the maintenance of law and order, in the wide distribution of private property ….”
[I stand for] “compassion and concern for the individual and his freedom; opposition to excessive state power; the right of the enterprising; the hard-working and the thrifty to succeed and to reap the rewards of success and to pass some of them on to their children; encouragement of the infinite diversity of choice that is an essential freedom; the defense of widely distributed private property against the socialist state; the right of a man to work without oppression by either employer or trade union boss.”
If someone of the stature of a Reagan or a Thatcher arose and began articulating our principles clearly and without apology, would the fishwrap of record—or even the WSJ—bother to cover the story?
Stay tuned.
And perhaps, like Hilsdale's Larry Arnn, pray.
h/t's Henry & Tom

CNY bloggers get it

The GOP principle poachers do not.

And Cornell's Professor Jacobson on "the 'purity' cop-out":

Who demands purity and wants chaos?...

...It’s always the Tea Party for refusing to give in to Obama’s demands.

I’m sick of that narrative, particularly when it comes from our own side.  Why is it that we are the recipient of these inflammatory accusations, not the Democrats?

...It’s not a question of “purity.” That’s a convenient word to use to diminish the opposing view without addressing the merits.

...Why is it a test of “purity” to refuse to give in to an economically irrational, purely political demand?
And how would it create “chaos” if tax rates rose on everyone?  You may not like that outcome, but it’s not chaos.  To the contrary, it might have been a wake up call to the American population that the cost of big government cannot be borne by the top 2%.  You want big government, you pay for it.  That’s not chaos...
...Nor does it violate some conservative principle to say that raising taxes is not the answer, and to focus on controlling spending and reforming entitlements.  We proposed an entirely rational method of preserving economic order...

...There were alternatives, except that the House leadership fell into the trap of viewing the choice as going off the cliff or not.  It was a failure of nerve and a failure of creativity coupled with an announced willingness of Obama to go off the cliff, which resulted in horrible legislation which Senators did not even read prior to approving it.

Given the failure of leadership, why was it a “purity” test and a wish for “chaos” to decline to vote for the leader?  Why have a vote at all, if Yes is the only answer.

To dismiss the criticism of the tax rate rise and the abysmal failure of the Republcian negotiating strategy as a “purity” test and desire for “chaos” is a cop-out which just encourages further unreasonable demands from Democrats.

For Republicans to make the accusations against the Tea Party without justification is just icing on Obama’s cake.
Time to hum a few bars of "The Rattle Hymn of the Republic":


Dunkirk redux

From one of our ace contributors:

Unmitigated Defeat

By Publius

On New Year’s Day, the House of Representatives voted for a fiscal package that included a ratio of about forty times as much in tax increases as in spending cuts.  The United States government will continue to spend far more than it takes in with about forty percent of every dollar it spends borrowed money.  The impact of the withdrawal of hundreds of billions in new taxes from the private sector, with only token spending cuts, will likely send our economy into a tailspin. The fiscal cliff, as awful as it would have been, would have been more responsible than the fiscal package just enacted.  At least, going over the cliff would have cut spending along with raising revenue.
Throughout the process, Republicans bent and kept trying to reach accommodation with the President and the Senate.  Moving toward the center, Republicans offered alternative plans for consideration, while the President actually added to his demands.  His negotiation pattern resembled that of last century’s totalitarian regimes, ratcheting up demands instead of moving toward the center and insisting on revenues without meaningful cuts.  Yet the mainstream media blamed Republicans for the lack of progress.  Seldom has an indictment been so off base.
Spending far beyond our means is the problem, not revenue.  Who will bail us out from the price of our own folly?  Who will save us when our politicians lack the moral fiber to stand up and say “no more,” even should it mean they will go home in two years?  Why are there no profiles in courage?
We are like a family out of fiscal control, making sixty thousand dollars a year but insisting on living a one hundred thousand dollar a year lifestyle.  The issue is not whether we are running through our children’s inheritances, but will we have anything left to live on in dignity and self sufficiency.
The Republican Party and our nation have suffered an “unmitigated defeat,” made all the more galling because it would not have been possible without Republican votes in the House of Representatives.  
For those who say the Republican Party was made irrelevant by the election of 2012, they should remember Republicans control two thirds of the state governorships and the House of Representatives and lost the presidency by only a small number of votes in a few key states.  Yet, the Republican Party’s leadership has lost its voice. The leadership of the Republican Party is driving more and more of its members into the Tea Party; these leaders are the architects of the party’s demise.
To be relevant, a political party must offer the nation a choice of policies.  Republicans cannot and must not become Democrat “me toos.”  Why is it that when we Republicans elect people to office, they abandon the fundamental fiscal principles of our party?  What is it about the water in Washington, DC or in Albany that makes our office holders forget fiscal responsibility?  Republicans can matter, but only if they have guiding principles and if they stick to them.  Fiscal discipline needs to be the top priority.
Part of the latest deal kicks the spending problem down the road a few months.  Putting off what should not be avoided is irresponsible at best, criminal at worst.  Until war preparations bailed him out, Franklin Roosevelt presided over a great depression for the better part of eight years while continuing to blame his predecessor.  We are repeating that pattern.  Does anyone really think enhancing government revenue and the public sector at the cost of the private sector where the real work is performed will improve our economy?  If so, they are among those who are not learning from history and, thus are doomed to repeat it.
Rome failed to meet the fiscal and moral challenges of its day.  Make no mistake about it, we are witnessing the decline and fall of the United States.  We have indeed been tried in the balance and found wanting.  The future we’re heading for does not work.   Unless we change these shadows of things yet to come, we are forging a very long chain to bear for us, our children and grandchildren.

Road rage

Try to ignore the rubber ducky and pay attention to all the rest of it—as you might imagine, I particularly liked Sam feeling the need to bathe and the "I kept it going all these years!"  smiley

Subscribe to Republican party