Pence: Rightward Ho!
Anyone hoping the Republican Party might start repositioning itself in a more constructive manner won’t find much to like in this Mike Pence op-ed explaining that more dogmatic adherence to the conservative creed is what the party needs:
We must develop new strategies for strengthening our armed forces and homeland security, and be willing to oppose any effort to use our military for nation-building or progressive social experimentation. We must again be the party of economic growth. The American people know we cannot borrow, spend and bail our way back to a growing economy. Republicans must offer alternatives for restoring growth through tax relief, expanded trade, spending discipline and no more government bailouts. We must detail our alternatives to Democratic plans to raise taxes and expand the federal government in education, health care and entitlements. Ideas like a balanced budget amendment, school-choice vouchers, health savings accounts and welfare reform should take center stage in the Republican agenda. And we must have a vision for defending the cherished values of life and marriage whenever they come under attack from the courts, the new administration or congressional liberals.
It would be comforting to think that something as dumb as this couldn’t possibly succeed politically, but progressives should be under no delusions — if the Obama administration fails to restore prosperity, they will be beaten very badly in 2010 and 2012 no matter how nutty the GOP agenda.
62 Responses to “Pence: Rightward Ho!”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 10th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
With six weeks to go before an Obama administration even takes office, an Opposition Party trying to reinvent itself before it even knows what there is to oppose is clearly a party more interested in itself than the country.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
This is the standard “conservative” MO – nothing ever fails; it simply wasn’t done right. The solution is always to do more of whatever “failed” in the first place.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Republicans oppose nation-building? Since when?
December 10th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
“The politics of failure have failed. We need to make them work again. Tomorrow, when you are sealed in the voting cubicle, …” – Kang
December 10th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Welfare reform again? What’s left to reform?
December 10th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Since the 4th of November. Hey, was Rep. Pence one of those smug assholes waving a purple finger around to demonstrate how great nation-building was?
December 10th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Golly, if only the GOP had been in charge of things recently, they’d show us how it’s done!
…oh… right.
yes because not doing any nation-building worked so fabulously in Iraq.
These guys are going to spend a long, long, long time out of power.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Hey, was Rep. Pence one of those smug assholes waving a purple finger around to demonstrate how great nation-building was?
I believe Pence was the moron that compared Baghdad to an outdoor market in Indiana at the height of the insurgency.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I hope they push hard for private school vouchers. That idea is so unpopular that it went down to flaming defeat in a referendum here in Utah two years ago. And this is the reddest state! Nobody wants to privatize public education.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Well …. I wouldn’t put your conclusion quite so strongly. In terms of 2010, if prosperity isn’t “restored” then the Dems will take losses (they might take some anyway), but I think “very badly” overstates the case.
As for 2012, while I understand your atatchment to the idea that all that matters for presidential elections are the economic fundementals, I think there are a numbe rof variables. Incumbants are tough to defeat; beating Obama “badly” would require I think a perfect storm of bad news for the Dems – misteps by the administration, bad economic news, a strong Republican candidate. And yes, a Republican party that gets too crazy on certain issues is going to have a much tougher time capitalizing upon bad economic news.
And all this also ignores the increasing demographic good news for the Dems, which isn’t detrrmanitive, but puts a finger on the scale in the Dems favor.
That said, one could certainly envision the economy tanking so badly that the Dems lose to even to the crazy wing of the Republican party (is there a non-crazy wing even left?)
December 10th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
It’s just stunning that Republicans think that providing a strong national defense is tantamount to a free lunch.
Stuff costs money. Money is raised through tax dollars.
Sounds simple enough. Guess not.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I find it odd that you are surprised that the Reps are reprising tenets that have worked well for them in the past. They have never stood by these tenets, but that is another matter entirely.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Another thing to keep in mind about MY’s 2010 and 2012 predictions is that you have to define prosperity correctly. According to the ‘economy is the only thing that matters’ theory of presidential politics, our economy could contract for 3 straight years, but as long as a healthy recovering begins in 2012, Obama would get re-elected.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
It is? Wow, you could knock me over with a feather.
I thought our government raised money by borrowing it from China and then we let future generations worry about how to pay it all back.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Matt, you’re officially a concern troll in your own blog.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Republicans propose a balanced budget amendment!
That’s amazing. They have no self-knowledge.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Pence is selling warmed-over dog shit and calling it poundcake. That’s all an opposition candidate has to say about him and voila – no more Mike Pence. He can bat his eyes and smile like a second baseman all he wants – but that shit won’t fly anymore.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
It is? Wow, you could knock me over with a feather.
I thought our government raised money by borrowing it from China and then we let future generations worry about how to pay it all back.
But for taxes, imagine how much more onerous the burden on future generations would be.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I think Matt’s concerns are generally justified. He might be overstating it with “prosperity”, but at the least, “strong road to recovery” needs to be the consensus in 2012. Elections can pretty much be predicted based on a few broad brush factors. If the economy is still tanking badly, Obama’s in trouble. Its not as if the electorate really pays attention to the policy proposals of either party.
One thing to bear in mind though is James Fallows’ rule of incumbent presidential elections: if the incumbent is challenged by his own party in the primary, he wins, if not, he loses. I don’t see how anyone other than Hillary can do this to Obama, and with her at State, the odds of her doing that have fallen (though never completely going away because, after all, she’s a Clinton).
One final point: I kept spelling incumbent wrong while writing this post, but there’s an automatic spell check, so this mistake was easily fixed so, Matt…wtf?
December 10th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
The economic situation TODAY is rapidly deteriorating. If that process has halted by 2010, people will, oddly enough, feel better even if their circumstances haven’t improved, if only because they’re not getting worse.
Economic history indicates it would be an upset for things not to be at least a LITTLE better in 2012 than they are today.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Bush is bragging that he hasn’t changed his principles. That’s the whole conservative shtick–not changing. No matter what. This is perfectly in step with rejecting evolution. It stands to reason that the Republican party will not adapt, and will become instinct. For the majority, survival will be more pressing than ideological purity or the appearance of it.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Musa: you’ve got that rule of presidential politics backward, right? If the incumbent is challenged, he loses, if he isn’t, he wins?
December 10th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I hope they push hard for private school vouchers. That idea is so unpopular that it went down to flaming defeat in a referendum here in Utah two years ago. And this is the reddest state! Nobody wants to privatize public education.
Well, the label “vouchers” is pretty unpopular. But the principles behind the label — portability and competition — are fairly popular if you take into account charter schools. For the life of me I don’t see any difference between “privatizing” public education and “charterizing” public education. Essentially the two processes are identical,/b>.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
We’ve seen Republicans play this game before. When they’re in power – since Reagan, at least – deficits don’t matter. When Democrats take the presidency, deficits suddenly become quite serious and require Balanced Budget Amendments, etc. They use stupidity in a very clever way to gain power but not because of any bedrock principles they claim for themselves. Rather, they’re nihilists looking for ways to a perpetuate false argument for its own sake. It’s odd, really. You think ideologues would have more respect for their own ideology.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
yawn.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Pence is essentially rehashing the CONTRACT FOR AMERICA that Newt & the Boys ran on in 1994. That’s all the have. 15 years, two wars, 9/11, Katrina, subprime/credit/Big 3 crisis later — THIS IS ALL THEY HAVE.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Indeed, we all remember how Alf Landon slaughtered FDR in 1936.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
The Republicans cannot govern. …… The Republicans can win elections, the Republicans can create controversies, the Republicans can obstruct the legislative process, but the Republicans cannot govern.
This should be the new mantra, “The Republicans cannot govern” as code for the failure to go after terrorists in Afghanistan, the fiasco in Iraq, Katrina, and the economy.
Again, the Republicans cannot govern.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
The rule that a challenged president loses depends on the idea that Pat Buchanan presented a serious challenge to George Bush in 1992. I do not think this is a justifiable assessment. Buchanan did well in the New Hampshire, but didn’t win a single contest, and Bush never even campaigned against him. I don’t see how that qualifies as a bona fide primary challenge.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Re: if the Obama administration fails to restore prosperity, they will be beaten very badly in 2010 and 2012 no matter how nutty the GOP agenda.
Which explains why the Democrats got a drubbing in 1934 and 1936, yes.
To be sure, if Obama makes some high-profile flubs of his own you will probably be right, although 2012 is more likely a year of reckoning than 2010 (the election map that year is simply not kind to the GOP).
But if the GOP does not nothing but play to its base (just as they did in the 30s) then the public will not be buying the GOP-brand eagerly in the next few years. The GOP base is simply not large enough to win national elections, as this year proved. They have to appeal beyond their base– as they did in 2000 (”Compassionate conservatism”) and 2004 (”He’s kept America safe”) and not at all this year with their rants about socialism, the exhuming of obscure 60s radicals, a healthcare plan only the Cato Institute could love, and so forth.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
“Progressive social experiments”?
December 10th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Indeed, we all remember how Alf Landon slaughtered FDR in 1936.
The business cycle timing is entirely different this time around, however. When FDR took office, GDP had begun growing again after 3.5 years of decline. By November of 1936, GDP had been growing for about the same amount of time. The question is: will conditions in November of 2012 more closely resemble those of November of 1932 or November of 1936? I certainly hope it’s the latter.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Wheezing old mindless piece of shit. I hope the right does follow Pence, right into the fucking bug zapper.
School vouchers? Fuck me, is this 1993?
Pathetic.
.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
The Republican party has not been terribly conservative over the last few years. Foreign policy has been Wilsonian idealism, and domestic policy has been spend, spend, spend.
A turn towards actual conservatism would represent a change. Not one Matt would like, I’m sure. But a change nevertheless
December 10th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Not that that stopped the Republicans from borrowing and spending their asses off for the last few years. The guy obviously has some sort of built in memory hole.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Not that that stopped the Republicans from borrowing and spending their asses off for the last few years.
You don’t understand–they had to sin in order to understand the wickedness of their ways. Now that they understand how wrong they were, who better to lead the nation?
Or some sh*t like that. Like all right-wing parties throughout history, the present-day Republicans are about authoritarianism and concentrated power. The windy rhetoric to justify it isn’t even supposed to be persuasive.
December 10th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Ah the old “they weren’t really conservative” dodge. Fuck that. Conservatives were fine with the Republican Party – hell the most mindless of them made excuses for that “Wilsonian idealism” which is just the idiot’s way of pretending the bloody slaughter of innocents without any actual justification (spare me the parade of lies – you and I both know they are self-serving bullshit you trot out to make your cheering on the deaths of far away brown people seem noble) is actually the fault of the Democrats. Conservatives cheered on every bit of wasteful giveaways to the corporations.
Stop whining, admit you are part of the problem, and vote for the real conservatives; those who would fulfill the promise of the United States as outlined in its declaration of principles – The Declaration of Independence.
Or you could just keep pretending that conservatism was failed and see yourself shunted off to the irrelevancy where you belonged before you and your kind got hundreds of thousands of human beings slaughtered for your arrogance and stupidity.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
If the military shouldn’t be doing nation-building, what are they still doing in Iraq?
I guess this guy is from the Palin/Joe the Plumber wing of the party who were secretly appalled by McCain and only had the courage to admit it once he lost.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
As for 2012, while I understand your atatchment to the idea that all that matters for presidential elections are the economic fundementals, I think there are a numbe rof variables. Incumbants are tough to defeat; beating Obama “badly” would require I think a perfect storm of bad news for the Dems – misteps by the administration, bad economic news, a strong Republican candidate. And yes, a Republican party that gets too crazy on certain issues is going to have a much tougher time capitalizing upon bad economic news.
Ford, Carter, and Bush were defeated. I’m not sure *hard to defeat* is how I would describe it.
Obama is like Carter. Carter, in my estimation, is a very underrated president. He essentially took the LBJ and Nixon/Ford years of dramatic over spending, and, with Volcker’s help, restored fiscal and monetary sanity. But that came at a tremendous short-run cost, that, with Kennedy and Anderson’s help, cost him the election.
Obama will probably have no Democratic or credible independent challenger in 2012. But he will have an economy that is in much worse shape than Carter’s in 1980. This is going to be a terrible, terrible recession. The consequences of 8 years of housing bubble and fiscal extravagance, not to mention mounting entitlement burdens that are going to be coming due, plus two wars, is really going to devastate us.
I too fear a Republican Party in the grip of right wing religious extremists. This could be a very bad time, with lots of recriminations, xenophobia, and so forth.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
People look back to Bush in 2000 renouncing nation building as hypocrisy, like “compassionate conservativism.” But he’s been consistent all along. It’s nation destroying that he embraced as president. I’m sure Pence would go along with more of it.
December 10th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Re: The business cycle timing is entirely different this time around, however.
Not all that different. This mess started two years ago as the real estate bubble collapsed (the equivalent of the crash of 1929). So we’re about 1931 now– and remember, the Depression did not happen naturally, it was forced by multiple bone-headed decisions. As far as I can see we haven’t done anything like that– no Smoot Hawley, no gold standard follies, no attempts to balance the budget. No turning a cold shoulder to massive bank failures.
Re: But he will have an economy that is in much worse shape than Carter’s in 1980.
By 2012 the economy will be well into a recovery, although the job market may still be lackluster.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Why is it suprising that a party that has abandoned all of its principles for political expediency would find hope in a return to those values? Values which have proven timeless.
And to the commenters, why is it suprising that the party which has been massacred in the past two elections would abandon significant portions of their unpopular policies. Of course many republicans are going to repudiate nation building and government growth!
people learn their lessons…and I’ve learned mine, like to not read the comments on this blog because there is absolutely no insight therein…just partisan hackery
December 10th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Yeah, because the Republican party is full of win and everyone wants this horseshit. Nation building, my ass, no one is going to forget the last eight years. No one is going to forget the deregulated shadow economy coming apart at the seams. You’ve got like forty years at least before anyone starts looking fondly at small-government, hawkery and doesn’t see disaster. You were already depending on an old, dying, electorate. There is no comeback here in even the most generous of middle-terms.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Not all that different. This mess started two years ago as the real estate bubble collapsed (the equivalent of the crash of 1929). So we’re about 1931 now– and remember, the Depression did not happen naturally, it was forced by multiple bone-headed decisions. As far as I can see we haven’t done anything like that– no Smoot Hawley, no gold standard follies, no attempts to balance the budget. No turning a cold shoulder to massive bank failures.
My original point was in response to a claim that implied Obama’s reelection effort will be take place against a business cycle pattern similar to that which influenced FDR’s contest against Landon in 1936. Now, I personally doubt this will be the case, because I don’t think this downturn will be nearly as severe (in terms of % decline of GDP) nor as long (the first installment of the Great Depression — the decline of ‘29-’33 — lasted over forty months). However, if this downturn were to last as long as what transpired while Hoover was president, then we shouldn’t expect GDP to resume growing until the summer of 2011. And that, in turn, means Obama will face the voters about sixteen months after the resumption of economic growth. But FDR faced the voters fully forty-four months after the resumption of economic growth. To put it another way, if we really are in a downward spiral equaling ‘29-’33, Barack Obama got elected two years too early.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Re: And that, in turn, means Obama will face the voters about sixteen months after the resumption of economic growth.
It will really depend on what Obama does or doesn’t do in the meantime. If he’s perceived as trying his best to get the economy going again, and has enacted universal healthcare and other policies to ameliorate the hurt, then he will be able to face the voters with a good chance of continuing in office. That was FDR’s situation in 1936– the economy still fairly well sucked that year after all, but FDR was seen as doing his best while the GOP was just offering more Hooverism. In a less severe downturn that was also Ronald Reagan’s situation in 1984, since the early 80s recession had bottomed out under his watch (1982 was a bad, bad year), and had only just started growing solidly again in time for “Morning in America”. In regards to another matter entirely– war and national security– George Bush enjoyed the benefit of the doubt in 2004 since 9-11 had ocured early in his term, and the voters were willing to let him continue (Iraq did not become political poison until well into 2005). Obama will only own the dowturn if he screws up personally. The voters meantime are well aware whose watch this started under.
December 11th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Great! Let the “conservatives” put themselves in a self-discrediting group. Now if we can get the MSM to ignore their prattle, instead of taking it oh, so seriously.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:50 am
viagra
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:29 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
tramadol
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:24 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra