Republicans need to be the adults in the room

Today I remembered one of the reasons why liberal Democrats are so repulsive: they have the same mentality as an elementary school student.

Don't get me wrong, this obviously doesn't apply to all Democrats. But I get that idea on a relatively frequent basis. Last year the Democrats ran on an economic platform no more sophisticated than looting the rich to give free cash to everyone else. Some say the Republicans dogmatically promote tax cuts, but at least that entails an economic philosophy. The Democrats are still operating from the Robin Hood "steal from the rich and give to the poor" mentality.

For years the left shrieked that Gitmo needs to be closed. So now Gitmo is closing, they find themselves dumbfounded by the fact that they are going to have to put the prisoners somewhere else. They've been whining for a new puppy so long that they forgot that it actually requires responsibility and discipline.

Most Democrats voted for the Iraq war like it was a free trip to Candyland. Of course, once the car ride started to last too long they started hurling abuse at their parents, like all spoiled kids do. "Bush lied for the oil!" they said, as if Bush was taking oil out of Iraq without paying for it. Eventually they demanded that he "end the war" as if the president could wave his magic wand and instantly end all the violence in Iraq.

And of course Bush is responsible for every Iraqi death instead of, you know, the people who actually killed them.

When Bush cut taxes the cuts were derided as being for the "rich" as if a Bill Gates would care that he's paying at a 35% rate instead of 39.6%.

Now the Democrats say that we absolutely have to pass this $800 billion stimulus bill, as if the economy will be in permanent decline for the rest of our lives if we do not. They want their shiny brand new toys so badly that their willing to make their parents go into heavy debt to get them.

Really, how else can you explain the fact that the likes of Frank Rich justify Democrat's obtuseness by citing past, nonexistent attacks on the Democrat's patriotism? Why else would the New York Times rave against Republican immigration extremists without citing a single Republican as an example?

In their editorial today the NYTimes cites a Youtube video of Bill O'Reilly. Of course they're sure nobody who could slap together a YouTube video would take his remarks out of context. It sounds like an arguement I'd make against my teacher back in the third grade.

How can Michael Moore ridicule Bush for his simple mindedness and then publicly justify his opposition against the Iraq War by asking "would you send your child to die in Fallujah?"

How can Oliver Stone sleep at night when he says (based on no evidence) that LBJ assassinated Kennedy to start the Vietnam War to give cash to defense contractors... and then turn around and lecture people on how Fidel Castro has been a "wise leader"?

Why does Chris Matthews think he's being insightful when he claims that the main lesson of Iraq is not to "occupy" a Middle Eastern nation under any circumstances?

The point is that much of the Left is living in a fantasy land. The Republicans need to be the grownups in the room, provide reality checks, and regularly point out the foolishness. We need to avoid getting bogged down in the ideology and instead figure out what works the best and advocate for common sense and responsibility.


Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)



God Bless You Sir!



Indeed you do.

"We need to avoid getting bogged down in the ideology and, instead figure out what works the best and advocate for common sense and responsibility."

Here, here! Let us know when the GOP institutes this bold new direction. So far I've seen nothing but ideology, and precious little that works or makes any sense to the common man. Provided the common man has a good education and a heart of compassion.


funny how Buffet, Daggatt, Lamont and a lot of other superich (cludin' Soros, of course) want to give away more in taxes. They would rather not install machine guns, and they can see what's coming down the pike.

Gitmo's closing. Toss the prisoner's in Marine Vet Murtha's district. They've had too much sun, let 'em remember what winter's like!

Bush is absolutely responsible for the rapes on American citizens that have gone unprosecuted because they occurred in Iraq. Bush is responsible for continuing to employ people who have been accused of War Crimes (which, if nothing else, is horridly anti-realpolitik)

I don't know if this stimulus will fix anything. But I do know that if we go into a deflationary spiral, we will lose our credit rating, and then things will go to hell for real. This ain't playtime no more kids, and the adults are in charge.

I can track the numbers, and boy howdy does Scaife care what tax rate he's got!

Tancredo is a Republican immigration extremist. Mean Jean Schmidt from Ohio did insult Jack Murtha's patriotism on the floor of the House. Some republican really did say to Tammy Duckworth, who lost both legs in Iraq, that she would "cut and run" on the war on terror. The list goes on. We have a sitting senator from Georgia who demonized his competition by transmogrifying the other guy's face into that of Bin Laden.

Those are just off the top of my head. Rich doesn't need to explain, because he's talking to political junkies.

Michael Moore is a showboat.

Oliver stone said what??? well, i'm glad I don't watch his movies!

Common Sense is good. We libs like common sense. We also like solutions, and hope to meet you on the other side of the demagoguery. ;-)

You got it.

Most liberals act as if the Law of Unintended Consequences doesn't apply to them.  Taxes?  Sure, punish the rich, and give handouts to the poor!  Do they care that it's rich people who create jobs, not poor people?  Do they care that it is fundamentally dangerous to our democracy if over half of the electorate don't pay any taxes at all?  Do they even bother to understand all the moral hazard that is involved with using the tax code to manipulate behavior?  No, they instead just stay up at night worrying about how much wealth the "top 1%" have.  It's amazing. 

as I understand it, more than 50% of the people

work, in this country. And all of those people pay social security, and unemployment, and MOST pay state taxes (okay, so cali and ny and nj state tax is really screwball. don't quote me on them)

So come again on these folks not paying taxes? From my standpoint, they're paying taxes. Maybe they're shielded from paying "progressive" taxes in favor of "regressive" taxes, but... when the social security goes into the same pool as the government spends out of, what's the difference?

No. Tell me what the moral hazard is in forcing folks to remain married, for tax purposes (been hearing that a lot lately from California)

"two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner"

So come again on these folks not paying taxes? From my standpoint, they're paying taxes. Maybe they're shielded from paying "progressive" taxes in favor of "regressive" taxes, but... when the social security goes into the same pool as the government spends out of, what's the difference?

The EITC approximately equals the amount of payroll tax one pays.  So, in the end, you have large swaths of people that don't pay any taxes at all, not even payroll taxes.  I would LOVE for just one of those smart, educated, elitist liberals to stand up and say "hey wait a minute, it's dangerous to have a majority perpetually voting benefits for itself at the expense of the minority", but noooooo, if you dare to suggest such a thing you're cruel-hearted.

20 million

That's 6% of the population. And another 7 million who are eligible but do not collect it.

any way you want to slice it, this isn't half the population  (I'll for the moment go along with your assertion that majority-voting-pie is a failure state for democracies, though imho not a very common one)