Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
How serious are the Republicans about reform?
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Jon has already mentioned this in the post below, but I wanted to add my 2 cents (apparently he and I were thinking the same thing at the same time).

We'll see tommorrow as they pick their new majority leader in the House how serious the Republicans really are. Tim Chapman, at Townhall.com, tells us about a meeting of the Republican Study Committee, a conservative group of Republican lawmakers. This was their annual retreat and they were there to consider the three candidates for Majority Leader.

Roy Blunt, John Boehner and John Shadegg each addressed the group. Two of the three candidates filled out extensive questionaires answering questions posed by the group (apparently Roy Blunt didn't find it worth his while to do so). You can see the questions here.

As we've mentioned any number of times, the Majority Leader's race is usually an 'inside baseball" matter. But in the wake of the Abramoff scandal, the explosive increase in earmarked pork and other discretionary spending, its visiblity has been raised and it is now seen as an indicator of the seriousness of Republicans in the House to clean up the corruption and return to their fiscally conservative roots.

In reality, tomorrow is "put up or shut up time" for the House Republicans. If they pick Roy Blunt, most will consider the House Republicans to have chosen business as usual over reform and fiscal responsibility. If they choose John Shadegg, most will consider House Republicans to be serious about both fiscal responsbility and lobbying reform.

They'll also pick a natural ally to Senators Coburn and McCain's effort to reign in the porkbarrel spending through earmarks.

Jon and I think John Shadegg is the man for the Majority Leaders job. Rep. Boehner, while better than Rep. Blunt, still won't send proper message. The symbolism of tomorrow's vote won't be lost on many of us out here in flyover land. And, depending on how it goes, it may have repercussions in November.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
If one of the 2 liberals running against him gets it look out in Nov! Is the GOP a conservative party of is it the new Democrats with a name change?
 
Written By: JommacDougal
URL: http://
"One of the two liberals?" Are you kidding me?
 
Written By: Tyler
URL: http://midwestdc.blogspot.com
Of the 3 "leaders" in the race the only one not a liberal is Shadegg. If the GOP is serious about cleaning up its act it will elect Shadegg. I think they are in the liberal "Read my lips!" mode right now and not at all serious about cleaning up their act. For the good of America I hope I am wrong.
 
Written By: Rodney A Stanton
URL: http://
I really think a definition of "Liberal" and "Conservative" needs to be provided, by the submitters. I have read nothing that suggests any of the three is a "liberal" in any political sense of the word.

How is Shadegg more "Conservative" than the others, do you mean in opposition to gay marriage, support of the war on drugs, a REDUCED Federal government?

And the others are "liberals" in what manner? They aren’t suggesting that lobbyists be burned at the stake and that any member who has received money, goods or services from lobbyists be required to return it, plus 25% of its market value as a donation to charity?

Before we start complaining about someone’s ideology mayhap we need to provide the parameters of the ideologies.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider