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

 
The Whining of a RINO
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, November 25, 2008

When will Republicans learn that "colleagues" on the left will turn on them in a New York minute if it means advancing their cause, increasing their power or punishing their rivals?

Susan Collins (ME-R) is shocked, shocked I tell you, that her Senatorial colleagues actively worked for her defeat:
The tactics used by Democrats to secure at least 58 Senate seats may have damaged their chances of winning vital support from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) in key votes in the 111th Congress.

Collins told colleagues at a small Senate prayer breakfast meeting last week that she still felt lingering resentment toward Democratic senators who campaigned against her in Maine.

She confessed that she had “trouble forgiving colleagues” who traveled to Maine and told voters she was “a Bush clone and called into question her ethics,” said a senator who attended the meeting.

Collins’s lingering resentment could emerge as a snag for Democratic leaders who expect her to side with them on many important votes.
Heh ... my guess is somewhere, on some crucial vote which is vitally important to the Republicans, Sen. Collins or Snowe or any of a number of others just like them, will find it in their hearts (not their heads) to forgive and cooperate with the Democrats. The very same Demcorats who, six years from now, will again do precisely what they did this year in an attempt to unseat Collins.

File that under "some people never learn".
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
What’s a RINO?

Okay, I know RINO stands for "Republican In Name Only" but considering that a Republican President has for the last eight years presided over the largest expansion of the Federal government since FDR and the New Deal, I have a hard time defining RINO. Especially when for the first six years of this Republican President’s Administration, he had a Republican Congress lockstep in expanding the government with him.

And since this same Republican President is even now presiding over the Federal government taking significant equity positions in many of the nation’s largest and most substantial finaincial (and insurance) institutions, I really have a hard time understanding what a RINO is.

Maybe we should just redefine what "Republican" is in the first place, considering the way they have acted and voted for the last few years.
 
Written By: William Thomas
URL: http://
What this boils down to is more of the same. It’s been going on for some time.

Bush 41 figured if he bent over forward enough, the left would like him. Remember he was doing what the Democrats asked him to do, re; the ’no new taxes’ pledge? How did they respond?

Bush 43 did the same thing on different matters as did McCain. All of the hand their @$$3$ handed them in a basket.

Clearly, Republicans leaning left does not mean Democrats are hating them less. Just as clearly, the lesson still hasn’t been learned. I see Kondrake this morning in recent columns, still making noises that the Republicans have not leaned far enough left yet to be elected.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
William,

I think you are being unfair to Bush. He in fact intended to reform social security, but 9/11 pretty much derailed his domestic agenda, and he focus has been of terrorism, Iraq, etc. While he still deserves blame for the prescritption drug bill, nominating Myers, the $770 B bailout, etc., on balance he was a moderate President who tried to tackle the big issues and compromise on other issues.

The left, of course, won’t credit either his leadership or his willingness to compromise. The right is pi**ed that he was willing to compromise. Even Reagan got cought in this trap, just not to the smae extent.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The right is pi**ed that he was willing to compromise. Even Reagan got cought in this trap, just not to the smae extent.
because Reagan was smart enough to understand that there IS no compromise with the left. None. As such, he won them over not by becoming more like them but with the force of HIS ideas, not theirs.

The Republicans have gotten themselves in trouble the last few elections to the degree that they’ve forgotten that lesson.





 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
67Q8qc vbcgppzgfwsi, [url=http://tlwazknvmspy.com/]tlwazknvmspy[/url], [link=http://jndeyuvfwtbl.com/]jndeyuvfwtbl[/link], http://jxbmixmhzmtv.com/
 
Written By: rigqebnaold
URL: http://jicseljklmri.com/
The world’s most expensive (and important) prostitute?

Because like any high class escort, all she’s really doing is putting on the fake pout so as to get the mark to buy her the diamonds as a "gift" before she comes through with what she’s there for.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Don,

I think you are being nothing more than an apologist for Bush and the Republicans. You and I have done much more than Bush to privatize social security than he has just by writing the phrase "privatize social security." Sorry, but in terms of actual accomplishments, George W. Bush did nothing: I consider his presidency a blatant failure.

And by the way, Bush did not really start mentioning privatizing social security until after the Iraqi War began.

Indeed, on balance, Bill Clinton was a more economically conservative, better and sucessful President than George W. Bush. And quite frankly, I think both conservatism and the Republican Party (which, for better or worse,are two different things) are both doomed until they can admit that.
 
Written By: William Thomas
URL: http://
"The right is pi**ed that he was willing to compromise."

I always understood compromise to mean that both sides gave a little, and both sides got a little. What did the right get? If, for example, the left wants to expand the federal role in education and the right wants to decrease the federal role in education, how on earth is an expansion of the federal role in education a compromise? By your logic, if you demand all my money, and instead of refusing I say "How about only half and I won’t call the police?", and you agree, somehow I come out ahead.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
By your logic, if you demand all my money, and instead of refusing I say "How about only half and I won’t call the police?", and you agree, somehow I come out ahead
Ironically, this is the exact situation re: the Left and taxes.

They want it all, we bitch and threaten to vote them out, and they decide to "only" take a huge chunk, and we should then be thankful we got to keep some of our money.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Sure, sure, William Thomas, Clinton really took it to Al-Qaeda. Oh, wait...

There won’t be any cutting and running to hang around Bush’s neck, whereas Clinton’s got a large black (Hawk Down) mark around his neck. Feel free to connect Somalia to 911, Willie. Bin Laden did it. So can you.

Clinton was held in check by a Republican Congress.

I love how whenever we hear of Clinton’s economic track record, we invariably get: "and the stock market soared." Oct 2007, Dow hits 14.1K. Highest ever. Credit to Bush? Nah, forget it....
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
Come on, Please

As far as foreign policy is concerned, I give both Clinton and Bush failing marks. We can talk about Somalia but Bush has gotten us in a quagmire in Iraq. Yes, we can even agree that Saddam Hussein should have been overthrown but "shoch and awe" is a failed military strategy: why wasn’t "the surge" started five years ago!

And as for al Qaeda, please, have you taken a look at developments in Pakistan and Afganistan lately?

But on the domestic economic front, yes, I give Clinton much better marks than Bush!

You say that Clinton was held in check by a Republican Congress?

True! I agree with you!

But the fact remains that he was still held in check.

Bush, on the other hand, spent like a drunken sailor on furlough in a whorehouse with many of those same Republicans in Congress. Too bad that Republican Congress couldn’t hold Bush in check. Indeed, that Republican Congress joined Bush at the public trough.

And if you want to give Bush credit for a DJIA over 14,000 a year ago, then please give him the blame for a DJIA barely over half that now!

In terms of conservative/libertarian economic principles, George W. Bush was a lousy President and I still find it amazing that so many so-called consrvatives still cannot seem to admit it.
 
Written By: William Thomas
URL: http://
but Bush has gotten us in a quagmire in Iraq.
*slap*

15 of 18 Providences turned over to Iraqi control is not a quagmire, you ninny.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
>>In terms of conservative/libertarian economic principles, George W. Bush was a lousy President and I still find it amazing that so many so-called consrvatives still cannot seem to admit it.<<

William, the war in Iraq is basically over. Quagmire? Please, dude, get off it. But don’t believe me... http://www.punditreview.com/2008/11/yon-2/

As for the surge: again, are you serious? Mistakes are made in every war. Specific battle plans aren’t foreign policy, either.

As for Bush being a lousy con/libertarian president: Yeah, so what? I knew that when I was voting for him. He said he wasn’t a true conservative ("compassionate conservative") in 2000. And I believed him, and guess what? He was right. And I’m not disappointed. I knew exactly what I was getting, as long as it wasn’t Kerry or Gore. Same with McCain. McCain’s no conservative, but compared to Obama...
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
To both Scott Jacobs and Come on, Please:

The war in Iraq should have been over five years ago. Unfortunately, Bush seemed wedded to Rumsfeld "shock and awe" strategy (not simply a "battle plan" but a strategy) that extended it for too long. Wedded to a "shock and awe" strategy against the advice of Colin Powell and, interestly enough, John McCain.

And specifically to Come on, Please, I am glad you realize that George W. Bush was never a true conservative but did you really expect him to come up with a plan of over $700 billion in bailouts and possibly over $7 trillion in "loans"?

Seriously, any anomisity and/or snipping aside, is this what we have come to expect from a Republican Administration?

And yes, all in all, I do think Clinton — whether because he was constrained by the Republicans in Congress or not — did better.
 
Written By: William Thomas
URL: http://
Heh ... my guess is somewhere, on some crucial vote which is vitally important to the Republicans, Sen. Collins or Snowe or any of a number of others just like them, will find it in their hearts (not their heads) to forgive and cooperate with the Democrats.
It is called doing her job. A representative’s job is to represent their constituents. The people of Maine went for Obama 60:40 over McCain. Senator Collins is going to find out what her constituents require to be done and (shock/horror) quite a lot of the time this will require acting in concert with the President.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
I am so sick of people like Collins, we are going to hell in a handcart and this bitch is whining because the democrats acted like politicians.
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
"Indeed, on balance, Bill Clinton was a more economically conservative, better and sucessful President than George W. Bush."

This is beyond idiotic. Clinton inherited victory in the Cold War and oversaw the military being cut in half (as percentage of GDP). This is where the meaningless surplus came from and also why the military was short of everything for years. Same thing happened with Reagan after Carter let the military rot, and it will happen again most likely with Obama as President. We’ll simply never know what would have happened if it hadn’t been for 9/11 but to treat each Presidency as if they existed in a vacuum is retarded.
 
Written By: andrew
URL: http://
andrew,

If you exclude all war-related — indeed, all military and homeland security-related — expenditures, George W. Bush presided over the biggest increase in the size of the Federal government since FDR. From steel tariffs, to "no child left behind," to Medicare Part D, George W. Bush was a big-government liberal and a lousy President.
 
Written By: William Thomas
URL: http://
As far as foreign policy is concerned, I give both Clinton and Bush failing marks. We can talk about Somalia but Bush has gotten us in a quagmire in Iraq. Yes, we can even agree that Saddam Hussein should have been overthrown but "shoch and awe" is a failed military strategy: why wasn’t "the surge" started five years ago!
It wasn’t until that mosque was bombed that Iraq started to go to hell. Starting the Surge 5 years ago doesn’t make sense.

Granted, Bush made mistakes, he should have fired Gen. Sanchez earlier than he did, but you are making too much of Bush’s mistakes.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
And yes, all in all, I do think Clinton — whether because he was constrained by the Republicans in Congress or not — did better.


The only reason you think that is because Clinton came in clueless and failed to socialize medical care.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I think you are being nothing more than an apologist for Bush and the Republicans. You and I have done much more than Bush to privatize social security than he has just by writing the phrase "privatize social security." Sorry, but in terms of actual accomplishments, George W. Bush did nothing: I consider his presidency a blatant failure.

And by the way, Bush did not really start mentioning privatizing social security until after the Iraqi War began.
One of the reasons I voted for Bush in 2000 was because he had a plan to privatize SS. Yes, he mentioned it prior to the Iraqi War. He failed to pass it through Congress.

The fundamental problem is that after 9/11, he focused on the war, and SS took a back seat, so it was pretty much bound to fail. Perhaps he lacked the political skills to push it through even if the war wasn’t a distraction, reforming SS is no easy thing.

Bush’s presidency revolved around the war on terror post 9/11. The biggest single aspect was the Iraq War, which Bush has essentially won.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The war in Iraq should have been over five years ago.
Really? Why is that?

Is it because the Iraqi government was competent 5 years ago?

Is it because the ISF was large enough and competent enough 5 years ago? How about the INP?

Is it because shi’ites and sunnis had all their problems worked out 5 years ago?

Is it because the government had the experience to budget, had the rule of law under control and were in control at a local level 5 years ago?

Had al Qaeda given up on its "central front" in Iraq 5 years ago?

Had the Saddam dead-enders surrendered 5 years ago?

Had the Sunni insurgents come over to our side 5 years ago?

Had Iran essentially been zeroed out of the picture 5 years ago?

What was it that makes you so sure that the war should have been over 5 years ago?

There’s no question things could have been done differently and we might be in the shape we are now a year or two earlier - but there were many things which had to run their course in Iraq before we were in a position to win. And as you might have noticed, even when it is clear we’ve won the thing and are doing just about everything right, it still isn’t quite over, is it?

But, of course, you’re obviously sure that 5 years ago, it could have been over with the precise outcome we’re now seeing. Pray, tell us how that could have been so - please, do enlighten us.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
It is called doing her job. A representative’s job is to represent their constituents.
Only when their principles, or the principles they claim as theirs, interfere with their political desires.

Only then do they claim their constituents wishes are topmost, Angus. However, when it is politically expedient for them to buck their constituents, then they claim the matter is one of ’principle’.

That is what is called "doing their job".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Clinton inherited victory in the Cold War and oversaw the military being cut in half (as percentage of GDP). This is where the meaningless surplus came from and also why the military was short of everything for years.
Andrew, you are exactly right. Clinton used the non-existent "peace dividend" to gut military spending, committed the US military to a historically unprecedented number of "nation building" missions than it had ever conducted, depleted our cruise missile stock to address imaginary ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and ignored al Qaeda as it was attacking us all through the 1990’s. Without the reduction in military spending, there would have been no surplus. Furthermore, the long term national debt doubled during Clinton’s two terms.
9/11 pretty much derailed his domestic agenda, and he focus has been of terrorism, Iraq, etc
I think this is very true as well. No one has been more po’d about Bush abandoning conservatism than me. However, I think he was constrained in his domestic agenda because he needed to maintain support, and more importantly, funding for the war in Iraq. If he had vetoed spending bills, he would have put funding for the war at risk.

None of that excuses Bush for violating conservative principles, however. He could have vetoed Mccain-Feingold, he should have never proposed No Child Left Behind and illegal alien amnesty was pretty bad. Contrary to liberal conventional wisdom, he was better on foreign policy than the left wants to pretend. Al Qaeda is on the run, the intifada is no longer raging in Israel, AQ Khan is no longer dispensing nuclear technology, the North Korean situation is imperfect but better than before and Europe seems to be coming around with regard to Iran. Russia and Pakistan are problems but, contrary to the liberal meme, they were problems when he entered office.
 
Written By: jt007
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