The New Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?


Democrats run Congress and own the presidency, yet they still are not in charge, nor are they responsible for anything. There’s a new Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that, somehow, makes Republicans still responsible, regardless of how few seats they hold in Congress. Don’t believe me? Try this on for size.

Their clear and open intent is to do all they can, however they can, to sabotage the new administration (and the economy to boot). They want failure. Even now. Even after the last eight years. Even in a recession as steeply dangerous as this one. There are legitimate debates to be had; and then there is the cynicism and surrealism of total political war. We now should have even less doubt about what kind of people they are. And the mountain of partisan vitriol Obama will have to climb every day of the next four or eight years.

And that’s from a supposed conservative, although Sully’s sheep’s clothing was pulled off a long time ago.

But do you notice what’s at play here? If you don’t think the porkapalooza bill will stimulate the economy, if you think this bill is too large or pork-laden, you now want failure.

This is all just the latest attempt by Democrats to disown their own actions. They had enough votes in the House without any Republicans. Then, in the Senate, they had the reliable RINOs to give them cover to call it “bipartisan.” But that’s not enough for them. Instead, we’re treated to these arguments, where actual policy differences are discussed as merely political ploys and where disgust for politician’s behavior is treated as lunacy.

That there’s a new Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is gaining traction, since it’s impossible for there to be genuine policy disagreements with Teh One, and it can’t possibly be that Obama’s theatrics and amateurish taunting gave Republicans more than enough reason to oppose the “stimulus” plan. The sad thing is, even as the press is actually discovering the long-range effects of the porkapalooza, we’re still seeing stories tongue-licking the POTUS. Is it really “historic” when a president manages to get legislation passed when his own party is in power?

If there is a New Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, I’m all for it. Now I just need to know where to send my check.

Cross-posted at Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels.

14 Comments

  1. C’mon dude.

    You know full well that modern Republicanism is 1% governing and 99% electoral posturing.

    It is as it has been. Spare us the make believe.

  2. I will if you’ll admit that the Democrat party is all about making as many citizens beholden to the federal government as possible.

  3. Sharon,

    As I’ve said before. We are all not as lucky as you and we don’t all live on farms and have our own clean spring water supply and maintain our own livestock and have our own spinning wheels and looms like you.

    Some of us depend on roads and police and schools.

  4. Dana,

    Insightful. I see that it is not dawning on you freaks why people hate your politics. Enjoy your irrelevance.

  5. In some ways, I agree with Jason’s linked article:

    Now Republicans are out in the wilderness, but rather than treat them like pariahs and the fringe regional losers that they are, Obama insists that he wants their input. It might be a laudable ideal, but Republicans have decided that the way back to power is to offer contrasts with the ruling Democrats. That’s smart! Where they screw up is that their ideas are so terrible that no one wants anything to do with them. But who knows, at some point they might stumble onto something good.

    But they’re not going to get back to power being Democratic lite, and they’re not going to get credit for any of Obama’s successes, and all the love kisses from Broder are irrelevant to them as soon as they have to deal with a Club for Growth-backed primary challenger.

    Where I disagree is Jason’s sentence, “Where they screw up is that their ideas are so terrible that no one wants anything to do with them.” We know that Jason wants nothing to do with the notion of smaller government, but he is unashamedly liberal. Where the smack-down comes is in paying for liberal ideas.

    Senator Obama ran on, you guessed it, a middle-class tax cut. His campaign website is still available:

    Obama’s Comprehensive Tax Policy Plan for America will:

    * Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.
    * Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.
    * Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.
    * Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.

    Under the Obama Plan:

    * Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
    * Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
    * Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.

    And during the campaign, Mr Obama continually ran ads telling us how his tax plan would lower our taxes more than Senator McCain’s proposals, and the “Obama Tax Cut Calculator” is still available on his site.

    But if Senator Obama promised to bring taxes down to 18.2% of GDP, President Obama has just helped send spending up to close to 30% of GDP, though the final numbers aren’t in yet. Unlike Bill Clinton, Mr Obama seems to have actually meant what he said about his tax cut plan — something which sure fooled me, because I thought, and said, that he was lying through his scummy teeth — but this is approaching madness. Not all of the Porkulus Plan will be borrowed and spent in FY2009, but we know that the FY2009 deficit was going to be more than twice the FY2008 deficit of $455 billion even before the Porkulus Plan passed. What is going to happen to interest rates — especially now that equities have crashed, and people with money need to make more from bonds — when we try to borrow a trillion dollars more than last year?

  6. I suppose that the rather naive believers in Obamanomics may believe Moon Pie in the Sky.

    Republicans made their biggest mistake in copying the worst aspects of their rivals. “Bringing home the bacon” may buy some votes but is it really good policy?

    Obama is clever but arrogant and has a fawning chorus of media sycophants. He reads a good speech but has never been more that a trendy hack shyster with links to the foul underbelly of Cook County politics. These are his good points.

  7. More to Jason’s point, some good may come of this yet. The Republicans came to congressional power with a plan to cut taxes and cut spending. The 104th Congress showed some real discipline, and had we a Republican president at the time, a lot could have been accomplished. Alas! Bill Clinton was a better politician than Newt Gingrich, and if Speaker Gingrich was right, President Clinton was popular. George Bush came into office, and while he did many good things, he and the republicans simply gave up on controlling federal spending. The voters elected him to cut taxes, which he did, but they didn’t elect him to oversee runaway spending; he did that, too.

    The formula that won in 1994 will still work, if Republicans can have the discipline to make it work. We have to get back to advocating the cutting of government spending: that is where we can differentiate ourselves from the Democrats.

    It’s a bit difficult for us, right now, to talk about fiscal discipline, since the President and Congress we supported had so little of it. President Clinton promised to cut taxes, and raised them instead, but at least he could lay claim to fiscal discipline and a balanced budget. Put that next to the performance of the Republicans during the Bush Administration, and we looked pathetic.

    Well, the public want lower taxes; virtually every election proves that. If Republicans can couple that with lowered spending, we can return to power. But we can’t repeat the spending performance of the Bush Administration.

  8. Apparently Sullivan is still listening to Rush. Funny that.

    Good point re 1994 formula. The biggest disappointment of Bush was his inability or unwillingness to fight the spending and it is now part of an ugly legacy of Republican leadership. (of course even if the spending had been controlled, it would all still be the Republican’s fault…)

    If Republicans were truly “irrelevant” as claimed above, the left wouldn’t care one iota what Sharon (or any other R) thought let alone take the time for shots across the bow.

  9. But if Senator Obama promised to bring taxes down to 18.2% of GDP, President Obama has just helped send spending up to close to 30% of GDP, though the final numbers aren’t in yet.

    Shorter Sharon: I don’t know the difference between “taxes” and “spending”. This should be borne in mind when reading all my complaints about “the deficit”…

  10. That was me, Phoe, not Sharon. But I do know that if President Obama brings taxes down to 18.2% of GDP, and raises spending to pushing 30% of GDP, we have a vast increase in what York accurately called defecate spending. I didn’t think that I needed to add that last sentence to help you understand such a point.

  11. I have a strong distaste for “GDP” but not quite as strong as the offensive “CE” and “BCE.” “GDP” is just a softening up switch from “GNP.” Not to derail, but derail anyway. :P

  12. I have a strong distaste for “GDP” but not quite as strong as the offensive “CE” and “BCE.” “GDP” is just a softening up switch from “GNP.” Not to derail, but derail anyway. :P

    No, there’s a very real difference between GDP and GNP. Strangely enough, the switch in which tended to get quoted occurred just as the US was switching from a net global creditor to a net global debtor…

Comments are closed.