Finally, I have a moment to blog, and so I will now share with you the WSJ opinion piece that three people have pointed out to me today.
The Club for Growth, shocked that neither of the two remaining Republican candidates is the sort who will do their bidding, completely misses the point that, contrary to its own mythology, it is badly out of step with the Republican electorate. That means its last refuge is gone, just as it was prepared to take over the world. Nasty things, reversals.
Therefor the Club’s advice to the man who is getting nominated without it is that he simply must do its bidding in the matter of choosing a running mate. To wit, as set out by Club President Pat Toomey:
While congratulations are still premature, with Mitt
Romney dropping out of the race yesterday it is now very likely that
the Republican Party will nominate Sen. John McCain for president. If
that happens, the GOP will, for the first time since 1976, select a
candidate at odds with a large portion of its conservative members to
be the standard bearer. At the same time, the party is more estranged
from independent swing voters than it has been for decades.
This will pose a twin challenge for Mr. McCain. To
meet it, he will have to become the champion of the brand of economic
conservatism that has won national elections for Republicans since 1980…
To which I say, how come? He got past the hurdle that theoretically requires your favor without you. Your views don’t amount to diddly among the independents he has to win now. Sure, the really emotional types who are ticked over the existence of Mexican In Our Midst might stay home and give it to Hillary out of pique. But those fellas have nothing to lose. You are men of business. You may be crazy (politically speaking), but you’re not stupid. Are you?
Anyway, here’s where it really gets wild. Here is also where we find out why the economic libertarian extremists from Wall Street and other foreign parts have devoted so much of their ready cash to South Carolina politics. Obviously, this is the basket that holds 40 percent of their eggs. They have five veep suggestions to make, and two of them are South Carolinians: Mark Sanford and Jim DeMint.
Really. John McCain just wrapped up the nomination his way, with the support of such truly conservative South Carolinians as Bobby Harrell and Henry McMaster, and the Club says he should pick either the state’s most prominent advocate of Mitt Romney, who just proved his lack of appeal; or the guy who is such a nonteam-player, such an anti-team player, that he couldn’t be bothered to back anybody for president. A guy who is so obviously for nobody can expect nobody to be grateful enough to him to ask him to come along for the ride. Why would a candidate think he’d be helped by a guy who couldn’t be bothered to pick up an oar when it counted? Principled disagreement, a la DeMint, a ticket-balancing nominee might go for. But a guy who’s for no one but himself? Fuggedaboudit.
But why go for either of them when there’s an actually attractive candidate out there with vote-getting ability? Enter Mike Huckabee. But that doesn’t suit Mr. Toomey:
Moving forward, Mr. Huckabee on the ticket would be a disaster. The former governor has a record of raising taxes and increasing spending. Picking him would only make it more likely that conservatives will sit on their hands come November.
What could these fellas have against ol’ Huck? Could it be that he goes all over the country calling them the "Club for Greed"? Could it be that folks who don’t vote for McCain keep voting for the guy who calls them the — let’s say it again — "Club for Greed" (there’s video on this link)?, who says theirs is "a sleazy way to do politics"?
"Fortunately," breathes Mr. Toomey with relief, "there is no shortage of true-blue fiscal conservatives in the GOP" — meaning "guys like us," for the Club is one of those outfits out there that defines "conservative" as "guys who are true-blue to us."
But obviously, "conservatives" by this definition are indeed quite scarce. Out of 49 states, they can only come up with three. The other two they dig up from a state in which McCain and Huckabee won 63 percent of the Republican vote, and the only guy that either of the two guys they dug up supported got 15 percent.
Oh, heck yeah — that’s a BIG help. Thanks but no thanks, Club for Gree-, I mean "Growth."
Related Posts
I for one agree with Governor Huckabee they should be called the club for greed. I know Mr. Toomey thinks he and his cronies should control the party but they don’t, and I hope they continue to lose there influence.
Go Huckabee
I do not think Senator McCain is going to bend the knee to the Club for Growth. If McCain wins the nomination, he would do better to nominate Huckabee as VP since Gov. Huckabee has won essential republican states like TN, GA, and AL. If those states don’t support the republican presidential candidate w/ a strong voter turn out then the democrats are going to waltz away w/ the presidency. Look at how Romney did in southern states, not well at all.
Who cares who Mccain gets for VP, It will have to be a good “Pool Boy”. The baggage he would have to carry, better hope he doesn’t have any baggage of his own. I’m a conservative and I do not believe the republicans will have the white house after some of the stuff bush has pulled that was very unconservative. I won’t hold my nose and vote for Mccain, I’ll find an independent or stay home, depends if it is raining.
> Mexican In Our Midst
Brad,
You keep repeating this falsehood. Even Senator McCain said yesterday that the majority of the people opposed to his amnesty plan were basing it on the principle of the rule of law. When are you going to accept that and stop playing racist politics?
This is crazy for the Conservative crowd, and the Club for Growth crowd to whine about their petty little personal agendas and it shows how they fail to see the big picture.
To the Club for Growth,
You might try referring to the iron law of wages and reserve army of the unemployed as an alternetive…….
To the Conservative crowd,
Praise be to Allah……
Why? All your freedoms were penned by the founding fathers with ink collected from the musket and sabre.
Of course, if you took a short position on stocks prior to 9/11 and you are Islamic the above scenarios are not applicable.
Kind of puts it all in perspective ,huh? Fail not, refer to Occam’s razor.
I think all this rumination about who McCain should pick as his running mate is sort of silly, because I don’t believe most normal people make their decision about who to vote for as president based on who the #2 guy on the ticket is. So, I agree that this Toomey character has it wrong. But Toomeys’ kind of dictum is not really unexpected is it? McCain is a weak presidential candidate. He is undeniably weak among true conservatives in the party, who he’s going to need in order to get elected. When people like Toomey see this weakness is it surprising that they would attempt to steer McCain around by the tail with it?
The fact that many ARE trying to steer McCain around by telling him he’s got to do this or that, to me is silent witness to McCains’ feet of clay.
I think that the increasingly marginalized conservative folks who were once stalwarts in the GOP have been left behind by McCain and his believers, and those conservative folks aren’t about to come along “for the good” of the country or anything else, any longer. We didn’t leave the party, it left us. So you’re correct Brad, Toomey oughtn’t get away with his attempt to dictate to the new GOPs’ presumptive leader. McCain is a maverick ~ he can and should pick his own #2 guy.
And, he’ll go down in flames in November in a defeat of historical proportions. I think the same leftwrd drift that you rejoice about within the GOP may be happening in the country at large. McCain didn’t win with majorities in many of the states he’d have to carry in the general election in order to win. How can he therefore win if the country is lurching further leftward still? ‘Red Ruffinsore’
Brad,
While you are headed down the right path, you don’t quite make it to the end.
The Club for Growth is part of a system of interdependent special interest groups that shovel money anonymously around the country in hope of influencing elections. They use 527’s, 501c3, 501c4’s, and LLC to hide their resources, and are therefore able to work, for the most part, in secret.
While some members of the groups are ideologues, many are not. They are self-interested men with their financial wellbeing as the reason for their involvement. These men can, though this system, give millions and millions of dollars to these groups which can then elect men like Mark Sanford. Sanford then begins to “payback” with the States resources…contracts, legislation, new regulations and rule changes, etc.
Privatization is one great payback as it provides all new massive streams of income. For instance, school choice. Men like John Childs of Boston funds the Club for Growth and related groups with massive amounts of money while the Club and its elected officials fight for changes in our educational system that benefits his Edison Schools Company!
Sanford’s “nonprofit groups” have many millions in them. I am reliably told that over 1 million came from those groups interested in the new Medicaid HMO’s administered by the Sanford’s Health and Human Service Department. So as you can see, an investment in these shadow groups can be very productive.
Brad, don’t let them take your eye off the ball with their public ramblings…as they are not important. Just follow the money…and there IS SO MUCH MORE MONEY than you realize. The money, and how it is the affecting our state government, is the story.
There is an interesting discussion on the Palmetto Scoop concerning this:
http://www.palmettoscoop.com/2008/02/08/wsj-sanford-demint-top-veepstakes/#comment-8519
B. Hussein Obama: The least dangerous guy I know named Hussein.
Red Ruffinsore
Brad, I hope you read Paul Krugman’s article featured in Today’s State. It was a very well thought-out piece that made the important point that the economy is likely to remain sluggish well into the next presidency. I didn’t see personal assaults other than a mild suggestion that Bush and many on the far right are stubbornly resistant to any spending measures that could help the economy. As a “Neo-Keynsian” Krugman believes fervently in the doctraine that tax cuts AND spending increases are BOTH needed to bolster a flagging economy. This is a time tested prescription for curing recessions and Mr. Krugman is one of the most knowledgeable folks in pundit land to make this claim.
Dave says he does not think most people make their pick for President based on who the #2 guy is, and in most cases I think he’s right.
But, and here I don’t mean to be morbid or disrespectful in any way—McCain would be the oldest man ever elected to a first term as President. Just from a purely actuarial point of view, his choice for Veep is much more critical than whoever Obama or Clinton pick.
And reading Brad’s blog today, I’m thinking—-Jim DeMint, a heartbeat away from the Presidency???!!!! Any thoughts that this Democrat might have voted for McCain over Hillary would evaporate with that possible scenario in place. Yikes!!!
Jim DeMint: the Dan Quayle of our time.
Phillip, McCains’ advanced age of course is a consideration. Or, at least it should have been among those who have elevated him to the top of the GOP ticket. I think you are correct: When a presidential aspirant is over seventy to begin with and has had a bout with cancer on top of that, the american electorate ought to be very cautious about electing him to our highest office.
Toss in a few peripherals like leftist policies and explosive temperament, and we have a real loser in John McCain. So Phil, you ought to be happy! It doesn’t matter who McCain picks as his #2 guy…he hasn’t a chance. Your candidate is going to win. Rejoice and be glad in that. Red Ruffinsore
From my point of view, I would have to consider Sen. McCain’s running mate before I could vote for him with a clear conscious. If he can get someone who has some honor and conscience (Sen. Lindsay? Or someone else who seems to know where he’s going and who is willing to work with others rather than hamstring the entire process) to run with him, he might be a possible choice. The thought of Sanford ever becoming president scares me. A sane gerbil as president would cause less damage to this country than what we’ve had for the past 8 years, or might have, with a Sanford presidency. On second thought, strike the sane.
“The Club for Growth … completely misses the point that, contrary to its own mythology, it is badly out of step with the Republican electorate.”
Which Republican electorate, Brad? You and Bud?
Seems like you’d drive down a crowded one-way street the wrong way to throw a stone at Mark Sanford, though he’s willing to stand on his own and tell both parties they’re wrong.
I would have thought that was an Unparty kind of thing, a Brad kind of thing, a McCain kind of thing, standing on principle awkwardly with a pig on each arm, telling both parties their spending is gluttonous.
But no, from your point of view, Sanford’s “for no one but himself.”
Heck, Brad, it is possible Sanford didn’t endorse a presidential candidate because “he couldn’t be bothered,” but because he didn’t like any of the people running enough to endorse them.
Me, I wouldn’t recommend McCain choose Sanford as a running mate, or DeMint, but not for your reasons. If the senator from Arizona can’t carry South Carolina without either of them, neither could pull in the votes elsewhere to make a significant difference.
Because of his age, McCain needs a running mate worthy of the presidency, someone who could help him win a big state, or someone well known enough to help him in several states.
Neither of the South Carolinians has the star power for that.
Theoretically, I suppose this is a good discussion. It will interesting in a clinical sort of way to see who McCain picks: Will he go for a stand up conservative in order to mend fences with the conservatives he’s been insulting for years? Romney, or DeMint…or Lindsey Gramnesty? Gramnesty has been such a lap-poodle and sycophant for McCain that this would make sense in a sick sort of way.
But only interesting theoretically, because it doesn’t matter who he picks, he cannot and will not win.
I am way more intersted in who Clinton/BHO will pick.
B. Hussein Obama: The least dangerous guy I know named Hussein.
David
As much as I’d like him to pick Lindsey — or Joe Lieberman — I doubt he will. Those guys are too close to him; they’d provide no “balance” to the ticket.
And Philip, there’s nothing wrong with considering age in a running mate. That’s one of the reasons Huckabee comes to mind — not only would he bring along some different voters, but he’s only 52.
Mr. Faust, your determination to try to tar someone by the name his parents gave him speaks much more eloquently about you than it does about him.
Well said, Karen.
Ms. McLeod, I take it as a sign that I must be doing something right to be so disliked by you. Mr. Faust
You too Herb. Mr. Faust
Thank you, Karen, for proving over and over and over again that the political correctness movement, ever mind-boggling, has also been mind-numbing.
“We will not wear suits. Suits are wrong,” cried the all-knowing children of the Sixties, who dressed uniformly in the same kind of blue jeans to demonstrate their non-conformity.
Of course, when two or three of the Beatles wore funky suits to a party, the folks in blue jeans thought that was the essence of cool.
That’s the kind of thinking that subjects every idea to a political correctness test and would have us still believing the world is flat, even if we were “carrying pictures of Chairman Mao.”
Why is it the people who want no insults hurled are always the quickest to hurl insults?
Paul Krugman believes that the best way to stimulate the economy is for government to spend money, instead of individuals spending their own money. To do that, the government needs to tax away the spending power of individuals, or debase it through borrowing.
“Believes” is the right word, because it is a belief system, with no foundation in economic theory or historical experience.
Smaller growth and lower taxes are the last thing the Club for Growth wants. Pat Toomey, Grover Norquist, et al make too good a living from railing against the government to really want it to go away. Then they might have to get real jobs, or get elected to office to continue railing.
Whatever you may or may not know about the personal motives of Grover Norquist and Pat Toomey, the fact is that taxation is at the saturation point. We see it proven with the economic stagnation which follows every small tax increase, and the prosperity which follows every small tax reduction.
Just the possibility of Obama or Hillary winning, with their promises of $500 BILLION in new annual spending, has already sent the housing market and stock market into a tailspin.
Alas, Lee, another argument in your accustomed style – bland assertions with proof either assumed or not present at all. If you ask the ordinary American whether he or she did better after the Clinton tax increase of 1993 or the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, you might not like the answer.
Mr Gordy,
When I post the facts, it may seem like an assertion to the uninformed reader, so I often provide footnotes to sources, as I have on some other blog topics.
The promised spending by Obama and Hillary is on their web sites, Hillary with more detail. I have posted analyses by experts at Harvard, etc who have dissected the costs of the proposals.
Likewise, I have posted references to the analysis of how increased spending on social programs has consumed all the new revenues generated by the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.
If anyone is not doing better in a growing economy than they were under the stagnation and recession of Clinton 1998 to 2001, they those persons are probably not gainfully employed, and the huge increases in welfare spending will never be enough to make them happy.
Bush Deficits Resulted from Excessive Spending on Social Welfare
———————————————————————-
The first $800 BILLION of deficits were caused by the flat economy from the 1998 stock market crash in tech stocks, which became a recession in November 2000. Tax revenues fell, but Congress refused to reduce spending.
* Annual interest on the existing debt is $406 BILLION, just behind defense spending. Health and Human Services is the largest, at $500 BILLION.
The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 produced enough new tax revenues from economic growth to have balanced budgets, but Bush and Congress spent it all and more on social programs.
* For example, a new projection by the Brookings Institution that includes the Medicare prescription drug bill, increases in discretionary spending by inflation and population, and the extension of the Bush tax cuts, shows the budget deficit rising to $687 billion by 2014. See Brookings Institution, “Restoring Fiscal Sanity: How to Balance the Budget,” January 2004, p. 5.
* Education spending has increase 361% since 2001
* combined Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security spending is currently rising at roughly $50 billion every year. 10 years from now, spending on these three programs without reforms will be rising by more than $100 billion every year.
* The tiny Bush tax cuts are not enough to keep government from absorbing an increasing share of the GDP.
Projections of large future budget deficits are based on rapidly rising spending, not a shortage of revenues.
Assuming that the Bush tax cuts are made permanent and the alternative minimum tax is fixed, federal revenues as a percentage of GDP will steadily rise from 16.2 percent in FY2004 to about 18 percent by FY2013.10 Since 1970, revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged 18.2 percent.11 Thus, the Bush tax cuts do not starve the government for funds, and revenues will slowly and steadily rise over time due to “real bracket creep” under the income tax. – source:
Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update,” August 2003, p. 9.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Feb 10, 2008 8:55:56 PM
Do you know why spending is increasing Lee? There are many reasons, all related to the fiscal incompetence of the Bush Administration. A few examples. First, we’re spending enormous amounts of money on the military. The second reason has to do with the sagging economy. As people lose their jobs government is required, by law, to mitigate many persons through unemployment compensation. A third reason is that government funded health care expenses are rising as people age and health care costs soar.
The record is crystal clear on this issue. The Clinton record for fiscal responsibility was remarkable. The Bush adminstration record is a disaster. If you honestly interpret the facts you will have to reach that conclusion.
We are actually spending far less on the military, including this war in Iraq and Afghanistan, than we spent during the Cold War.
Unemployment is lower now than it was under Clinton. It would be much lower if we sent home the H1B workers and illegal aliens.
Clinton deficit spending ran up $1.5 TRILLION in new debt and gave 3 recessions and a stock market crash in 1998 which destroyed millions of retirement plans.
Government medical care and unemployment are not required spending. The Supreme Court has ruled that they, like Social Security, are mere welfare programs to which no one is entitled. The benefits can be reduced or abolished for anyone and everyone without notice.
Every new government expenditure on medical care results in the big corporations offering less medical benefits. As the less efficient government crowds out private services, patients suffer a lower quality of care.
Medical costs rose no faster than other prices until government became involved in socializing medicine under FDR. The more government provided medical services and intefered with the market, the faster the cost of care rose. Today, the government controls 46% of all health care expenditures.
Mr. Muller, would you please provide a specific reference to a FDR program or policy that involved our government in socialized medicene? Thank you.
Soon after taking office, FDR received a study on national health care which had been begun by President Hoover. FDR was too busy enacting other items begun by Hoover and proposed by Hoover in the 1932 campaign to turn his attention to medical care.
There was no private medical insurance in the US until 1929. Blue Cross Blue Shield was created in 1930, and others followed, so the private sector was far ahead of the government, as usual.
By 1935, Roosevelt had the Farm Security
Administration (FSA) and the Federal Emergency Relief Agency (FERA) in place, and he a network of private physicians and nurses who were paid set rates to treat enrolled patients at set fees. At its peak, over 1,000,000 rural patients enrolled in 41 states. FDR bypassed the state governments entirely.
Socialists were not satisfied with these programs, and thought they would undermine efforts for comprehensive socialized medicine, so they worked to undermine them.
National Health Conference of 1938 pushed FDR to propose mandatory national health insurance in 1939. Senator Robert Wagner introduced legislation (S.1620) to create a mandatory federal medical system, but the AMA and others beat it back.
Sounds to me that FDR did not do what you attributed to him. That is really sad . If he had done so think how many millions of Americans would now be covered. You see, I don’t agree with you that health should be linked to some company’s quaterly return on investment.
If you don’t think socialized medicine began with FDR enrolling 1,000,000 rural people in 41 states into 2 federal treatment systems, and his speech proposing mandatory national health insurance, when do you think it began?
Right now, the governments in the USA control 46% of all the money spent on medical care – the portion whose costs are so out of control. It began somewhere, and I just told you the exact date and programs.
Apparently, some of you don’t know what socialism is, or dismiss it unless it is pure communism. Well, socialism manifests itself in different forms and degrees, from the New Deal, to Nazism, to Stalinism.
I also don’t think people should rely upon their employer to provide medical insurance. That, too, is a creation of FDR, directly by creating vast benefits for federal workers, and indirectly by imposing a wage freeze on workers as we came out of the Depression, so business created medical insurance and life insurance plans.
Let’s start by abolishing all medical insurance and pensions for government workers, and let them buy their own insurance. End the tax deduction for business providing business, or tax the benefits as income to the corporate and government employees, so they are in the same boat as the self-employed.
Real health insurance reform would be for everyone to have their own medical and life insurance, just like their home, automobile and boat insurance.
Real pension reform would be an end to corporate, union and government promises to pay lavish retirement, replaced by private individual savings accounts which would make even the lowest-paid workers financially secure at age 60, and something to pass on to their heirs.
Brad, your out of touch. Voters just took down another RINO in Maryland.
Interested in passing a drug test? Check here for more information on how to do just that!