Saturday, January 09, 2010

Getting closer to that constant refrain?

...or, It seems I am starting to hear this more and more:

the George W. Bush administration brought us marvels such as “No Child Left Behind,” the federal Medicare prescription drug program, nation building in the Middle East, TARP and growth of the federal deficit and national debt. The Bush-era GOP established a solid record of increasing the size, scope and intrusiveness of the federal government. Under Bush, the Republicans spent my money like drunken sailors. Under President Obama, the Democrats spend my money like drunken sailors high on crack cocaine. While the current situation is intolerable, I have no desire to return to the former.
“The party of no” instills no confidence. It suggests that what's best for the GOP is more important than what's best for America, and indicates the GOP will continue its feckless ways should I be foolhardy enough to put it back in power. The GOP has lost its way. The recent record shows a vote for the GOP serves only to further the ongoing demise of our own liberty. The difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party is one of degree only, not kind.
Goldberg writes, “the trick for the GOP is to figure out what it will say yes to.” It's really pretty simple. The GOP needs to say yes to shrinking the federal government.

Contrast this, if you will, to David Brooks, quoted here by Steven Greenhut: "In a column reprinted today (beginning on Page 1 of Commentary), Brooks rebutted those of us who argue that 'in order to win again, the GOP has to reconnect with the truths of its Goldwater-Reagan glory days. It has to once again be the minimal-government party, the maximal-freedom party, the party of rugged individualism, and states' rights. This is folly.'"

Folly, eh? So how has that not providing a viable alternative to the Democratic agenda worked out? I'd guess not too well, considering that the Democrats hold the White House and Congress, too. The letter to the editor also works as a pretty good contrast to Kathleen Parker's carping about the list of principles certain Republicans want candidates to back. Who are the ones the Republicans are going to be listening to as we go into the 2010 elections? The elitists who backed the "moderates" who got them where they are now, or the people who want them to start supporting the things that once actually won elections for them?