Do you actually believe the Republican Party stands for limited government? Really?
Lindsey Graham Supports Climate-Change Legislation
Lindsey Graham's actions on climate change in the last few days have set the greenosphere abuzz. First, he penned an op-ed, with John Kerry, where he committed to work with Democrats to pass a comprehensive climate-change bill ... Environmentalists have heralded Graham's oped as a game changer on the environment. They're probably right. Graham's advocacy of climate change legislation is a huge boost for the Boxer-Kerry bill (although he hasn't officially endorsed it). But it's not unexpected.
For starters, Graham, who has long demonstrated a willingness to work across the aisle, is starting to look more John McCain that John McCain these days ... Although Graham opposed previous attempts at comprehensive climate-change legislation, he's been slowly edging away from his old positions, even cosponsoring Democrat Senator Tom Carper's Clean Air Planning Act of 2006 that would have limited pollutants emitted by power plants.
John McCain: Unrepentant Climate Change Republican; Update: Lindsay Graham pushes carbon caps
More than three months after the ClimateGate scandal broke and despite relentless new disclosures every week about the fraud, misconduct, and distortions that have served as the underpinnings of AGW theory, McCain still believes climate change “is real.”
He is “proud,” my friends, of his global warming tour and rigged Senate hearings, his flip-flops on offshore drilling, and his longtime cap-and-tax flirtations.
While even Democrat slow learners are beginning to push back against the EPA war on carbon, McCain is still siding with the cultists.
Republicans Help Pass Cap and Trade!
Romney defends Mass. health care law
Mitt Romney offered an enthusiastic defense last night of the comprehensive health care law he helped create four years ago in Massachusetts, even as he pointed to crucial distinctions between it and a similar national program enacted last week by Democrats.
“Overall, ours is a model that works,’’ Romney said in response to a question after a speech at Iowa State University.
Obama’s signing of a federal health care law has put Romney — a possible 2012 presidential candidate — again on the defensive over the most significant achievement in his brief career in public office.
Romney trumpeted the achievement of near-universal coverage in Massachusetts, while declining to acknowledge that the mechanism he used to achieve that goal — a requirement that individuals buy private insurance — is the same as the much-criticized mandate of Obama’s plan.
Romney literally re-imagines Massachusetts health-care system
Readers of the Daily Caller know that Romney is blowing smoke in the direction of their backsides. “Since 2006, the cost of the state’s insurance program has increased by 42 percent, or almost $600 million,” wrote contributor Peter Suderman in January. “According to an analysis by the Rand Corporation, ‘in the absence of policy change, health-care spending in Massachusetts is projected to nearly double to $123 billion in 2020, increasing 8 percent faster than the state’s gross domestic product (GDP).’”
Not only that, Suderman added, but “the cost of insurance premiums in the state is the highest in the nation, and double-digit rate hikes are expected again in 2010."
GOP senators say they can work with Dems despite healthcare battle
Republican senators say they can work with Democrats, despite dire predictions that the healthcare fight would make cooperation impossible.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned that using reconciliation to block a GOP filibuster and pass healthcare legislation could destroy the fabric of the Senate, but the explosion that some insiders expected never happened.
Now Republican centrists say they are willing to move forward with Democrats on other issues.
Support politicians on an individual basis, not on team affiliation. Otherwise, we'll never get off this road to serfdom.
Come on man, you pick out the Graham/McCain/Romney axis to damn the whole party? Listen, you know me, I'm the furthest thing from a party apologist there is but we all know who the bad apples are. It's specious to condemn the couple hundred GOP congressmen because of Grahamnesty and McCain.
I don't condemn Libertarianism because I think Paul and Rockwell are kooky, nor could I, because it would likewise be transparently specious.
See the last sentence in the post. For that matter, tell me when, in my lifetime, the Republican Party ever did anything to limit government.
You have to be careful when it comes to choosing between a less conservative Republican and your average (or even "conservative") Democrat. While it's frustrating when Republicans are part of the problem, the solution is not to teach them a lesson by letting the more liberal Democrat win. We can try to nominate Republicans more to our liking (assuming they have a reasonable chance at winning), but failing that, we must back one of the existing parties and seek to change it from the inside similar to what is happening with the Republicans now on a macro scale. Each Republican, even if some are too eager to cooperate with Democrats, is still another caucusing Republican vote. We need as many of these as possible if we hope to overturn most of what the Democrats are doing.
Sorry, but I don't see a point in voting for anyone who isn't committed to limiting government. The government has grown in both size and scope every year of my life. Republican administrations and Republican congressional majorities included.
Slowing down the growth is a myth.
Graham is a major embarassment to the Republicans, and he probably doesn't even know it. He's one of the reasons the Tea Party folks are so careful to say they are independent.
He's working to help the Demcrats secure an unbeatable margin of electability by pushing immigration reform, making another 40 million Democratically-purchased voters on the roles. And diluting my vote.
I keep getting fundraising materials from the RNC. So long as they keep assclowns like Graham, they're wasting their fundraising dollars.
It is time to dump them all and start over. Most of the names in Congress are why we are here. So why are we still voting them in?
I agree with both CL and Russ. !
CL is right that the current GOP has done nothing to limit the growth of government. GWB was a big government guy. GHWB was a big government guy. Reagan tried but was steamrollered by the big government Republicans in Congress. Nixon should have been a Democrat for all the idiocy he pushed. Ike? An affable fellow but not conservative. Herbert Hoover? Before my time. Teddy Roosevelt? A proto-RINO. Yes, the rot goes way back.
But Russ is right too - change has to come from within. The conservative uprising will sweep some real small government folks into office. And some namby pamby squishy RINOs will come along for the ride. The new guys can show the old guard the way to the promised land. Our job is to make sure the new blood isn't subverted by the "go along to get along" Republicans we've got now (Mitch McConnell I'm pointing at you).
Look what's happening here in Jersey. Chris Christie is preaching fiscal responsibility. And he's taking decisive action. He's one guy. But the message is sinking in. Even Democrats are starting to climb on the spending restraint bandwagon!
What it takes is strong leadership and adherence to principle. If we can elect Tea Partyers or good conservatives to Congress they can drag the RINOs back onto the reservation.
[...] new ideas from Gary Peters and his Democrat cohorts, just the same tired old failed policies from the turn of the last [...]