I found this National Review article by Ramesh Ponnuru very encouraging, especially since Ponnuru is generally rather pessimistic and even critical of Republicans, whom he often views as weak and ineffective. He gives 11 reasons why 2011 should be significantly different (and better) for the Republicans in Congress than it was for them the last time they took over the House in 1995.
It is always wise not to put your trust in politicians or political parties, as they will always disappoint at some level. Nevertheless, I have to admit that I am cautiously hopeful and optimistic for the new Congress. So far, I am quite impressed with John Boehner, the new Speaker of the House. While I don't have a great deal of knowledge about him, I know he has been a reliable conservative vote in Congress for many years. In 20 years of service in Congress, he has never requested an earmark for his district and was instrumental in getting the Republican House conference to ban earmarks. He is a genuine American success story, growing up in a working-class family and working his way to the top through hard work. As a former small business owner, he understands how business works. He has shown a lot of humility since the election, acknowledging that Republicans made many mistakes the last time they were in the majority and insisting that he does not want to repeat those mistakes. I was impressed with his "hell no" speech on the House floor right before the health care vote as well as his leadership in opposing the bill, and I thought his emotional speech on election night was sincere and humanizing.
The House has not just a Republican majority, but an outright conservative majority now. In the Senate, the GOP has a conservative core of at least 41 senators who should be able to effectively filibuster the worst pieces of legislation. Mitch McConnell, the GOP Senate leader, is a political insider with a long history of pork barrel spending, but even he seems to be getting the message from the election. He recently agreed to support a ban on earmarks for the GOP Senate conference as well, which has now passed with almost unanimous GOP support.
Certainly the best we can hope for over the next two years is an uneasy stalemate. But Obama will no longer be able to force his agenda through, and the Republicans will have a chance to offer some alternative ideas and solutions. If they do a good job, they may be able to put the GOP presidential nominee in a good position to run against Obama in 2012. That is our only hope for repealing ObamaCare.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"It is always wise not to put your trust in politicians or political parties, as they will always disappoint at some level. "
What a terribly sad, true statement.
Here's an Op-Ed about Mr. Boehner:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/opinion/05herbert.html?_r=1
@ Sad State of Affairs:
Well, it certainly doesn't come as a surprise to me that the New York Times doesn't like John Boehner. I'm not aware that they like any Republicans. The New York Times editorial board, home of Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd, is hardly an objective source for information on Boehner or any other Republican.
I'm not going to defend Boehner's actions of handing out PAC money to fellow congressmen on the House floor (assuming that Herbert is presenting a full and fair account of the incident, which I think is questionable). I would merely point out that Herbert had to go back 15 years to find a damaging story, and that by Herbert's own admission Boehner did nothing illegal. Which long-term U.S. congressman has not done something on the sleazy side in 15 years of serving in Washington?
Apparently Boehner hasn't done anything particularly bad since then, or Herbert would have dug it up. He says nothing else particularly damaging or noteworthy about Boehner in the entire article (other than expressing his antipathy for the man in a number of different ways). So Boehner is tight with lobbyists? Tell me one long-serving member of Congress who isn't. So Boehner is supported by business PACs? Yes, because he favors pro-business policies. (Someone should remind Herbert that business, not government, creates real economic growth.) So Boehner has "socialized with" and received money from corporate interests. Yes, he has. That's not illegal or unethical and virtually all members of Congress do it. So Boehner opposed the financial "reform" bill. Yes, this big government bill was opposed by almost all Republicans.
So Boehner had private strategy meetings with lobbyists. I can't believe Herbert thinks this is news. Generally you don't plan your political strategy in the middle of the street. So Boehner supported a moratorium on new federal regulations. That sounds an idea that encapsulates the GOP message that won them about 65 House seats a couple weeks ago: smaller government, less regulation, lower taxes. Apparently Herbert doesn't realize that excessive government regulations strangles businesses and kill jobs. (And if there's one thing our country needs right now, it's jobs.) I don't know if I agree with Boehner's Social Security suggestions, but at least he's willing to put forward ideas for solutions, as opposed to waiting until the program is bankrupt. (You would think Herbert would support means-testing for Social Security to make sure the rich pay "their fair share.") There is plenty of corruption among financial and corporate elites, but Boehner is no more responsible for it than is Obama. And in my opinion, the government is far more corrupt than businesses -- they can normally get away with it while businesses normally can't.
At first glance, Herbert's profile of Boehner seems damning. But when you look closer, you realize that the worst thing he can find on Boehner in the past 15 years is that he is a pro-business conservative who wants to reduce government control and who has engaged in normal political activities like hobnobbing with lobbyists and accepting corporate money.
Just to clarify: I'm not saying that Boehner has no flaws or hasn't done anything sleazy or questionable in the recent past. I'm merely saying that I don't think that New York Times article revealed anything particularly shocking about him. There may be plenty of legitimate criticisms to make of Boehner, but I didn't think there was much legitimate criticism in that editorial.
Post a Comment