On Thursday’s "Situation Room," CNN reporter Bill Schneider proclaimed that Republicans need to move left in order to recover from their midterm losses:
Bill Schneider: "Will Republicans move further to the right? Not if they got the message of the election. Republicans lost because they abandoned the center. Independents voted Democratic by the biggest margin ever recorded. The election also provides an alternative model of a Republican who moved to the center and thrived."
Does anyone really believe that?
Most people believe this was a vote in Iraq for the most part and partially the fact that Republicans moved LEFT on things like spending.
Some people NEVER get it...like everyone working at CNN.
Friday, November 10, 2006
CNN Reporter to GOP: Learn Lesson of Midterms And Move Left
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
Game said, "fact that Republicans moved LEFT on things like spending".
Did Republics raise spending on entitlements? I don't think so. If they had, that MIGHT be considered moving LEFT on spending (at least by conservatives).
No, they were left unfettered by checks and balances (and consciences) spending on pork at historical levels and give-aways to corporations. And after the war, that was the number one reason for the outcome of this election.
What Jim says here is pretty much correct. There is a disconnect between what Republicans have been saying and what they've been doing. It doesn't matter how many slick consultants Republicans have and how many negative adds they run-- you can't make a contract with America, break it left and right, and not expect the American people to flush you down the toilet when it comes time to vote.
"Did Republics raise spending on entitlements?"
Not only that, they've created new ones. The most egregious examples of Republicans empowering government instead of people include the prescription drug benefit, and Ted Kennedy's instrusive No Child Left Behind bill.
To most conservatives, there is little besides the military and infrastructure that deserves any spending of our hard earned dollars. It's the fact that they just spent and spent and spent. That's Dem-like enough for most conservatives.
everyone is correct!!!
Jim is only wrong on the entitlement thing, they created a whole new entitlement!!!
If republicans can't keep spending down, what makes them different from dem's???
People who vote for dem's dont care if they are corrupt (Doyle won) or if they spend too much...so they will get those votes...
Who will vote for repubs???
No one if repubs are not a clear alternative for conservatives to vote for.
Yes the prescription drug benefit is a HUGE entitlement...for the drug companies since they can name ANY price and the government is forbidden to negotiate lower prices. SAWEEEET!
And as far as taxpayer relief, I suppose we should eliminate:
The Centers for Disease Control
The Securities and Exchange Commission
The Federal Reserve Bank
The Department of Justice
Etc.
jim has to get "extreme" again...
we are talking about legit budget control and Jim has to say that equates to eliminating whole agencies...can any liberal talk with common sense and restraint
game--
Yes runaway education spending is a HUGE entitlement...for the Unversities since they can name ANY price and the students in the market place are forbidden to negotiate lower prices. SAWEEEET
See, Jim is well on his way to understanding how government works, including how well-meaning social policies, through centralization and bureaucratization, help big government and big business consolidate power against the consumer.
Game, read the thread. I am responding to Marshall who suggests taxes be spent only on the military and infrastructure.
And Jason, your comparison of drug price negotiation and university tuition is rediculous. There are thousands of universities and thousands of community colleges. Students have a choice as in a market. With the drug prescription plan, the drug companies set the price and there is no other alternative. Total give-away to the drug companies which the Democrats will try to correct as soon as possible.
Jim,
Did I say there was "nothing" besides the military and infrastructure, or "little"? You want to play games with words, or seriously debate issues? It's always the same with you. My point was that spending by the feds is way the fuck out of line and much of it, if not most of it, is not within the realm of their concern.
And since you brought it up, I agree with Medved when he says the feds should not be giving out dough for education as this practice has allowed the universities to raise their charges by large percentages knowing that prospective students will seek aid and loans from the feds. If this government interference never happened, universities would have to price themselves more in line with what the average person can actually afford.
Marshall, call me ignorant (and I'm sure you will) but not being a reader of Medved, I have never heard of any assertion that government assistance allows universities and colleges to charge whatever they want for tuition. Besides, most post-secondary institutions are public, not private, so I'm not sure where a profit motive comes into this.
"You want to play games with words, or seriously debate issues? It's always the same with you." Really? Always the same with me? Wow!
As for playing word games, YOU made the claim about small government but gave yourself the "out" by saying "little". And I wouldn't call the CDC, the SEC and the others "little".
It's quite simple, really. Schools want students. Schools want money. If left alone to deal with each other, the schools would have to price their services in a manner that would not chase away the average student. There are only so many people that can sock away 100k for each of their kids to get four years at the average or better schools. If the students' families were left to come up with the first year's costs by themselves, fewer could make it happen and fewer would go to the universities. The schools would have to drop their costs or reduce their annual increases in order to allow more students to enroll. With the feds offering grants and loans, and the costs spread out over time, the universities have raised their costs dramatically and do so knowing that few will need to have the dough up front. Though they most certainly would raise their costs each year (who doesn't?), it's doubtful they would do so with such abandon if the feds were not providing the dough. There's a profit consideration for any school, private or otherwise.
I meant to add:
Like anything else, the natural market forces are skewed with fed interference.
Post a Comment