Monday, February 9, 2009

Well THAT Didn't Take Long...

GOP as an insurgent opposition

Republicans see positives in negative stand
WASHINGTON - Three months after their Election Day drubbing, Republican leaders see glimmers of rebirth in the party's liberation from an unpopular president, its selection of its first African American chairman and, most of all, its stand against a stimulus package that they are increasingly confident will provide little economic jolt but will pay off politically for those who oppose it.

After giving the package zero votes in the House, and with their counterparts in the Senate likely to provide in a crucial procedural vote today only the handful of votes needed to avoid a filibuster, Republicans are relishing the opportunity to make a big statement. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) suggested last week that the party is learning from the disruptive tactics of the Taliban, and the GOP these days does have the bravado of an insurgent band that has pulled together after a big defeat to carry off a quick, if not particularly damaging, raid on the powers that be.

"Insurgent"?

From Merriam-Webster online:
Main Entry: 1in·sur·gent
Pronunciation: \jənt\
Function: noun
Etymology:
Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise — more at
surge
Date: 1765

1: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government ; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent

2: one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

Um, yeah. Republicans are revolting, all right, but certainly not against the established government. What they are doing - as the Democrats did from 2000 - 2008 - is to stand in opposition to the President mainly because of his political affiliation.

Biased reporting? Who knew?

That is all.

7 comments:

TOTWTYTR said...

For some reason the Republicans seem to do better as the minority power. The problem right now is that they barely have enough to stop cloture and a filibuster on bills like the Porkulus.

Hopefully The One will stumble enough so that the balance will start to shift back at the 2010 elections. Of course the Porkulus bill has enough deferred spending that it's possible that the Socialist Nonworkers Party will be able to convince the stupid and the greedy to vote for them.

Not that I have any strong opinions on the subject.

Jay G said...

Why d'ya suppose there *is* all that "deferred spending"?

Between this kickback to every special interest group that contributed to Barry's campaign and the recent news that Barry hisself was taking a personal interest in the 2010 census, it makes you wonder, doesn't it???

Anonymous said...

Seems I remember the Democrats giving Bush the Son everything he wanted.

I always thought it was a strategy. Give the damn dumb ass everything he asks for and watch him hang himself.

If The One stumbles maybe we will wind up with Little Miss Mooseburger.

The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades.

RW said...

Sorry, Jay, the press didn't screw this one up. Sessions himself used the "insurgent" line.

"Seems I remember the Democrats giving Bush the Son everything he wanted."

No, they didn't, which is why they lost power in the senate after the '02 elections. Remember "you cannot professionalize until you nationalize"? Well, that's what we're doing now.

That Bush spent second only to, apparently, Obama, is duly noted, however. That's why Bush wasn't a conservative, as he went the way of the Dems so many times. I guess the nation didn't mind, since he was re-elected, but who'd have guessed that Bush would look frugal by comparison after less than a freaking month? {I know the retort: it's Bush's fault that Obama is spending so much}

I've seen some of the particulars of the 'stimulus' that are headed towards Georgia. It's embarrassing and such a blatant make-work-payoff for the Democratic party that it's laughable. I've been willing to give the new prez the benefit of the doubt, as I promised that I wouldn't resemble the people who acted like children for the last 8 years, but if he follows through with the bill as is, I'll do it no longer.

The TEAMSTERS have worked with less self-interest.

TOTWTYTR said...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/this_cant_be_what_obama_pelosi.html

Jay G said...

RW,

The article wasn't all that clear on that matter, not that it surprises me.

They truly are "The Stupid Party", aren't they? Gleefully painting targets on their own feet while handing the Dems the rope with which to hang them...

RW said...

Yes, they are truly morons.
Every time I start to consider myself an actual Republican, instead of simply registering as one so I can vote in the primaries, they remind me why they're primarily comprised of a bunch of suits, out to do what's best for their group instead of (gasp) representing their constituents.