The Nine Ineffectual Habits Of Republican Pandering
Posted on May 6th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
Newt Gingrich is back to haunt us again, this time offering up nine panderific ideas that reek of the desperation of a party with no ideas–and he’s supposed to be one of the idea men of this gang! My favourite has to be this one:
Introduce a “more energy at lower cost with less environmental damage and greater national security bill” as a replacement for the Warner-Lieberman “tax and trade” bill…
This will also be known as the No Trade-Offs/Free Lunch Act of 2008. Gingrich forgot to mention introducing the bill to protect endangered unicorns. Gingrich supplements this with such proposals as, I kid you not, an earmark moratorium (take on those tough issues, Newt!), a gas tax holiday that will allegedly be paid for by “cutting domestic discretionary spending,” using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to manipulate oil prices (very slightly), tackling all of the outrageous waste at the Census Bureau (?), and, naturally, banging the drum about the judiciary. The one idea that sounds mildly interesting is an overhaul of air traffic control systems, and it is the most technocratic of the nine, which means that it will take the longest to put into practice and will have limited impact on public opinion. This list is nothing more than tinkering around the edges and is so far removed from an agenda of “real change” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) that it’s laughable. I can just see the average voter now as he hears about these proposals, “Sure, the GOP exploded the deficit, created a huge new entitlement and backs a war two-thirds of us want to end, but they are on top of that Census Bureau problem, so all is forgiven.” If this is the best they can come up with, they may be in bigger trouble than I thought.
Filed under: politics
One Response to “The Nine Ineffectual Habits Of Republican Pandering”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
As lame as Gingrich’s banal tripe is, I guess this alternative solution, offered by Roger Kaplan of The American Spectator, would be even worse (tip to Stooksbury):
“WHAT IS TO PREVENT US from seizing the oil fields? The U.S. Army can solemnly announce that it will not take a dime from their exploitation beyond operating costs, and surely there are economists who can figure out how to set up a distribution system that will not wreck the world’s oil markets, with all the ramifications that would bring about. I am in particular thinking of what a provisional neo-colonial administration of the Gulf’s oil resources might do to Africa’s booming oil industries. For what it is worth, the European dependence of Russian oil will be lessened by our seizure of the Middle East’s reserves.”
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13161
This must be a joke, right? No serious publication (you know, with a glossy cover and a subscriber base) would print something so ludicrous, especially in light of what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is this the belated April Fool’s edition? Can someone be so powermad, so clueless about economics, AND have a job that pays him to type words. And to think, I actually had a subscription myself as a teenager. Thank God for The American Conservative!
Peace be with you.
ps. Of course, they hate us for our freedoms, don’cha know?!