Frum - Rightists "Pledge To America" Is A Pledge To Do Nothing

[nobody]

But the true sad news is that this is not a document to govern with in
the recessionary year 2010. It’s fine to reject Tea Party illusions.
But without an alternative modern Republican affirmative program, the
GOP will find itself at risk of being captured and controlled by
special interests instead.

The GOP is nothing but a vehicle for advancing special interests,
particularly corporate and authoritarian interests.

It's the party of perpetual war and the surveillance state.

[Patriot Games]

I had a good chuckle at Erick Erickson’s enraged piece on the Republican
pledge, now being circulated by Democratic spinmeisters.
Question for Erickson: What did he expect?
Here is the GOP cruising to a handsome election victory. Did you seriously
imagine that they would jeopardize the prospect of victory and
chairmanships by issuing big, bold promises to do deadly unpopular things?
But if the document is unsurprising, it’s also unsurprising that Erickson
and those who think like him would find it enraging. The “Pledge to
America” is a repudiation of the central, foundational idea behind the Tea
Party. Tea Party activists have been claiming all year that there exists
in the United States a potential voting majority for radically more
limited government.
The Republican “Pledge to America” declares: Sorry, we don’t believe that.
We shall cut spending where we can – reform the legislative process in
important ways – and sever the federal guarantee for Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. Republicans will redirect the federal government to a new
path that is less expensive and intrusive than the status quo. But if you
want promises of radical change? No. Too risky. We don’t think the voters
want that – not the smaller, older, richer, whiter electorate that votes
in non-presidential years, much less the bigger, younger, poorer, less
white electorate of presidential years. And even that smaller, older,
richer, whiter electorate is highly wary of cuts to programs that benefit
them, Medicare above all.
But the real news is this: You can primary a Bob Bennett, you can nominate
a Sharron Angle, you can balk Karl Rove and Mike Castle – but when
decision hour arrives, the leadership of the party rejects the assessment
of the American electorate offered by Rush Limbaugh, Dick Armey and for
that matter Erick Erickson.
Yet at the same time, we so-called RINOs can take no pleasure in this
document. Yes, there is good in it. (Putting legislative language online
72 hours in advance seems Good Government 101.) The silly bits are not too
silly: the promise to cite specific constitutional language is an empty
sop to those so-called constitutionalists who vainly hope to revive the
John Randolph school of constitutional interpretation.
But the true sad news is that this is not a document to govern with in the
recessionary year 2010. It’s fine to reject Tea Party illusions. But
without an alternative modern Republican affirmative program, the GOP will
find itself at risk of being captured and controlled by special interests
instead.
The most admirable thing about the Tea Party is its zeal to find a bigger
message for the Republican Party than: do what K Street wants. The message
offered by the Tea Party may have been unworkable, unrealistic, or worse –
but at least it was large and public-spirited.
I’d like to see a Modern Republicanism that responds better to the needs
of the country, while retaining still the Tea Party’s reforming spirit.
What I fear is the worst of all worlds: a Republican majority that rejects
not only extremist ideas, but all ideas.
National Post
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/23/david-frum-new-
pledge-to-america-is-a-pledge-to-do-nothing/#ixzz10kGIeihc

LOL!!!

BTW- I suck dick!

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!

--
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.republicansareretarded.net

NEW! Interactive Site Map!
NEW! Stunning Site Statistics!

[Gray Ghost]

I had a good chuckle at Erick Erickson’s enraged piece on the Republican
pledge, now being circulated by Democratic spinmeisters.
Question for Erickson: What did he expect?
Here is the GOP cruising to a handsome election victory. Did you seriously
imagine that they would jeopardize the prospect of victory and
chairmanships by issuing big, bold promises to do deadly unpopular things?
But if the document is unsurprising, it’s also unsurprising that Erickson
and those who think like him would find it enraging. The “Pledge to
America” is a repudiation of the central, foundational idea behind the Tea
Party. Tea Party activists have been claiming all year that there exists
in the United States a potential voting majority for radically more
limited government.
The Republican “Pledge to America” declares: Sorry, we don’t believe that.
We shall cut spending where we can – reform the legislative process in
important ways – and sever the federal guarantee for Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. Republicans will redirect the federal government to a new
path that is less expensive and intrusive than the status quo. But if you
want promises of radical change? No. Too risky. We don’t think the voters
want that – not the smaller, older, richer, whiter electorate that votes
in non-presidential years, much less the bigger, younger, poorer, less
white electorate of presidential years. And even that smaller, older,
richer, whiter electorate is highly wary of cuts to programs that benefit
them, Medicare above all.
But the real news is this: You can primary a Bob Bennett, you can nominate
a Sharron Angle, you can balk Karl Rove and Mike Castle – but when
decision hour arrives, the leadership of the party rejects the assessment
of the American electorate offered by Rush Limbaugh, Dick Armey and for
that matter Erick Erickson.
Yet at the same time, we so-called RINOs can take no pleasure in this
document. Yes, there is good in it. (Putting legislative language online
72 hours in advance seems Good Government 101.) The silly bits are not too
silly: the promise to cite specific constitutional language is an empty
sop to those so-called constitutionalists who vainly hope to revive the
John Randolph school of constitutional interpretation.
But the true sad news is that this is not a document to govern with in the
recessionary year 2010. It’s fine to reject Tea Party illusions. But
without an alternative modern Republican affirmative program, the GOP will
find itself at risk of being captured and controlled by special interests
instead.
The most admirable thing about the Tea Party is its zeal to find a bigger
message for the Republican Party than: do what K Street wants. The message
offered by the Tea Party may have been unworkable, unrealistic, or worse –
but at least it was large and public-spirited.
I’d like to see a Modern Republicanism that responds better to the needs
of the country, while retaining still the Tea Party’s reforming spirit.
What I fear is the worst of all worlds: a Republican majority that rejects
not only extremist ideas, but all ideas.
National Post
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/23/david-frum-new-
pledge-to-america-is-a-pledge-to-do-nothing/#ixzz10kGIeihc

I wonder if it occurs to the bitter losers that it took decades to get where
we are and doing an abrupt 180 may in fact leave to may people in the dust.

Does it not make more sense to change course gradually allowing everyone to
keep up.

Or do they want a full blown repudation of 60 years of Democrat theft and
corruption so as to injure the Democrat voting block that fell for the utopian
dream for so long?
--
Democrat donkey pontificating:

Americans only oppose Obama because they are racist....
Americans were against the stiumulus because they are uneducated....
Americans oppose socialism because they are greedy....
Americans are against Obamacare because they are stupid....
Americans are opposed to the Ground Zero mosque because they are bigots....
I just can't figure why Americans are opposed to us.

Maybe 'cuz we're racist, uneducated, greedy, stupid bigots.
Or maybe it's 'cuz you morons sound like Nazis talking about Jews in the
1930s.