Clearly, the Republicans are engaged in some kind of internal dare, seeing if they can drive enough of their consistuents to the Libertarian Party to make it a three-party system. 
Mostly moderate Republicans were on the bubble; mostly hard-right Republicans won. Therefore, it’s mostly hard-right Republicans up for the post, and voting who gets in. Why is this a surprise? You expected them to select a moderate Republican leader who doesn’t represent the Republicans in the Senate at all?
Lott, for all his faults, was a pretty effective majority/minority leader (much better than Frist). His ability to line up votes and keep Senators in line was probably what swung the election his way. Along with McConnell’s abilities in this area, the Senate GOP probably wanted to ensure that they would have a leadership team that will be an effective opposition to Harry Reid.
He probably has pictures of them with a sheep.
Ewwwwwwwe!
Because it is not a linear spectrum where everyone lines up neatly on a scale.
The problem many (including me) have with Lott is not that he is “too conservative” it’s that he is not committed to small government (i.e. less spending) which the Republicans used to claim they stood for. If anything, he is “too moderate.” He too willing to bribe the people with their own money, too interested in feathering his own nest, too willing to go along to get along rather than actually stand for something other than “lookee me, I’ma good ol’ boy.”
But, is porkbarrelling really flatly incompatible with small-government conservatism? Porkbarrel might be a factor, but it’s not anything close to the main reason why the federal government is as big/expensive as it is. Ditto WRT to the state governments.
Yes. I’d say that it is. Anybody who is a big fan of porkbarrel spending would also usually tend to be a big government type, IMHO.
Some types of politicians think it’s a good idea to build a bridge to nowhere just because it might bring some jobs to thier home state, simply because they want more votes. These types are the same sort who would think it’s a good idea to have the government provide “free” healthcare or other large government notions simply because they want to get more votes.
It’s not just Pork. It’s also spending in general. Mind you, I don’t actually know what Lott’s history is here. I’m just seeing that this is the certainly the perception of him out there among conservatives right now.
I think what OneCentStamp was commenting on was the word “minority” in the title of the post, in light of Lott’s um, interesting record on racial minority issues.
- What Debaser said
- Pork is worse. Big entitlements are at least theoretically intended to do good. Pork is usually just crap that doesn’t need to be done at all, anywhere.
Maybe, maybe not. Pork is not “extra” money tacked onto a bill. Pork, or earmarks, is simply Congress saying that a federal agency must spend money in a certain way. It is merely reducing the discretion the executive branch has over how to spend money. It is not enlarging the amount of money spent. So theoretically you could want government spending reduced and you could also want part of that reduced spending to be spent in your district in a certain way.
Eliminating earmarking will not reduce overall government spending by one cent.
“Small government”. You guys slay me! Get 10 tighty righties in a room, and you’ll have at least 8 different opinions on anything and everything. But say “small government” and they all nod their heads in somber bovine agreement. Yes, of course, “small government”, just the thing!
Well, a smaller military? Wouldn’t that necessarily follow, that we wouldn’t spend more than everybody else in the world on loud, shiny crap that blows things up? No, no, not that, certainly not that! What if we have to beat up Grenada again? How could we have gotten ourselves neck deep in the fever swamp of Iraq if we hadn’t a huge standing army to squandor?
Boil it down, they usually mean getting the government off the back of business, so that the acolytes of Mammon can run amok without pesky rules and regulations. If I can make a buck pissing in the Mississippi in St. Paul, you can drink my pee in St. Louis, fuck you very much, have a nice day! So rather than a nation run by Nancy Pelosi (Whore of Babylon!) and Trent Lott (Good Ol’ Boy!) we’ll have the unfettered freedom of a nation run by Enron and Citigroup! Peachy! The Way Forward will be shown to us by the same people who dreamed up New Coke and the Edsel! Hot damn!
“Small government” is a political science abstraction, like Marixism. Hasn’t been, isn’t going to be. Its Anarchy Lite, and it is fantasy. Bigger the country, the bigger the mechanisms required to run it. Get over it. Worry about justice. You needn’t worry about fostering business, greed is a most marvelous fertilizer and the Dollar Almighty protects its own.
I was actually referring to the whole thing. “Minority” and “whip” are both simply loaded. 
It’s a good thing we’ve got **elucidator **around here to tell us what “righties” think. Especially righties of the bovine variety. I’m afraid, amigo, that you are confusing the vast right wing conspiracy out there in the real world with actual posters on this MB. Frankly that last post of yours was a big, fat Strawman. And, for the record, mnay of those who are serious about wanting smaller gov’t recognize that:
The concept of percent vs absolute amount can be understood even by the bovine brain. There’s also an understanding that a reduced federal budget might indeed mean an increased state and/or local budget. Many of us that you characterize as “righties” understand that local governments are often more effective at spending our dollars than Washington is.
Things like education and welfare and, yes, even healthcare initiatives can be handled by the states. We’re a big, diverse country and one size does not fit all. MA is embarking on universal healtcare. Good for them. In CA, we are doing our own stem cell research, unfettered by the folks in Gerogia and Texas. (No insult meant to the folks in those two states.) We don’t need George Bush to tell us to leave no child behind nor do we need Nancy Pelosi to tell us our minimum wage is too low, thank-you-very-much.
Well, heck, John, not talking about you. You’ve gone to great lengths to assure us that you are not a “righty” but an independent thinker, a small “l” libertarian. None of this applies to you.
I certainly appreciate your candor, however much it pains you.
Really? By what mechanism? Is this a verifiable fact or does it slide towards political opinion? You have a good trapdoor there, “often”. Yes, I’m sure it “often” is, but is that a function of the size of the government unit, or a function of the persons who constitute said unit? I suggest it is the latter.
A recipe for Balkanization, and competition between states. Some of our states simply don’t have the resources to provide for its citizenry. Are you going to establish border controls in California to keep Tom Joad and his Okies from invading en masse, should another Dust Bowl arise? Are we “one nation, indivisible” or no?
Yes. You do. If it is, it is, and someone should tell you. And if you won’t listen, someone should make you listen. Economic justice is justice. If we don’t have a responsibility for the well-being of our fellow citizens, we are not a nation, just a gigantic Monopoly board, with rules that rest lightly on the haves, and crush the have not.
The cluelessness I mentioned is that they don’t seem to realize yet that they got broomed out for the same leadership flaws that Lott (and McConnell too, might as well include him) demonstrated in their previous terms. They don’t seem to realize yet that they’ve lost the public’s confidence, and need to regain it, and can only do so by brooming out the leadership that brought this debacle on themselves. This instead has almost guaranteed a far worse debacle in 2 years, when far *more * Republican Senators than Democrats will be up.
FTR, have a butcher’s at the percentage of the population that *already * has a higher minimum wage than the feds require. Yep, an increase would be radical of Ms. “Belapelosi” and her fellow “socialists”, all right. Gimme a break.
No cite, but I’m fairly certain business regulation and oversight actually accounts for a relatively small portion of the federal government’s budget and personnel; getting rid of it would not make the government noticeably “smaller,” or reduce your tax bill.
Alternatively, Lott was dumped (by an internal vote of his own party) for an individual faux pas that we can expect the electorate to forget in two years (when it will be even further back in history than it is now) and the country may decide to go back to the Republicans after that party holds up the lack of “progress” in Iraq as a sign of Democrat intransigence thwarting the efforts of the administration. (Because the Democrats do not have enough votes to override vetoes or signing statements, so there is a fair possibility that simply nothing will change in the next two years, anyway.)
I have never in my life considered voting for my senator or representative because his party boss was a scumbag–this is not a parliamentary government–and I really doubt that anyone else does, either.
Which is actually a fairly strong argument among some people that the Feds do not need to “interfere” with the miniumum wage, since the market has already driven wages higher than the minimum for an overwhelming number of jobs.
It is entirely possible that some some event will occur to cause the electorate to hand a veto-proof Congress and the White House to the Democrats in 2008. I suspect that such an event would require the presence of a dead girl or a live boy in the beds of multiple Republican candidates. I recall the great joy that swept the Democrats that they had finally overturned the “problems” handed them during the Reagan Revolution when they reclaimed the Senate and the White House in 1992. In the next election, they were sent packing from both houses rather ignominiously. Stuff happens. Things change. Grand declarations of how people will respond to the perceptions of one issue or another are frequently misread.
The Republicans have McCain, Giuliani, and several others that people have already considered presidential material for several years. The Democrats have no one with the current national recognition who is considered “presidential.” (This is not to say that the Democrats have no viable candidates or, better, candidates who would actually make excelent presidents, only that Senator Clinton is not electable and no one else is currently in the common public perception.) So any assumption that the Democrats are going to sweep into office on a platform of “anybody but Bush” (given that he is leaving, anyway), is probably flawed.
The people I’m talking about object more to the interference than to the expense. They don’t care how much it costs to stamp out your Chicken Inspector’s badge, they just don’t want someone telling them how to raise their chickens. Or how much to pay the poor bastard who has to cut them into Piggly Wiggly bargains.
But I quite take your point.
Well, if Lott wants to prove his mettle with budget-cutting conservatives, I’ve got a few suggestions of where to start.
In all seriousness, I don’t see this as a suicidally bad decision by the Senate Pubs. They’re respecting seniority, and putting a guy with experience in charge. True he’s a notorious porker, but the public typically doesn’t care about reckless spending as long as there isn’t actual criminality. Their biggest problem may be that by picking two leaders from the South, they risk falling into the pattern of a 'South only" party.