# Republicans Running on Empty



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

May 2, 2006
by Cal Thomas

So it has come to this: A group of Senate Republicans has proposed $100 rebates to low-income people to ease their "pain at the gas pump." They also are entertaining the possibility of higher taxes on oil industry profits, as if government does a better job of spending money than private industry. Have they forgotten the last time government imposed a "windfall profits tax" from 1980 to '88? Oil production fell (but demand grew) as "big oil" had less incentive to explore. A history of this bad idea can be found on The Tax History Project Web page www.taxhistory.org.

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial called the $100 rebate proposal "destined for the pandering hall of fame." When Democrats want to hand out checks, Republicans call it "welfare" and they claim to oppose it on principle. What should it be called when Republicans do it, hypocrisy?

GOP impotence in the midst of fuel price hikes may be the final proof that this is a party that has run out of gas. Democrats aren't any better and should they regain a congressional majority this fall, it won't be long before they again indulge in the same pandering, unethical behavior and content-free politics that has exposed Republican ineptness.

Where is any sign of real leadership? President Bush has made some personnel changes at the White House, but does he intend to say what needs to be said and do what should be done? Why is it so difficult to tell people that if they want to see gas prices go down, they should reduce consumption? Some estimates I've seen indicate that cutting consumption by as little as 3 percent could lower prices. It's called supply and demand, but too many of us have been making too many demands, not only on petroleum, but also on politicians.

Because contemporary culture is so self-focused, are Republicans afraid to tell people to do the equivalent of eating their vegetables? Republicans appear content to let people keep eating sugar by indulging them in the view that everyone is entitled to more, bigger and better in their pursuit of comfort and pleasure. Who will stand up and say, "Take control of your own lives and stop looking to Washington to solve everything"?

Republicans have forgotten why they wanted power. It was to reduce the size and cost of government and return power (and money) to individuals. Now they mimic the Democrats, focusing on their political careers and ever-expanding government.

Some Republicans think they can squeeze by this fall with scare tactics, such as reminding voters of the liberals who would gain leadership positions if they lose their current majority. Democrats are better at scaring voters than Republicans. Traditional GOP voters have been known to stay home to punish Republicans for cross-dressing as Democrats. A visionary and optimistic agenda would be a far better strategy. It also has the virtue of being more likely to succeed.

People want to vote affirmatively for their leaders. That is why the GOP's 1994 "Contract with America" was a politically brilliant document. Republicans put their intentions in writing and a majority of voters believed them enough to toss out Democrats who had been running the House for 40 years.

In this fall's election, can Republicans go to voters with a positive agenda and solid record of accomplishment? From the volatile subject of illegal immigration and lawbreakers demanding "rights" they do not have, to spending on wasteful and unnecessary projects, to a deficit and national debt that would almost shame Democrats (but doesn't shame Republicans), a majority of congressional Republicans are giving voters little reason to vote for them.

How could a party go from a visionary like Ronald Reagan who changed the world, not to mention restoring American optimism, to the tunnel vision of his illegitimate offspring who seem to care less about change than perpetuating themselves in office? They aren't even doing a good job of that as the fall election results may show, unless somebody or something quickly lights a fire under them. Never has the derogatory phrase, "Republican in name only," applied to so many who have done so little for so few.

Cal Thomas is the co-author of Blinded By Might.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

:beer: :beer:

The Republicans have been a big dissapointment thats for sure


----------



## Norm70 (Aug 26, 2005)

Couldn't agree with you more Bob. :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

$100....1 tank full in my pickup.....boy oh boy....can hardly wait for my check so I can put it in the gas tank. :eyeroll:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

We will all be riding mopeds when we retire at the rate things are going.

Goes to show us just like G/Os article, that none of these politicians on either side of the aisle have any interest in anything but their own power.

They divide "We the people" with phony rhetoric in order to camoflage their own self interested power plans, when there isn't a spit of difference between the republicans and the Democrats.

I am really beginning to think they are just playing all of us. :eyeroll:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> How could a party go from a visionary like Ronald Reagan who changed the world, not to mention restoring American optimism, to the tunnel vision of his illegitimate offspring who seem to care less about change than perpetuating themselves in office? They aren't even doing a good job of that as the fall election results may show, unless somebody or something quickly lights a fire under them. Never has the derogatory phrase, "Republican in name only," applied to so many who have done so little for so few.
> 
> I think this pretty much sums it up


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

You learnd how to do quotes :beer: , I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks :lol: Just kidding....

I'm going to vote Libertarian, I don't agree with everything they do but its a viable choice and we all need to send a message to both the reps and the dems..

Both of them need a kick in the butt, they have fogotten they work for us.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

In all fairness and before kicking the Republicans to hard it should be noted that the $100 rebate was only a part of the proposal package put forward. Included was drilling in Alaska, reducing the 14 special blends by 14 states to one or two, easing of restrictions and reducing paper work for building more refineries, raising the fuel standards of automobiles by car builders, tax incentives for buying fuel efficient alternative cars, funding states that build more E-85 stations, and several others I can't recall. Yes the $100 rebate is silly and I don't know who suggested that but to say they are running on empty.......... not hardly.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gohon I see what your saying but I've voted republican for the last 30 years and I've had it. Its not just the issues in the article its their whole approach to govt lately that needs to change, in my opinion.

They are not conservative enough for me. And they are cowards more interested in re-election than doing what the country needs.

The democrats are worse, and thats really bad.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Bobm said:


> Gohon I see what your saying but I've voted republican for the last 30 years and I've had it. Its not just the issues in the article its their whole approach to govt lately that needs to change, in my opinion.
> 
> They are not conservative enough for me. And they are cowards more interested in re-election than doing what the country needs.
> 
> The democrats are worse, and thats really bad.


AMEN Bobm!
That's why I changed to the Vets party (conservative), most of us are ex-Rep and when they look at the number of people their loosing out of the party, you would think that should get the Rep's attention.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

g/o said:


> "Take control of your own lives and stop looking to Washington to solve everything"?
> 
> Republicans have forgotten why they wanted power. It was to reduce the size and cost of government and return power (and money) to individuals. Now they mimic the Democrats, focusing on their political careers and ever-expanding government.


I agree with this completely!

Term limits need to be set along with getting rid of their retirement and sticking them with SS like the rest of us.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> getting rid of their retirement and sticking them with SS like the rest of us.


I bet it would get fixed real quick if that happened


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I think most conservatives are feed up with the Republican party at the present time. But what other choice do we have??

*BRING BACK NEWT* :beer:

JMHO He is the smartest, most realistict person on the national level.

The major players of the Democratic party want to turn this county into a socialistic bunch of bums and be subservant to the government.

The Cal Thomas editorial should be force feed to every elected Republican. He really hit the mark..............


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

zogman said:


> I think most conservatives are feed up with the Republican party at the present time. But what other choice do we have??
> 
> *BRING BACK NEWT* :beer:
> 
> ...


Your right about Newt but he was another one of the democrats political targets that they forced out, but can anyone on this board give one good reason why Newt had to go? :huh:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> can anyone on this board give one good reason why Newt had to go?


Yep, I can. Because he was a catalyst for Democrat attacks that were never going to stop and he knew it. Same reason Delay bailed out, only it took Delay a lot longer to realize it and Delay has some real baggage. I look for Newt to run in 2008. He can't win and he probable knows that but he will set the agenda for the election.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

I'd vote for Newt :beer:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I might also, hes a lot closer idealistally to me than most of them.

He sure screwed up last time though


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Right now I can not think of a better choice than Newt. I think he would get spending back on track. He would also carry through with the war on terror where ever those suckers hide.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Newt, for president? Wow! I'm sure he could get everyone working together for the good of the world and the USA. Everyone would be jumping on board so he could lead us to the promised land. He has great leadership skills and is willing to work with others for a common solution. 
Sorry but I just can't see it. And our country being run by a "newt" doesn't sound like an improvement on what we currently have as our "leader." George W passes the gavel to a "newt." Just can't see it!"


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

DJR,
And your choice would be..................
I am interested in your pick. :eyeroll:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I'll take a poke at answering zogman's question...

I don't see Newt being electable, but he would certainly get issues out on the table. I would personally like to see McCain campaign again simply because he refuses to let his party define his positions on issues.

I also like Joe Lieberman because he is level-headed, honest, and wants to do what is right. I would also like to see Wes Clark take another run because he is not a career politician, and his views match very closely to my positions on most issues.

However, the guy that I would absolutely love to see run and win the presidency is Senator Obama from Illinois. This guy would be an amazing president, but he needs a little more experience before he runs. Maybe he'll run in 2012.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

BigDaddy said:


> I'll take a poke at answering zogman's question...
> 
> I don't see Newt being electable, but he would certainly get issues out on the table. I would personally like to see McCain campaign again simply because he refuses to let his party define his positions on issues.
> 
> ...


I'm right there with you BigDaddy.

A Barack Obama/Wes Clarke pres/vp ticket would slam dunk the election in 2012. I think he is wise to stay clear of this election, as too many people are going to allow a Hillary campaign to take control of the Dem party, which will ultimately be another failure for the Dems.

Barack is extremely bright, well spoken, and not ultra liberal. 3 things the Dems need in a candidate.

I wonder if it is truly possible to have the best of all worlds and have Obama be president and him choosing McCain as a running mate? I realize the political party difference, but if they could figure out a way to both move to a more moderate position, the US would be a MUCH better place!

Ryan


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Barack Obama is very likable and is probally in the the wrong party, He's seems smart enough to cross over after he gets to watch the rest of his party go down in flames. :beer:


----------

