It has been many, many years since I have heard the words, imperialism, ideologue, "Strave the Beast" and "Big Tent Agenda." They were words I never needed to know and they are once again haunting us.
The first time the word Ideologue became a 'kitchen table' item was when it was introduced by Maureen Dowd. I don't recall the Op-ed, but, I once read her everyday until she went 'Red instead of Dead' during the Bush/Cheney White House. But, there is an interesting section in her book, "Bushworld: Enter at Your Own Risk" that is appropriate for this 'REPEAT' of history.
..."The Bush I moderates are worried the Bush II ideologues will use terrorism as an alibi for imperialism. Bush II thinks Bush I is trapped in self-justification.... (click here)
The words "Big Tent" came down from Karl Rove. I could not believe my ears. See, Rove sculpted Bush II, but, he did more than sculpt him, he mentored him as a roady pander's to a rock star and enables everything unthinkable.
Scary. Here I was 18 years after the defeat of Bush I and hearing words that were in critique at the burial of that administration.
Then out of nowhere came the extremism of the years gone by. I think it was Gingrich that attempted to 'defund' the government under Clinton and didn't succeed to do anything except prove the Republicans were inept. But, what does Gingrich have to do with today? Besides selling his soul to the Tea Devil the Alaskan Republican Miller stated, he would defund the government in order to stop the entitlements, etc., etc., etc. In other words, he no different than Bush II believed more than ever in 'Starve the Beast' economic agendas.
That was a different Op-Ed and not Maureen Dowd, it was Paul Krugman whom has since received the Nobel for Economics.
The year was 2003 and we were all scratching our heads to understand what 'in the hell' was Bush and Cheney up to because none of their economic decisions made sense. The Republicans were supporting the USA economy through 'spending' bills one right after another and we all knew this couldn't go on forever.
See, Bush II was terrified of repeating the legacy of Bush I. He was scared to death of only serving for one term, so to fund the economy by government legislation, now that in 2002 the Republicans had a two house majority, would insure him 'no static' regarding his inability to foster an economy. By that time we were also engaged in two wars. Or at least it was stated we were at war on two fronts, when in fact the war in Afghanistan against al Qaeda was diverted to Iraq.
3. Supply-Siders, Starve-the-Beasters and Lucky Duckies (click here)
...It is often hard to pin down what antitax crusaders are trying to achieve. The reason is not, or not only, that they are disingenuous about their motives -- though as we will see, disingenuity has become a hallmark of the movement in recent years. Rather, the fuzziness comes from the fact that today's antitax movement moves back and forth between two doctrines. Both doctrines favor the same thing: big tax cuts for people with high incomes. But they favor it for different reasons.
One of those doctrines has become famous under the name ''supply-side economics.'' It's the view that the government can cut taxes without severe cuts in public spending. The other doctrine is often referred to as ''starving the beast,'' a phrase coined by David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director. It's the view that taxes should be cut precisely in order to force severe cuts in public spending. Supply-side economics is the friendly, attractive face of the tax-cut movement. But starve-the-beast is where the power lies....
Professor Krugman years later would write still another Op-Ed entitled, "Now that the Beast is Starved." Or something close to that.
I've heard it all before. It is not NEW. Is the same old Republican game pumped out by new faces and names.
See, Palin isn't very bright in the way Governors and 'innovators' of economies are bright, but, she is a lot like 'the Bushes' in that she is a binary decision maker. Easy stuff. Everything is 'right or "W"rong' with no 'grey.' Literally. I think the oldest of the Tea Baggers is something like 43 years old.
But, this crowd is different in that they really don't 'get it.' What they do 'get' is Social Conservatism. That is their expertise no different than Bush II. And don't tell me the Bushes know anything about economics. They don't. Just like Cheney they bankrupt companies and Savings and Loan banks while bank rolling personal fortunes and laughing at the 'under dogs' left to pick up the pieces.
The reason the Tea Bagger candidates 'seem' competent is because they 'talk the talk' of Old World Republicans as social conservatives. The only thing Palin has been able to provide to these candidates is "The Pro Life Movement." They drive her money machine and seek to make her a star. All these so called NEW Republicans, sorry Tea Baggers, aren't really new. They are as old as the hills and will seek old strategies that will never work and they will fall flat on their face while scratching their heads in wondering whether they will be elected in the next term. Which by the way will radicalize them all the more to attempt to push through a Pro Life (Anti-Abortion) Agenda.
It is a sorry game the Republicans are left with in order to call themselves a Party. There was never anything effective about them in the first place. There won't be anything effective about them now.
...Democrat Scott McAdams and Republican, Tea Party candidate Joe Miller (click title to entry - thank you) held their first formal debate Thursday before the Juneau Chamber of Commerce. And McAdams came out on the attack. During his opening remarks, he read from a national pledge by the Citizen’s Council Against Government Waste that he said Miller signed promising he would not seek earmarks that would serve only local needs. But McAdams argued that the pledge wasn’t good for Alaska....
Bush II's favorite word was "VOW." The Tea Baggers like to "PLEDGE." Has nothing to do with dusting or waxing the furniture either. Words are their fantasy, but, actions are their error.
It is interesting how a 'generation' goes by and the old ghosts rise again.
