The first group consists of people who understand the problem conservatives are facing, but have no actual solutions to offer:
● Jed Bush. I HATE saying anything nice about Bush, so you better read this closely. Bush very accurately puts his finger on the GOP problem:These guys get the problem, but they don’t have a solution. The next group, however, are snake oil salesmen. That group doesn’t want you to understand the problem because it doesn’t suit them to have you waking up to reality. So they play the victim card to keep you from using your brain and to deflect blame by trying to convince you that the reason conservatives keep losing is that we keep being betrayed by “establishment Republicans,” and if only we could wipe out the RINO pestilence, then victory will follow:
“All too often we’re associated with being anti-everything. Way too many people believe Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-worker and the list goes on and on and on. Many voters are simply unwilling to choose our candidates even though they share our core beliefs because those voters feel unloved, unwanted and unwelcome in our party.”Bingo. But Bush offers no actual solutions because he’s a worthless turd. What Bush is doing is a con. He’s stolen the rhetoric of brighter people and he’s using that rhetoric as a cover for doing what the Bushes always do when they get into office.
● Scott Walker. Like Bush, Walker gets that the party has an image problem. It’s seen as a party of old white guys. But also like Bush, he offers no solution. His “solution” was this: “I’m not an old white guy” (actual quote). In other words, just like the insiders who label themselves outsiders, Walker hopes to convince you that HE is the answer you are looking for by telling you that he understands the problem and by assuring you that he is not the problem. . . or he suffers from gender/race dysphoria. Poor gal.
● Honey BooBoo Palin. Palin first repeated what thinking conservatives have been trying to get through the thick heads of people like Palin:There are more.
“As conservatives, we must leave no American behind. And we must share our message of freedom and liberty to all citizens, even those who may disagree on some issues. . . they’re not our enemies, they’re our sisters and brothers. They’re our neighbors and friends. It’s time we all stop preaching to the choir.”True. But apparently, she doesn’t mean it, because she then did the exact opposite by claiming we need to overcome the “establishment Republicans” so we can purify the party and finally present a conservative message to the public. Yeah, nothing says “big tent” like purging moderates. More importantly, notice the idea that we are losing because “establishment Republicans” control the party and are undermining us. You’ll see this again and again.
● Newt Gingrich. Like Palin, private-jet-and-decades-of-insider-status Newt thinks that attacking the GOP is the way to go. First, he says the GOP needs to stop being “stupid” and “start framing its principles in a positive way that appeals to voters,” but he doesn’t define those principles. . . because he can’t. Why can’t he? Because if he tells you the principles he’s talking about, you will see that we have been running on those principles for decades and that would interfere with his victim strategy when he says, “The dominant wing of this party has learned nothing. It is as stupid as it was in 1976.” Yep, we are controlled by RINOs.
● The Superduper Magic Rush Limbaugh. Quoting Pat Caddell, Rush blames the “consultant, lobbyist, and establishment complex” for stopping the GOP from having a conservative message. This is a pretty clever bit of conspiracy theory logic because it allows him to escape the problem of not being able to name any politician who actually does what he claims the secret RINOs are doing. Basically, he’s attacking a phantom “THEY”. As an aside, he also claims we should stop trying to win over independents because we can win with conservatives alone. To back this up, he uses an inspired dose of delusion and bad math.
● Brent Bozell. Bozell told us, “Our days of playing second fiddle to moderates are over!” Drang nach osten! According to Bozell, we need to get rid of all those Republicans who “said all the right things to conservatives,” but then supported Obamacare (fyi, the total number of Republicans who supported Obamacare is 0.0). He also thinks that if we could just defund Planned Parenthood (or HHS) then something something victory!
Ok, so the problem, according to these brainiacs and luminaries is that the GOP is dominated by RINOs who won’t let us poor, helpless conservatives ever present conservative positions to the public. Is this true? Consider this:
The platform is a Religious Right wet dream and Phyllis Schlafly is trying to get the GOP to refuse to fund any candidate who won’t support it dogmatically. The number of serious presidential candidates in 2012 or 2008 who didn’t sign all the abortion and anti-gay pledges the Religious Right wanted: none. Number who didn’t sign the Norquist anti-tax pledge: none. Number who didn’t try to outdo each other talking about defunding Planned Parenthood or the EPA: none. Number of Republicans in the House or Senate leadership who haven’t signed those same pledges: none. Number who advocated for amnesty for illegals (prior to this year): none. Number who voted for Obamacare: none. Number who supported any part of Obama’s agenda between 2008 and 2012: none.
See the problem? There are no RINOs, not in the leadership, not in the nominees, not in the rank and file. Sen. Rob Portman this week became the first GOP senator to endorse gay marriage. The Club for Growth has targeted all of eight House Republicans who they think aren’t sufficiently conservative enough on economic issues. . . 8 out of 232. Are McCain and Graham a pain in the butt? Sure, but they don’t control the party, nor are they liberal on most issues. And frankly, it conservatives can’t overcome two men, then conservatism is worthless.
The truth is this. These people are lying to you. Their agenda IS the agenda the GOP has been pushing since the late 1990s, and each year that agenda loses more people. But they don’t want to change because these issues are obsessions with them. So to keep you on board, they invented this phantom army of moderates who haven’t existed since Reagan changed the GOP and they lie to you about the moderates betraying their ideas. Just like liberals falsely claim liberalism has never failed because it’s never been tried, Rush and Palin and Newt falsely claim their agenda has never failed because it’s never been tried. That is garbage. Their agenda is identical to the agenda of every single presidential candidate, all of the leadership, almost all of the elected rank and file, all of talk radio, and all of the pundits (except a couple at the NYT), and it dominates the platform. Where is this RINO menace?
These people are pushing a paranoid conspiracy theory to keep you from thinking about the truth: “It’s not our fault, we’ve been undermined by secret enemies.”
If you want to know who at CPAC gets it, the guy is Artur Davis. Davis is a Democrat turned Republican and he laments the fact that many voters “think like us” but won’t support us. This is what I’ve found in talking to moderates as well. Here is the problem as he sees it:
“They just need to hear it from our politicians that our values will work for their lives and their circumstances. . . . for all that money [spent by Romney], we couldn’t find the language to tell enough Americans why our conservative politics and policies would work in their lives? We became the first Republicans since the ’30s who didn’t talk about middle-class tax relief. The first Republicans in my lifetime who didn’t have the self-confidence to talk about how our policies reduce the poverty and lift the poor out of dependency. The first Republicans since World War II who didn’t seem to get that in this competitive world, education is part of promoting the common defense. So is it any surprise that we are the first conservatives in the modern era to see the number of conservatives fall?”This is exactly right. As you will see starting tomorrow, the problem with the “conservative” agenda is that it’s crap. It speaks to no one except pure ideologues. It offers nothing to average people who aren’t on a religious crusade or don’t own international corporations. It provides no jobs, no security, no opportunity. It does nothing to help people get ahead or keep what they’ve earned. It offers no help to people who’ve stumbled.
Rush, Palin, Newt, etc. are wrong. They are blind to reality and they have invented boogeymen to keep them from seeing the truth about what they offer. Tune in tomorrow and we’ll start talking about a better way.
42 comments:
Incidentally, Limbaugh swiped the "consultant, lobbyist, and establishment complex" bit from Pat Caddell. Rush nowadays openly brags on air about how he doesn't even do his own show-prep, so I doubt anything out of his mouth is original anymore.
Right. Rush didn't speak, he just adopted a speech given by Pat Caddell.
The cynic in me, by the way, does need to give him credit though for coming up with a great boogeyman because there's no way you can ever find the people he's talking about... they whisper in the shadows. That's top notch paranoia salesmanship.
Certainly. I actually was tuned in as Rush was adopting Caddell's remarks. Later, I sought out and read the actual remarks. Rush is latching onto a very small part of Caddell's comments and, as such, is missing the point.
tryanmax, Two comments...
First, it's interesting you should say that because I paid attention to how CPAC was covered... or wasn't. Conservative site after conservative site (like the Daily Caller) only covered the "fighting" portion of what was said. Whenever someone said something like "we need to appeal to people outside the base," the DC ignored that as did places like Breitbart.
Secondly, on Rush, I read the full transcript of what he said. What he said about not trying to win independents was delusional. First, he didn't understand the difference between independents and moderates -- something that we discussed in depth when we looked at why the pre-election polls were wrong. Secondly, he bizarrely assumes that everyone who didn't vote for Romney (a number he randomly pegs at 4 million) are all conservatives who didn't vote because the party isn't conservative. He then assumes that appealing to those people would have brought them out without sacrificing the independents (whom he does not number). Finally, he does this totally not-self-aware routine where he talks about how he doesn't see why moderates don't like us and he assumes this is a media myth... ignoring the election results which disprove his thesis.
It's a strange diatribe.
Andrew.....Done sliming conservatives yet?! :)
Seriously, I am finding the internal debate in the Repub Party interesting. I ask you and the Commentaramarians here why we don't see such a "debate" in the Demo Party? I think the repubs are still trying to decide what conservatism is, what it should look and sound like and who should be its "face." Look at how Cruz, Paul and Rubio are being trashed both from the right and the Left. Tells me maybe they are on to something.
I believe the Left has taken over the dem party and has so cowed any 'moderates' there that they won't even speak up for fear of being persona non grata. To the dems, being 'moderate' in a repub means we will start with our position (which is diametrically opposed to anything you repubs believe in) and then expect you to abandon your principles and move closer to our position. The dems might offer a "reduction" in their positions, yet it still is diametrically opposed to what conservatives believe in. The old "we repubs will make the huge welfare/entitlement state more efficient and easier for citizens to partake of." I don't see why our side won't stand on, and ARTICULATE what it is they believe in and why it is good for America and Americans.
As a point of discussion, our side is left claiming we love "immigrants" too. We are all a nation of immigrants! Instead of framing the argument in terms if "illegal" immigrants, those who are breaking the law just by being here, we are left defending our side that we don't hate immigrants. We need to address the illegality of the situation by making them 'legal.' Not grant them citizenship, but change the work visa process to acknowledge that many "illegals" are here to work and we should do something about that. Why can't they have some sort of id designating them the ability to work here, but not partake in our entitlements. As a generous people, we Americans should show the rest of the world that we can uphold the rule of law and still have those that want to work here do it legally. I don't know the particulars of how this could work, but I'm sure minds immeasurably superior to mine should be able to find a way to make it work.
Bottom line on CPAC....great entertainment for conservatives!! Just don't expect any great ideas or thinking to come out of what is basically a conservative conference conservs get to go and party down with other similar minded people. Sorta like annual business group conferences.
Patriot, I suspect the reason we don't see the same kind of debate in the Democrat party is b/c they don't do it in public the way Republicans do--not that they don't have any. One of their favorite narratives is that the GOP is tearing itself apart. To maintain that narrative, they have to keep their own internal strife under the radar. (A complicit media helps.) Repubs imagine them squelching debate in their own ranks b/c that's what they try to do when debating the opposition, but those are two different arenas, and if Dems are good at one thing it is distinguishing their friends from their enemies--in direct contrast to Repubs' talents in the same area.
But the issue isn't really about whether Repubs and conservatives have their debates in public; it's about the conclusion of those debates. During the debates, everything comes up: immigration, economics, social issues, foreign policy, and on and on. That alone makes it seem like we don't know how to prioritize, like we need to have a debate just to figure out what's most important. Meanwhile, the rest of the country is still chanting "It's the economy, stupid!" But to top it off, by the time the debates wind down, we've got people foaming at the mouth over every other topic besides the economy. So we go in uncertain of what the big deal is, and after lengthy and spirited, we seem to come to the conclusion that the big deal is everything but what everyone else has already realized is the big deal.
Andrew,
What do you think of this NRO article?
LINK
And this story on the RNC's "autopsy" of the 2012 election?
LINK
Patriot,
I think you are right that the left has grabbed the Democratic party, just like the right has grabbed the Republican party. The difference is this: the left has learned that they need to call themselves moderates and they accept moderates where they know the left can't win. So there is no conflict. They let these people in on the unspoken condition that they will have no power.
But the right is different. The right has grabbed control of the Republican Party, but it wants to pretend it hasn't because the right is in a race to purity which leaves them slandering moderates and trying to purge moderates. Thus, the internal struggle within our side is actually a shadowboxing match by the right against phantom enemies. That's why it's conservative dogma that the Republicans "won't stand up for conservatism" even though that's exactly what they've been doing for decades. The right simply finds one or two politicians who aren't strident enough and makes scapegoats out of them and turns them into the RINO menace.
On immigration, the problem for our side is that our side got nasty. And once you get nasty, you can't just say, "Hey, now I'm rational again... but I haven't changed my position." Once you get baggage, you will be defined by your baggage.
CPAC is no doubt entertaining, but it's also depressing. It's clear to me that conservatives are making themselves irrelevant. In fact, the most interesting thing was seeing people like Rubio not talking to conservatives about the things he was openly talking to everyone else about. That's a clear sign of what he thinks of the conservative mentality.
tryanmax, I think it's simpler than that actually. Conservatives stand for nothing at the moment except a couple theological points and a dogmatic point on taxes. That gives us nothing to talk about except extremists garbage. And when everyone in the cult agrees on something like abortion, how to do you distinguish yourself? You start calling out other as unpure or not as pure as you are. Thus, the couple things our side stands for lead the extremist rhetoric and witch hunts.
The Democrats don't have that problem because they are structured differently. They are a group of people each looking to grab as many goodies as they can for their tribe. The result is they are constantly proposing new ways to take from the public. That rarely leads to extremist rhetoric because they are basically looking for tricky ways to get what they want.
Kit, I read about the GOP autopsy and it's sadly exactly what I expected. It's moronic. It's the same autopsy they've given every year since the 1990s -- more tech, minority outreach, better candidates. Not a word about actual change.
On the NRO article, I think it's conspiracy thinking. As I say above, it's an effective way to scapegoat people who can't be identified and then avoid any discussion of what really went wrong.
Andrew,
No chance to watch them yet, but what do you think of Rubio's and Jindal's speeches at CPAC?
Rubio: LINK
Jindal: LINK
Andrew, I have followed your discussions very closely and I am very much looking forward to tomorrow. Let me say a few things. I didn't like what you said at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized you were right.
Since that realization, I've seen a stunning amount of cynicism and just plain idiocy coming from famous conservatives like Rush. I've honestly stopped listening to him because I see right through him now.
I am happy that almost every day I see more conservatives coming to realize the things you've been saying and I hope this slowly leads conservatives to find the way they have lost. I am saddened, however, that most of the conservative world not only remains stuck in their anger and blindness, but has tried to smear those who have broken away from the group. I do think that over time, conservatives will again start using their brains again and will come to see the things you are saying, but I think there is an "old guard" of conservatives who will never change. I will no longer listen to those people and I will instead look to the new generation of thinkers to provide the leadership we are missing.
Thanks for opening my eyes. :D
By the way, the inability of people to find evidence of RINOism will not change anyone's minds. It's important to their being that there be a RINO conspiracy so they will find one or invent one.
Kit, Sadly, I think that Jindal is irrelevant. The party doesn't like him. So nothing he says will matter. In fact, all the conservative sites were mocking him.
Rubio is interesting. I'm not 100% sure what to make of him. I suspect he's learned the art of the pander and he's learned that conservatives need to be played. On the one hand, that will help him a lot with getting elected. On the other hand, I'm troubled because it makes me wonder what he really believes?
Ellen, Thanks. I too see more and more conservatives starting to wake up, but I'm not sure where it will all lead yet. Most of the ones I've seen so far are just starting to realize the poison being spewed, but don't have a solution yet. Whenever I run across these people, the first article is always a "wait a minute, why don't we think about this?" and the second is always, "why did I get blasted just for asking the question?" That's usually the point they start to see the problem.
In all honesty, right now, I would look to the Republicans to save conservatism from "conservatives". The problem is that the GOP isn't yet offering anything useful to replace the things the conservatives need to drop, so they are going from a negative to a nothing rather than a something. That's a hard sell. I do see evidence that Rubio and Paul are trying to change conservatism in sneaky ways, which so far is working, but I don't know how far they will get before they get burned at the stake. I guess we'll see.
As for the old guard, yes, they will never change. They need to be pushed aside.
As for the RINO menace, I agree. Too many conservatives are using that as a means to avoid self-reflection and I doubt they will ever give it up. They won't change until the GOP changes and offers something better and proves to be a success, then they will abandon this idea and run to the front of the bandwagon. That's human nature.
BTW, Rush was in full denial mode today. He literally spent all three hours on a single topic, which was why the GOP doesn't need to change a thing. Maddening.
I can't listen to him anymore. He's become our version of Keith Obermann spewing out fiction and anger with a few distorted facts mixed in to make it sounds like he knows something.
"In fact, all the conservative sites were mocking him."
Can you name a site in particular?
I haven't seen any mocking of him over his CPAC speech.
Kit, the articles at Breitbart responding to Jindall's speech are generally pretty dismissive. One devoted the first 2 or 3 paragraphs to making fun of his stiff joke telling before finally discussing the speech. Media Writing 101: lead with what you want the audience to take away.
Kit, I didn't keep the links because it wasn't something I was focused on, but the DC was talking about him being dismissed as "the Tim Pawlenty of the party" which they described as the kid nobody likes who might be good for a cabinet position but that's about it.
Most of the other references I saw to him tended to be at the end of articles and didn't address his speech at all. They talked about the crowd leaving before he spoke and how he did worse than Christie in the straw poll. There was also an article (can't remember the source) which said he reused jokes and basically reused his old speeches.
And if you want to see the response when someone actually does say nice things about him, check out the nasty comments at HotAir on this article about his speech: fools.
tryanmax, That's generally been what I've seen as well. Basically, none of them addressed what he said, they instead dismissed him as some minor figure not worth talking about, they made fun of something unrelated to what he said (like the crowd leaving), and they then felated all the idiots who were talking about the RINO menace.
Just because he is irrelevant now does not mean he will remain so.
The most annoying thing I hear from the right is actually this (and I saw it in some talking about Jindal) "It doesn't matter what we do the media/Dems will spin it so we don't get credit."
THEN DON'T FUCKING LET THEM!!!
Jesus Christ! HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN ABOUT BREITBART SO QUICKLY?!?!?!
Which is more or less what Jindal was saying. But I guess its easier to wallow in self-pity as a martyr than win.
Kit, It's not a legitimate argument. It's a false argument that people are using when they don't like what they are hearing, but which they ignore when they do like what they are hearing.
... It's hopeless to change because the media will spin us to be unacceptable to the public in any event. So change is hopeless. But if we could only get everyone to do more of the same rather than talking about changing, then our unacceptable will magically become acceptable to the public because they're waiting for the very people the media says we are.... dirty media.
Sadly, this kind of pretzel "logic" has become common within the conservative bubble. It's the same thing with the phantom RINOS: There are RINOs because conservatism cannot lose, yet we lost. Thus, even though I can find no evidence of RINOism, it stands to reason that we must be running as RINOs because we lost.
To borrow from Sean Connery: "In politics, losers whine about the media's bias and low-information voters while winners go to the White House and fuck the intern."
Excuse me, "In politicksh loshersh whine about media'sh biash and low-informashion votersh while the winnersh go to the White Houshe and fock the internsh."
Kit, That's a very apt quote. The thing is, conservatives are actually further down the rabbit hole than that. They've decided that the reason they lost isn't just an all-powerful media, but it's conspiracies in their own ranks. Basically, they are being betrayed by shadows and cheated by the media, and the electorate are fools who are incapable of seeing the truth or greedy leeches who were bought.
That's much more comforting than mouthing the words, "I did something wrong."
So, is their any hope?
I will say this about the RNC autopsy: I love their idea to have both a shortened primary season and fewer debates!
HAAAAALLELUJAH! HAAAAALLELUJAH! HALLELUJAH! HALLELUJAH! HALLELUJAH!
Kit, There is always hope. Right now I'm seeing three things that give me hope.
1. The Republican establishment appears to be sick of conservative whining and seems to be planning a new course, particularly on gays and immigrants whether conservatives like it or not. Moreover, they're finding support among a number of conservatives.
2. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio represent something different. Paul represents sane libertarianism and is waking up conservatives who are sick of the establishment conservatives. Rubio is harder to read, but I see signs that he's learned to play conservatives while actually moving in new directions. Both of those men could well change the face of the party.
3. I'm seeing LOT of junior pundits waking up to the fact that establishment conservatives have lost their way. I suspect there is a generational shift going on, which bodes well for serious change.
Very distressing to watch CPAC. Ann Coulter has officially lost her mind as she makes no sense (except to admit that she has been wrong about candidates). I know she is just a pundit but it is really painful to hear her or read her.
Very sick of conservatives waiting for "the one"
Also, I can not listen to President Obama anymore because his healthcare policy is about to destroy our economy. Also, his politics in general are antithetical to American Freedom.
I come here to take a gander but I am truly worried about America. I was nervous when I didn't see posts the last few days because I thought you gave up too!!
Andrew -
I haven't paid much attention to this... though I find it ironic that Obama and Co. are referred to as "reality television" by Sarah Palin of all people. :-)
Besides, we all know Obama is more of a miniseries guy! :-)
And if you look up the phrase "old fart" in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of Mr. Bozell.
Here's a new rule - if you've been in politics more than 20 years, you're the establishment, whether you like it or not!
CrisD, No, I haven't given up. I've just been swamped with work. :( Don't they know I need to blog!! :)
I feel the same way you do. We should be thinking our way out of this mess, not waiting for "the one" to come save us. Now is the time for conservatives to really think about what we stand for, what we should be standing for, and how we get that across to the American public. Instead, everyone's busy inventing enemies and shooting each other in the back. There are more than enough problems to deal with without inventing new ones!
Tune in tomorrow (midnight EST tonight). I'm going to start releasing my thoughts on what kind of agenda we should be offering. Whether people agree with all of it or not, I think there is a lot to consider there and a lot for us to discuss. I think you'll see an agenda that makes a lot more sense than what we are seeing in Washington at the moment.
As for Obama, I agree completely. Obamacare is a disaster in the making. It's the kind of disaster that will do intense harm to this country and to it's people. I firmly believe it will be repealed even by the Democrats once the full effects are felt, but it sure would be nice to see it stopped before it destroys things.
As for the rest of his policies, I agree. Everything he does is anti-freedom and, frankly, anti-American.
Scott, I laughed my butt off when I saw that the left is furious that Satan in the Bible miniseries looks like Obama! Hahahahaha! :)
Yeah, Palin calling anyone else "reality tv" is pretty rich.
On your establishment point, I find it amazing that people still believe the line that these people (particularly talk radio) use about being outsiders. At one point, yes, they were outsiders. But not anymore. These are people who have the ear of all the insiders. They can get any political guest they want. Sitting politicians respond to their concerns. They are quoted by everyone from pundits to politicians. The platform fits their views 100%. Almost all of our candidates fit their views. But they sell themselves as "outsiders" fighting against a phantom "they" because it works. I'm just shocked that people still believe it.
On ObamaCare, I can only hope that as it's unfurled, conservatives will have the wherewithal to say, "See? This is Democrat policy! This is what you get!" I expect many of the younger guys will, but I fear the oldsters will go straight into mitigation mode.
tryanmax, You know mitigation mode is coming because if there's anything more likely to win the public for us that cutting benefits, it's saving them from the folly of the Democrats. Yep... sure... fire... winner.
So, you will be releasing your Agenda 2016 in 3 hours?
I'm going to start releasing it in three hours. It's too long to release at once and it's not in final form, so I'm doing bit by bit.
Tonight I start with the concept, what the overall agenda will look like, and why the current agenda isn't working. It's interesting stuff.
"I'm going to start releasing it in three hours. It's too long to release at once and it's not in final form, so I'm doing bit by bit.
I'm going to start releasing it in three hours. It's too long to release at once and it's not in final form, so I'm doing bit by bit."
Ok, but in honor of it can I play some tunes? LINK
Kit, LOL! Nice.
I do think there is an army of moderates and Rino's but they are currently elected to congress. Where they fail to be conservative had nothing to do with rhetoric but in one area, spending.
When Boehner came out of the Fiscal Cliff crisis without any cuts to spending at all. Yeah he said there was 14 billion but that is dwarfed by the increased spending of future tax revenue increases that are never going to materialize anyways because the economy will never provide them.
The GOP establishment exists and they are bought and paid for by the same political lobbyists in wall street and Big Corporations that run the Democrat party.
They have not once
1) Reduced the scope of legislation by the governemnt
or
2) Cut the spending of the government
that I can ever remember. They talk of stopping spending by telling us how much they did not let the democrats spend but that is no help to me or the country.
These guys are all criminals and it is too late for the disaster they have purchased to be averted.
Indi, While I agree that I would like to see spending slashed, the standard you are giving would make every Republicans except Ron Paul into a RINO because the budget has never gone down and they've all voted for those budgets at one time or another. That includes Reagan whose budgets ballooned every single year.
Post a Comment