How did GOP right get it so wrong? (Dick Armey editorial)

Houston Chronicle ^ | 11-4-06 | Dick Armey

[Hydroshock]

Somewhere along the road to a "permanent majority," the Republican Revolution of 1994 went off track. For several years, we had confidence in our convictions and trusted that the American people would reward our efforts. And they did.

But today, my Republican friends in Congress stand on the precipice of an electoral rout. Even the best-case scenarios suggest wafer-thin majorities and a legislative agenda in disarray. With eight days before the election, House speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi has already begun her transition planning.

Where did the revolution go astray? How did we go from the big ideas and vision of 1994 to the cheap political point-scoring on meaningless wedge issues of today — from passing welfare reform and limited government to banning horsemeat and same-sex marriage?

The answer is simple: Republican lawmakers forgot the party's principles, became enamored with power and position, and began putting politics over policy. Now, the Democrats are reaping the rewards of our neglect — and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

In 1989, Newt Gingrich rose to the number twoNo. 2 leadership position in the House after a contentious three-way race pitting young backbench conservatives such as myself, Bob Walker, Joe Barton and others against old bulls such as Minority Leader Bob Michel and other ranking members. We thought they suffered from a minority party mindset and were too accommodating of the Democrats. Out of congressional power for nearly two generations, Republicans had become complacent. Senior members of the party were happy to accept the crumbs afforded by Democratic chairmen. Life was comfortable in the minority as long as you did not rock the boat. Members received their perks — such as travel abroad and special banking privileges — and enough pork projects for re-election.

[ntnychik]

Excellent list! Those who cry about the do-nothing Congress should look at who cast the no votes.

[potlatch]

Bump!!

[devolve]

re-bumperoo!!!!!!

Dick Armey faced no war against countless nutcase OBL cultists, a fakeroo bubbled economy that busted with fudged Klintoon employment stats, Kimmi/Hugo/Al-Irani/Castro plots, $75 oil

If Armey wants a legacy - We can plant one on him

I heard him call into Laura Ingraham with his wimpy attitude about homosexual marriages

Now the American economy is riding high with low unemployment and Armey was crying to Laura Ingraham about US business in trouble

Does Dick Armey bend his elbow a bit too much with Jon Carry and Teddy-Jo Kennedy?

[GregH]

'Right, under Armey the GOP House forced Clinton to accept some spending cuts and pass welfare reform '

Hmm.... are you referring to devastating budget cuts to the intelligence and the military that happened under Clinton and whem Armey was house leader? It is well known most of Clinton/Gore spending cuts were on the military budget on which they built their surplus. Under Delays house leadership Congress passed some real tax cuts which would have been bigger if not for the senate. Granted Armey had a hostile President which Delay did not face, but it does not give him any right to attack Republicans when he is short on achievements.

[MonroeDNA]

The attacks here on Dick Armey just reinforced my desire to not vote.

He is a PhD economist, and was one of the young turks that took over congress in '94. He knows a lot more than the rest of you ever will.

If losing control of congress ejects the terri vegetable, stem cell crowd, so be it.

[raybbr]

Armey and the rest of you can go to hell for all I care.

God bless you too.

[rob777]

"Hmm.... are you referring to devastating budget cuts to the intelligence and the military that happened under Clinton and whem Armey was house leader? It is well known most of Clinton/Gore spending cuts were on the military budget on which they built their surplus. Under Delays house leadership Congress passed some real tax cuts which would have been bigger if not for the senate. Granted Armey had a hostile President which Delay did not face, but it does not give him any right to attack Republicans when he is short on achievements."





I am referring to the government shutdown that happened when the GOP Congress cut out whole departments and trimmed the budget to such an extent that Clinton vetoed the whole deal. The GOP Senate under Dole finally caved and the shutdown ended. Clinton was forced to cut back on some spending, though nowhere near as much as much as the GOP House had proposed. They also forced his hand in signing welfare reform. In addition, let's not forget that they defeated "Hillary Care" when they were still in the minority. DOMESTIC spending increased far more under Bush and the current Congress than it did under Clinton. Of course Clinton does not deserve credit for this, it was the young turks within the GOP who came to power in 1994. (Armey was one of the generals)

Yes, the current GOP leadership got some tax cuts through, but they have an absolutely INDEFENSIBLE record on spending.
When Mike Pence and the RSC proposed some budget cuts to offset all of the Katrina related spending, the GOP leadership, Delay included, read him the riot act. Delay had the nerve to say that there was no more areas of the budget that could be cut. Mike Pence and the RSC took the bait and made their rebellion public thus forcing the GOP leadership to enact some "minimal" cuts as offsets to Katrina spending. If not for a public rebellion on the part of Pence and the RSC, we probably would not have even got those few cuts. If not for a public rebellion on the part of conservatives, we would of had Harriet Myers on the Supreme Court instead of Alito.

Do you really think that limited government conservatives have not come to the conclusion that the only way to get the current GOP leadership to take this cause seriously is to public ally rebel? While I do not want to see the Dems come to power, I most certainly do want to see a little rebellion within the GOP ranks. As Jefferson said "A Little rebellion is a good thing, as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical world".

[rob777]

"The attacks here on Dick Armey just reinforced my desire to not vote."



I already voted, but they make me a little apprehensive over whether rank and file conservatives have placed holding onto political power for the party over advancing a principled agenda. A very good case can be made that people like Armey believe that nothing short of a public rebellion within the GOP ranks will cure the current problems. I am still not so sure about his timing, but completely understand his frustration after having invested so much in bringing about the 1994 revolution. The GOP would not even be in a majority if it was not for people like him. I think that he has earned the benefit of the doubt.

[RichInOC]

You know what, Dick? I remember when you were Majority Leader, and Newt was Speaker, and it was good a lot of the time, but I also remember times when the both of you were looking pretty damned mortal indeed. But if you think you could do so much better than the guys in there now, and you apparently do, you had ample time and opportunity to hand your think tank over to somebody else and make another run. That might have helped. This doesn't. Shame on you.

[MinuteGal]

This article is not a one-shot deal. Armey has been all over the tube lately downing the administration and the war effort.

I put him in the same category as the unlamented Bob Barr who went over to the dark side after losing his seat and going to work for the ACLU.

A week or so ago I saw Armey being interviewed on one of the major cables and he was so disgustingly and connivingly negative that it was either throw a book end at my TV or get up and blow off steam by putting a comment on FR. I chose the latter.

Bitter ex-legislators who chose not to use their talents in positive fights against Marxists and anti-Americans.

Leni

[bitt]

thanks for the ping.

I have worked too hard on the election in a dem state to NOT vote republican tomorrow, just to make a point - they might walk off with my property tomorrow if the Dems win...they want to take my parental authority, my money, and give unions everything they could imagine that they want.

Wednesday, I start in on pension reform. I want to bit in on those board meetings.

[ntnychik]

Funny thing. The more the unions get, the more jobs they lose-sometimes their whole company. Wonder why they think they are so few in number. Here, we have Chuckie and Hillary: "We will take things from you." At least she was honest. Chuckie is the godfather of stealth candidates. Doesn't matter if there is a conservative-leaning dem. He'll be forced by the party strongarms to vote as told, or else.

One other thing on my mind while we're at it. Here, the democrats are promising not to raise taxes. They can do this without lying, by simply doing nothing to make current tax cuts permanent. And just how did those ending dates of the tax cuts get into the legislation? And why did we, the majority, allow it? Win or lose, we have to wise up.

[NittanyLion]

It would appear that Dick Armey had it exactly right. We'd do well to listen to his counsel and react accordingly.

[Hydroshock]

Yep.

[NittanyLion]

Lots of vitriol on this thread; this is the kind of arrogance that really turned off the electorate.

[Hydroshock]

Yes, and that is another reason the republicans lost.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

As for same sex marriage, most of the real work as been done at the state level...where it should be done in the first place.

States ratify Amendments... You need to read the Constitution...

Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress...

[dr_who_2]

Yes, I'm aware of that, so what's your point? Another good reason for electing Republicans to state offices.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Yes, I'm aware of that, so what's your point?

An Amendment to the Constitution requires state involvement...

[dr_who_2]

Yup, it sure does.