New at Reason

David Weigel hobnobs with the Club for Growth, those rare conservatives who didn't lose their souls along with their majority in Election 2006.

Comments

plunge | November 28, 2006, 12:03pm | #

Did they have souls to begin with? These were the starve the beast guys. In other words, promise lots of tax cuts, because people love tax cuts, but then completely look the other way when no spending cuts are made.

Ron | November 28, 2006, 12:30pm | #

I'm with plunge. These guys have zero credibility with me. I think they were also the ones who twisted arms in Colorado in 2003 to get votes for the Medicare drug benefit.

ron | November 28, 2006, 12:43pm | #

Well, I guess I can't hang the Medicare Drug Benefit on CFG--they have been pretty consistently against it. Still, they are real cosy with Grover Norquist, who supported the bill and is the guy who says deficits don't matter.

ChrisO | November 28, 2006, 1:04pm | #

Did they have souls to begin with? These were the starve the beast guys. In other words, promise lots of tax cuts, because people love tax cuts, but then completely look the other way when no spending cuts are made.

Did you actually bother reading the article? The CFG is quite big on budget-cutting and seems to have drawn a lot of stick from the usual Republican suspects for it.

damon | November 28, 2006, 1:36pm | #

I see the CfG as one of the only major influential groups keeping their marbles together.

I'm still not convinced the GOP will learn from the latest wakeup call though.

Hope I'm wrong.

Kwix | November 28, 2006, 2:12pm | #

What the Club for Growth wants to create is a Republican Party that’s absolutely dedicated to tax cuts and free-market reforms, and at least willing to be heterodox on civil liberties and social issues.
This is the problem I have with the CFG. They only focus on the Republican party, not truly the issues. If Ron Paul were to run as a Lib today, the CFG would not endorse or support him in any way. Change his party and magically he is golden. "Founded with the goal of battling partisanship" my ass.

R C Dean | November 28, 2006, 3:59pm | #

See, plunge, where I come from wanting to take more of what people earn is what counts as "soulless."

They only focus on the Republican party, not truly the issues.

And I would say that their strategy has proven far more effective in advancing said issues than that of the Libertarian Party.

spur | November 28, 2006, 4:03pm | #

I'm fiscally conservative but if donating to the CfG means part of my money goes to monsters like Coburn or Mark Souder they can feak off. This is one of the reasons libertarians get the conservative label -- libertarians are better off with no CfG.

TJIT | November 28, 2006, 5:05pm | #

Kwix,

I'm sure the CFG would support Ron Paul.

This year in a texas primary race the club for growth supported a democrat who was more fiscally conservative then his democrat opponent. The democrat candidate they supported won the primary race.

If there were more pro growth democrats they would support them. However, a pro-gowth democrat is a very rare species. Because of this the bulk of the clubs efforts are going to be directed at republican races.

mediageek | November 28, 2006, 6:16pm | #

"I'm still not convinced the GOP will learn from the latest wakeup call though. "

Of course not.

But the Democrats will happily see the election results as a mandate.

jhc | November 28, 2006, 6:55pm | #

As a CFG member who regards himself as a libertarian, I find a lot of these comments pretty amusing. If you don't know anything about CFG, go read its blog.

Yep, I had reservations about backing DeMint and Coburn. And, for that matter, John Thune, whom CFG endorsed in 2004. Politics is almost always a lesser-of-the-evils game.

Is CFG partisan? Somewhat. But name for me the Democrats in Congress who supported Social Security reform. Mighty short list, as I recall. How many Dems do you think would vote to phase SSI out altogether? Why, they'd rather spit on Roosevelt's grave.

My take on the CFG approach is: the best way to limit government's power is to reduce the part of the economic pie it controls. To starve the beast, as plunge said - but to starve both its income and its outgo.

Jim Walsh | November 29, 2006, 1:30am | #

Sorry - I have no use for any group that would endorse the likes of DeMint and Coburn (nor for that matter, do I much care for the Republican Liberty Coalition, an organization that in the past has seen fit to bear-hug Tom Tancredo and others of his ilk).

Robert Goodman | November 29, 2006, 1:36am | #

`Pat Toomey adds. “He’s openly gay, he’s pro-choice, but he has a great record supporting Social Security reform and free trade. But the nature of American politics today is that you put certain coalitions together.…I’ve got some theories on this, but suffice it to say people who are very pro-choice, with exceptions, just don’t tend to have a commitment to
less government and economic freedom.”'

I wish I could read hir theories somewhere, because that subject is fascinating to me. Any of you have any ideas in explanation?