ISIS

"The GOP's metamorphosis from…the stupid party into [one] that is both stupid and useless is almost complete."

|

Just a few months ago, when Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) became the House Majority Leader, he announced the GOP would allow the Export-Import Bank, which subsidizes purchases of goods made by politically connected U.S. firms, to expire "because it's something the private sector can be able to do."

That was then. The budget resolution approved by Congress yesterday not only continues funding for the Export-Import Bank, it signed off on the Iraq-Syria War of 2014 without actually putting the matter to a constitutionally mandated vote:

The GOP, which claims to be the party that pledges maniacal fealty to the Constitution, can't be bothered to push for a declaration of war, but it's happy to shovel more borrowed money toward a dodgy group of Syrians. "I frankly think the president's request is a sound one," Speaker of the House John Boehner told The Washington Times. The only real disagreement among Republicans is whether to put American soldiers on the ground to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria, which appears to be what Sen. John McCain is pushing for.

In a new column for The Daily Beast, I argue that the GOP's inability to stand for anything other than occasional attempts to screw poor people, vilify brown people, and demagogue gays and lesbians is the main reason its once-seeming lock on taking the Senate has disappeared:

As the differences between the two parties are blunted, it's no wonder that Republican chances for retaking the Senate are evaporating faster than those anticipated federal surpluses in the early Aughts. "Democrats now have a 51 percent chance of holding the Senate," reports The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, who notes that just a few months ago, the odds were better than 80 percent that the Republicans would pick up six seats to gain a majority in both houses of Congress….

In a two-party system, we're effectively down to one party that wants to keep spending essentially the same and to start a new war without having to go on the record as voting for it or against it. No wonder that just 25 percent of Americans identify as Republican, according to Gallup, and the GOP probably won't win the Senate despite appalling poll numbers for Obama's Democrats. Because when you go from being stupid to being useless, voters are smart to stick with the status quo, no matter how miserable it might be.

Whole thing here.

Advertisement

NEXT: CIA Halts Spying in Europe

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In before the plaeocons screaming COSMOTARIAN!!1!…

    1. No fair.

  2. nedmadden 47 minutes ago
    Nick, your “libertarianism” is a scam. ALL corporations exist due to government permission and cannot exist otherwise, and ALL industries and the businesses within them require (and often demand) public investments in the form of incentives, subsidies, grants, loans, allowances and a thousand other excuses for putting taxpayer dollars into private pockets. Which makes your “free market” a fantasy.

    Eisenhower’s military/congressional/industrial complex is now in full charge of the federal budget and Wall Street runs an out-of-control casino for suckers. Meanwhile, the plantation economy chugs along with master and his family running the field hands.

    The Roosevelts lost. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and Ford won.

    FlagShare

    1. That’s a lot of derp for someone with such a purdy mouth.

    2. Barf.

    3. Duh! Everyone knows that the wheel was invented as a result of government funded research!

    4. So how did Eisenhower see behind the veil if it has always existed? Greys?

    5. ALL industries and the businesses within them require (and often demand) public investments in the form of incentives, subsidies, grants, loans, allowances and a thousand other excuses for putting taxpayer dollars into private pockets.

      Yeah, about that, where’s mine?

  3. I argue that the GOP’s inability to stand for anything other than occasional attempts to screw poor people, vilify brown people, and demagogue gays and lesbians is the main reason its once-seeming lock on taking the Senate has disappeared

    The Republican party has plenty wrong with it, but if you really thing the big problems with the Rs are that it isn’t patronizing poor people or minorities enough then you are part of the problem, Nick. For that matter, while the anti-gay crap does have some validity and needs to change, recently the main problems resulting from this area of politics has come from the leftist camp in its infringement of religious rights and insistence on politically correct treatment of gays as akin to blacks on the pantheon of historical grievance. Frankly, the same people who bitch about these issues are the same people who complain about the Koch brothers, and you agreeing with them will not make them like you more; it simply affirms the legitimacy of their complaints.

    1. The budget resolution approved by Congress yesterday not only continues funding for the Export-Import Bank, it signed off on the Iraq-Syria War of 2014 without actually putting the matter to a constitutionally mandated vote

      OTOH, it shouldn’t be too much to ask that the Rs stick to something that they promised not even a year ago. *This* is a legitimate policy complaint.

    2. I agree that there are a host of things wrong with the GOP, but Nick sounds like a Maddow clone by using straw men and hyperbole to make his point.

      “Vilify brown people”?

      Really dude? I thought he was smarter than this.

      1. “They vilify brown people, oppress black people, want poor people to starve, enslave women and stop all peepee friction fun” is part of The Daily Beast’s liturgy when writing about Republicans.

      2. Vilify non-Judeo-Christians along with the occasional Mexican is more apt.

      3. Really dude? I thought he was smarter than this.

        https://reason.com/blog/2014/01…..portant-mo

      4. At least the GOP is only vilifying brown people…

        They could be dropping bombs on them.

    3. But, “Republicans hate brown people” is easier to grasp. Cuz you see, for all their faults, at least Democrats don’t hate brown people…see? No? You say they also hate brown people? You, sir, are not with it.

      1. The Democrats bomb brown people out of love.

  4. my co-worker’s sister makes $80 /hr on the internet . She has been unemployed for nine months but last month her pay was $16085 just working on the internet for a few hours. visit the site….

    ???????? http://www.jobsaa.com

  5. But the GOP is not a single entity. It is a grouping of singular assholes who, each believes, must appease voting groups who may or may not be represented by other singular assholes who talk the loudest.

    1. Same for any group of politicians. The main problem of the Republicans is that they are squishy pols living in the Dem’s world. Much like how, in Canada, the “Conservative” party can only hope to keep the toilet seat warm (to borrow Mark Steyn) for the real rulers, except not as advanced in degree.

      The real problem with the R’s is their monopoly on voters who fucking hate the confirmed statists but feel they should vote for SOMEBODY.

  6. The Republicans went limp on cutting the Ex-Im Bank.

    lemme dust off my shocked face 😐

  7. Playing the race card is an admission that you have nothing.

    I accept your rhetorical resignation, Nick. Sorry to see you go. Or are they going to keep you on like they do Chapman?

    1. I accept your rhetorical resignation, Nick. Sorry to see you go. Or are they going to keep you on like they do Chapman?

      *rereads, then stands and begins applauding*

    2. Ouch. A bit of burn there.

      But I do remember Nick being pretty firm on how lousy your argument is if that’s the first thing you go for. Shit that couldn’t have been more than a couple of weeks ago.

  8. The Republican party is in severe decline and the people in charge of it don’t have a clue how to fix it. I think I’m going to vote LP straight across this next election. Perhaps at some point the elephant will remember what it was like to be fiscally conservative and respectful of the Constitution, but I’m not holding my breath.

    1. Perhaps at some point the elephant will remember what it was like to be fiscally conservative and respectful of the Constitution, but I’m not holding my breath.

      There is a major assumption that this will cause the Republicans to win but I doubt it.

    2. The people in charge of it think that there are 50 million voters who occupy the political space between Hillary Clinton and John McCain. They also believe Sean Hannity is the far end of the limited government spectrum and therefore act more like dems everyday.

      1. Sean Hannity is the far end of the limited government mental capacity spectrum

        FIFY

  9. Pretty Rich for libertarians to attack the GOP for being useless and stupid.

    occasional attempts to screw poor people, vilify brown people, and demagogue gays and lesbians

    So the GOP should start acting like Democrats? Doesn’t that contradict your argument? Not to mention that the Progs attack the libertarians using the same logic so why are you giving them rhetorical cover?

    voters are smart to stick with the status quo, no matter how miserable it might be.

    So are you going to take back the libertarian moment bullshit?

    1. No, I’m sure that Nick is now saying that the libertarian moment means you should vote for democrats.

      Wait, yeah you’re right, that would mean that the libertarian moment stuff was total bullshit.

  10. So the Democrats will be rewarded for trying to get rid of the First Amendment, libertarian moment is upon us!

    1. First they came for the libertarians, but even though I am a libertarian I said nothing because not one listens to libertarians….

  11. it signed off on the Iraq-Syria War of 2014 without actually putting the matter to a constitutionally mandated vote

    While I agree that that’s chickenshit behavior, and that it’s best form to have a Proper Separate Vote For A War, Specifically…

    I don’t recall any provision of the Constitution requiring it.

    “Congress shall have the power […] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.

    Note that Congress is not constrained by the Constitution to do that “only after a full vote on a specific declaration of war that stands all by itself”, or whatever the phantom requirement of today is.

    (Like the idea that it doesn’t count unless the words “declare” or “declaration” and “war” are in there; that didn’t float in 2004 and it doesn’t float now. No such requirement exists in the Constitution.)

    Congress gets to make its own rules for how it does its functions, remember, and if Congress is of the opinion that a footnote [so to speak] on an appropriations bill counts as Congress using its power to Declare Wars in Constitutional terms, nobody can tell it’s wrong.

    We can – and probably should – try to convince Congress that that’s a shitty way to operate.

    But we can’t stamp our feet and declare Congress to be violating the Constitution by … using a power the Constitution expressly delegates to Congress without limitation on how it does so.)

    1. I know it’s blasphemy to say it, but the writers of the constitution were dumb as a box of rocks in the way they phrased some things. Clearly that language was intended to mean that there can’t be a war unless Congress declares war — otherwise it’s kind of a meaningless addition to section one. But they didn’t make it explicit and provided absolutely no control over a rogue president so long as he has 1/3 of the Senate on his side.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.