Not much of a Pledge to America

posted at 4:48 pm on September 23, 2010 by Karl

Allahpundit did his usual spiffy job at rounding up reax to House Republicans’ “Pledge to America,” which was leaked yesterday. I offer a remix to make a few additional points.

First, Nick Gillespie’s observation that the 1994 Contract With America was not a major factor is dead on. The GOP was fairly sure it would win a majority of House seats months before the Contract was announced. Given that its contents were poll-tested as at least 60% favorable, it was a marginal plus. However, the Contract was less important as a campaign document than as an agenda Newt Gingrich could use to hit the ground running. Moreover, by keeping the (admittedly limited) promises to vote on its contents (particularly the internal reforms, which were the subject of the marathon 100-hour opening session), the GOP could build some confidence with voters that it would do what it said.

This year, with the odds already favoring the GOP regaining a House majority, it is again better to judge the new “Pledge” — which this year’s candidates are not even formally agreeing to support — on the basis of how well it serves as a governing document and potential confidence builder. It is so judged against the backdrop Gillespie describes — a GOP that spent big during the Bush43 era and which has not backed Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap to America’s Future” (Gillespie pooh-poohs the “Roadmap,” but the lack of party backing for it is a marker of where the Republican establishment is at the moment). The other major element is the successes of the Tea Party movement within the GOP, pushing a tough line on reducing federal spending and repealing ObamaCare.

Judged against these political dynamics, the Pledge has a major problem. Unlike Erick Erickson, it does not bother me that the Pledge lacks calls for a Spending Limitation Amendment or a Balanced Budget Amendment. Holding votes on Constitutional amendments the GOP will not have the votes to pass, even by the most favorable estimates, is a replay of theater from 1995.

However, Erickson is right to fault the Pledge for its milquetoast generalities about reducing spending. Indeed, the Pledge indicts its own authors on this score, if you read it carefully. Page 5 of the leaked version of the Pledge states:

With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt. We will also establish strict budget caps to limit federal spending from this point forward.

We will launch a sustained effort to stem the relentless growth in government that has occurred over the past decade. By cutting Congress’ budget, imposing a net hiring freeze on non-security federal employees, and reviewing every current government program to eliminate wasteful and duplicative programs, we can curb Washington’s irresponsible spending habits and reduce the size of government, while still fulfilling our necessary obligations.

The second paragraph admits that government spending soared during the Bush43 era, including six years of a GOP-controlled Congress. But the first paragraph only commits to “pre-stimulus, pre-bailout” levels of spending, with exceptions for groups includng seniors, which looks to take entitlement reform off the table. In fairness, there is some very vague (deliberately so, I would wager) language on page 11 of the leaked Pledge that suggests a GOP Congress may at least put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid’s long-term unfunded liabilities on budget, which would make our looming fiscal trainwreck harder to ignore. Even so, the Pledge’s approach on sending seems like fairly weak tea.

Oh, yes… tea. The point here is that on spending (and to a lesser degree with the “repeal / replace” approach to ObamaCare), it is difficult to see the Pledge appealing much to Tea Partiers as a campaign document, a governing document or a confidence builder. On this crucial point, the Pledge reads like a political calculation that the voters’ discontent is primarily directed at the past two years of Beltway overreach and that whatever mandate the GOP may receive in November extends no further than that.

It is easy enough to understand the cost-benefit analysis behind such a calculation. A bolder Pledge would open GOP candidates to Democratic demagogy. Boldness might further fuel Tea Party enthusiasm, but how much more eager can they get at this point? On the other hand, polls instruct the House GOP that swing voters are more enthused about voting against Democrats than for Republicans. Beyond the election, Pres. Obama will still be holding the veto pen, raising the risk of over-promising.

However, the fact that I can see those arguments does not change the fact that a lot of Tea Partiers — activists and candidates alike — will not be interested in them. They may reject them on principle. They may reject them on the idea that the GOP leaders’ concerns are based on the Pledge as a campaign document, when it should be seen more as a governing document. They can point to the Contract as an example, or even note that voters did not notice or care that Obama ran on a left-wing platform, because they were fed up with the failures (real and imagined) of the Bush43 Republicans.

The House GOP leadership might turn that last point around, noting that both the Contract and especially the Obama platform show that key voting blocs tend to resist sudden, big changes. They could argue that until the GOP is handed a majority like that the Democrats got in 2008, the better course is to give voters the gridlock they want and pick battles to frame future elections.

If this back-and-forth sounds vaguely familiar, it is because it echoes the arguments thrashed out in the Delaware Senate primary. Stand fast to principles, even if it risks over-reaching and losing, or focus on the winnable fights in a struggle that really has no defined endpoint?

The rise of the Tea Party was driven in no small part by failures in political leadership, particularly Republican leadership. The political task of Republican leadership now is to reconcile the demands of the Tea Party (and, more broadly, the small-government base of the GOP) with the limits imposed by a divided government and the need to attract swing voters who are voting more for gridlock than they are for Republicans. There is not much in the Pledge to suggest the House GOP has figured out how to square that circle.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

There is not much in the Pledge to suggest the House GOP has figured out how to square that circle.

“Pledge” = “Contract With America Redux.”

gryphon202 on September 23, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Is there any chance that an analysis of the GOP Pledge might raise the glaring omission that nine years into a shooting war with 3,000 innocent civilians murdered in the homeland, many more thousands of troops Killed In Action, tens of thousands more Wounded In Action, over a trillion dollars spent and no end in sight our political elites in both parties seem unable or unwilling to identify our enemy, their doctrine and their objectives?

Lon Chaney on September 23, 2010 at 4:58 PM

nothing more than an attempt to gain political capital..

whiskeytango on September 23, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Both the COA and the newer “pledge” really have no play in legislation. What they do, however, is provided the “team” with a platform, so they’re all saying the same thing. This prevents one GOPer from promising deficit reduction of 25%, then another GOPer promises a 30% reduction, then a 3rd GOPer goes even further (“because I’m really conservative!, even more than those guys). After an advertising cycle or two, the GOP is promising anywhere from a 25% to 50% deficit reduction, which is almost impossible in a single year.

It’s a masterfully presented list of talking points.

Feel like a piano yet? Cuz you’ve been played.

BobMbx on September 23, 2010 at 4:58 PM

rule #1 with the voters… you gotta leave’em wanting more.

moonbatkiller on September 23, 2010 at 5:02 PM

There is not much in the Pledge to suggest the House GOP has figured out how to square that circle.

Look at the bright side. If you can’t fall asleep and counting sheep just does not seem to do the trick, you could always read “The Pledge”.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Luka on September 23, 2010 at 5:02 PM

http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/23/what-the-gops-pledge-has-in-co

The GOP has adopted the Progressive platform for healthcare.

You people need to scream this from the rooftops or you wont even notice when they don’t repeal obamacare in 2012 but essentially ADOPT IT AS REPUBLICAN POLICY.

*sigh* This pledge has really sunk my hopes for this fall. :(

flawedskull on September 23, 2010 at 5:02 PM

I thought it was a good document. They put a lot of thought into it, and it shows that they are paying attention. Its easy to sit back and punch holes in this or that, and of course it remains to be seen whether the GOP will deliver on this stuff, but the contrast its paints with the current regime is stark. Of course no simple document is going to have a big effect one way or the other. But I’m glad they are putting down this pledge in writing. For some people who don’t follwo things very closely it might make a difference to see these ideas spelled out.

Frankly I cannot understand the cold water that has been poured all over it by conservatives. None of the arguments against it make a whole lot of sense, including this one.

exceller on September 23, 2010 at 5:04 PM

I too would have liked to see more ambitious spending cuts Karl.

But perhaps, as you and others have suggested, this is more about the Repubicans agreeing to a campaign platform that a set-in-stone legislative agenda.

Perhaps I’m being pollyanish, but I look for the GOP to get more aggressive when/if they take over the majorities in Congress. I’m hoping it’s a clever case of under promise/over deliver, and that they take up many of the pieces of Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap” when they can drive the agenda.

I’m shocked, SHOCKED!, to find that I disagree with you, even on the margins :)

But, as always, a great essay Karl.

RocketmanBob on September 23, 2010 at 5:04 PM

I just want term limits.

Asher on September 23, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Karl Denninger’s take is worth reading. My favorite line: the plan is long on rhetoric and damn short on substance.

GOP Manifesto: A Big Fat Zero

flyfisher on September 23, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Disappointing. $100 Billion in spending cuts is all they can promise us?

The deficit EACH year is 13 times that. The national debt is 130 times that.

I agree it’s better than nothing, but this was very milquetoast indeed.

Norwegian on September 23, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Its nothing more then a marketing tool. People are over-analyzing this.

They needed something substantive. Too much substance and you alienate some faction of a movement that is already starting to fracture. Its easier to unite in opposition against something then to build a coalition for something.

Plus, Obama will still be POTUS, so much of this is moot anyhow.

swamp_yankee on September 23, 2010 at 5:14 PM

yep, it’s rino dreck kiddies…..oh wait!

Taking the Pledge! Americans should be proud to support the commonsense,Constitutional solutions;NRO spot-on editorial http://bit.ly/ahw0ch
about 2 hours ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®
Retweeted by 74 people
.SarahPalinUSA

here is the rino NRO editorial Sarah wants you to read, run along Pbots for Purity :)

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/247475/we-ll-take-pledge-editors

windansea on September 23, 2010 at 5:14 PM

I like the Pledge to America. I love the preamble. I can hear Reagan in those words. We will hold our conservative leaders to them — they are more than words.

Stand strong, folks.

publiuspen on September 23, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Milquetoast generalities leave me cold now
There is only one acceptable ending
That is the end of just pretending
This is the moment I say: Lead now!

PercyB on September 23, 2010 at 5:16 PM

The “pledge” seeks to repeal ObamaCare yet keep many of it’s mandates for insurance companies.

Palin has the right idea … free market reform. I wish the GOP would listen.

“Let’s replace them with good conservatives who will vote to repeal and replace Obamacare with patient-centered, results-driven, free market reform that provides solutions to people of all income levels without bankrupting our country.”

darwin on September 23, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Would I have liked seeing a stronger, Conservative fire breathing document? Yes. That would satisfy ME. But taken in the context of the political class generally I think this Pledge goes a very long way toward where we want to go as Conservatives or Tea Partiers.

There are some items in the Pledge that weren’t possible to utter publicly just 18 months ago. That they are included, even marginally now, is a testament that the nation (and reluctantly the political class) are moving in the same direction as a majority of Americans. SMALLER, less intrusive government, tightened SPENDING (a roll back to ANY past level is a major leap forward and we should recognize that), ACCOUNTABILITY for Congress (really, would anybody SERIOUSLY propose to add Constitutional authorities to all bills even 10 months ago?).

So “They” are coming along. We can’t expect the political class to be at the level of the Tea Partiers…they’ll just have to be seen as a lagging indicator.

JonPrichard on September 23, 2010 at 5:16 PM

I too would have liked to see more ambitious spending cuts Karl.

But perhaps, as you and others have suggested, this is more about the Repubicans agreeing to a campaign platform that a set-in-stone legislative agenda.

Perhaps I’m being pollyanish, but I look for the GOP to get more aggressive when/if they take over the majorities in Congress. I’m hoping it’s a clever case of under promise/over deliver, and that they take up many of the pieces of Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap” when they can drive the agenda.

I’m shocked, SHOCKED!, to find that I disagree with you, even on the margins :)

But, as always, a great essay Karl.

I think that this is going to set up one of the conservatives in the House running for President, I’m hoping it’s Ryan, but I bet it’s Pence

cpaulus on September 23, 2010 at 5:18 PM

here is the rino NRO editorial Sarah wants you to read, run along Pbots for Purity :)

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/247475/we-ll-take-pledge-editors

windansea on September 23, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Nice try. Like I said, it’s a good start but I had hoped for more. That being said, it’s counterintuitive to publically attack it at this point. It is what it is, and getting Pelosi out of the Speaker chair is Priority 1.

Norwegian on September 23, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Allahpundit did his usual spiffy job

A minor aside (although probably not to Allahpundit). He’s a she.

rspock on September 23, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Yes, we all hoped for more, or less, or different, or…

But it is 100%+ BETTER than any and EVERY idea the Democrats have!

EVERY…SINGLE…ONE.

Justrand on September 23, 2010 at 5:22 PM

I’m hoping it’s a clever case of under promise/over deliver.

As a contrast to pretty much EVERYthing Obama/Reid/Pelosi promised during the 2008 campaign and what they delivered (performance wise) then the Pledge is as powerful and substantive as the Magna Carta

JonPrichard on September 23, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Today’s Republican Establishment seems to be having a problem remembering what made the Reagan Revolution the nation-changing force that it was.

kingsjester on September 23, 2010 at 5:27 PM

We have met the enemy and he is us.

ButterflyDragon on September 23, 2010 at 5:28 PM

A minor aside (although probably not to Allahpundit). He’s a she.

rspock on September 23, 2010 at 5:21 PM

What?

cjtony97 on September 23, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Just watch, Ogabe will eventually come out with a Pledge to cut spending by oh… $200 billion. The squishy RINOs will be knocked for a loop before they can even start!

$100 billion in cuts on a multi-trillion dollar deficit! That’s fricken ridiculous and these guys are supposed to be on our side???

Ogabe on September 23, 2010 at 5:39 PM

I have a different take… the Pledge shows that we’re cracking the egg. It will just take more effort on our part to get them to continue to move in this direction. But it’s a start.

beatcanvas on September 23, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Two things.

1. I am very confident Allahpundit is a he. I have seen his picture and met several people I trust who have met him.

2. In response to some of the commenters on the cross-post at Patterico, I added this:

Ryan is saying exactly what I would expect him to say. Re-read my post; that’s what I said they would say. The shorter version of what they’re saying is: Be Realistic.

The point of my post is that the Tea Party phenomenon is largely a rebellion against that sort of thinking. Here’s what non-Tea Partier Peggy Noonan has grasped about it:

But if you look at the past half century or so you have to think: How come even when Republicans are in charge, even when they’re dominant, government has always gotten larger and more expensive? It’s always grown! It’s as if something inexorable in our political reality—with those who think in liberal terms dominating the establishment, the media, the academy—has always tilted the starting point in negotiations away from 18 inches, and always toward liberalism, toward the 36-inch point.

Democrats on the Hill or in the White House try to pull it up to 30, Republicans try to pull it back to 25. A deal is struck at 28. Washington Republicans call it victory: “Hey, it coulda been 29!” But regular conservative-minded or Republican voters see yet another loss. They could live with 18. They’d like eight. Instead it’s 28.

For conservatives on the ground, it has often felt as if Democrats (and moderate Republicans) were always saying, “We should spend a trillion dollars,” and the Republican Party would respond, “No, too costly. How about $700 billion?” Conservatives on the ground are thinking, “How about nothing? How about we don’t spend more money but finally start cutting.”

What they want is representatives who’ll begin the negotiations at 18 inches and tug the final bill toward five inches. And they believe tea party candidates will do that.

The Pledge describes a 10-year problem and offers a 2-year solution. That won’t sit well with the mindset Noonan describes. My complaint here really goes beyond the spending issue, which merely crystallizes the problem. My complaint is that the House GOP leadership hasn’t learned or figured out how to manage the new part of their coalition, or — like the NRSC and other orgs — intends to fight it.

Karl on September 23, 2010 at 6:03 PM

$100 billion in cuts on a multi-trillion dollar deficit! That’s fricken ridiculous and these guys are supposed to be on our side???

Ogabe on September 23, 2010 at 5:39 PM

All this bad mouthing is kind of bumming me out. Has anyone considered that they already have a pretty strong lead in the polls? Why would they come out with something more specific when they don’t need to? Why give the Dems any bait to use in their campaign pieces?

I thought it was pretty darn good and they made some commitments they didn’t have to. I’m a Tea Partier and I’m just as skeptical as the next person but the document tells me that they are listening. Now when they take power we all need to keep watching, and if necessary make an example or two next election if they didn’t get it but I am praying we are at least on the right track.

$100 Billion might not be a lot to some of you but to me its a damn good start. Who’s side are you guys on anyway?

New Patriot on September 23, 2010 at 6:07 PM

What is it with those who put this together – it’s puny and pathetic in this day and age at best – at worst, the left now has something to sink their teeth into.

It really is time to get rid of the flabby old white guys who got us to this point and place and replace them with the likes (wherever they can be found) of Christie, Miller, Brown, Palin, Brewer, Rubio et al.

An opportunity, not often found, has been handed to the GOP – and this is the best they can come up with????????

karra on September 23, 2010 at 6:19 PM

Unfortunate Fact of politics……it’s going to take a bleep kicking CONSERVATIVE in the White House, a compliant GOP Congress and an engaged CONSERVATIVE base to get this sucka turned around or the USS AMERICA is going down like the Titanic.

Who has the Cajones to the that kind of Captain?

PappyD61 on September 23, 2010 at 6:20 PM

All year long, conservatives have been pressuring Republicans to release a Contract with America for 2010 — an updated version of the campaign platform that the party unveiled before its 1994 sweep of Congress.

NRO Editors, “We’ll Take the Pledge”

That statement isn’t factual at all. Salesman NEWT promoted the idea of another contract, but not his Contract again since that was then and this is now.

The only one demanding that Republicans stipulate their agenda for rejection is the tone deaf Obama who forgets that he won on campaigning “Change We Can Believe In” without stipulating for the fools that Obama was bringing Marxism into the White House.

maverick muse on September 23, 2010 at 6:30 PM

This is a darn sight better than the statism and tyranny of the Democrats. I say, go for it – they’re trying to appeal to a huge group of people, and this is a good start.

jdawg on September 23, 2010 at 6:35 PM

Well we have seen what happens (obama) when we promise the world. It is a real world concept.

tomas on September 23, 2010 at 6:38 PM

Generalizing conservative highlights certainly does NOT give Democrats material. It protects those in the Pledge. It would be hilarious if a Democrat took the Pledge in hopes of getting re-elected after having voted for all of Obama’s spending.

The nation’s mood is conservative. Any nasty Democrat politicking only energizes their base of subsidized union voters who were going to vote anyway. Democrats aren’t getting the Independent and undecided votes this time. Obama’s popularity fell to disrepute. And ObamaCare along with TARP and Cap and Trade spending bonanzas are just TOO MUCH for anyone to bear given our nation’s economy falling internationally, already fallen at home.

The generalizations of the Pledge are irritating to conservatives who want a commitment from politicians instead of rhetoric that gets the uncommitted legislators elected when they have no intention of actually voting a strong conservative line.

Expectations.

maverick muse on September 23, 2010 at 6:38 PM

The Pledge = Democrat Lite

the difference between the parties is nothing more than the speed in which you lose your liberties.

roflmao

donabernathy on September 23, 2010 at 6:39 PM

I say, go for it – they’re trying to appeal to a huge group of people, and this is a good start.

jdawg on September 23, 2010 at 6:35 PM

That’s it.

maverick muse on September 23, 2010 at 6:40 PM

What is with these moron RINOs like Karl and Erick Erickson. Firts of all Karl no one knew months in advance that the GOP would retake the House. That is a pure fiction.

Second if these astute analysts would take the time to learn more about political campaign strategies and less about which direction the toilet water swirls when draining out you would understand that this is a small part of a larger strategy. Look at the big picture boys try to understand we are trying to win back the House of Representatives not please some half baked web bloggers.

Jdripper on September 23, 2010 at 6:55 PM

So let’s see if I have this figured out:

The deficit is at $1.3 trillion this year isn’t it?
So the RINOs cut $100 billion per year. Is that commulative or is it only $100 billion off the top, and $100 billion off the top again next year? If so we’ll never get below a $1.2 trillion deficit every year.

If it’s a commulative $100 billion every year it will take 13 years to get rid of the deficit. For 13 years we’re going deeper in debt every year with the unpaid deficit and interest payments.

Quick who’s a math person here? How much is the extra debt we’ve piled up in those 13 years, and what are the annual interest payments on that extra debt? And if you’ve just financed the extra interest payments you’ve been piling up for 13 years, plus any nasty surprises, this sounds like a sweet recipe for endless debt.

Nope, nothing like being a RINO squish when it comes to the deficit. Why who knows, maybe we’ll never have to face reality, and we can just leave it to our grand-children and our great grand-children to deal with.

Ogabe on September 23, 2010 at 6:57 PM

All this bad mouthing is kind of bumming me out. Has anyone considered that they already have a pretty strong lead in the polls? Why would they come out with something more specific when they don’t need to? Why give the Dems any bait to use in their campaign pieces?

I thought it was pretty darn good and they made some commitments they didn’t have to. I’m a Tea Partier and I’m just as skeptical as the next person but the document tells me that they are listening. Now when they take power we all need to keep watching, and if necessary make an example or two next election if they didn’t get it but I am praying we are at least on the right track.

$100 Billion might not be a lot to some of you but to me its a damn good start. Who’s side are you guys on anyway?

New Patriot on September 23, 2010 at 6:07 PM

..right on! Please contact me immediately for one, two, or possibly even three free beers. The rest of you can migrate over to the folks with the cute new logo and the havoc-wreaking machinery.

The War Planner on September 23, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Look at the big picture boys try to understand we are trying to win back the House of Representatives not please some half baked web bloggers.

Jdripper on September 23, 2010 at 6:55 PM

..please see my free beer offer above; I believe you qualify quite nicely.

The War Planner on September 23, 2010 at 7:20 PM

The Pledge: Contract with America II, Electric Boogaloo

They have such nice words mired in 21 pages… if they really meant them they would pare it down to one page of about 3 points and put up front and center – rollback, Constitutional test for all programs and departments, and yes that means entitlements, too.

Obama cannot veto what is not put on his desk.

Don’t put it there so he can’t spend it.

Pull out the chainsaw so he can see a real transformation of America.

Too bad the Republican Establishment isn’t up for that. Soon there will be no Republican Establishment left.

ajacksonian on September 23, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Robert Novak was scoffed at by Al Hunt, Mark Shields and Margaret Carlson three weeks before the election when he made the prediction of a House-Senate takeover by the Republicans).

So the Contract had a major effect at least on the narrative of the ’94 election and its aftermath. The problem of course is you can only go to the well like that once and earn wholehearted praise or trust from your side if you don’t follow through, which the GOP didn’t after the 1998 midterm elections. So the new plan comes across as less fresh, while the voters are more cynical that the GOP is only talking a good game to get back into power, and will return to their 1999-2006 ways once back in power.
jon1979 on September 23, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Novak was (and is) awesome. He alienated himself from the establishment and kept the power to tell the truth.

The pledge thing is a big whatever; a nice starting point, perhaps, but it’s just as likely another gimmick. The voters need to follow through like Delaware — no more primary passes to leftist weasels with an (R).

Feedie on September 23, 2010 at 8:46 PM

Establishment Republicans: Prepare to be primaried, you too Boehner, future Speaker to get dumped by his own party, will be awesome.

exdeadhead on September 23, 2010 at 9:30 PM

What is with these moron RINOs like Karl and Erick Erickson. Firts of all Karl no one knew months in advance that the GOP would retake the House. That is a pure fiction.

Jdripper on September 23, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Erickson’s a RINO? That is news.

Oddly enough, in the original post, the word “months” is a link. Click it to discover that in ’94, House GOPers had John Morgan, Sr. look at every single race, and were confident they would win the House no later than July of ’94.

Bob Novak’s prediction (mentioned above by others) was based on that information.

That bit of history is largely unknown. I knew it because I, in fact, have taken the time to learn more about political campaign strategies than about which direction the toilet water swirls when draining out. Decades, actually. Similarly, I was aware, even before Gillespie pointed it out, that the exit polling showed that the Contract had virtually no impact as a campaign document, which is why I don’t think the Pledge should be treated as one, let alone hailed as one.

Moreover, while I would never generalize from blog comments, the split in opinion seen here is reflective of the larger point I’m making. House GOP leadership is going to have a tough time managing the expectations of some on the Right.

Karl on September 23, 2010 at 9:50 PM

The “Atlas Shrugged” of pledges. By the time they get to the point, you have fallen asleep.

pgrossjr on September 23, 2010 at 10:18 PM

the split in opinion seen here is reflective of the larger point I’m making. House GOP leadership is going to have a tough time managing the expectations of some on the Right.
Karl on September 23, 2010 at 9:50 PM

I sure hope so. Interesting stuff about ’94. What I remember is Rush in top form trashing HillaryCare and media/lib anti-gun hysteria at a peak. The public had enough and the Clintons get credit for breaking the Democrat lock on the South.

Feedie on September 23, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Feedie on September 23, 2010 at 8:46 PM

The (R) establishment supports about as much real conservatism as Jenny Craig supports real weight loss.

Check the real results in both cases. Like about seven (7) pounds lost and kept off.

It is all about about “feel good” marketing, friends.

BTW, I think Bubba had stomach surgery. He weighs like he did in high school,and, despite his claim of a diet, I have doubts about his self control. And he had that look like he did when talking about his innocence in another matter.

IlikedAUH2O on September 24, 2010 at 6:22 AM

House GOP leadership is going to have a tough time managing the expectations of some on the Right.
Karl on September 23, 2010 at 9:50 PM

It is impossible to manage the expectations of radical liberty being applied by citizens to their governmen to bring it to heel. It is that the citizenry is unmanageable in its expectation and willing to shoot for the sky and put their money where their mouths are that is removing the Republican Establishment.

Those coming in cannot be managed: they are not going to be ‘realistic’ and will not allow themselves to be coralled into nice, neat pens for the Republican slaughterhouse. Those that do will not return in two years, as the citizenry will see the duplicitous nature of the party and further entrench to remove the Elite structure… and perhaps start taking over the other party to remove its Elite structure which looks very much like the one in the Republican party.

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

The unsaid fourth option is: get mowed down if you try to stop it, impede it or think that this is some minor petty shift in corruptocrats.

It is because of the unrealistic expectations that the stark contrast between the Establishment Elite and the Tea Party is seen today. And as the American people can figure out more ways to succeed than politicians can throw in their path to stop them, it is the politicians who will lose as they no longer represent the people.

ajacksonian on September 24, 2010 at 6:49 AM