Political bloodlust a burden for post-election GOP
With power comes responsibility, and also danger. Eager as they are to reclaim control of the House and possibly the Senate, Republicans in Washington are also quite aware that they face a problem:
How do they appease the political bloodlust they’ve created and fed upon within the GOP base without alienating the more moderate center in the process? And if forced to choose between the two, which way will they turn?
To some degree, this is a uniquely modern problem. In the old days, politicians could feed red meat to the campaign crowds back home, while quietly finding ways to compromise in Washington. But with the rise of ideological enforcers in the media and blogosphere, that has become a much more difficult trick to pull off.
Just ask U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
Last week, in a Wall Street Journal story headlined “GOP House leaders seek to avoid past mistakes,” Issa was quoted to the effect that the House ought to at least try to find areas of agreement with the Obama administration.
“It’s pretty clear the American people expect us to use the existing gridlock to create compromise and advance their agenda. They want us to come together [with the administration] after we agree to disagree.”
“Compromise?” Did he really say “compromise?”
For that sin, Issa was summoned by the pope and forced to publicly recant his heresy. The outrage on the right was so intense that Issa was forced to call into the Rush Limbaugh show that very day to be scared straight by The Mighty One:
“The people that are going to secure the Republican victory look at Barack Obama as somebody who’s destroying their country. Not somebody to be compromised with, somebody who needs to be stopped. They know that you’re not going to have the ability to get him to agree with your legislation. You’re not going to be able to override his vetoes. But the idea that you’re gonna end up working with him is anathema. People want this man stopped.”
“… people don’t care about how the House runs. They don’t care about open debate. They care about stopping Obama and the Democrats! They care about saving the country! They don’t care if Obama goes to jail! They don’t care if Axelrod goes to jail. They want them stopped. They want them to have no power.”
Suitably chastened, Issa promised there would be no compromise of Republican values, and went on to call Obama “one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times.”
“I head the (House Oversight) committee that’s all about making sure that the administration obeys the law, that waste, fraud, and abuse not be tolerated, which obviously is not the case now, but that’s the change that’s going to happen from my position. I’m looking forward to it,” he told Limbaugh.
Placated, The Mighty One dismissed Issa and sent him on his way.
However, in a TV interview a few days later, Bloomberg’s Al Hunt asked Issa about that interview. It was pretty funny, in a sad sort of way:
HUNT: OK. You said Barack Obama is, quote, “one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times.” On corruption –
ISSA: My goodness, you’re listening to Rush Limbaugh.
HUNT: Yes, I am. On corruption, which presidents does he rank with? And what are his most corrupt acts?
ISSA: First of all, when you look at Sestak and Romanoff, this attempt to clear the primary, that’s an example where he’s not the most corrupt. It appears as though presidents have been doing this, even though it’s illegal, for a long time.
HUNT: Right. But where is he the most corrupt?
ISSA: I think the process that we’re dealing with, where insourcing, for example — and this is right on my committee — we have every day in the defense and non-defense community, executives of the government tapping people on the shoulder saying, “You know, your contract’s not going to be renewed. We’re going to insource that. You should take this job now for a pay raise.”
We’ve had example after example. Yes, we plan on investigating it. I want the American people to get products and services at the lowest possible price. I don’t want to determine that it should be in-house or out-of-house.
HUNT: But does that rank with Watergate and Teapot Dome as one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times?
ISSA: Well, that’s the question, is, what’s modern times? Certainly, you’re right. Teapot Dome’s a good example. Look, Andrew Jackson was the most corrupt president probably –
HUNT: Do you think Obama’s more corrupt than any president that you’ve known in the last 20 years?
ISSA: He certainly is playing faster and looser with the rules with very little justification than George W. Bush did. George W. Bush played fast and loose with the rules after 9/11 trying to make us safe. He did what he thought he had to do, and he did it with pretty — a lot of bravado.
It’s very different when you just simply say, “We’re going to insource things,” and all of your government begins insourcing without legitimate justification. The EPA acting without obeying its own rules, there’s a number of parts of government that have been working quickly –
HUNT: But do you still think he’s one of the most corrupt presidents –
(CROSSTALK)
ISSA: I think he has failed to administer his — to oversee his administration in any kind of a meaningful way. Vice President Biden was supposed to be the great overseer of stimulus money.
HUNT: Right.
ISSA: And he was supposed to do all this oversight. Chairman Towns — and I checked with him recently — and I, neither one of us have had a meeting with the vice president, and we’re the House committee of jurisdiction.
The next two years are going to be fascinating, in the same way that watching a car wreck is fascinating.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
246 comments Add your comment
Paul
October 28th, 2010
10:18 am
John
“Obama, while speaking to a Latin crowd, implored them to vote Dem and referred to either the GOP or conservatives as “the enemy.” What kind of crap is that? ”
And after that he referred to his political opposites as his ‘friends.”
It’s the totality in context, not the individual elements.
USinUK
October 28th, 2010
10:18 am
“Newt’s comments comparing Islam to fascism”
meh – that was a red meat speech – they probably didn’t think he went far enough.
Paul
October 28th, 2010
10:19 am
Hey Bosch!!
You’re slipping.
Thbppppttt!!!
Paulo977
October 28th, 2010
10:19 am
Peadawg
What exactly is the meaning of THE SEPARATION OF POWERS?
AmVet
October 28th, 2010
10:20 am
John K. tpo your point. Newt already HAD the chance to demonstrate his leadership skills.
And what did he do?
He shiite the bed in stunning fashion, left office in disgrace and is now synonymous with the destruction of the last remaining shreds of civil discourse in Washington.
And now spouts ideological nonsense on the Republican News channel.
Oh yeah, he’s a real winner…
Fletch
October 28th, 2010
10:20 am
I give up – everyone at the AJC is exactly right. Things are going great. Bright future, blue skies, clear sailing – and any other optimistic cliche I forgot. We don’t have a debt problem. We haven’t over committed to anything without any assurances that we will be able to fiscally handle them. And the country is not splitting apart at the seams. 20+ attorneys general are not suing the federal government (most in history x3). States aren’t talking secession. People are very happy with their government. Great jobs abound. Savings accounts intact. Retirement imminent. Bailouts just and fair to all people. So much certainty that I can barely contain my enthusiasm.
HDB
October 28th, 2010
10:21 am
Paul October 28th, 2010
10:18 am
Good point!!
Big D
October 28th, 2010
10:21 am
AMVet…10:08….
You are exactly right…
I do believe you just described Bill Clinton….
ROBOCOP
October 28th, 2010
10:22 am
I think it’s wonderful if Republ;icans and Tea Baggers want to hold up Rush “the Pill Popper” Limbaugh and Glenn “The Psychotic Nazi” Beck as the philosophical standard-bearers for their values. Just think where we’ll be 2 years from now. So, you guys go get ‘em and hold them up. They’ll do an excellent job of representing the beliefs of Adolf Hitler and Benito Musolini.
John K
October 28th, 2010
10:22 am
You’re right. I can see a lot of similarities between ‘94 and now. The right was livid at Clinton for breaking the royal lineage that started with Reagan.
Good thing today’s neo-cons are so anti-education, otherwise they might realize they’re heading down the same path.
Pennsylvanian
October 28th, 2010
10:22 am
“… I take it from Pennsylvanian’s deafening silence that we can finally put this “the Dems didn’t give us any time too look at the bill before it was passed” bollocks.”
USinUK – I was actually paying bills. Useful stuff. I didn’t say “the Dems didn’t give us any time too look at the bill before it was passed” . Making straw man arguments? I asked a question, then asked for a link, to see if you would bite. You did. I never said I didn’t know the answer. LOL…
Paul
October 28th, 2010
10:24 am
JohnnyReb 6:30
“Not only in dollars, but – and this is THE point – it allows the Fed Gov to dictate for the first time that a citizen must purchase something, in this case, healthcare insurance.”
Have you ever thought of the idea that decades ago, when the Fed gov’t started Social Security, it wasn’t just an old-age pension scheme, but it dictated that citizens purchase life insurance? People pay into social security, die early, their spouse and children receive benefits.
And the basic, other point. As Jay noted, some people don’t have insurance. Some can’t get it, some choose to play the health lottery and voluntarily opt out. Some people who get ill pay their bills, others sluff them off onto those with insurance to pay. If we say people have to get coverage – that they can’t be denied for high blood pressure or whatever – how do we keep them from picking up a policy when a serious illness is diagnosed, getting a hundred thousand in treatment, then dropping the policy, which is right back to having everyone else pay for their care?
And isn’t having everyone else pay for the uninsured, which we now have, isn’t that ’socialism’?
AmVet
October 28th, 2010
10:27 am
D, LOL!
The difference between us (among innumerable others), is that I am fully aware and have repeatedly acknowledged Clinton’s ethical shortcomings.
You see, not being a rabid Republican, I never bought into that idiotic and enormously counter-productive 11th Commandment from the addled Saint Ronald…
USinUK
October 28th, 2010
10:28 am
Pennsylvanian – 9:19 – “How long was the HCR bill posted for review?”
yeah. it really sounds like you knew …
Bosch
October 28th, 2010
10:28 am
Reb,
“and this is THE point – it allows the Fed Gov to dictate for the first time that a citizen must purchase something, in this case, healthcare insurance.”
I see the gripe, but aren’t y’all always talking about personal responsibility and people not paying their fair share, etc. Isn’t this one way to fix that problem? Everyone gets sick and it should not be shouldered on a few to pay for it. It should be paid for by all.
Too many contradictions in your complaints.
Personally, I’d like the single payer system, or something close. Leave insurance companies out of it all together. To me, the system we have now — where an entire industry (health insurance) is supported by the employers of businesses or the taxpayer is simply unacceptable. As we have it now, the health insurance companies actually make it impossible for the supply and demand for the consumer to purchase or obtain health care. It’s completely uncapitalistic — not socialistic, not even close as some like to say — people need to get their definitions right.
USinUK
October 28th, 2010
10:29 am
Pennsylvanian – and let’s not forget your 9:13
“you want to start giving Congress the right to decide what we should and shouldn’t see???”
Like HCR?
oh, no, you weren’t saying that the House was passing a bill without giving people an opportunity to read it … not you …
jm
October 28th, 2010
10:30 am
Don’t Forget 10:10 – reminding me of the stupid things bush did doesn’t absolve Obama.
Big D
October 28th, 2010
10:30 am
AmVet …
Duck..Bob…hide….
It’s all good…
Bosch
October 28th, 2010
10:31 am
Hi Paul!
They are canceling Caprica.
Damn Fascist TV show makers.
Bosch
October 28th, 2010
10:32 am
Fletch,
And how exactly are things going for you individually? Is any of this actually affecting you personally to the point that your life has lost quality?
jm
October 28th, 2010
10:32 am
Silly Season is upon us in full. Coincides with the leaves changing every two years. Never thought I’d say this: looking forward to winter time….
Bosch
October 28th, 2010
10:33 am
Paul @ 10:24 –
That deserves some kind of award.
Paul
October 28th, 2010
10:38 am
Bosch
Canceling Caprica? Nooooooooo……….
Did you see last week’s? When the Cylon gunned down the baddies, turned his head and said to the human with him, “by your command”? Right back to the 70s.
I just hope they accelerate the storyline to show the rapid development of the Cylons, the impact they had on society, their rebellion and the human slaughter. If they’d stuck to that storyline the show might’ve continued.
And my 10:24 was right there with your 10:28 -
Big D
October 28th, 2010
10:39 am
Partisan politics aside…
I do really believe that most people who participate here are like me..in the sense that we want to see a system evolve that does not divide us, over burden any section of the citizenry and is financially responsible.
With the ability to get the attention of the congress electronically we now should be able as a country to refine a new process of accountability.
I believe this is just what the Tea Party movement is… a first step.
Don't Forget
October 28th, 2010
10:40 am
“and this is THE point – it allows the Fed Gov to dictate for the first time that a citizen must purchase something, in this case, healthcare insurance.”
Who do you think pays for their healthcare now if they go to the ER with a life threatening condition??? The rest of us that’s who. That’s as socialistic as anything that Obama has done and it was Reagan that signed the bill that required ER’s to treat without regard to ability to pay.
AmVet
October 28th, 2010
10:40 am
So D, you are now familiar with the game and won’t play.
Probably your best move.
BTW, the phrase that you are looking for is, “Remember the five rules of dodgeball – dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge!”
Alas, duty calls and somebody here has got to keep the wounded American economic engine running. Those boys on Wall Street need my help.
Later…
@@
October 28th, 2010
10:44 am
Paul:
With Paul Ryant as the leading Republican in the CBO, I dare say he can facilitate the necessary cuts with his clear-headed and logical approach. He has a talent I haven’t seen for some time. His more diplomatic approach would be a welcome change. A change that we can believe in.
He (Paul Ryan) is the one I’VE been waiting for.
@@
October 28th, 2010
10:45 am
Omit the “t”. It’s Paul Ryan and me.
@@
October 28th, 2010
10:46 am
New thread.
USinUK
ah, yes … the last bastion of @@ and her minions
I have no minions…just ask Bosch. He knows all.
Disgusted
October 28th, 2010
10:47 am
it allows the Fed Gov to dictate for the first time that a citizen must purchase something, in this case, healthcare insurance. Conseratives are saying no. We don’t want the Fed Gov to have that power.
Please explain to me how we’re ever going to get past this business of taxpayers, insured people, doctors, and hospitals picking up the tab for treatment of the uninsured if we continue to allow people to opt out of available health insurance. Right now we have tens of thousands of people who could afford to purchase health insurance but instead choose to spend their discretionary income on other things. When they get terribly sick or they’re badly injured, they wind up in a hospital without the means of paying for their treatment. The rest of us are forced to pay for it, one way or the other—through higher taxes, through higher insurance premiums, through higher hospital bills, through higher medical provider bills.
I’m sick of hearing about the supposed “loss of freedom” that comes with mandatory insurance coverage. The people who whine need to tell the rest of us how they propose to relieve the rest of us from this decades-long financial burden if insurance coverage continues to remain optional. I’m all ears. Please tell us.
Paul
October 28th, 2010
10:48 am
@@
He’s more of the background pragmatist. The fact some of the Reps playing to the crowd don’t like all of what he says is reason for hope.
Oh, and your next to the last post last night – I knew there was a reason somewhere I like you! (ISH)
Don't Forget
October 28th, 2010
10:50 am
jm
October 28th, 2010
10:30 am
Don’t Forget 10:10 – reminding me of the stupid things bush did doesn’t absolve Obama.
jm, the R’s and tea party aren’t calling the things Obama has done “stupid things”, they say he is destroying America. But when Bush did the same thing they were silent. Either these things aren’t destroying America or they sat back and did nothing when it was being done by an R. Take your pick.
@@
October 28th, 2010
10:55 am
Paul
…a reason somewhere…
Had to dig deep, did ‘ya?
(ISH)
Don't Forget
October 28th, 2010
10:55 am
@@
October 28th, 2010
10:44 am
Paul:
He (Paul Ryan) is the one I’VE been waiting for.
You won’t be offended if I call him the “idiot messiah” will you.
I’ve heard that term somewhere.
Paul
October 28th, 2010
11:06 am
Don’t Forget
I won’t be offended. I try to not get offended at namecalling by others, just consider the source.
Seriously, it’s the Dem’s chance to show how they’re different in discourse from the Reps over the last two years.
JohnnyReb
October 28th, 2010
11:07 am
To Bosch, Paul, and Disgusted. Your intentions are admirable. I’ll even go as far to state that you may be a better person than I. However, the oppostion to your ideals is the age old gripe against Democrats. You want to do all these wonderful things, save humanity, etc. The problem is, you want to do it with someone elses money.
@@
October 28th, 2010
11:13 am
Don’t Forget:
Why should it matter to me. I’ve no doubt that Ryan wouldn’t take offense. He’s not easily ruffled.
When you go to what the left calls extreme right-wing blogs, the discussions/comments regarding Ryan are very interesting. While they may not agree 100% with his Roadmap, they see it as an acceptable launching pad.
Their greatest concern is how Democrats may manipulate it should they regain power at some point. I see that as resistance to the opposing party, not Ryan’s overall policies.
All I’m looking for is to turn down the noise.
paleo-neoCarlinist
October 28th, 2010
11:18 am
@@, sorry for the delay. my point about Limbaugh’s issues was not that they make him a bad person, but sinply a “bad” spokesman for “conseveratives”. remember, you originally posted that you will not “ridicule” or “chastise” his listeners/ you know, in many ways, he’s like Barbara Streisand, George Clooney, Bruce Springsteen or any of the other celeb gadflies who made their bones in areas (entertainment) other than public policy or law. as I said, sometimes it is OK to “ignore the messgenger”. again, being a junkie, overweight, or thrice divorced (like motivational speaker Al Folely) doesn’t make him a bad person, or unworthy of the “compassion” of liberals. it is his lack of compassion (ironically, for drug users/offenders, in some instances), arrogance and duplicity (the things that make him popular in some circles) make him a bad “spokesman” for any cause, including the GOP.
Paul
October 28th, 2010
11:26 am
Johnny Reb
“You want to do all these wonderful things, save humanity, etc.The problem is, you want to do it with someone elses money.”
Some can’t be saved. That’s the reality.
As to someone else’s money…. we’ve been doing that since our country was founded. Whether it’s the establishment of the military or education, it’s always been the case. Point is, it’s a balancing act – enough to help those in tough situations, but not so much that it skews life and causes people to see gov’t as the source of their good. And that doesn’t mean low income welfare types. It refers to those at the upper strata, too – the agricultural industry, Defense contractors, preferential tax treatment for large corporations, to name a few of the most commonly cited.
Night Train
October 28th, 2010
11:34 am
you mean “steal” the election in which Gore won the popular vote?
Here’s your sign!
@@
October 28th, 2010
11:54 am
Paleo:
…it is his lack of compassion (ironically, for drug users/offenders, in some instances)…
Has Limbaugh asked for compassion? Based on what I’ve heard about him, it’s likely not.
Here’s the thing, Paleo, I’ve admitted to enjoying the arguments put out by left-wingers on FOX…O’Reilly to be more specific. Sometimes I do wish O’Reilly would shut up and let them finish a point, but…I can glean from them those things with which I agree, and dispose of the rest.
Are you saying that the people who listen to Rush aren’t capable of doing the same? I wouldn’t be so bold as to assume they can’t.
paleo-neoCarlinist
October 28th, 2010
12:07 pm
@@, yes, that is what I am saying, although I would insert the word most (”the people who listen to Rush”). here’s my take. I like an occassional cigar. in fact, I was smoking good cigars way before it was “cool” and long before there were “cigar bars” and magazines for cigar smokers. so, a coupla 10 years ago, when I say Rush’s mug on a cigar magazine, I said “I don’t have a problem with Rush offering his opinon on cigars…” Just like I would not ask Keith Richards to comment on the policies of the Federal Reserve bank or his views on Marxism vs. Capitalism, but I sure like his brain about blues, R&B or the Gibson vs. Fender debate. and as I said, I don’t ultimately fault Limbaugh for his arrogance (patholical narcissists are what they are). it’s the people who listen to him with an uncritical mind that I “ridicule” and “chastise”. who referred to him as the “anti-Pope”? excellent tag. he is viewed as “infallable” and there is a blind loyalty that would make the Pontiff envious. so, I understand why the GOP embraces him and defers to his “leadership” (like Palin, Newt, et al; he gets out the vote and he’s an impressive fundraiser). to riff the “anti-Pope” analogy, I just don’t think he ultimately cares about the “salvation” of the United States. so, we can opine about why Jim Jones put cyanide in Kool-Aid, or we can “ridicule” those who enthusiastically drank it.
Paul
October 28th, 2010
12:19 pm
If… if… if…. the soon to be minority House Democrats and majority Senate Democrats had a plan to deal with the wave of fiscal anger that swept out moderate Democrats and Republicans and installed hard-right fiscal conservative Republicans -
I hope it includes the following: Take every new Republican House and Senate member. List every single federal program that benefits their district or state. Ask, point-blank and simply:
“What are you going to cut?”
@@
October 28th, 2010
1:24 pm
Paleo:
This is the last I’m gonna say on the topic of Limbaugh. I’m not here to defend him.
…it’s the people who listen to him with an uncritical mind that I “ridicule” and “chastise”.
And ^^^ therein lies the difference between you and I. I limit my ridicule of people about whom I know absolutely nothing. I have no way of knowing whether they fall into YOUR category of “uncritical” thinkers or not. My distaste is for the politicians and the inept way in which they approach the process of governing.
Now as far as those “special” folks who I’m willing to ridicule? There is Bosch. He/she’s shared way too much personal info here. Besides that, he’s an obnoxious little hypocrite who twaddles endlessly.
I make exceptions for people like him/her. He/she’s “special” or so he/she’s told me.
paleo-neoCarlinist
October 28th, 2010
3:15 pm
@@, agree to disagree. I am not going to chase your tail, or ask you to chase mine. I’ll see you around.
@@
October 28th, 2010
4:16 pm
Paleo:
agree to disagree.
I’m always willing to do that, and with no hard feelings to boot.