Republicans abandoning SS phase-out for now.

[Dr.Phool]

From Josh Marshall, a usually pretty accurate source of info. Are they trying to defuse a potential landslide defeat?



http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
(September 15, 2005 -- 03:26 PM EDT // link // print)

Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY), chairman of the NRCC (the GOP House reelection committee), tells his fellow House Republicans to abandon Social Security phase-out for the rest of this Congress. And since they won't do it in this Congress, you better believe they won't try it in the next since the GOP doesn't want to make it the centerpiece issue of the next presidential campaign.

As one senior GOP lawmaker told Roll Call (sub. req.), "It's over." As indeed it is. Not forever. But at least for the next few years.

But where, I have to ask, is the affirmative effort on the part of Democrats to make this attempted betrayal of the public trust into a cudgel for the 2006 elections? Where is it? I don't see it. And I keep up on politics.

It shouldn't be hard. Many, many Republicans who will be in competitive races next year came out for this disastrous idea, which is now deeply unpopular pretty much across the country. And with very few exceptions -- I'll give Santorum his due on this one -- they ran away from like scurrying rats as soon as it became clear that the president couldn't protect them and the public wouldn't stand for it.

Their own actions and words convict them twice-over. They stood up for terrible policy and then they switched or ran away from their position as soon as it was expedient. So they're happy to sell out their constituents and lack principle. They're flipfloppers.

Are we only willing to win the defensive phase of this battle?

Beyond belief.

[jedr]

1. It's over till we boomer's get our SS;

after that they have our kids B.S.'ed into thinking that they don't deserve that money, it's just an other tax

[nonconformist]

2. What happened to the MANDATE

All that "political capital" Bush was going to spend?

[DanCa]

3. Thank God, some good news at least.

It's not much but its basicly all that I got.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gratuitous]

7. Gee Antifa, what else are the Democrats losing credibility on?

Disaster response? Oops, nope, that's a Republican fiasco.

Finding Osama bin Laden? It's been four years, and Bush isn't even looking for the guy anymore -- though he IS looking for men's room at the UN.

Fiscal responsibility! Oh wait, no. Largest budget deficits in history.

What is it exactly that Republicans have any credibility on? Corruption, I guess, but that's not exactly an official plank of their party platform, is it?

[librechik]

5. what about that sneaky thing they were going to try in committee?

Did they read the writing on the wall?

[gratuitous]

6. Another "shoo-in" that wasn't

The Bolton appointment and SS reform were going to be slam dunks for Bushy. All over but the shouting. No sense even trying to get in the way of the Bush political juggernaut; you were just going to get crushed. Bush had earned something for the first time in his life, some political capital, and by the Christ, he was going to spend it.

A funny thing happened on the way to the hoop for these slam dunks, though. Democrats and progressives banded together and fought. We fought hard, we fought together. The media laughed, said we were a bunch of losers. George Bush had a man date, couldn't be stopped, and all the political pundits said it was a waste of opposition time. Better to keep your powder dry for something that really mattered, because Bolton was going to be the UN Ambassador, sailing through to confirmation and those private accounts would be in place by the beginning of 2006.

I have a crazy idea. Bear with me. Why don't we fight against the Roberts nomination? The administration hasn't produced his full record, and the Senate committee is punching in the dark, hoping to hit some hot button that will expose this ideologue-who's-not-an-ideologue for what he is.

The White House nominated Roberts for a lifetime position in one of the most powerful jobs in the government, and is withholding crucial documents about his record. They're saying, in effect, "trust us." Well, this administration hasn't earned any trust. In fact, they've betrayed the trust of the American people time after time on matters large and small.

Let's fight the Roberts nomination. It seems to have worked pretty well so far, this being an opposition party that actually opposes bad ideas and bad policies and bad proposals. Why not try for three in a row?