Colin McNickle – 10/22/06

This page was last updated on October 26, 2006.

Deliver a spanking; Colin McNickle; Pittsburgh Tribune-Review; October 22, 2006.

Rather than do a point-by-point critique of the column, I’ll just make a few comments.

First, I truly understand Mr. McNickle’s frustration. Based on his columns, it appears he and I agree far more than we disagree. I’ve written numerous times that I believe today’s elected Republicans behave more like JFK-era Democrats than they do “classical” Republicans. Rather than full out conservatives, today’s Republicans tend to look at conservative principles as an à la carte menu from which they pick the principles they feel will help them get elected and retain office. You’ll find examples of what I mean here.

I also understand Mr. McNickle’s desire to deliver a message. My version was writing in Pat Toomey’s name in the 2004 general election rather than vote for Arlen Specter. In general, though, I believe it’s best to deliver messages during primary elections.

Second, not all Republicans are a disappointment to conservatives. For example, if Pat Toomey were still in office, a conservative boycott of the election would also hurt his chances. That makes no sense.

For those conservative Republicans who survive a boycott, do we really want to make their job more difficult than it already is? Conservatives who at least have a voice when Republicans are the majority would be muted once again with a Democrat majority.

Third, Mr. McNickle opines, “As for those Democrats who likely are to gain power, they’re so bad that their return tenure will be a very brief blip -- just enough time to scare the pants off the American people and better set the stage for real conservatives and real Republicans to rise again and start setting this country straight.” Though I recognize the times aren’t similar, in my mind I can imagine similar comments written prior to the 1932 elections. My parents would refer to Mr. McNickle’s prediction as “famous last words.”

Let’s recap what happened after the 1932 elections at the federal level.

1. We were treated to 20 straight years of Democrat presidents (FDR & Truman).

2. For 62 years, from 1933 through 1994, Democrats held the majority in the House for all but two sessions (1947-1948 & 1953-1954).

3. For 62 years, Democrats held the majority in the Senate for all but three sessions (1981-1986).

4. For 62 years, Democrats held the majority in both the House and Senate for all but five sessions.

5. For 62 years, all Democrat presidents had a Democrat-majority Congress for their entire terms (except for President Truman during 1947-1948).

6. For 60 years, from 1933 through 1992, all Republican presidents had to deal with a Democrat-majority Congress for their entire terms (except for Presidents Eisenhower during 1953-1954 and Reagan during 1981-1986. In both of these cases, however, Democrats controlled one house.).

7. For 70 years, from 1933 through 2002, no Republican president had a Republican-majority Congress (except for President Bush from January 21 to May 24, 2001).

Now let’s recap some of the results of this long-term Democrat domination.

1. Socialist Security and its ever increasing tax rate. It started at 2% in 1937 and is now 12.4%. The maximum taxed earnings started at a constant $3,000/year, but now is $97,500/year and increases every year by law.

2. Income tax withholding

3. Medicare. It’s tax rate started at 0.7% in 1966 and is now 2.9%. The maximum taxed earnings started at the same as Socialist Security, but now there is no maximum.

4. Medicaid

5. Welfare and the rest of the “Great Society” programs

6. The Department of Education and ever increasing federal involvement in education

7. The nomination and confirmation of judges who interpret the Constitution according to their personal policy preferences

8. The “Borking” of judicial nominees who interpret the Constitution based on the actual words written

9. The discovery of a right to abortion

10. The discovery of Miranda rights

11. The discovery that discrimination (affirmative action, et cetera) is OK as long as it is in favor of politically correct groups of people

12. The discovery that the First Amendment’s guarantees regarding religion really mean government must be hostile to religion

The list goes on and on, but you get the idea.

In the present, a Democrat-majority Congress would have given President Bush the immigration “reform” bill he wanted, meaning full amnesty for illegal aliens, essentially an open border, and in some cases more rights for illegal aliens than for U.S. citizens.

Here’s my point. When you have the majority, don’t be so quick to throw it away, even if you have to hold your nose a bit while you fix your party.

Finally, who gets the worst of the “spanking,” the wayward Republicans or conservative Republican representatives and “We the people?”