Tom DeLay: Liar or Fool?

Either Tom DeLay is a complete moron or he thinks that the American voter is a total idiot. I suppose it could be both.

Republicans Will Defend Taxpayers (Washington Times Op-Ed)

Having compiled a long record as a conscientious fiscal conservative in the House of Representatives, it is clear that the recent political discussion focusing on the government’s spending priorities and overall economic platform in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita has introduced a valuable forum to promote the triumph of our ideas and solutions for government over the crumbling and outdated policies of the Democrat-controlled Congresses of past decades.

Who does he think he’s kidding? Read the whole thing, but only if you’re ready for more of the congressional Republicans’ lies about what they believe — which stands in direct opposition to what they’ve actually done while in power.

FILED UNDER: Congress, Politics 101, US Politics, , ,
Leopold Stotch
About Leopold Stotch
“Dr. Leopold Stotch” was the pseudonym of political science professor then at a major research university inside the beltway. He has a PhD in International Relations. He contributed 165 pieces to OTB between November 2004 and February 2006.

Comments

  1. anjin-san says:

    American votes elected Bush, so the total idiot argument does have some merit…

  2. ken says:

    Either Tom DeLay is a complete moron or he thinks that the American voter is a total idiot.

    Leopold, please. Tom DeLay did not write that to reach the ‘American voter’. He published that in a conservative newspaper addressing conservative readers. Let’s just say that Tom DeLay knows his audience.

    Does it really matter what Delay says or does? Conservatives are still going to support and vote for him without regard to his actual performance. Competence in governence has never been a measure for conservative politicians.

    Face it, if you lived in his district, even you would vote for him, regardless of him being either a moran, or him thinking you are stupid.

  3. Patrick Ziegler says:

    What exactly is a “conscientious fiscal conservative?”

    Since Bush has been in office the GOP has racked up over $2 trillion of new debt. That’s conservatism – where? It’s Reagan conservatism – borrowing money from the next generation and giving it to the very rich.

    There isn’t a single fiscal conservative in congress. There never has been and never will be. And there will never be a conservative president. A real conservative balances the budget instead of cutting taxes and to that end the most conservative president we’ve had is President Clinton.

    One last point. Prior to the Reagan tax cut the US had less than $1 trillion of debt. After Reagan’s tax cut we had $2.6 trillion of debt. That’s not conservatism – it’s pandering.

    Today we have almost $8 trillion of debt. Nearly 8 x more debt than all previous generations combined. That’s not conservatism – it’s irresponsible.

  4. Patrick Ziegler says:

    What exactly is a “conscientious fiscal conservative?”

    Since Bush has been in office the GOP has racked up over $2 trillion of new debt. That’s conservatism – where? It’s Reagan conservatism – borrowing money from the next generation and giving it to the very rich.

    There isn’t a single fiscal conservative in congress. There never has been and never will be. And there will never be a conservative president. A real conservative balances the budget instead of cutting taxes and to that end the most conservative president we’ve had is President Clinton.

    One last point. Prior to the Reagan tax cut the US had less than $1 trillion of debt. After Reagan’s tax cut we had $2.6 trillion of debt. That’s not conservatism – it’s pandering.

    Today we have almost $8 trillion of debt. Nearly 8 x more debt than all previous generations combined. That’s not conservatism – it’s irresponsible.

  5. Bithead says:

    As I said at my own place:

    I’ve often said, Bush isn’t the right-wing monster the left keeps trying to cast him as… but neither is he, at least by nature, a spendthrift. I would point to his spending history in Texas as an example of where we’d be, sans 9/11 and more recently, the two storms, and the spending needs arising from those.

    I agree, there’s a lot of spending which has nothing directly to do with these topics. The indirect side of it, however shouldn’t be forgotten… the number of hands that are out, and that can, if not filled, prevent stuff from getting done. I’m not praising the go-along/get-along system at all, simply identifying what the leadership, Bush included, has to work with.

    That situation, that system, gets worse, when the congress, who actually holds the purse strings, is still sharply divided, and by and large still controlled by liberals. Yes, I know about the count of D and R in each house… but strictly adhereing to such labels when assigning blame for spending, assumes lockstepping on each side of the isle… which simply isn’t true for the Republcans. You recall the RINOs….McCain, is the biggest example, though there are others.

    Blaming such spending on the Republican ideals is like blaming me for the storms in the south. I wasn’t there, and I don’t have control over it, anwyay. This is simply a measure of how far left the political center has gone.

    Look; We’ve dealt with overwhelming majorities of Democrats for 75 years, now, by an large, particularly when you include the RINO crowd. When you get an overwhelming majority of real Republcians in both houses, and in the White House, I think you’d find the situation vastly different.

    As such, I consider this “porkbusters’ thing is counter-productive, because the alternative to keeping Republcians in power, is the Democrats, who are surely worse by every measure, including spending… Too bad so many forget that vital point.

  6. GC says: