John David Dyche Is Right, "GOP Senate Race About Ideas"; Democrats "...Bicker About Petty Things Like Housing Stipends And Stock Portfolios"! *SIGH*.
GOP race about ideas
By John David Dyche
Television campaign ads are much maligned. Those in Kentucky's Democratic U.S. Senate primary do little to illuminate policy and philosophical differences between the two major candidates. The Republican spots are much more revealing.
Dr. Rand Paul says he will not vote for any budget that is not balanced. Secretary of State Trey Grayson rightly responded that Paul's position “is not practical” and explained why. Now Paul is airing an ad attacking Grayson as if Grayson is altogether opposed to balancing the budget.
Paul has neither outlined a balanced budget nor detailed how he would eliminate this year's projected $1.5 trillion federal deficit in one fell swoop. Any combination of spending cuts and tax increases doing that would choke even the most highly caffeinated tea partiers.
A more realistic Republican ambition should be reducing the deficit to 3 percent of gross domestic product. President Barack Obama's budget director, Peter Orszag, once wanted to do this in six years, but the administration's budget bids adieu to the 3 percent target forever.
This year's deficit may soar to a sickening 10.6 percent of GDP, so Paul's instincts are admirable. But on this critical domestic issue Grayson is realistic and right. The difference between the candidates highlights the dilemma Republican primary voters face.
The idealistic Paul's passion is appealing. He is unlikely to lapse into business-as-usual in Washington. But his rigid ideological positions could render him vulnerable to Democratic defeat this fall and largely irrelevant on Capitol Hill even if he wins.
Self-immolation sometimes serves a protest purpose. Are Kentucky Republicans sufficiently angry or frightened to let Paul potentially burn like a bonfire in the Senate chamber for six years while others actually govern?
Polls give the more mainstream Grayson a better chance of winning the general election. But rank-and-file Republicans fear he will succumb to the same big-spending ways that cost the party its fiscal credibility, and its congressional majorities.
Grayson's pragmatism would make him a team player in the clubby Senate. Yet many Republicans see unprincipled deal-making as precisely the problem that got the GOP, and America, into the current mess.
Other recent ads reflect a similar split on national security. Grayson attacks Paul for saying, “Our national security is not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon.” In fact, Paul's congressman father, former Libertarian and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, goes even further by opposing even economic sanctions as an unjustified act of war against Iran.
The Pauls' libertarian, neo-isolationist position has roots in regular Republican history. Party stalwarts like the late great Sen. Robert Taft would find it familiar. But it departs dramatically from the more recent Republican internationalist, neo-conservative mainstream where Grayson resides.
Again, the GOP is divided. Many Republicans rue America's well-intentioned but ill-founded invasion of Iraq. They hear scary echoes of that misadventure in Grayson's tough talk about Iran.
Others remember appeasement and how democracies did not act in a timely manner against Hitler's rise and rearmament. They fear a global conflagration if Paul is wrong in believing the U.S. can deter the irrational apocalyptic Islamists who lead Iran.
From its anti-slavery formation in 1854, the Republican Party has been fraught with this kind of philosophical feuding. Lincoln battled congressional radical Republicans over conduct and purposes of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Reformist Theodore Roosevelt broke with traditionalist William Howard Taft. Moderate Richard Nixon dueled liberal Nelson Rockefeller. Conservatives Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan challenged them both.
Grayson and Paul are already serving America by engaging in a serious debate about big fiscal and foreign policy issues. Kentucky is lucky the GOP Senate race is such a critical contest for the soul of the party of ideas.
Over in the pandering party, Democratic candidates contentedly bicker about petty things like housing stipends and stock portfolios. After all, their D.C. destiny would be that of acolyte at the altar of Obama's radical liberal agenda, which polling shows Kentuckians strongly oppose.
John David Dyche is a Louisville attorney who writes a political column on alternating Tuesdays in Forum. He is the author of “Republican Leader: A Political Biography of Senator Mitch McConnell.” His views are his own, not those of the law firm in which he practices. Read him online at www.courier-journal.com; e-mail: jddyche@yahoo.com.
By John David Dyche
Television campaign ads are much maligned. Those in Kentucky's Democratic U.S. Senate primary do little to illuminate policy and philosophical differences between the two major candidates. The Republican spots are much more revealing.
Dr. Rand Paul says he will not vote for any budget that is not balanced. Secretary of State Trey Grayson rightly responded that Paul's position “is not practical” and explained why. Now Paul is airing an ad attacking Grayson as if Grayson is altogether opposed to balancing the budget.
Paul has neither outlined a balanced budget nor detailed how he would eliminate this year's projected $1.5 trillion federal deficit in one fell swoop. Any combination of spending cuts and tax increases doing that would choke even the most highly caffeinated tea partiers.
A more realistic Republican ambition should be reducing the deficit to 3 percent of gross domestic product. President Barack Obama's budget director, Peter Orszag, once wanted to do this in six years, but the administration's budget bids adieu to the 3 percent target forever.
This year's deficit may soar to a sickening 10.6 percent of GDP, so Paul's instincts are admirable. But on this critical domestic issue Grayson is realistic and right. The difference between the candidates highlights the dilemma Republican primary voters face.
The idealistic Paul's passion is appealing. He is unlikely to lapse into business-as-usual in Washington. But his rigid ideological positions could render him vulnerable to Democratic defeat this fall and largely irrelevant on Capitol Hill even if he wins.
Self-immolation sometimes serves a protest purpose. Are Kentucky Republicans sufficiently angry or frightened to let Paul potentially burn like a bonfire in the Senate chamber for six years while others actually govern?
Polls give the more mainstream Grayson a better chance of winning the general election. But rank-and-file Republicans fear he will succumb to the same big-spending ways that cost the party its fiscal credibility, and its congressional majorities.
Grayson's pragmatism would make him a team player in the clubby Senate. Yet many Republicans see unprincipled deal-making as precisely the problem that got the GOP, and America, into the current mess.
Other recent ads reflect a similar split on national security. Grayson attacks Paul for saying, “Our national security is not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon.” In fact, Paul's congressman father, former Libertarian and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, goes even further by opposing even economic sanctions as an unjustified act of war against Iran.
The Pauls' libertarian, neo-isolationist position has roots in regular Republican history. Party stalwarts like the late great Sen. Robert Taft would find it familiar. But it departs dramatically from the more recent Republican internationalist, neo-conservative mainstream where Grayson resides.
Again, the GOP is divided. Many Republicans rue America's well-intentioned but ill-founded invasion of Iraq. They hear scary echoes of that misadventure in Grayson's tough talk about Iran.
Others remember appeasement and how democracies did not act in a timely manner against Hitler's rise and rearmament. They fear a global conflagration if Paul is wrong in believing the U.S. can deter the irrational apocalyptic Islamists who lead Iran.
From its anti-slavery formation in 1854, the Republican Party has been fraught with this kind of philosophical feuding. Lincoln battled congressional radical Republicans over conduct and purposes of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Reformist Theodore Roosevelt broke with traditionalist William Howard Taft. Moderate Richard Nixon dueled liberal Nelson Rockefeller. Conservatives Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan challenged them both.
Grayson and Paul are already serving America by engaging in a serious debate about big fiscal and foreign policy issues. Kentucky is lucky the GOP Senate race is such a critical contest for the soul of the party of ideas.
Over in the pandering party, Democratic candidates contentedly bicker about petty things like housing stipends and stock portfolios. After all, their D.C. destiny would be that of acolyte at the altar of Obama's radical liberal agenda, which polling shows Kentuckians strongly oppose.
John David Dyche is a Louisville attorney who writes a political column on alternating Tuesdays in Forum. He is the author of “Republican Leader: A Political Biography of Senator Mitch McConnell.” His views are his own, not those of the law firm in which he practices. Read him online at www.courier-journal.com; e-mail: jddyche@yahoo.com.
Labels: General information
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 7:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home