Centerfield

I have met Boehner, he is a strange cat, but at that level they are all a little off.

I will say that the average Republican, moderate to conservative, would have an easier time relating to Boehner than they would Delay, which could help a little with boosting the morale of a party who has grown weary of it's own leadership in Congress as well as the White House.

Boehner is definetely one to care more about spending and economic growth, than he is abortion or gay rights, which is a good thing. I don't care what your personal views on what those issues are, but Delay's actions for instance in regards to the Schiavo matter left a lot of Republicans wondering why they had worked so hard for a majority. The GOP's success, IMHO, is dependant on the perception that it is the fiscally conservative, pro-growth, free-trade, big defense party; rather than the anti-abortion, constitutional amendment against gay marriage party. Boehner helps that image, IMO.

"I have met Boehner, he is a strange cat, but at that level they are all a little off."

I'm glad you qualified that comment - seems to me that you'd have to be a pretty strange cat to want to be a member of the House of Representatives in the first place! ;)

I tend to think that a little movement at the top from time-to-time is helpfull, a little fresh blood.

You mean there are still deficit hawks among the Republicans?
naaaaaah sounds too good to be true. Especially several trillions more in debt later. Sarcasm aside this would be a very welcome development. Hopefully he'll have the guts to stop adding any more tax cuts.

BTW, I liked this column by Scot Lehigh in the
Boston Globe because I am such a cynic about the GOP 's hands on the nation's purse strings.

I read the editorial. Yes, but folks to the left of center didn't like "them" when they were better deficit hawks. Case in point: when the Medicare drug benefit passed many Democrats were upset that the "real cost figures" weren't revealed. That's a great point but ignores the reality that the Democrats wanted to spend MORE money. Frankly, both parties have been poor at attending to the budget. Bill did well because he was somewhat conservative AND he reaped the benefit of an economic boom with a coincident significant increase in tax revenue.

It is interesting that Democrats have become budget hawks and the avatars of fiscal conservatism. That was certainly not what the party stood for during the halcyon days of the 60s and 70s. I think it's a bit hypocritical for the Democrats to pretend that they have always been budget hawks when the Dems were the ones that really loosened the purse strings in the first place. Don't get me wrong--they are absolutely correct to ream the GOP on their own hypocrisy in being "big-spending, small government types." But the idea that Democrats are for fiscal discipline as an end onto itself strikes me as political posturing. Democrats--at least this Democrat-believe in government as a way of helping to solve societal problems. I don't think running up surpluses and using them to reduce taxes is a particularly good way to solve problems. IMO, fiscal discipline is necessary to get our financial house in order so that we can use government as a tool (not THE tool)to help address societal problems. In other words, my view is that fiscal discipline should be a means to an end.

Dems (as a party) only began acting like budget hawks when Clinton gave them a shadow to stand in. And Clinton got lucky, with the Gingrichers in Congress being actual budget hawks for two brief terms at the same time the economy was on a growth bubble, generating unsustainable tax revenues.

Not that that's any excuse for the current crop of Conressional Republicans, as Marc so correctly points out.

lessee we have a Marc, a marcus and moi, Marcus.
I feel like I'm in my 3rd grade class when there were 32 kids and 4 "Marks".

Case in point: when the Medicare drug benefit passed many Democrats were upset that the "real cost figures" weren't revealed. That's a great point but ignores the reality that the Democrats wanted to spend MORE money.

I would characterise it not so much as one side wanting to spend more or less than the other, but the sides having different priorities for spending. As in the case of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the Republicans supporting it wanted to create a benefit for the pharmaceutical industry, the Democrats wanted a benefit seniors. The result is that the Republicans put in a provision prohibiting Medicare from using its market power to negotiate lower prices, thus inflating the cost by paying more per unit of coverage, whereas the Democrats wanted to provide more coverage to more beneficiaries, but at lower rates. Which effect would have cost more cannot be said a priori.

Scott -- give me a break. The reason the government is prohibited from "using its market power" is precisely that: the inherent danger of government using its position as a massive buyer to influence the marketplace. Many Republicans and Libertarians oppose the government investing surplus Social Security dollars for the same reason (and instead support personal accounts). Your point is all the more specious when you actually take a moment to look at the cost of the Medicare program -- it has DECREASED by a little over $100 billion this year, and this before the drug benefit (which will lower costs preventing more expensive care down the road) has even taken effect. Why? Because companies are competing for Medicare dollars, as opposed to the Democrat-way of simply heaping more and more money into the program.