Remember Porkbusters?

Me either.

I was just thinking about that today when I remembered them from years ago. Seems like they just up and quit when it came time to actually elect people who would cut out pork. At least, that’s what it looks like to me.

It seemed to be focused on the Republicrats, anyways, not the Democrats. Seems there is a double-standard when it comes to massive entitlement programs. Still, I find it hard to believe the whole thing was a protest against the Republicans.

Whatever happened to Porkbusters?

UPDATE: confirmation from the Blogfather himself. Nice to see that logo again.

Jay Tea's Evil Thought Of The Day
Missile launched off Southern Californian coast
  • GarandFan

    “Bringing home the pork” has always been portrayed as ‘not costing much’ and therefore not a big deal. (Unless you consider Splash’s sales job of the Big Dig.)

    But as Everett Dirksen once opined “A million here, a million there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.”

    Only now a MILLION is considered chump change. You’re not trying unless you are talking BILLIONS.

  • Trump

    Porkbusters was for when the GOP controlled the majority, and they would have done well to have listened to them about this issue.

    Where did the Porkbusters go? They joined the tea party, duh

  • 914

    I wonder how much $ Sheets pilfered over his pork laden tenure? And thats just one member. Truly mind boggling how much pork there is and how much our representatives really care about their customers.

  • http://everywhere.com OregonMuse

    Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds, a big promoter of “Porkbusters”, said a while back that he used to get calls all the time from MSM outlets wanting to interview him about PB, but when Obama became president, the calls suddenly dried up. I wonder why.

  • MunDane68

    And now Jim DeMint is claiming all Fiscal conservatives are also social cons.

    Well, it has started again. Like i had said before, the Republicans are not only different from Democrats in the shape of their nanny-statism.

    I want to be able to listen to the music I want, don’t care if gays marry and think that trillions in debt are a bigger problem for the US than people getting paid to hump on the interwebz.

  • Darin H

    As Trump said, they became the tea party.

    MunDane, I saw a study a while back (don’t remember where) that showed if you were a socially liberal/moderate elected official that most likely you would be fiscally liberal as well.

  • MunDane68

    Darin, that may as well be true, but so what? The whole idea of the TEA party was that the taxes were too high. It was not founded or supported so that Sister Betty Better-than-thou could rail that Brokeback Mountain was an instructional video.

    This nation is going broke and now some life-long DC insider is making sure TEH GAY can’t get married as a top priority? Does that make any sense to you? To anyone?

    No, fiscal conservatism is based on the idea that government does NOT know what to do in people’s lives and does NOT know what is the best way to accomplish anything.

  • Trump

    It’s too bad really, because a party that was fiscally responsible AND socially lassiez-faire would dominate forever. I’m a fiscal conservative and I couldn’t care less about gay marriage or abortion.

  • Jeff

    I’d love for someone to point out a socially conservative nanny state regulation or law that forces certain behavior ? one that has been enacted within the last 50 years ?

    This idea that liberals and social conservatives BOTH want to use the state to impose behavior on us is lacking in evidence on one side of the ledger …

  • MunDane68

    OK, Jeff…

    Seatbelt Laws, Helmet Laws, Dry Counties (the covenants have to be renewed regularly), ABC stores, re-zoning to remove “undesirable” businesses, constant attempts to ‘regulate’ the internet, and there are a ton more…

    See, the whole idea is that these things are proposed by social cons, ‘for our own good’ natch, and may be supported by socially liberal members of legislatures as well who look at it as ‘doing good’. Look at the votes for some of these things, almost all passed with no dissenting voice. Social cons also drag out the ‘for the children’ crap any time they want to mess with our lives.

  • Les Nessman

    10. Posted by MunDane68

    I think the examples you listed are things pushed mainly by the Left, not the Social Cons.

  • Robert Mitchell Jr.

    Quite simple. “Porkbusters” was played by the press and the Democrats. There is, with people new to the game, a belief that they are and can be “bipartisan”. So, of course, they try not to play favorites. We’ve seen it a dozen times. Porkbusters got a lot of good press because they were attacking Republicans and their trivial spending. The attacks worked, and “the bums were thrown out”. Two party system. So the Democrats got thrown in, surprise, surprise. Just in time to stop W from doing something about Freddie and Fanny, and for Democrats to increase the amount of earmarks fourfold (We think. The Democrats got rid of the federal requirement that earmarks be tracked, put in place by the Republicans). Once they had served their use, the press stopped covering them…..

    Some will object to my description of Republican overspending as “trivial”, so I will point out that ten thousand “The Bridge to Nowhere”s is one year of Obama deficit, and we didn’t get anything useful for that, just price support for the endless “headless nails” in the bureaucracy.

    Yes, many in “Porkbusters” went to the Tea Party. That would be why so many long term, serious Republicans were so nervous about them. Porkbusters gave us Democrat control of Congress, the Banking Implosion, Obama as President, and National Health Care. Oops. Passion and Drive and Unwavering Morals are wonderful, when you know what you are doing….

  • MunDane68

    Les, they may have been proposed by the left, although not the case in all of them, but for example, in California the vote for mandatory seat belt use (Click it or Ticket) went without a dissenting vote. No one voted against it, in other words. Surely there must be one conservative there, after all, there was a proposal to require WalMart to cover the hooters of the women on the Cosmopolitan mags at the checkout stands. (It never made it out of committee, though.)

    As to the helmet law, there has never been a single bill presented to the Public Safety committee to ask for its removal.

    The point I am trying to pound home is there is no limits to the nanny-state no matter the political side of the aisle. They all want to control the citizens’ lives and choices because it gives them power. And power is a drug like no other…

  • Les Nessman

    “The point I am trying to pound home is there is no limits to the nanny-state no matter the political side of the aisle.”

    And yet, overwhelmingly, it is only one side of the aisle that has actually forced nanny-statism on us for the last 50 years.
    Do any of the anti-Social Cons honestly ponder that?

    My entire life I’ve heard about how the ReligousRight/SocCons/Repubs are going to dictate what everyone can do. And yet it never happens. The dictats/regulations/decrees have come from the Left.

    Watch out, Liberals! The scawy Tea Party Smaller Government People might take over and….leave everyone alone. Boo!

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE