Price is Going High Profile

Good for him. He’s one of my favorites.

Click on C-SPAN and there’s Rep. Tom Price, a Republican from Georgia, blasting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s travel arrangements or hammering the new “Democrat majority” for “the largest tax increase in our nation’s history.”

His Web site screams of “outrageous” tax-and-spend liberalism, while his “Official Truth Squad” records some two dozen infractions on its “Democrat Broken Promise Meter.”

Price, a 52-year-old doctor, was largely a backbencher in the last Congress, tending quietly to the concerns of his wealthy suburban district north of Atlanta that produced Newt Gingrich three decades ago.

But with his party now in the minority, Price is following in Gingrich’s early footsteps and emerging as one of the GOP’s lead attack dogs.

25 comments

  1. Indy says:

    I don’t think Price gets it… we don’t need more “attack dogs” we need more solutions and more working together. Stay on this road Mr. Price and you’ll sink into a smaller minority.

    No gains for Dems in GA/the south but watch the west and even the midwest in 2008. The country is sick and tired partisan BS.

  2. John Galt says:

    Indy,

    There is no such thing as “working together.” See: 2007 Congress, Democrat leadership of

    The GOP lost because they didn’t weren’t partisan enough.

    To paraphrase Goring, “When I hear the word bipartisanship, I reach for my gun.”

  3. Chris says:

    The GOP lost because they weren’t partisan enough.

    No, the problem was the GOP was too partisan.

    They allowed criminals (DeLay, Foley, Cummingham) to stay. They gave succor to porkers like Ted Stevens and Trent Lott. They followed they incompetent leadership of Denny Hastert, Bill Frist and George Bush.

    No the problem was that the Republicans in Washington were too busy being good little Republicans and not spending any time doing what they were sent there to do: be conservatives.

  4. shrike071 says:

    *yawn*

    More of the republican sleight of hand.. No mention of the Republicans that accompanied Pelosi on her trip, nor of the Republican deligation that headed over there in the week or two prior…

    The nation is growing weary of the ‘attack dog’ politics, and instead – they’re starting to want their pound of flesh for the unprecedented abuses of power by the now-defunct Republican majority.

  5. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Tom Price: “He’s one of my favorites.”
    Good God!!!! Well that made me chuckle.
    Where is Bill Simon when we really need him? He’s going to go through the roof when he reads that!

  6. Indy says:

    Ok John… but wait and you will see Republicans WILL be a smaller minority in 2009. You really don’t get it… you don’t.

    I agree with Chris… if the former Republican majority had been conservative rather than divisive (along with “W”) there would still be a Republican majority.

    Oh, and today might be a good day to drop the “reach for my gun” BS (i.e. VA Tach). You can start again tomorrow

  7. jsm says:

    I like the “attack dog” approach on issues of importance, but I think too many times it is confused with attacking members of the other party for character-related things that are really not part of the legislative process.

    Pelosi is wrong for acting as a representative of this nation when she was neither elected nationally nor appointed by anyone who was elected nationally. Any Republican who joined her band in the Middle East should be held accountable for supporting her unwarranted and inexcusable foray as well as she and the democrats should.

    If Congressman Price stays on issue and away from personal attacks, he will be supported by his colleagues and, more importantly, by the people.

  8. shrike071 says:

    JSM – Sorry, Pelosi was appointed by the members of her party, and they were elected by the residents of their individual states. Those representatives then collectively elected her, so that means that she does represent this government since she represents the majority party.

    Congress has gone on fact-finding missions since this counrty was founded. It is their responsibility as elected officials to do so, and NOT to rubber-stamp whatever the president wants to do.

    At least she didn’t do what Dennis Hastert did in 1997 when he traveled to Columbia: he went with the goal of undermining President Clinton’s policy towards that country. He even went so far as to say that the Columbian government should bypass the excutive and deal directly with Congress. Or what about when Gingrich (also in 97) went to China in which he directly contradicted President Clinton’s policy regarding Taiwan.

  9. Indy says:

    shrike071,
    Don’t you know that is ok for Republicans to undermine a Democratic president? Don’t you also know that when a Democrat goes to a foreign leader to reinforce at Republican president’s policy that we MUST attack her/him. Attack, attack, attack… it is all they know how to do… politics not governance. Isn’t it all obvious?

    Get with the program!

  10. jsm says:

    shrike, we don’t need a Secretary of State if the Speaker of the House has the responsibility of representing the People of the U.S. in foreign affairs matters. The SOS is appointed by the President, who is elected nationwide. Being elected by representatives of the People to direct matters of legislation in the Congress does not give one the authority to represent the People to foreign governments. That is an executive duty.

    I don’t wholeheartedly agree with Hastert’s actions in Colombia or Gingrich’s actions in China, but the way I see it, circumstances were different in both cases. Hastert was dealing with Colombia on an issue of aid which is controlled by Congress, and Gingrich claims he met with Clinton and Gore before his trip to ensure that their messages fit together.

    As Congressman Nathan Deal said recently, if Pelosi wants to set the foreign policy of the United States, she should run for President.

  11. shrike071 says:

    JSM – The Secretary of State represents the Executive Office. The members of Congress that went over there represent the PEOPLE and individual states of the country. They are NOT the same thing, and NOT interchangeable. No amount of spin will change that fact.

    Big difference, and one that the Republican Party and the Executive Branch just seem to ignore.

    It’s also not surprising that you see “circumstances as different” in the visits of Hastert and Gingrich. “Do as I say, not as I do” is the mantra of the modern Republican party.

  12. jsm says:

    shrike, since when do we need representation from “individual states of the country” representing us in foreign affairs, especially with hostile countries? We negotiate with other nations as the UNITED States of America. You’re right–they’re not interchangeable. No spin there.

  13. shrike071 says:

    We need different representation because the executive branch no longer reflects the will or intent of the people. Look back in history – these visits are part of what congress is supposed to do as an independent branch of the U.S. Government.

    Its all part of the checks-and-balances that are built in to the system, but have been absent since one party has held all 3 branches of government.

    Again – It was all fine-and-good when Clinton was in power and the Republicans were actively trying to undermine the president via visits to other countries. Now a Democrat goes over, minus the ill-intent of undermining the president, and you guys are all up in arms.

    The hypocrisy is astounding.

  14. jsm says:

    “minus the ill-intent of undermining the president”???

    Are you kidding me? Whatever you’re smoking is pretty potent. Pelosi is absolutely undermining the President. He and Condi have both made this very clear.

    When does the judicial branch make a trip so that all 3 branches are represented in the “checks-and-balances” system? Give me a break. Applying checks and balances specifically to foreign policy to justify unfounded diplomatic visits to foreign leaders doesn’t work. Checks and balances can be exercised right here at home.

    And how about you site some data on the “will or intent of the people” regarding our relationship with Syria and Iran? The will and intent of the people regarding foreign policy was exercised in 2004 and will be exercised again in 2008. We choose a president every 4 years for a reason.

    Good tactic, by the way–scream “hypocrisy” when one of your own is called out for something that is clearly wrong.

  15. Mad Dog says:

    Undermining Condi and Bush?

    Ask several former Secretaries of State, starting with Powell.

    Bush doesn’t support the Secretary of State with anything other than lies.

    Just like Erick. Can’t see the truth. Can’t tell the truth.

  16. shrike071 says:

    Pelosi was NOT undermining the president, JSM. Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly pointed out that Pelosi was briefed by State Department officials before her meetings with the foreign leaders and that State Department officials also attended her meetings.

    So if Pelosi really committed foreign policy flubs of the first order, the State Department is in a position to confirm as much.

    The White House certainly received a read-out of what exactly Pelosi and the foreign leaders said in their meetings. Significantly, the White House has not openly accused Pelosi of foreign-policy missteps.

    Do you have information that the White House isn’t releasing? You have an “in” at the State Department? Please post it here and prove me wrong….

    Here is what a Republican representative that went on that trip with Pelosi had to say about it, and I feel that it pretty much sums it up:

    “I don’t care what the administration says on this. You’ve got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country,” said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. “I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah.”

    …”This is an area where we would disagree with the administration,” (Rep. Robert) Aderholt (of Alabama) said. “None of us in the Congress work for the president. We have to cast our own votes and ultimately answer to our own constituents. … I think there’s room that we can try to work with them as long as they know where we draw the line.

    Re-read that last paragraph, JSM:
    “None of us work for the president…. we answer to our constituents…..”

    The checks-and-balances I was referring to concern the Executive Office, (President, et-al…), the House, and the Senate. When one party controls all 3, there is no balance. You have one party controlling everything. No matter what end of the spectrum you come down on – that is NEVER a good idea.

    Nice try – you lose.

    Data? (And it’s “CITE” not “SITE”, btw…) How about the latest Pew Polls regarding the President’s performance: 54% think the war was a mistake, 53% want the troops home now, and here’s the kicker – for the first time in 20 years, 51% think that the way to ensure peace is not through military strength.

  17. Mad Dog says:

    Erick Erickson founder of the PeachPundit and so called “conservative” said one of the most liberal spending congressmen is “one of his favorites”. Tom Price voted for the “bridges to nowhere” pork-filled highway bill, give-away energy bill, and supports reauthorizing the failed, wasteful No child Left Behind. Price supports the drug prescription bill (that every think tank said we have no money to fund in the future) and voted to raise the debt ceiling to an eye popping 10 trillion dollars!

    WOW Erick, you have a bizarre sense of what it is means to be a fiscal conservative! Does anyone think TOM PRICE and ERICK ERICKSON are fiscal conservative and why?

  18. jsm says:

    shrike, don’t BS me on the spelling stuff. I said nothing about your misspelling of Colombia.

    Aderholt is speaking like an idiot, because too many people are too stupid to know the fallacy in what he’s saying. He works for the constituents in his Alabama district. The President works for the whole country and was elected by the entire nation to handle foreign affairs. It is the President’s job to set foreign policy and not Congress’ job to send “mixed signals.”

    Here’s some news about what President Bush said about Pelosi’s trip:

    “President George W. Bush criticized Pelosi’s visit on Tuesday during a wide-ranging news conference at the White House. He said the visit sent ‘mixed signals’ that ‘lead the Assad government to believe they are part of the mainstream of the international community, when in fact they are a state sponsor of terror.'”

    “‘In our view, it is not the right time to have these sorts of high-profile visits to Syria,’ Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the State Department, said last week.” [There’s my “in” at the State Department. ;)]

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/03/news/pelosi.php

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O97VQO0&show_article=1

    Pelosi absolutely did undermine this administration.

    Once again, your use of checks and balances doesn’t work. C & B involves all three branches of govt: executive, legislative, and judicial. It is not meant to provide for one branch to take over the responsibility of the other. The job of the legislative branch is to make laws, NOT make foreign affairs trips.

    Your poll data is nice, but it doesn’t support using the statement, “the executive branch no longer reflects the will or intent of the people,” to justify a foreign policy trip to a hostile country by a legislator.

Comments are closed.