Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Spare me your self-defeating self-fulfilling prophecies

Spare me your self-defeating self-fulfilling prophecies

A frequent commenter quoted this post by Erick Erickson at RedState:

A week ago, the United States House of Representatives sent a bipartisan measure to the United States Senate where it fell five votes short of a majority.

Today, John Boehner sent over legislation that couldn’t even get all the Republicans to support it, didn’t get any Democrats to support it, and will get less support in the Senate than last week’s plan.

And now the Democrats have a talking point they didn’t have with last week’s plan — that this plan is not bipartisan and also that Boehner had to appease the far right, all of which was lined up behind last weeks plan in even greater numbers.

Adding horror and humor upon humor and horror, now Boehner syncophants are telling the Democrats that they’ve got to do something since the GOP has finally done something.

Were these people asleep last week when the GOP did something with Democratic help?

Oh, and some of the same people on our side who’ve been pooh-poohing those of us who said to stick with Cut, Cap, and Balance, suddenly, after the Boehner vote, are lamenting that something wicked this way comes.

Lord, please give me smarter enemies within my own tent.

That analysis is superficial.

First, the only reason Cut, Cap and Balance passed the House with “bipartisan” support (i.e., 5 Democrats voted for it) was that it was far enough in advance of the August 2 so-called deadline that Nancy Pelosi didn’t feel the need to hammer her caucus the way she did against Boehner 3.0.  Pelosi was able to allow some — but not too many — Democrats to give themselves electoral cover.  If CCB was brought to a vote yesterday there isn’t a single Democrat who would have had the guts to vote for it.  That “bipartisan support” meant absolutely nothing, as the CCB bill immediately was tabled by Harry Reid, who proclaimed it “perhaps some of the worst legislation in the history of this country.”

Second, the reason that Boehner 3.0 didn’t have total Republican support in the House was that 22 House members at the urging of Erickson and others opposed it even after the Balanced Budget Amendment was added back in.  As to the Senate, six Republicans, in the face of opposition to the bill from Erickson among others, voted with the Democrats to table it.  There was no reason — on the merits or strategically — for those six to vote to table the bill; they could have voted against it later if they wanted after debate.  The opposition to Boehner 3.0 by people like Erickson gave Harry Reid a public relations gift, which oddly enough now is being used by Erickson to attack “Boehner sycophants.”

Third, Erickson has the narrative completely backwards as far as “appeasing the far right” goes.  The difficulty Boehner had in passing 2.0 resulting in 3.0 actually gives an argument that this is the best deal available, and that Boehner’s plan — but for the BBA — is disliked by the “far right.”  And, who is the “far right” Boehner was trying to appease?  Well, it’s people like Erickson.

Erickson’s arguments simply don’t hold up.  Erickson and others created the very problems which they now use against “Boehner sycophants.”  I don’t disparage their views the way Erickson disparages the views of the “Boehner sycophants;” as I indicated yesterday I agreed with them on the ultimate goal but disagreed as to how to get there.

I don’t know which strategy ultimately will or would have been vindicated.  Perhaps none of them, since Harry Reid was going to table whatever came out of the House.

But please, don’t use your own self-defeating self-fulfilling prophecies in an attempt to prove that you are smarter than the rest of us.

There is one thing Erickson says with which I wholeheartedly agree:  We need smarter enemies within our own tent.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Why on earth would anyone think we’re going to get a bill out of Congress that will actually do anything? We all know the eventual outcome, but Washington still thinks all the drama is necessary. Boehner or Reid, RINO or Dem, it really doesn’t matter. The result will be the same.

In order to “address” our existing debt, which is bad, Congress will tack on another few trillion, which somehow makes it good. Am I the only one confused by this?

They will promise to cut one tenth of the deficits, while actually doing nothing. Rather than a reduction, my guess is that government spending will increase over the next decade, and as our economy continues to sputter, the deficits will grow larger still.

Obama and the Democrats will accomplish what they set out to do – delay the issue until after the 2012 elections. They certainly cannot allow something as petty as a government default interfere with their lies and phony election promises.

Why do we need to borrow another $2.5 trillion? Because we can be certain that Obama has “Stimulus II” ready to save more jobs. Again, we can’t have massive public sector layoffs – all those jobs that the first Stimulus bill “saved” – interfere with his campaign, right?

And there is a very good chance that, by the time we have chosen our next president, our debt will have reached our new debt “ceiling”, and it will be time to scare everyone into the next round of legislation by panic.

And how do we know this? Because decades of watching what they do, rather than believing a single word of what they say, is a fairly good indicator of things to come.

Umnnnhhhh…

There were a number of tactical errors on the (R) side–mostly in the quisling-Senate bunch (McPain, Graham, and the Immpeccably Coiffed McConnell).

How-some-ever: since the content of the House bill was (for practical purposes) irrelevant, Boehner could have started ratcheting the OTHER way: making each succeeding House bill more obnoxious to Obozo & Co, and more appealing to the general public. Polls are clear: LESS SPENDING is a winner.

IOW, Boehner could have run a Dutch auction instead of shooting the Tea Party.

    Which would have given the Dems some cover to claim that Repubs were trying to kill any deal.

      dad29 in reply to Foxfier. | July 30, 2011 at 4:48 pm

      Well, maybe.

      Boehner could have started with Boehner V.3.0 (the current dead horse) and worked his way backwards to Cut/Cap/Balance.

      Hell, he could have tossed in a couple of tiny little tax-enhancers, too, like moving capgains to 16.5% and restricting home-mortgage-interest deductions to a max of $300K/year.

      Reid would STILL have killed it, because the bill requires another debt-ceiling debate next June.

But please, don’t use your own self-defeating self-fulfilling prophecies in an attempt to prove that you are smarter than the rest of us.

Why not? It’s been what all the cool kids do for the last couple of years, at least.

Look at the Obama birth certificate thing– Hm, our war hero guy had to show his because of rumors, but let’s talk about how outrageous it is to ask the same of Obama because it will look bad. Amazingly, when there’s guys on “their side” that say that only a loon would ask for something, the guys on the other side are able to make claims that match it stick!

Midwest Rhino (not RINO) | July 30, 2011 at 9:36 am

I don’t know how damaging it really is to have heated debate in the big tent. And with polls showing wide support for smaller government and a balanced budget amendment, I don’t think those “Tea Party” positions are “far right”. That is just the liberal labeling of all of the center/right republic they want to control.

Coulter’s Demonic describes the mob mentality of the talking point left. “Extreme” is the word we’re using … says Schumer …and they all sing the same tune, with unanimous venom for any not in their pack.

Perhaps it is a “badge of courage” to be labeled sycophant, any time a couple of the herd of conservative cats try to close ranks. The average American may well see past the demagoguing left’s trite chants, and admire the passionate individuality from the Tea party.

Name calling probably doesn’t reflect well though, especially from the “leaders”. But I think the Tea Party needs to shake the leftist label of “far right”. They/We are the Rasmussen tested 70% that want less government and lower taxes. They include a lot of independent thinkers, that will not agree on everything.

The left is the Borg … the freedom fighters are the blog(gers). Far left Borg Drones versus center right Blog free thinkers. Or something like that. Change the left’s narrative to fit reality … and disagree respectfully as much as possible … but some one the edge emotion is better than being drones.

I think the current bill position is pretty good … all voices get heard … “sycophant” describes the chanting left much better than the free thinking right.

    Yes, yes and yes. The fact that you can’t put everyone in the Tea Party into a group chant, exactly defines who they are, who they represent and why the fact that individuals that so revere their right to individual choices and voices have even ordained to come together as a loosely organized “Team Party” is why this scares the ever loving living shitzke out of the left.

Doe the new oackage really include the stimulus dollars as part of the baseline.

Sorry. finger trouble.

Does the new package really include the stimulus dollars as part of the baseline.

So what did the Boehner-labeled Reid plan accomplish? A “deal” that addressed nothing? Erickson is right. The final deal will stink to high heaven, the Dems will say so when it is passed and blame the Republicans as “the best we could do given Republican unwillingness to compromise”.

Our credit rating will soon be downgraded to confirm what the market has known since at least 2008 (why do you think the Fed has been buying 84% of new Treasury debt for the last 9 months?), the economy will continue to deteriorate, the debt will explode and even if the Reid plan raises the debt ceiling enough to theoretically kick the can into 2013, declining revenues for the bad economy will force the Treasury to take extraordinary measures to accomplish that.

This was the biggest fraud ever perpetuated in full view of the voters and the most infuriating part of it was having to listen to so many in the “conservative” media contort themselves to explain it to us “stupid, ignorant little people”.

It is the brazen hypocrisy or willful ignorance of the “elites” on “our” side, the enemy within, that enables this big government to spread.

I am now more determined than ever to work within the Tea Party to wreck this one-party system. Is there anyone left who doesn’t understand why the Republican Party has to go? We can’t fight the Democrats until they get out of our way. Every time we attack Democrats, we find ourselves attacked by the Republican establishment.

I am very disappointed in you professor. I expected better.

    retire05 in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 30, 2011 at 10:29 am

    I agree our credit rating will be downgraded, but perhaps it should be. Sometimes it takes cancelling someone’s credit card to make them understand they can’t spend without limits anymore.

    But don’t blame conservatives for thinking that the “little” people do not understand the situation. That falls squarely on the Democrats, especially the POTUS, when Jay Carney came out on the 28th and said that Obama had to take to the cameras last Friday because a lot of [little] people were not paying attention to what is going on. You see, according the the Oval Office, we are so busy with those jobs we don’t have, taking care of our family budgets that have cratered, that Obama has to explain the crisis to us.

    If you are going to work for a third party, you are spinning your wheels in the mud. That ain’t gonna happen. But what we can do is make sure that establishment RINOs like McLame and Graham are not re-elected and we put Republicans in office that are true conservatives. There ARE so honorable men/women in the Republican party, and to want to dump them because of those like McLame is simply foolish.

      SunnyJ in reply to retire05. | July 30, 2011 at 11:56 am

      Agreed. It was a false shiny Triple A + rating and it leads to too much of everything. Will it be uncomfortable? Yes. But, that is apparently what has to happen to get people to stop spending with credit that they have not a prayer in hell of paying off. Will it shrink the economy? Yes. Will it cut our standard of living? Yes And until the dollar is backed by actual value and not the printing press in the basement it will be painful.

      Smart people without idealogy have been telling us this is coming for 2 years minimum. We have a hard time understanding that this actually works for Progressives who would like the pain to be such that there are riots, overwhelmed system and it collapases into their la la green socialist utopia.

      They’ve underestimated the reslience of the American people and the Tea Party growth and power in this discussion is proof of that. Is it perfect? NO. Neither was the founding of this Republic. But good men and women, toughing it out and going forward won the day.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 30, 2011 at 11:23 am

    I fully understand and share PasadenaPhil’s frustration. And I acknowledge that based on his writings here, I think he is more directly connected to the Tea Party movement than I am. That said, I have not heard many Tea Partyers suggest that the right strategy going forward is to abandon the Republican Party. In fact, my impression is that the general consensus is to stay within the GOP but continue working to change it’s composition through competitive primaries (Palin hinted as much this past week). I’ve heard and read a couple of nationally prominent Tea Party figures say that it could take two or more additional election cycles to remove enough RINOs to get the party where it needs to be, which seems to make sense.

    Frankly, my number one priority is repealing Obamacare. And that is only going to happen if we get enough Republicans elected in 2012 to control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. If it is not repealed after the next election cycle, it never will be repealed. And if it is never repealed, then we can all look forward to a monumental loss of freedom as the government assumes near totalitarian control over how we live our lives in the name of cutting healthcare and medical costs, government mandated healthcare rationing (“death panels”), and a general reduction in our standard of living, etc. Not to mention the increased financial burdens which we can not afford since everybody understands the CBO estimates were a total farce and will never be achieved. Repealing Obamacare has got to be the number one priority for ourselves and for the future of our children and grandchildren. And we can only repeal it by taking complete control of all three houses after the 2012 elections.

    Abandoning the GOP, rather than working to change it, will be a big mistake — sorta like cutting off your nose to spite your face. You’ll regret the consequences.

Professor, I don’t know if you understand but the Boehner plan uses 2012 budget numbers (not withstanding we don’t have a budget now for over 800 days) and according to some it raises the debt ceiling with only $7 billion in cuts the first year. That is the only year that this Congress can address. The Congress cannot bind future Congresses to anything.

Senator Jeff Sessions spelled it out clearly; the Reid plan “deems” a budget to be passed for both 2012 and 2013, once again relieving the Congress of actually passing a budget. This whole thing has turned into Kubuki theater. When 93 Democrat Senators send Boehner a letter telling him his bill is dead the minute it hits the Senate floor, where is the “cooperation” Reid keeps harping on?

Nancy Pelosi was already tweeting last night that the Boehner plan was not “bi-partisan.” Perhaps she has forgotten the vote on Obamacare which gave her an opportunity to stroll across the street in front of the Capitol with a huge gavel.

The bottom line, as I have said before, is the fix is in. The POTUS, and the Democrats are NOT going to agree to anything the Republicans propose, well for one, because they have the media at their back. So in the end, we will get a bill that raises the debt ceiling, does really nothing to lower the debt, and drives us into a double dip recession.

We have only one option; change the majority in the Senate in 2012 and install a Republican president on Jan. 20, 2013.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to retire05. | July 30, 2011 at 10:40 am

    “We have only one option; change the majority in the Senate in 2012 and install a Republican president on Jan. 20, 2013.” I agree, and that has been the focus of my point of view. Nothing that can be accomplished now is going to make a fundamental difference in the next two years (would CCB really change the world?), so let’s at least pick tan option that does no more economic harm and does not hand Obama a platform for victory in 2012.

      But do it by requiring the Senate Majority Leader and the President to deal with the current issue in a constitutional manner — un-table the extension sent to them, and either pass it or amend it.

      The House dealt with the extension and any ensuing financial crisis is the fault of the Senate Democrats and the President if they do not act.

      Professor, doing nothing now is not an option. Some action must be taken to decrease our debt and stop kicking the can down the road, if only for 17 months.

      Moody’s has said that it might NOT downgrade our credit rating, S & P probably will, but the markets will always take the higher rating.

      What we have seen is that the “establishment” RINOs in both Houses are more than willing to go along to git along, giving us the same thing that landed us in this debate in the first place. Today is the day to start replacing those like McLame and Graham who think because they have tenure, they are the smartest kids on the block. They feel that D.C. is their playground, not the capitol of the American people.

      In a way, we conservatives have already won. Two years ago, no one was really talking about our debt as Obama raised the debt more in 29 months than Bush did in 8 years.

      There is one other group that needs to be sent back to school: those “economists” who are constantly “surprised” by the higher unemployment numbers, who are “surprised” that the GDP growth is pathetic and “surprised” that their predictions were so off mark. How can a group be so consistantly wrong yet are still relied upon to predict the future?

        dad29 in reply to retire05. | July 30, 2011 at 4:54 pm

        In a way, we conservatives have already won. Two years ago, no one was really talking about our debt as Obama raised the debt more in 29 months than Bush did in 8 years

        Exactly the comment made by an economist on Hewitt’s show last night.

        Funny. It doesn’t really FEEL like a ‘victory.’

It is hard to fathom what is so blinding Eric and other Republicans. All political advantage is how with the House Republicans!

Boehner and the House Republicans passed, not one but two solutions. Harry and the Democrats may not like either one of those versions, but they cannot just dismiss them and refuse to act on them without Democrats 100% owning any ensuing fiscal crisis . . . the Senate for having failed to act in the proper constitutional manner, and the President for having failed to lead.

Reid and the President seem to believe that they have somehow rewritten the federal constitution to provide that the House and the Senate must come to a full agreement in advance, and then pass a bill in an “orderly” manner, one right after the other, and send it to the President for his signature.

Nuts! The system does not work that way.

Harry and the President forgot that the way the system has always worked is that one house passes legislation, whereupon it is then taken up by the other and either amended and sent back, or passed “as is.

That is our constitutional process. For crying out loud, any fourth grade child can tell you that!

Harry somehow thinks he can get his way by continually tabling House bills until they get it “right” from his perspective.

If I were John Boehner, I’d quite publicly tell Harry and the President the following:

“Sorry, fellas . . . our work is done. Deal with it. We passed two bills to solve this problem. All the senate Majority Leader did was petulantly engineer votes to table both measures.

Either un-table one or the other of the two and pass it and send it to the President, which would solve the problem forthwith, or amend one or the other of the two bills and send it back. If you do the latter, we’ll take it up and deal with it accordingly, as we should.

That is the way our system of government works. Deal with it.

There will be no further discussions. Curiously, President Obama and the former Speaker of the House promised to deal with HealthCare in an open manner, but they did not and they got in big trouble as a result. We in the House are not going to repeat the fatal political mistakes they made by making backroom deals.

We on the Republican side intend to abide with the proper constitutional process — either pass one of the bills we sent you, or amend it and send it back, at which time we will take it up in the manner we see as best for the American people.

The ball is now 100% in your court, and time is short.

Man up Harry!”

I think there are arguments on both sides consequently there will be fraternal disagreement.

But people have been burned again and again by the GOP – RINOitis, lies, double dealing, corruption, meekness and general inability to get the job done. America is losing patience with nonsense as some your commenters so vociferously indicate.

A little righteous indignation on the part of the GOP would not be out of order. The agency debt or implicit debt of the US is more than $1 trillion greater than the official or public debt, popularly known as The Debt, over which all the hot air has been expended for weeks. Then the US intergovernmental debt is many times greater than the total of the first two combined. Then there is the fact that all this Kabuki dance is just an argument about which side of $9 trillion we are going to INCREASE spending over ten years. There is no decrease within the meaning of the English language to be found. A little straight talk without lies and obfuscation from the Republicans might help.

I could again make reference to at least a half dozen articles by knowledgeable articulate people just from this morning full of dismay at Boehner and his proposal.

More and more people are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it anymore. That is a good thing.

@ retire05. What you say about working within the GOP will not work without some type of reliable on-line “clearing house” or blog that accurately lists each GOP incumbent’s position vis-a-vis big v. small government, etc. Suggestions?

The Tea Partiers, Rush, Erick, Hannity and the rest of the echo chamber crowd are correct strategically, but wrong tactically. Accept that the way the Congress and White House are currently configured, the best we can get is going to be less than ideal. That’s the way our system works. All of this hoopla over the debt ceiling is much ado about nothing. It’s a sideshow as nothing can be done that will change the dynamics of the debt situation. The best that can be hoped for is to raise awareness of the issue in the portion of the public that doesn’t pay attention to politics. We have to keep our eyes on the big prizes; Obamacare and the 2012 elections. Anything that detracts from our pursuit of those items is not worth doing. To use a WWII metaphor, Erick and the rest should quit fighting the Battle of the Huertgen Forest and keep driving toward Berlin.

    Taxpayer1234 in reply to Third Coast. | July 30, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    Well said. With all the railing against Boehner, it’s easy to forget he’s the general on the ground. At some point, the boys in the War Room have to adjust to the battlefield realities and help him reach the real goal.

    WarEagle82 in reply to Third Coast. | July 30, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    What was the excuse when we held the Presidency and the House and the Senate for large parts of the previous 20 years? They spent like crazy and ran up the debt and increased the size and scope of government on unsustainable programs, with idiotic regulations, refused to balance the budget or change the tax system or address social security and medicare?

    There will never be a “good time” with a permanent political class in charge…

      Third Coast in reply to WarEagle82. | July 30, 2011 at 12:43 pm

      That was then, pre-Tea Party, this is now. Boehner can’t deliver what’s not possible. Let’s win the 2012 elections and then see what we can do. Stomping your feet and running around with one’s hair on fire is not a plan. Thomas Sowell had a recent column that better explained what I’m trying to say.

      aguyfromjersey in reply to WarEagle82. | July 30, 2011 at 1:34 pm

      That was during the “Go Along to Get Along” time and “Compromise Is How Washington Works” era. To be able to defend ourselves, we had to go along with No Child Left Behind, To make us look better, to show compassion, it was the Perception Drugs Plan.
      We have entered a new era, T.E.A, “Stop The Spending” and “Lead or Get Out Of The Way”

+$3.8 trillion, largest tax increase in American History in Reid’s bill

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that his debt ceiling bill, in a bow to Republicans, includes no tax increases. But does it really?

An analysis from the Republican Senate Budget Committee staff shows that Reid’s bill includes gimmicks that, if passed, would account for approximately $3.8 trillion in revenue — or tax increases.

The maneuvering is complicated; but when explained properly, it becomes clear.

Reid’s proposal includes a provision that “deems” budget resolutions for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, but Senate Democrats have not yet produced a 2012 budget proposal, much less one for 2013.

Within those anticipated budget resolutions lie the tax increases, according to the analysis, and here is where it gets tricky.

When the Congressional Budget Office scores a proposal, it uses either current policy or current law as its baseline. Reid’s bill is based on current law, which assumes certain tax breaks will expire according to pre-determined scheduled. That is a big deal.

The 2001–2003 Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2012. And some business tax breaks, “death tax” cuts, and the patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax expire at the end of 2011. Reid’s proposal assumes that Congress will not act to renew or extend those expiring tax breaks.

The Alternative Minimum Tax patch is a tax that runs parallel to the regular tax code for high-income Americans. If a taxpayer falls within the right bracket (a high one), he must use the AMT to calculate his federal tax. The AMT targets items that are write-offs or tax-exempt for people in lower income brackets.

Congress acts to “fix” or raise the AMT patch every year, in order to ensure that it does not inadvertently include middle-class families.

Reid’s proposal assumes Congress will not act to fix the AMT at the end of 2011.

All told, the expired tax cuts would cost $3.8 trillion.

According to the Republican staff analysis, the baseline is not the only gimmick in Reid’s proposal, but it could be the worst.”

<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/30/analysis-says-reids-budget-plan-contains-gimmicks-that-could-result-in-tax-increases/#ixzz1TbisXTio"Daily Caller

My representative was one of the 22 no’s. He voted the way he promised when he ran and the way a vast majority of his constituents wanted. He did so in the face of outrageous outside pressure for him to vote yes. He was the only Republican representative from our state to vote no. The others voted against the way they ran and against the wishes of a majority of their constituents. Some may suffer a primary opponent for this. That also is the way our system works. You can talk strategy and tactics until the cows come home, but, remember, that at Huertgen it was a handful of Rangers that decided it by taking via direct assault and holding Hill 400 while the regulars cowered in their bunkers.

    Third Coast in reply to foxlets. | July 30, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    God save us from “victories” like the Huertgen. 33,000 casualties out of 120,000 engaged. If you think it was a victory, it certainly was of the pyrrhic variety.
    Charles B. MacDonald—a U.S. Army historian and former company commander who served in the Hürtgen battle—has described it as “a misconceived and basically fruitless battle that should have been avoided.”
    Gen. Gavin of the 82nd Airborne called it “the battle that should never have been fought”.
    It sounds like the kind of debt ceiling battle going on now. Lots of possible political defeats and bad publicity in pursuit of something that can’t be won with the forces at hand.

As we’ve come through this, I am inclined more an more to believe that they should have stopped with CUT, CAP & BALANCE. I sort of agree that in the subsequent plans they seem to be negotiating down with themselves, and nothing they do is EVER going to get approved by the Democrats.

I see really disastrous end results in that the Tea Party got attacked and marginalized, and for that, I think I blame McConnell. Once he put that idea of giving Obama extra powers, however delicious the thought that he would then own the debt may be, on the table, he caused the rest of the debacle.

On the whole, though – I don’t know when it became partisan to believe that government officials entrusted with the budget should act in a fiscally responsible manner – keep spending under control, outgo under income, and maintain a healthy financially secure nation, leaving future generations with a well-run household rather than one that is mortgaged to the hilt and that will bankrupt them.

When did that become evil-rightwing?

It SURE says a lot about the #*%&!!#* Democrats that this even had to be fought at all.

Yes, both parties are to blame for getting us in this mess – but when you realize you are in trouble, the answer isn’t to go out and take out more loans.

If that is seriously what Democrats believe – they have lost their way so severely that they will be walking over the cliff into the abyss.

You have a credit card. You have a credit limit. You want them to raise your credit limit so you can make your mortgage payment this month.

You ask the credit card company to raise your borrowing limit so you can make that mortgage payment.

They’ve already raised it 25 times, so that you could buy the new car, the new refrigerator, the new dishwasher, the new lawnmower, the vacation to Cancun, etc. which is why you can’t make the mortgage payment in the first place… What should the credit card company do?

Really the question is – what should you do? Even if they will give you the increase, should you take it?

Or should you get a grip on your spending, so that you can afford the mortgage payment without borrowing to make it?

It’s time to do the responsible thing. It’s long past time. Have you seen the clip where REAGAN talks about the need for a BALANCED BUDGET?

For crying out loud, we’ve known about this for decades. Obama’s bundlers certainly knew about it when he ran, and he was supposed to be coming in with this great team, not just the Clinton retreads, but “the best” and “the brightest” – well – where the #*&! are they? you’ve got Turbo-Tax Timmy calling the shots and Obama’s goons are slamming the tea Party… It’s a mess.

Subotai Bahadur | July 30, 2011 at 1:12 pm

A lot of the commenters here have a chunk of the truth. It is telling that no one here is claiming that the entire fiasco was well fought, or has had a positive outcome. The best that is said about it, is that we can’t win anyway, so this is the best that we can hope for.

Third Coast above has hit on something.

The Tea Partiers, Rush, Erick, Hannity and the rest of the echo chamber crowd are correct strategically, but wrong tactically. There is an corollary here that can be drawn. The opposition to the TEA Partiers, et. al., the Institutional Republican Party, are wrong strategically and correct tactically.

The Institutionals really do not have the same strategic goals as the TEA Party, Conservatives, and Patriot Independents. Aside from being beneficiaries of the collapsing system; they want to win less than they want their “friends and colleagues” across the aisle not to lose. Every time the tide is running in our favor on an issue, we can depend on some member of the Republican “Leadership” to do something to derail us. They do not regard the Democrats as the enemy, or their programs as things that must be defeated for the survival of the nation. To them, the whole process is a very profitable Glasperlenspiel where they are quite content to be second string players so long as they are still in the game and deriving its benefits. As in the novel referenced, the real world we live in is not part of their calculus.

As one simple example, once it became clear that the Democrats were going to table any legislation that came from the House that was short of unconditional surrender; Boehner could have made the point that there are differences in the operations of the two houses of Congress. “The Senate proceeds with more formal courtesy and protocol than the House. The House will, therefore, on this matter take note of this. If the Senate Leadership will pre-emptively refuse to allow consideration, debate, and open votes on the merits of the House’s bills on the National Debt Ceiling, the House will return the exact same level of courtesy and consideration for the Senate’s bills.”

Of course, such would never happen. It would be considered crass, rude, ne kulturny, and downright “uppity” by the Institutionals for Republicans to treat Democrats the way that Democrats treat them.

The Institutionals are subject matter experts on the Tactics of Congress. They have got the courtship dance of submission to the Democrats down to a science; be the steps pas a deux, minuet, or an 8-some reel. Starting with the core belief that they are not going to win, they rarely miss a step on the way to that end.

Which is harder? To realize that your strategy is correct, and modify your tactics to win, or to change your entire strategy which is counterproductive and stop snatching defeat from the jaws of the victory that your tactics could win? Note that if Clausewitz is right, strategy is an outgrowth of the interests of the strategist(s).

I ran into a phrase yesterday that sums the situation up nicely. “A Third Party may well not be ‘viable’. But the Republican Party gives every appearance of not being ‘viable’ now.”

My own SWAG is that the active Republican base is maybe 1/3 to 1/2 TEA Party and Conservative/Patriot. The elected officials of the Republican party are maybe 1/4 [or less] TEA Party and Conservative/Patriot. Before we can defeat the larger enemy, the Left; we have to defeat the Institutional Republicans who abet them.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall says:

I’ve heard and read a couple of nationally prominent Tea Party figures say that it could take two or more additional election cycles to remove enough RINOs to get the party where it needs to be, which seems to make sense.

That may well be true, if these were normal times. However, we may not have two or more additional election cycles before the Constitution, the economy, and the country are trashed. And if we reach that point, our talk about electoral and political tactics here will be irrelevant. For matters will have moved to other levels that we do not want them to go to.

Precisely to avoid having that come to pass [which avoidance is one of the prime motivations of the Patriot Movement], the political and electoral battles with the Enemy have to be fought with an intensity and seriousness of purpose. It will not suffice to dabble in the politics between fraternizing with the Enemy. Indeed, as I said above, the Institutionals do not recognize the Left as a real enemy. If the Institutionals will not seriously fight politically against them and their goals, then it may be necessary to form an organization that will.

As has been said above in reference to Harry Reid; the ball is in the Institutional’s court. I suspect that by mid to late September we will know if it is feasible to stay with them.

One prediction. IF there are elections in 2012 that are fair, honest, and with a proper vote count; and the Republicans take the Senate, with or without the presidency [and obviously I am hoping with, and I do have a candidate in mind]; the strongest weapon in the Democrats’ arsenal is going to be Mitch McConnell, a half dozen or so other DIABLO Senators, and the Institutional Republican leadership. If McConnell becomes Majority Leader any attempts to fix things in this country will be almost as hard as if the Democrats held the Senate.

Subotai Bahadur

“Boehner could have made the point that there are differences in the operations of the two houses of Congress. “The Senate proceeds with more formal courtesy and protocol than the House. The House will, therefore, on this matter take note of this. If the Senate Leadership will pre-emptively refuse to allow consideration, debate, and open votes on the merits of the House’s bills on the National Debt Ceiling, the House will return the exact same level of courtesy and consideration for the Senate’s bills.””

Amen.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend