● Debt Ceiling Showdown: The Republicans are gearing up for a huge fight over raising the debt ceiling. It’s going to be a slaughter. In fact, this is turning into a textbook example of what not to do:
1. You never announce that you are planning to hold the country hostage over some future event. That’s the surest way to get the public to turn against you because you’ve basically announced that you plan to cynically hurt people in the name of getting something you want. Yet, that is what the Republicans have done, they’ve actually bragged about their ability to get goodies out of Obama by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Wow.I am now 95% sure that the Republican Party is just being played for parody.
2. You never take hostages without a good reason. Yet, the Republicans haven’t come up with their list of demands. This has disaster written all over it. By announcing their plan to take hostages this early without the slightest hint of a reason for doing so, the Republicans just pitched the media the perfect softball. The media can now attack them as cynics who want to hurt the country for partisan reasons, and without that list of demands, the Republicans have left the media with total control to frame the issues and the arguments.
Moreover, without a list of demands, i.e. goals, it’s impossible to define victory or to develop a plan on how to achieve it. Further, without such goals, it becomes impossible to get everyone on the same page, which is a recipe for infighting, especially with responsibility-free purists screaming bloody murder from the sidelines to help their ratings and fundraising.
3. You never remind people of the other times your plans blew up on you before you try something like this. Yet the Republicans have already started connecting this to the fiscal cliff fiasco and are even foaming at the mouth about shutting down the government again... the same maneuver that neutered a much stronger Newt Gingrich. Yee haw.
● Chuck Hagel: With Leon Panetta leaving as Secretary of Defense, Obama has appointed former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to replace him. Hagel is being attacked by the left over some gay slur he made in 2008 and because they don’t like the fact he’s a Republican, even if he does endorse Democrats. So they want him gone. Enter the Republicans.
The Republicans are upset because: Hagel was one of the only Republican critics of the Iraq War, he voted against US sanction on Iran and Libya, he tried to lift the embargo on Cuba, he described the Defense Department as “bloated” and said it needed “to be pared down,” and he apparently made some disparaging remarks about the influence of the “Jewish lobby.” So they are banding together to bring him down.
The most likely result is that the Republicans beat their pudgy chests for a while and then Hagel gets confirmed with 60+ votes, proving Republican impotence. A worse result would be that they take him down, doing the left’s dirty work for them, and Obama appoints a hard-core Democrat who sails through easily and does significant damage to the Defense Department.
More parody.
● Harrumph Tax Evaders: Finally, just to prove that idiocy isn’t purely domestic, the Prime Minister of Britain, who looks increasingly like a Cupie Doll to me, huffed and puffed and whined about those big bad international companies who avoid British taxes. Rather than fix Britain’s tax laws, which are what allowed these companies to avoid paying taxes, Cupie wants some sort of tax treaty or something to keep companies from following the rules established by Britain to avoid British taxes. Take that Starbucks!
Does this seem like a joke to anyone?
62 comments:
By the way, there's nothing we can do about the Great Republican Debt Ceiling Massacre to come, so I recommend kicking back and enjoying this one as performance art. :)
That's all I've been doing these days.
Reps should have told Dems to pound sand when they took the house, if Obumbo can't get all he wanted when the Dems had it all. Why should the Reps do any less?
Yea, I know.
I've got a bunch of profanities I could post about this subject.
I still think that the Repubs should be giving Obama everything he wants without a fight and make him sign off on each and every one. Let the chips fall,where they may.
Bev.....repub senators should vote "present" on any budgetary action going forward. Or maybe invoke "Scottish" law. Either way, in order to not get blamed for the debacle to come, they need to wipe their hands clean of zero's actions.
Look at the recent "fiscal cliff" talks. When it all goes south (think 'stimulus') the repubs will be blamed that they didn't give zero what he was asking for and fought for their "millionaire and billionaire" buddies that's why the fiscal cliff wasn't fixed.
Heads we win....Tails you lose.
Re Chuck Hagel, his "qualifications" are a bit more problematic than that. Besides the fact that he has little or no administrative experience for the job and is therefore far less qualified than other candidates for the job, he has been repeatedly dinged for being anti-Israel, being one of a handful of senators to refuse to call Hezbollah a terrorist organization and one of only four to not sign a Senate letter expressing support for Israel. Now I'm sure he'll say that his support for Israel is proven in his actions, rather than in what he did or didn't sign--because, you know, he kinda has to say that--but when he appears to be outside 96% of the government in his views, it does raise eyebrows, and there's no getting around that.
Besides which, what's the loss for us in opposing his nomination? Obama's already got a gold mine of stuff to paint us as obstructionist on; if by some chance the opposition succeeds and the cabinet winds up wholly Democratic, the party takes the blame for any foreign-policy blunders; with Hagel on the cabinet, it would be a "bipartisan" failure. I thought the idea was to make the Democrats own the next four years of crap?
they just make me sick. It is sad, really.
Max, Absolutely true. If the Democrats wouldn't give Obama anything he wants, why the hell are we? And why can everyone who isn't a Republican politicians see this?
They either need to give him everything he wants and let him sink or give him nothing, but this half and half approach... "we give you what you want, you give us a token thing we want and all the blame" is just insane.
Bev, That was definitely the best strategy up to this point. But they didn't do it. At this point, the best strategy is regroup... try to find some purpose for existence and then start anew. The idea of "we'll hold you hostage for an idea to be named later" is just pathetic.
Patriot, That's actually a good idea -- vote present and make the Democrats do it all. But then... that would take some foresight, which is something the GOP simply doesn't have.
T-Rav, So what? Hagel wouldn't make policy toward Israel, that's being made by Obama himself and his State Department. And if they are anti-Israel, again, so what? Why should we bail protect Jewish voters who overwhelmingly supported Obama. It's time to stop saving people who voted for Obama from Obama. That is exactly how you make him own the next four years. Us getting in there and acting like we are the ones choosing his nominees just muddies that.
And let me flip your question on you, what is the benefit of fighting? Other than scoring cheap points that don't mean anything a week later, where is the benefit?
Jed, Try to see the humor in it. The world has gone insane at the moment. We are in a period of unbelievable stupidity.... it's worth enjoying just for the sheer amazement factor of it.
just call me Fizbo the Clown then, and play "Tracks of My Tears" by Smoky & the Miracles as a background track.
I have never heard anything about Hagel being an anti-Semite until now, and he was my state senator for two terms. In a state with next to no Jews, and probably zero in his hometown, being an anti-Semite would be kinda pointless.
I'm just trying to figure the game out at this point. Are the Dems hoping the Reps will block one of their own, underscoring the obstructionist meme and allowing a more liberal nom in? Or do the Dems want the Reps pass Hagel through so there is a prominent GOP bigot to wag fingers at for the next four years? Is it even possible to be too cynical at this point?
I think I agree with the non-bipartisan-cabinet idea T-Rav mentions. Lots of people don't know, or don't care, about distinctions within the GOP, and just see an 'R'.
I also think that Senate R's should consistently vote against the stuff they posture about...
Trust me Fizbo, I feel your pain.
tryanmax, I think this is a no lose for the Dems, they're just enjoying making the Republicans dance.
If Hagel gets appointed, the Republicans look impotent and like failed obstructionists. If Hagel loses, the Republicans look like whiny obstructionists who won't even support Obama's attempt to appoint a Republican and then they get some hardcore leftist.
I don't think there's anything more to it than that. This is just about poking the morons, and the morons are happy to comply.
tryanmax, Make no mistake, this is pure theater. There's nothing more to this than that.
rlaWTX, I don't think the public cares at all who is in the cabinet unless they are famous going in. Can you even name anyone on Clinton's cabinet other than Hillary? The public sees them as Team Obama.
Tryanmax - Just playing devil's advocate for a moment...ask yourself WHY there are very few Jews in your state and in Hagel's district...hmmmm.
That being said, I agree that we need to let Obama voters, especially Jewish Obama voters, get what they paid for.
Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch (D/Jew) who very vocally admonished Obama for his betrayal to Jews with his anti-Israel policies and very publicly supported the Repub candidate for Anthony Weiner the Giant Weiner's House seat in 2011, flipped back and was very vocal in his supported for Obama as a friend to Jews and Israel in the 2012 election. Now, once again Koch is flipping, flopping and shocked/infuriated about how he is being betrayed (again) and whining about how Obama is anti-Israel. Seriously, you can't make this stuff up!
Bev, LOL! What exactly are you suggesting goes on in Nebraska?
I wish the Republicans would stop trying to save people from the consequences of their actions. If Obama wants to appoint an angry clown, let him. You can always pick up the pieces later. All we do by trying to protect these people, be it taxpayer, Jews or whoever, is let them continue happily along assuming that we are evil and they are right.
Koch is the ultimate weathervane.
Some, like Alabama's Sessions is talking about using it to get a budget passed.
LINK
I've been wondering why the GOP has not been hammering the Dems on this.
Kit, Is there even a budget ready to be passed?
Well, in the house you have the Ryan plan.
In the Senate, on the other hand, there hasn't been one ready in 1,350 days.
Does this seem like a joke to anyone?
Comedy is when someone else falls down a manhole. Tragedy is when it happens to me.
I'm not finding any of this very funny, actually.
Now let me ask the next question, what is the goal of getting a budget? Is it just to say we got one? Because nobody really cares about that -- the government keeps right on functioning. Is the goal to get cuts? Is the goal to get the Democrats to agree to things their voters won't like?
Its looking like that is the hill they are going to fight on.
LINK
Now, to me (and I could be wrong), if the GOP plays this smart they could make this a win-win scenario with 2 alternatives.
1). The Dems refuse to pass a budget and look even more fiscally irresponsible (this would require a LOT of work on the GOP's part).
2.) A budget is passed and brings back spending as a major issue.
But it would require a level of cleverness and smarts not yet seen from GOP leadership.
K, Yeah, true. This is more of a tragedy than a comedy. But I've kind of reached the point where I'm seeing our political system as farce. I am having a hard time believing any of this is real.
Why a budget?
It is illegal for us not to have one. And it could be something to hit the Dems over: "They won't do their job and pass a budget because they don't want you to know how they are spending your money."
Kit, Here's the problem with the budget...
It's a technicality. There IS a budget or otherwise the government wouldn't be running. They just haven't put it into a budget bill. They funded each agency through a series of separate bills. As far as the public is concerned, there is a budget. So trying to shame the Democrats for not passing a budget is just more inside baseball... it's trying to tweak them for failing to complete an administrative technicality.
If they really want to hold people hostage, they need a serious reason that will resonate with people... not a technocratic pet peeve.
I think the hope is that it can bring spending back as a major issue.
Kit, Let me put it this way. You are about to take hostages. You are being watched by a family of four. You want to win them over. What could you promise them to win them over?
How does promising to make the Democrats put out a budget win them over? (1) How do they believe there isn't a budget already since the government keeps right on humming along year after year? (2) How does this change their lives?
If you're going to grandstand like the Republicans are about to, you need to do it over something that will win over the public. Not a pet peeve.
"I think the hope is that it can bring spending back as a major issue."
Kit, Think about this. We're going to piss people off. We're going to hear talk about the Republicans endangering the credit rating, causing old people not to get their checks, and leaving soldiers unpaid.
And for what? So that we can get people to start talking about spending cuts again in the abstract?
Bad idea.
By the way, Kit, I'm not trying to be a contrarian. My point is that conservatives need to learn to pick their fights and right now they aren't doing that. They are reacting to whatever Obama does like amazingly predictable lemmings. And when they do counterattack, like the Republicans are planning, they don't have the slightest idea how to form a strategy to do this.
It all goes back to not having a reason to exist as a party at the moment. We have nothing to hold people hostage over because we have no ideology at the moment.
Andrew...Agree on the nominations approach, and budget. Ever hear of the Continuing Resolution? The gov't continues to operate without a budget for how many years now?
I say give obama his nominees. Give him his budget, hell, give him everything he wants. At this point the repubs are in such disarray that complete and abject surrender probably looks good to most conservatives.
Patriot, I am well aware of the continuing resolutions. My point is that to an average person on the street, there is no difference between spending coming from a continuing resolution and spending coming from a budget -- it's all spends the same. The distinction is as meaningless to their lives as when their mortgage company sends them a notice that they've moves from one internal account to another.
So facing the huge backlash the Republicans are potentially facing just to say they got a budget is silly. To the public this is all technocratic details with no substance and they aren't going to appreciate all the chaos that is being threatened just over an accounting gimmick. If you're going to cause take this kind of heat, do it for something that can win people back and get them to think "ok, I like these guys."
In terms of total surrender, I never believe in surrender, I believe in the proper application of tactics. Right now, the best tactic is to let Obama do his worst, especially to the people who voted for him, and to make absolutely sure that we can't be blamed -- which is why I like your "abstain" approach. At the same time, you slam his policies and point to them as failure so that people blame him and are ready to try something else when things get bad enough.
The worst thing we can do is to let him have his way AND take blame for it, which seems to be the approach currently favored on the right.
In terms of disarray, I totally agree with that. Our side has no idea what they are fighting for at the moment, so they are just fighting anything and everything that comes through the door.
Bev, you raise an interesting question. Still, I'm pretty sure when Hagel mentioned the "Jewish Lobby" he was referring to the first floor of the JCC building.
Here's something funny. Apparently, the left has discovered that THEIR taxes went up because of the fiscal cliff deal... and they are freaking out. ha ha.
A couple of things I heard about today: some folks are speculating that the Hagel pick is to distract from the Brennan pick. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about that to comment any further.
Secondly, there appears to be some grumbling from Obama voters about their paychecks being smaller. So much for only the rich paying more in taxes.
I tend to agree with you. Obama never compromises or negotiates in good faith so stop trying to negotiate with him or Reid.I like the senate GOP members voting present but neither yae or nay on things like the nominees. Boehner should stop meeting with the president. Don't make a big deal about it just politely say "no thank you." If asked he can just say that he will meet with the president whenever he has something important to say to him rather than just campaign rhetoric.
Regroup. Find out what people are really worried about and work on those few items. Find small but really important issues to individuals. Something that for the president and dems to go against would look really bad for them.
An example would be student loan reform. I don't agree with your solution from yesterday as I think the problem already is with too much federal government intrusion. Here's why I'm against it. Because the government never gives something away for free, they will want something in return. One step closer to single payer complete government controlled health care is making physicians government employees. In other countries, if you are smart enough to get into medical school the government pays your way but you are now owned by them.
TJ, That's possible too. Obama seems to have lobbed a bunch of bad picks at once and it's possible that he's just hoping that the Republicans go for the one they dislike viscerally and let the rest slide through.
I just read that about the paychecks! LOL! That is exactly my point about letting Obama's supporters feel the pain of his policies. The Republicans need to step back and let his policies hit... then savage him for the consequences when people start scratching their heads and saying, "why did my taxes go up?" and "what do you mean I lost my healthcare?" and "I thought Obama loved Israel?"
The only way to make people learn, sometimes, is to let them fail. The paycheck thing is the perfect example of it.
Koshcat, I'm really liking the idea of voting present. I think the GOP should issue a statement to the effect of "this guy hates Israel, he supported Iran, Hezbollah and Libya, he has no administrative experience, etc... but Obama wants him and he's entitled to his pick. We're going to abstain and let the Democrats vote to this man into the position if that's the kind of man they think should be running the Pentagon."
I agree about regroup.
Find a new platform which people will support. And then fight over that. Fighting just to score points is a disaster.
On the student loan stuff, reasonable minds can differ. The reason I don't mind using the government to fix this problem is because colleges used the government to grow fat, so I have no problem using government to put them on a diet.
So this is interesting:
Congress is less popular than the Flu and colonoscopies, yet more popular than Ebola! But does anyone really LIKE Ebola??
And...
Texas lowered taxes AND spending since 2010 and now has a $8.9B budget surplus AND unemployment is at 6.8%
On the otherhand, California has raised taxes and increased spending. They have already added a $1B deficit and unemployment is at 10.2%.
NY has a raised taxes (and everything else) and spending and a deficit of $9B; and unemployment is at 8.8%% (in NYC it is hovering around 10%).
Makes you want to go "Hmmmmmm", doesn't it?
Oh, yeah the paychecks thing. What those little libbies missed in the 3 minutes they had to review the bill before it was voted on was the repeal of the "payroll tax" rollback that Obama used to "lower taxes" for the middle class. Oops, we will be back to paying that 6% payroll in our first paychecks of 2013! Yay!! Oops.
Hmmm, I wonder what else was they will discover in that bill? Oh, yeah, here's one - tax subsidies for Hollywood producers who film in the US? Huh? Aren't these the same people that think "subsidies" for private industries (and tax incentives offered by local and state jurisdictions) are evil and wrong and a waste of taxpayer money?? Hmmmmmm.
Bev, I see what you're getting at... clearly California and New York didn't raise taxes or spend enough!! ;P
I like Ebola. I'm hoping to incorporate it in my doomsday device.
With regard to the debt ceiling the answer is not to take hostages, not to make demands or lists or anything else.
Right now the ceiling is at 16 trillion. The BOP should announce that they will raise the debt ceiling by one trlllion dollars but will right into the bill language that state it cannot be raised again for two years.
Then the GOP announces to Obama that this year the deficit will be limited to 500 billion and he needs to get his department heads together and enact budget reductions accourdingly (as any business would have to do). They need to be firm that it does not matter what is cut so long as the deficit is reduced.
But the GOP won't do this because cutting spending is not and never has been one of the goals of the establishment of the Republican party for some time now. The evidence is the theater of the fiscal cliff crisis and the statements afterward.
Boehner announces 15 billion in cuts and spending increases anyways masked by the fact that revenues were increased but we all know damn well the tax increases will harm the economy and they will not materialize. No effort was made to decrease spending, none.
Afterwards Boehner announced that Obama told him he wanted no spending cuts and would not consider them. As if that matters. OBama is not even reacting to the statement. It is as if Obama told Boehner he could say that in order to make this bill go through.
The only hope is to begin primarying any GOP establishment that increases spending. The Tea party should probably try and find candidates to run as Democrats in no win GOP distriocts who they know will pledge to cut spending. This is a long shot to be sure but if they can start puttoing the worst spenders in the DNC into primary fights that would be something.
Indi, I think you're right that this is all cover for ever increased spending. The fact they couldn't even agree to freeze spending at 0% growth shows how completely un-serious they are. I'm starting to think the whole thing is an act designed to make the public think there are two competing parties when the reality is there are no parties, there are just a group of people who live in Washington robbing us blind.
Andrew - Ebola is not an effective doomsday weapon. The virus is known to be self-limiting and mutates quickly into a more harmless version.
You might want to consider a good plague-carrying flea on some kind of vermin! And for a really effective flea-carrying vermin, might I suggest something in a talk show host. Radio or television from either side of the political spectrum would work nicely. However I do not suggest using Bloggers. Like Ebola, they tend to be self-limiting and mutate quickly.
Bev, Thanks... now you tell me. Oh well, I can still use the device as a paperweight.
I actually read something about that once, that they were working with ebola infected monkeys in a suburb of DC and one of them escaped and the only thing that saved the city from losing millions of people was that the virus mutated to become harmless before it spread.
Andrew - That is why Ebola, though a hideous way to die, does not actually kill that many people. I think the most has been about 300. Don't ask me how I know this, but one of the few e-games I play is "Pandemic". The object of the game is to create hideous and virulent diseases/pestilence to wipe out the world before scientists can find a vaccine! It's totally cool! Oops, I've said too much...
Bev, I've always wanted to find a way to give Tourettes to monkeys... and then unleash them on West Virginia because I like the idea of millions of monkeys swinging in the trees screaming obscenities at the locals.
You really do have it out for WV, don't you? Have you thought of starting an official petition requesting that it be forced to secede. We could hand it over to China along with California for payment of our outstanding debt!
But millions of screaming, Touretts-infected monkey would probably work too! But, from the way you always describe WV'ers, how would you tell who is who and which is which?
Bev, I cannot say enough bad things about West byGod Virginia. To borrow a line the movie Chronicles of Riddick stole from some western: "If I owned West Virginia and Hell, I would live in Hell and rent out West Virginia."
I do like the idea of giving it to China though.
As for petitioning... :) You may be onto something. I still remember the guy who put West Virginia for sale on eBay back in the day. That was hilarious!
Come on now! West Virginia ain't that bad. Ever heard of that John Denver song?
Country roads, take me home
To the place I belong
WEST VIRGINIA! lol
You clearly have never spent time in that wild paradise... or you're a meth dealer.
-- "or you're a meth dealer."
Damn, you're onto me... Anyways, they're the Right's "useful idiots". We get their electoral votes at presidential elections, so they are not entirely useless. lol
True, but we don't get their votes in the Senate or House because they're all deluded into thinking they're Democrats.
Andrew......I wonder how Chuck Yeager's meth lab in WVA is doing these days? Or George Brett's....or Jerry West's? Methinks you paint with too broad a brush here.
Patriot, I dare you to spend time there -- and not on the DC end... our in hillbilly rapist country.
Andrew...Agreed it is wild and wooly. And they do not take kindly to city-folk. A very independent minded bunch of neer-do-wells. However, as someone with family there and who has spent some time in the state, until you get into the hollers, they are really just like most everyone else around this country. A hard crew granted, but as proud as any states' residents. Again, don't be overly swayed by stereotypes. Sure, there are meth labs there, but as does every state I'm sure.
I mean, have you tried some Charleston Chicken Feed lately? The December '12 batch is sublime!!
Patriot, I did a lot of legal work for 8 years in Wheeling/Moundsville (with bouts in Charleston). The amount of meth and sex offenses I dealt with where unbelievable -- way beyond what you find in other places. It's very hard to like a place when you see that over and over and over.
Andrew...That explains it then !! Wheeling should be part of Ohio anyway. My kin is from the Charleston, Kanawha Valley area. Never did cotton to those northerners! It's no wonder they all took to meth and in-breeding. Heard that the richest man in Wheeling was the dental surgeon! Heh heh.....
Patriot, It's a mess. Believe it or not, there's a lot of money hidden up there, it's just tied up in family feuds.
Post a Comment