-- Tom Coburn 9/26/2013
(On attacks he's received for not supporting Cruz.)
-- Charles Krauthammer 9/25/2013
(Responding to attack by Mark Levin, who warned his listeners that Krauthammer once wrote speeches for Walter Mondale and should not be trusted as understanding conservatism. Levin doubled-down the next day and attacked Krauthammer for mentioning that Reagan changed parties too.)
47 comments:
BTW, The reason I posted these two quotes is because I think it bears notice that two solid, solid conservatives are finding themselves attacked as RINOs. That should tell us all something. And they are hardly alone. The list of actual conservatives being smeared by talk radio is a mile long.
Just something to think about the next time you hear Rush, Levin, Cruz or the rest attack "the surrender caucus."
People like Mark Levin are the real RINOs. It was Krauthammer's writings and Special Report bits that put me firmly on the Right when I was 18 years old. If he is not a true conservative then who is?
Kit, Exactly. I haven't always agreed with Krauthammer, but I've never once doubted his conservatism or his knowledge of conservatism. And for Levin, who is NOT a conservative, to blast him as not a conservative and then attack him for invoking Reagan is an obscenity and should wake people up to what kind of Kool-Aid Levin is selling.
Ditto on Coburn, though I think I've always agreed with him. He said that he's getting tons of nasty mail from people who think he actually supports Obamacare because that's what Cruz accused everyone who didn't him of doing.
Add to that names like: Paul Ryan, Brit Hume, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and others... each of whom has been accused of RINOism and savagely attacked by the fringe.
As an aside, if anyone has the Western Channel, they are doing two days straight of Gene Autry films. Good stuff.
More from Krauthammer:
"The objection I had to what Cruz was doing was that he took them down a cul-de-sac in terms of tactics and he implied very unfairly — he didn’t only imply, but he basically said that anybody who didn’t agree with his tactic, which is a cul-de-sac tactic it leads nowhere — is somebody who betrays the opposition to Obamacare. John McCain and all the other people in the Republican Party in the House and in the Senate, fought tooth and nail in 2009. I don’t know where Ted Cruz was or what he was doing. But he arrived at the party late. So if you are going to cast aspersions on the people who fought every stretch the way. Who opposed every twist and turn of this Obamacare along the way, you ought to be a little bit humble about it and at least recognize their honesty and sincerity in a way that he did not."
Kit, There's been a ton of criticism of Cruz's fauxbuster. Coburn called it intellectually dishonest. Others have said similar things. But this goes way beyond Cruz's self-aggrandizement. This has become a problem where these people on the fringe are spending their time attacking every Republican in sight.
As I noted the other day in one of the comments, after Cruz's faxubuster, he went on Rush and he and Rush attacked the Republicans for about 10 minutes. Obama's name only came up twice in passing. This has become their standard mode of operation... attack every Republican they can and ignore the Democrats.
Fortunately, the tide is turning against them.
Andrew......The assumption of the "real conservatives" appears to be that these folks in the repub party, and supporter pundits, are following the same old script when it comes to unpopular legislation that many Americans would like to see either eliminated or vastly modified.
It seems the attitude is.. shrug shoulders, say the law is here to stay, and don't try anything that is going to fail anyway. We must accept our liberal, big gov't overlords and not rock the boat by doing things that would upset them, as those things won't work anyway...
I believe Cruz is fully aware he's not going to win this round....this "fauxbuster" as you call it. Yet he's trying to show that he at least won't roll over and expose his belly so easily. Let those that accept O'care sit back and carp about Cruz and the "Gang of ?." He knows what he did ain't going anywhere in the Senate. He knows the budget will be sent back to the House with all his changes removed. Yet you know, I like the fact he's not doing a McCain/Graham rollover and making it easy on the Dems. He's exposing the President and his minions in the Congress to "own" this monstrosity all the more.
'Everyone' knows that a CR will be passed that continues to fund O'care. Let's just not make it so easy, smooth and pain-free for these fools. That's what I think Cruz and his gang were trying to do. And you know, if it gets him some publicity in the process, well that only helps him in his goal of increased leverage and impact down the line.
And anyone who thinks Rush or Levin "speak for the conservatives" is off base. They speak for their own benefit ($$) with "conservatism" as their shtick.
Patriot, I kind of agree with you. However there is something disturbing to me in all of this - a looming threat of a split to form a 3rd party by the hardcore conservative Tea Party groups.
A little history. Having been an original "member" of the movement, it was never the original intention of the TP to align ourselves with ANY political party or to BE a political party. We were held together by one over arching reason - to hold ALL of our elected officials accountable for the massive out of control spending. We were Dem, Repub, Libertarian, apolitical, but ALL of us were taxpayers seeing our elected officials squandering our money and driving the country into bankruptcy and ever increasing intrusiveness into our daily lives. And to remind these same elected officials that THEY work for us, we do not work for them. There was never any intent to form a 3rd Party. Many Of us were former Perot-ties who realized that WE were responsible for getting Clinton elected! But, as most movements go, the original intent has been lost and, quite frankly, the crazies have taken over. Let's be honest. In our lust for power, we fielded some pretty wacky candidates. Ideological purists with no political savvy at all. Politics is about finesse and compromise (statesmanship, I like to call it) as well as policy and purist lack the former. They are needed to push, but without the willingness to compromise, they lose every time.
Politic success is won by degrees and convincing your opposition AND your allies that they both won...something. Reagan and Clinton were masters at this.
NOW, at least at our last meeting this week, there is push to form a 3rd Party. Not good...
And just as an aside - Ted Cruz talked non-stop for 21 hours without a script or a bathroom break. Well, except for when he read "Green Eggs and Ham". Obama can't speak for 5 minutes without a team of speechwriters and a teleprompter. And I bet he goes to the bathroom alot. I know I do...to throw up and to just get away from his speechifying...
Even in 2004 or 2006 we had "real conservatives" who claimed that "there´s not a dime´s worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats". Naturally, when Obama, Reid and Pelosi came along and the GOP didn´t cast a single vote for any of their abominations, these nutcases concluded that they had been right. No difference between a dime and a trillion dollars!
Another aside for film fans-- if you get Turner Classic Movies, they're running a good rarity tonight at 9:45 PM (EST):
HELL DRIVERS (1957-British), starring Stanley Baker (ZULU), as an ex-con who's trying to make good, versus brutal thug Patrick McGoohan (the polar opposite of his 'Number 6' character in THE PRISONER), at a shady gravel-hauling company where they are both employed. Also starring Peggy Cummins (GUN CRAZY, CURSE OF THE DEMON --both also showing tonight and worth seeing), Herbert Lom ('Dreyfuss' in the Pink Pather movies), and in supporting roles, Sean Connery, William Hartnell (the original Dr. Who), Gordon Jackson (THE GREAT ESCAPE, UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS), David McCallum (THE MAN GROM U.N.C.L.E., NCIS) and McCallums's wife (and Charles Bronson's future wife/co-star), Jill Ireland. Directed by Cy Endfield, who later teamed with Baker to make ZULU. Cinematography by Geoffrey Unsworth (2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, CABARET, SUPERMAN I & II)
It's not currently on disc or being streamed in the U.S., so this a rare opportunity to see it, if it sounds interesting.
Here's the trailer, though the movie itself plays much better than it indicates.
"NOW, at least at our last meeting this week, there is push to form a 3rd Party. Not good..."
Really, Bev! Why? A third party may only guarantee the survival of Obamacare... and other things we haven´t even seen yet. For those on the right who love to be malcontents (a word Mark Levin uses to describe lefties - correct but also highly ironic) that is a win. They can gripe and spit to their heart´s content. Forever and ever and ever ... [cue echo effect]
Bev....Agree with your comments. I, however, was never a member of the Tea Party, Repub, Dem, Libertarian party, etc. Have ALWAYS been registered as "Independent." Just like I wanted it. While my tastes run decidedly conservative/traditional, I've always looked at Dems as quasi-socialists who wanted to rape the capitalist system for all they could get....greedy bastards basically.....with a strong bent towards totalitarianism for those who didn't believe in them and their ideas. All the old hippies basically,
Repubs have always looked to me like tools. Tools to whatever interest or group would "support" them.
Conservatives have always seemed to cling to a past that never was, except in books, films and their imagination. There idea of "heaven on earth" politically is just as ludicrous as the left's social dreams.
Libertarians always seemed fringe with one or two out-there ideas to be attractive. Think Ron Paul, Barry Commoner, etc. "Legalize marijuana!"
So, I understand the need for political parties and refuse to be lumped in with the herd with any of them. I guess I'm just not a joiner and won't get caught up in all the earnest exhortations to "SUPPORT OUR CAUSE!!" Am I one of the "middle" voters? Maybe. I want to be a voice in how my country is shaped, but I find the process too corrupt, manipulative and cynical for my tastes. This from someone whose direct family were Pilgrims in Mass Bay Colony from the 1630's on.
So, I've got a dog in this fight, I'm just disgusted by all the games played by all sides. "That's politics" just doesn't cut it with me any more. That's why I vote with whomever claims to reduce governmental influence in my life. Just leave me and mine alone to fight this life's battles as best we can. Government CAN NOT be the answer.
Patriot, I´m not a joiner either and it has become very hard to take any satisfaction from supporting a party or candidate, voting dutifully and it never seems to make a difference.
For the modern gentleman, it is impossible to identify with any group for long. Sometimes I am conservative, sometimes I´m not. But I am always anti-left. In the end, it usually comes down to fighting the Democrats and supporting the Republicans. It just is what it is. No better system exists, alas, at least until I get to be dictator of my own planet. (When that happens, you´re all invited, of course. It´ll be great)
I understand that people are afraid of the consequences of Obamacare. They should be. And since Cruz is fighting it, he has my support and respect. But when people like Krauthammer or Thomas Sowell disagree with him on tactics and style, a real conservative ought to listen respectfully at least.
The noted RINO author of a squishy accomodationist tome called Liberal Fascism wrote this today:
But my anger isn't really aimed at Ted Cruz anymore, in part because I still want him to succeed and prove me wrong. It's at you, Dear Reader. Well, maybe not you or you, but definitely you. (...) In the last week, in e-mails, comments sections, and on Twitter, I've heard from lots of people who think that because I am not swept up in Cruz-mania that I am therefore a sell-out, a fake conservative, a coward (or even a pro-Confederacy, Nazi-stooge Royalist).
Look, I'm a big boy, and I've been through this more times than I can count. But that doesn't mean it becomes any less insulting or dispiriting. (...) But when people who've been reading and corresponding with me for years glibly accuse me of abandoning my principles out of a desire to get more invitations to "cocktail parties" it pisses me off.
The notorious D.C. cocktail parties are back!
And, since we're on this honesty kick, when well-compensated commentators whose whole business model is to tell their audiences exactly what they want to hear say that I or National Review are "selling out" by disagreeing with our readers, it stews my bowels. In purely financial terms, there's only downside for me to disagree with the people who buy my books or read my columns. For National Review, taking unpopular positions on the right doesn't add to the subscription rolls.
I saw "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2" last night. Huge anti-Apple advertisement by the Sony corporation aimed at children. Could open a whole new type of inter-corporate warfare media.
Before I dive into the political discussion, YOU ALL HAVE TO READ THIS. The hotel from The Shining is digging up their pet semetery so they can do weddings on that spot. LINK
As the headline says... what could possible go wrong?
Oy vey.
Patriot, The problem with what Cruz is doing is not that he's trying to stop this. It's that (1) he and talk radio told people that he could have actually succeeded if only those cowardly Republicans would join him and that (2) he spends almost all of his time (just like talk radio) blasting the Republicans.
If he was fighting the Democrats, there wouldn't be a problem. But that's not his target. His target is the Republicans. That is the only target of the fringe.
Bev, A couple thoughts.
First, you are right about the Tea Party. They were a mass movement of people who simply wanted the government to stop spending like mad and be more responsive to average people. BUT they've been taken over by the whackos. Their current agenda is:
1. Raise money.
2. Destroy all elected Republicans.
3. Mock Obama/McCain for invading/not invading Syria.
4. Stop Common Core
5. Defeat all elected Tea Party members who proved disloyal by not shutting down the government.
6. Whine that the Republicans support Obamacare.
That's what they've become if you listen to their leaders. And that's why their support is at it's lowest point ever in polls right now.
Secondly, in terms of them forming a third party, that would actually be good for the Republicans at this point because it would break the fringe away and let the Republicans go back to trying to win the public... which the Republicans should be doing in any event.
Bev, On Cruz, true. He spoke for 21 hours, which is impressive -- and I would love to see Obama try the same. But the problem wasn't that he spoke, it's that he constantly attacked the Republicans and that he promised this speech could actually stop Obamacare if only the Republicans would support it.
That promise is why the talkers are now backtracking and trying to explain why this was really about "creating lists."
El Gordo, I've always been on the fence about whether or not the people making that claim about there not being a dime's worth of difference are idiots or if they are lying for some purpose. In 2004 and 2006, most would follow up with a "suggestion" that we need a third party and then would name the party they've always been a part of. So I think back then it was just deception intended to win support for their fringe party.
But since then, I get a different flavor from the fringe. The flavor I get now is one of true idiocy. Not only do they blindly believe any half-truth they are fed by their leaders, but like children, they want something whether it's possible or not and they want it NOW.... impeach Obama! Deport all the Mexicans! Pass a budget with no spending except on the programs I personally like! Repeal Obamacare! And if you don't give them the impossible, then you become the enemy.. not Obama, not the Democrats... you.
Thanks Backthrow! I'll have to tape that because I've been wanting to see that! :)
"...problem with what Cruz is (...) that he could have actually succeeded if only those cowardly Republicans would join him..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth
Sounds downright unamerican to me :-)
El Gordo, I'm actually thinking that a rump third party might be a good thing for the Republicans. Right now, the Republicans simply need to face down their fringe -- they are starting, but aren't fully there yet. If the most vocal fringists left, then the Republicans would be handed a free pass to rediscover their base.
Granted, they would lose 1-3 million votes, but those could easily be made up with women voters, Hispanics, gays, etc., especially as most of those 1-3 million would be in the South where the Democrats aren't competitive.
Andrew, they are at a point where everything and its opposite is evidence of their view...
I just don´t know that a third party will do any good. Some good people will end up voting for them, perhaps too many.
Patriot, I agree with your assessment of the parties, but the Republicans really have been making strides to improve. They've stood firm against everything Obama has tried. They've become focused on small business, less adventuring in foreign policy, and fiscal sanity rather than Democrat-lite. And they've got some strong young leaders. And that needs to be supported so that it continues.
Unfortunately, "the base" is running around destroying the young leaders and screaming for impossible things. That won't help us or them. It just freaks everybody out because it shows "the base" to be unpleasable and rather stupid... which means their job doesn't become satisfying us, it becomes surviving our tantrum. That's a horrible way to win a political war.
There's also the problem that this "base" is only 20% of the party and they disagree with the 80% on almost every issue. So who should the Republicans really be focused on?
El Gordo, True. I see this all the time now in the criticism -- no matter what the Republicans do, they are wrong. If they agree with Obama, then they are Obamalovers. If they disagree with Obama, then they are accused of not disagreeing hard enough because they are Obamalovers. If they disagree beyond all level of reason, then they are accused of still failing to be effective... because they are Obamalovers. We've reached a point where the only level of effort that is acceptable is going flaming Buddhist Monk and setting yourself on fire on the floor of the Senate... and even then you will be dismissed as a failure.
It's a sucker's game.
On the stab in the back myth, when people start using that, you know they think their followers are suckers. Unfortunately, this has become a common device used by talk radio and the fringe candidates.
El Gordo, I guess we should add Jonah Goldberg to the list of RINOs. What you've quoted is the problem exactly. The mindset being promoted is either you are 100% with me in all my futile expressions of rage or you're the enemy.
Did you notice that he's putting the blame on talk radio: "when well-compensated commentators whose whole business model is to tell their audiences exactly what they want to hear"? I'm seeing a LOT of people catching onto this finally that talk radio has incentives that are not consistent with "support conservatism."
K, Interesting idea, using films as product placement weapons.
I just watched Woody Allen's To Rome with Love. It was okay (Penelope Cruz... yowza!!) but it was also rated R... for ONE use of the F-word. Albeit in a sexual context but I swear, the MPAA needs serious reform. And yesterday!
I realize there are probably some PG-13 movies that should be rated R (a common conservative complaint) but the inverse is also true. Could Woody have fought the rating? Maybe, but he's a "one and done" kind of director and doesn't seem to care. It's not his only R-rated film that didn't deserve it.
Meanwhile I can watch corpses being dissected on CSI and that's okay.
Scott, I've been amazed at how much violence can now be shown without getting an R rating. I'm amazed how much ends up on television too. They bleep out tons of words that are barely even swear words, yet they show sliced up human bodies. Something is very wrong with this picture.
What kills me is when other movies are given lighter ratings but are actually worse! Sneakers has a reference to "giving head" and uses "motherf---er" and it's PG-13. Meanwhile, Woody Allen gets in trouble for one F-word and no other references or epithets.
I think the MPAA gives more leeway to more popular directors (i.e. Spielberg) and they just have it in for Woody.
And as much as I hate to agree with Miley Cyrus on anything, she's correct here.
If Smiley Virus is right about anything, it's an accident.
That said, I think you are right that the MPAA does favor certain directors. I've heard that many times over the years. They also seem to have a sliding scale of when things are bad and when they aren't depending on some mystery criteria.
Smiley Virus? That's a new one!
But this is my favorite...
On Kevin Smith's Hollywood Babble-On podcast (which is hilarious), his co-host Ralph Garman refers to Taylor Swift as "Tadolf Switler." :-)
Smiley Virus describes her perfectly.
That's actually very fitting. Everything I've seen suggests that Swift's a monster.
She is a Smiley Virus, isn't she?
Anyway, I am wary of a 3rd Party break with the Republican Party. 20% is a big chunk and remember that Perot pulled 16% away from the Republican Party and we ended up losing because of it.
I think we, The Middle need to start fighting back against the Far Right. The Middle has to speak louder, but that goes against what the Middle does. But the Adults need to take back the conversation on both sides.
Bev, She is totally Smiley Virus! LOL!
I am wary of 3rd parties and you are right that 20% is a big number.... except I don't believe they will get that. Everything I've seen puts their numbers at 1-3 million, about the same number who stayed home in 2012 -- the rest are just talk, no action. Meanwhile, we are losing 10 times that trying to placate these people.
In any event, the best solution is what you say -- the middle start fighting back and the Republicans need to push back hard against these people. Band together and support any Republican who gets primaried by these fools. Embrace a smarter agenda, reject theirs...represent the 80%, not the 20%. Triangulate against the Levins and Savages -- use their idiocy to show that we are not them. Make a point that we have banished their views from the party. Boycott the rest if they persist. Put in place rules like "no more criticism of other Republicans" upon pain of losing money and committee seats. Run loyal Republicans against any fringe incumbent who won't play along.
If the Republicans do this, they can very quickly win back the public and then the fringe becomes irrelevant.
Scott: Has it occurred to you that perhaps WA lobbied for an "R" rating? In movies and quite a few other commercial artistic media, authors will add curse words and sex not because it's part of the story but to define the piece as something that is adult and not for kids. See South Park. Yeah, potty mouth kids are funny the first 5 or so times you see it, but after that it's just dumb - but it serves the purpose of assuring the media consumers that this horribly animated from a kid's POV is an adult show and not for the kiddies.
K -
You may be right. Robert Altman did that with Gosford Park.
But if you're going to do that, then go crazy. One F word? Why not a dozen or more? :-)
Every time I watch ARMY OF DARKNESS, I'm amazed it's R-rated rather than PG-13, since it barely has much (or convincing) gore, the violence is almost literally cartoonish, and has one single, off-handed F-bomb. Any other (mild) profanity is few and far between.
Andrew..."Band together and support any Republican who gets primaried by these fools..................Make a point that we have banished their views from the party. Boycott the rest if they persist. Put in place rules like "no more criticism of other Republicans" upon pain of losing money and committee seats. Run loyal Republicans against any fringe incumbent who won't play along."
With this approach, then we are back to acquiescence to the Dem agenda, constant minority status in Congress, 'fixing' the Dems b.s. rules and regulations for them, and generally, becoming irrelevant again trying to keep the leviathan caged.
I look at the 1994 mid-term elections when the Reps took over the House and Senate for the first time in over 40 years. Maybe the WTC, Waco and crap legislation that the Dem Congress passed in 1993 had a little something to with it (Voter Reg Act; Brady Bill; NAFTA; DADT), but Gingrich and the gang were voted in because of the same sentiments the so-called "Tea Party" is espousing today. Basically, rein in the Gov't!
Heck, if most Americans can't see the problems with the NSA, IRS, Benghazi, Syria, etc., then we really are screwed as a nation and no tweaking at the edges of the Rep Party is going to help. And I don't think blaming the Tea Party for the Rep losses is the answer. The sentiments that make up these folks are strongly held, and it looks like they are sick and tired of the Reps lying back and taking it for the Dem version of the country.
Sure, Levin and Rush tap into those sentiments, but they are entertainers out to make a buck first and foremost and I believe most TP'ers that I know recognize that and aren't sheep who blindly follow these shepherds as told. That's the Left's tactic. Look at how even the Pres. of the US calls out a spokesperson by name (Limbaugh)!
To quote the Dems own QB: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Works huh?
Maybe "tactician" would be better than QB
Patriot, Three points.
First, you wrongly think the world has two modes -- tantrum or surrender. That's completely wrong. I'm not advocating surrender or being Democratic anything... no one is. I'm advocating a conservative platform... the same kind of platform that got Newt and Reagan elected -- solid, common sense platform that appeals to wide swath of the public, no anger, no hate, no insanity, promise of good stewardship of the government. Newt only got in trouble when he abandoned that and went into crazed jihad mode.
What the fringe is doing now is crazed jihad mode. They are in a mindless tantrum. They hate everyone who is not them and all they want is angry theater. That has never worked and never will. THAT is the formula for becoming and forever remaining a laughingstock minority as the country moves further and further left.
Secondly, the Machiavellian stuff wouldn't be necessary if the fringe weren't acting like disloyal children in the midst of a tantrum. The Republicans need to spank the children to shut them up and get them back in line. If they don't, then they can forget ever winning another election.
Finally, forget the "just entertainers" line. The fringe drinks the KoolAid Rush and Levin and the rest are selling and they are doing it without a squirt of independent thought. These guys say the most obviously uninformed and paranoid bullshit and their listeners buy it hook, line and sinker and they go around bleating it to everyone.
Krauthammer is the type of old school conservative that believes you have to go along with the system and wait until you can make changes that go into a right direction. He is an intelligent man but he is unfortunately the exact opposite of what we need. We need Activists. We need people that are not going to politely sit through the rhetoric of lies put out by the left so that they can stay at the table and break bread with the movers and shakers.
Kit you state Cruz is using a cul de sac tactic but unfortunately he is not the one that led us there. The GOP should have been attempting to shut down this government, making changes to this law, addressing the debt ceiling and a put a stop to trillion dollar deficits. They won't do it and the Krauthammer's of the party will never laud those that do.
Boehner tried to side rail this notion of defunding Obamacare early on. He only changed tactic when he realized that more than 50% of the country wants this law done away with. Why would he do this. The presumption that it will destroy the GOP to fight Obama on a law that was written in secret without one GOP house member being allowed into the meetings to debate it. Then brought out on the house floor with one day to respond. So it is the GOP who is using partisan politics. This is an Orwellian deceit.
Let us face it there is one group that wants this law and the reason they want it is the power it will give them over the industry. The Insurance companies. No not all of them just the ones that are big enough and have enough lobbyists a d chrony politicians in office. Every exchange there are stories of Insurance companies dropping out of that state. This law passes and I think there will be mergers and eventually three or four big insurance companies in health care. Same thing that has been happening since the 1980's with endless bank regulation.
All of these pundits attacking Cruz and who tell us to wait until it is passed and Dem's kick themselves are playing into this trap. If we allow the law to go into effect you cannot eliminate it short of overthrowing the government in its entirety. It will become a defining albatross in the course of yours and our lives.
The AARP supported this law because they were Big Enough to Benefit from the Regulation.
"We need people that are not going to politely sit through the rhetoric of lies put out by the left so that they can stay at the table and break bread with the movers and shakers."
You can't have a say in government if you do not sit at the table -often with the very people who oppose you. That is the nature of government in a democratic republic. Politics in a democratic republic involves working with people who disagree with you. Its about using you and your faction/party's political capital to barter and negotiate for something better. Unfortunately, Ted Cruz, by dragging the GOP down these wild ventures is destroying the party's political capital.
"Kit you state Cruz is using a cul de sac tactic but unfortunately he is not the one that led us there."
No, that was Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, etc.
"The GOP should have been attempting to shut down this government, making changes to this law, addressing the debt ceiling and a put a stop to trillion dollar deficits. They won't do it and the Krauthammer's of the party will never laud those that do."
How? In 2009-2011 they held neither the House nor the Senate. Since 2011 they have only held the House. While they have been able to filibuster since 2011 those are things that should be used sparingly. The American people may dislike Obama and the Democrats' policies but they do not want a shutdown of the federal government. Most Americans would rather have Obamacare than a government shutdown.
To most Americans, Ted Cruz is telling them this: You have some fleas in the house so I'm going to torch the house.
Even conservative economist Thomas Sowell and Jonah Goldberg (author of Liberal Fascism) have opposed Cruz's tactic.
"Boehner tried to side rail this notion of defunding Obamacare early on. He only changed tactic when he realized that more than 50% of the country wants this law done away with. Why would he do this. The presumption that it will destroy the GOP to fight Obama on a law that was written in secret without one GOP house member being allowed into the meetings to debate it. Then brought out on the house floor with one day to respond. So it is the GOP who is using partisan politics."
Can you elaborate. I'm not following. Are you saying that Boehner wants Obamacare made law?
When the Tea Party advocates were demanding government defunding Boehner was openly speaking against this tactic. He was saying they would not do this.
It was not untl a week worth of people from all sides demanding this be halted that Boehner changed his tune and they decided on the two bills. One funding only the government and one not funding Obamacare.
Cruz is an advocate for defunding but it was not his doing. He only agreed to support it in the Senate after Congress was going to pass it.
As to working with the other side, yes this is correct and I be happy to applaud that bipartinship when the democrats decide to actually do that. Meantime you don't smile nicely while the other guy tells you to shut up and let him have his way. You stand up for yourself. The GOP has not done that once since Obama has got into office. When the GOP is in power I don;t see the Progs wilting away like shrinking violets. They are out there every day with their spiteful rhetoric. They don't sit around worrying how it will look. We do out of this failed.
After the GOP took congress we had debt ceileing and balanced budget debates where the people demainding fical responsibility were told we control only 1/3 the government. The ones challenging the President were demeaned by McCain, Graham and the establisshment. In the end we got 400 billion increase in taxes (which was all spent) and 14 billion in budget cuts.
They could have refused to pass that budget. They should have bit the bullet, played hardball with the dems and gotten consessions. This is how it is supposed to haoppen. Each side fights it out but the winning side has to give in to somethings the other side wants. Obama and the Dems refused to give in on anything and Boehner and the establsihment helped attack those trying to force him too.
I don't know what Boehner wants... I am saying that lobbyists in the insurace industry want this law and they are using their money to force Boehner into a position where he will allow it to go into effect. Once that happens there is no more debate. The inertia of the government entitlement monstrousity will take over and you can't get rid of it.
What I am saying is that even if it is a long shot Cruz's tactic is the only one that has any possibilty of getting rid of this law. It is the 11th hour and it is the only shot that is left. This notion that we wait, let it go into law and let the dems take the fall with it may give you a GOP senate (but I am doubtful of that) but it will not stop Obamacare. I think Boehner knows that too. Maybe he thinks it can't be stopped so use the fallout I am not sure. But I don't likie the tactic.
We may be facing the King's Knights on Heavy Armored Horse but I still say we peasants go into the Barn and get our Pitchforks otherwise we will have to stick that fork in our own backsdie becaise we will be done.
Sadly it looks to me we gave up this fight with the budget battles.
Post a Comment