Welcome to the Fringe

#26
#26
In today's WSJ:
It isn't easy to turn Washington around on a dime. If nothing else, give Republican House Speaker John Boehner marks for trying.

It wasn't a week ago that Mr. Boehner was plodding through White House deliberations, grasping for GOP support, facing the growing likelihood his party would be saddled with either a flawed debt bargain or blame for causing a default. By last night, Mr. Boehner was on the precipice of passing the only workable debt plan in town and shifting responsibility for further debt fallout across the aisle. Whatever the final result, Mr. Boehner's week-long struggle to pull his party behind him is worthy of some study.

That struggle began with the Ohio Republican's willingness to pack in a losing strategy. He'd invested valuable time and capital in his White House talks, and the pressure from the president, the press and the bipartisan crowd to grab a "big deal" was enormous. He looked very near to succumbing to the seductive pull of a grand Washington "compromise."

Instead, he realized that this White House had no intention of agreeing to serious debt reduction and that it cared primarily about tax hikes. His decision to call off the talks earned him some catcalls, but it reset the political dynamic.

For weeks, House Republicans had feared their only choice would be between a problematic Boehner-Obama deal or their principles. Many had chosen to risk default in the name of the latter. By outing the White House and pushing a legitimate Republican alternative, Mr. Boehner gave his members a new choice: They could rally behind their leader for a deal that was good (if not perfect), or they could hand victory to President Obama.

President Obama took it from there. His week of lashing out at the GOP—in a press conference, in a national address, in a veto threat—only clarified the stakes for members and began earning Mr. Boehner standing ovations. The desperate quality of the Democratic attacks confirmed for House Republicans that the speaker was on to something. His blunt warnings about the political fallout of default helped further focus minds, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's support for the Boehner plan reassured House members that he'd back them in the Senate.

Also helping was the House leadership's deft handling of the bill itself. Instead of legislation to thrill hard-liners, Mr. Boehner stuck to a framework already agreed upon by most Democrats—thereby robbing them of an easy excuse for rejecting it.

He simultaneously inserted enough provisions—such as a promise for a future vote on a balanced budget amendment—to allow some cut-cap-balance members to feel confident they were holding to their own promises. His willingness this week to retool the bill, so that Congressional Budget Office analysts would confirm it lived up to its goal of $900 billion in savings, began reassuring conservative members that they were voting for something real.

He got a final boost from the unrealistic wing of the conservative movement, which overplayed its hand. Conservative bloggers and Washington pressure groups love to complain about the GOP "establishment," never acknowledging that they've become an establishment all their own. Without asking voter permission, they've fashioned themselves the heavies of the tea party movement, issuing diktats and punishing deviations—according to their whims. Witness this week's leaked emails from a staffer for the conservative Republican Study Committee encouraging activists to tell freshmen Republicans to vote against the Boehner bill, and to "target" any who did not.

Those Republican freshmen—many sporting sterling conservative credentials—are getting a bit hacked off that the Club for Growth or House staffers are dictating the positions they must take. Many rightly saw Mr. Boehner's plan as a credible first step toward deficit reduction—one that denies Democrats the ability to hang default on the GOP, and that also positions Republicans for the 2012 election and real reform. They began to wonder who made Heritage Action the arbiter of all things conservative, and some broke for Mr. Boehner.

By Thursday evening, Mr. Boehner had moved a significant portion of his conference, though he proved unable to net the final few votes. Some remained wedded to their vow to never vote for a debt-ceiling hike. Some, like presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann, continued to insist, ludicrously, that a failed deal wouldn't be a problem. It is an open question if Mr. Boehner could have ever won these votes, no matter how big, deep and dramatic a budget-cutting deal he presented.

What he did do this week is position his party to take credit for a bill that averts a crisis, cuts more spending than any Democrat ever thought possible, and exposes the White House's insincerity on the deficit and economic prosperity. The Republicans who yesterday undermined bill now bear sole responsibility for whatever political fallout comes next.
Click to expand...

Those freshman Congressmen will face the toughest primary challenges in the nation. Does the TP have the money that TPers always claim it has?
 
#27
#27
sjt18 said:
You are buying a lie.

If the TP as a movement is actively or aggressively promoting a social agenda... I don't think I have seen it. Their main thrust has remained fiscal policy. Their enemies have spent alot of time and effort trying to marginalize them by any means necessary... honest or dishonest. If you buy it then you are helping no one but those who want bigger gov't and want to split their opposition.
Click to expand...

I'm not "buying" anything, I'm just making an observation that some in the TP are branching out into social issues.
 
#28
#28
VolsNSkinsFan said:
TP will get blamed if we default. Im sorry but defaulting is not "Very Mainstream". We are a growing country, we need to raise the debt limit. If we default, you could wake up and your money market fund could be down 30%

If we default, the TP is on their own
Click to expand...

"Mainstream" is balancing the budget, which falls in line with the GOP. At least thats what most citizens do. The ones that never do, default.

Default is a real concern at some point, just not sure we are there yet. Downgrade is more for sure.
 
Last edited:
#29
#29
MG1968 said:
I'm not "buying" anything, I'm just making an observation that some in the TP are branching out into social issues.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They may be holding firm to fiscal policy now - but I can see them changing course. Aren't you a social conservative sjt? - and also a TPer?
 
#30
#30
VolsNSkinsFan said:
TP will get blamed if we default. Im sorry but defaulting is not "Very Mainstream". We are a growing country, we need to raise the debt limit. If we default, you could wake up and your money market fund could be down 30%

If we default, the TP is on their own
Click to expand...

What? If we are a "growing country" then we do NOT need to increase the debt limit... we need to budget effectively. Raising the debt limit is ONLY NECESSARY if gov't growth is GREATER than the growth of the country's economy... and it is... by a lot. Do the math and stop swallowing the propaganda being issued by the establishment types of both parties.

You are STILL trying to blame the wrong side. You are saying the TP and GOP are intransigent and aren't doing their jobs. Who else has actually put their ideas on paper to be scored and voted on? If Obama and the Senate Dems are "doing their job" then what do you think their job is? All they have done so far while the kindling smoldered is say "No" to every idea proposed by the House.

Look at it this way. If someone had credit with you and recklessly spent about 40% more than they could pay ON YOUR CREDIT, what would you do? Would you raise their limit so they could spend more that YOU would have to pay back? OR... would you demand that they come up with a workable budget before you allowed them to spend more on credit?
 
#31
#31
MG1968 said:
I'm not "buying" anything, I'm just making an observation that some in the TP are branching out into social issues.
Click to expand...

You are if you divide from them on fiscal issues simplly because "some" hold and are active on social issues that you disagree with.

If you do that, you are making the tactic used by big gov't liberals... the anti-Boortz... work.
 
#32
#32
what 'tactic' do you speak of? Is it a 'tactic' to disagree with social conservatism? He supports the fiscal responsibility but not the social issues. I don't think its a tactic to think that they'll branch out.
 
#33
#33
KiffinKiller said:
Exactly. They may be holding firm to fiscal policy now - but I can see them changing course. Aren't you a social conservative sjt? -
Click to expand...
I am personally conservative in my religious and social beliefs. However those same "conservative" beliefs about the sovereignty of man make me libertarian politically.

All other things being equal, I don't think gov't should tell a private individual what they can consume. I believe state's rights apply to the issue of marriage license qualifications. I do not believe that ANY religious pov should be taught in "public" schools and that the only way to effect that is by privatizing primary and secondary schools. I am a near absolutist on property rights as well as speech rights.

So no. As you would typically think of it, I am not a social conservative. I do not believe gov't should use its power to impose my views or the views of anyone on the populace.
and also a TPer?
Click to expand...
I am sympathetic to their fiscal fight and supportive but no I am not a member.
 
#34
#34
sjt18 said:
You are if you divide from them on fiscal issues simplly because "some" hold and are active on social issues that you disagree with.

If you do that, you are making the tactic used by big gov't liberals... the anti-Boortz... work.
Click to expand...

if I want to be condescended to, I can always poke gsvol with a stick. I "divide" myself from social conservatives because, as I've matured, I realized that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home doesn't affect me and is none of my business.
 
#36
#36
KiffinKiller said:
what 'tactic' do you speak of? Is it a 'tactic' to disagree with social conservatism?
Click to expand...
No. It is a "tactic" to make a diversionary attack on people in a movement that happen to also be social conservatives so that you can de-rail the main thrust which is fiscal conservatism.

He supports the fiscal responsibility but not the social issues. .
Click to expand...

Then we should protest when they start making a big deal of them. We should separate and pulls support then. We SHOULD NOT divide simply because fiscal liberals make the accusation that it will happen in the future.

Divide and conquer is very much the tactic in play here.
 
#37
#37
sjt18 said:
I am personally conservative in my religious and social beliefs. However those same "conservative" beliefs about the sovereignty of man make me libertarian politically.

All other things being equal, I don't think gov't should tell a private individual what they can consume. I believe state's rights apply to the issue of marriage license qualifications. I do not believe that ANY religious pov should be taught in "public" schools and that the only way to effect that is by privatizing primary and secondary schools. I am a near absolutist on property rights as well as speech rights.

So no. As you would typically think of it, I am not a social conservative. I do not believe gov't should use its power to impose my views or the views of anyone on the populace. I am sympathetic to their fiscal fight and supportive but no I am not a member.
Click to expand...

Do you think the government has the right to outlaw smoking in restaurants/bars?

Do you think the government should be involved in marriage in any way?

Do you think a homosexual couple should be allowed to adopt a child?

Do you think evolution should be taught in public schools?

Do you think the government has the right to tell a person what they can do with their own private land?
 
#39
#39
sjt18 said:
I am personally conservative in my religious and social beliefs. However those same "conservative" beliefs about the sovereignty of man make me libertarian politically.

All other things being equal, I don't think gov't should tell a private individual what they can consume. I believe state's rights apply to the issue of marriage license qualifications. I do not believe that ANY religious pov should be taught in "public" schools and that the only way to effect that is by privatizing primary and secondary schools. I am a near absolutist on property rights as well as speech rights.

So no. As you would typically think of it, I am not a social conservative. I do not believe gov't should use its power to impose my views or the views of anyone on the populace. I am sympathetic to their fiscal fight and supportive but no I am not a member.
Click to expand...

Which seems to be the reason they are in Washington to begin with. They will get fired for back tracking on promises concerning spending well before the social issues are mentioned.

When it boils down to it, your not gonna find many if any that fall completely in any line with the way you want things done. And Im talking about what they do, instead of what they say.
 
#40
#40
What kind of attack was he making? I don't remember him saying a solitary derogatory thing about the TP. He said he thinks they'll branch out to social conservatism - if that's negative then you and I agree.
 
#41
#41
My family is growing, therefore I would like my credit card limit increased from $10k to $20k in case of emergencies.

Im sorry, I know you feel that the TP has this countrys best interest, but I don't have a lot of faith in 20 freshman congressman whose previous employment was selling used cars
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#42
#42
I don't think Neocon's comments are that out of the ordinary for TPers this morning. There is a certain pride out there for them right now (I'd call it delusional self righteousness, but whatever).

One of the South Carolina TPers was on squawk box this morning and he was throwing out these meaningless jabs at Obama and the August 2 deadline, saying it wasn't real and he knew that because of a birthday party scheduled for August 3, implying that the administration had falsified the default deadline.

The TP contingent loathes Obama and they have convinced themselves that they can't believe anything he says. Even if Boehner says the same exact thing, they will set it aside if Obama has said it.

We can argue why they have this unyielding hatred for him forever, and not agree. So let's not go there in this thread, anyway.

But the issue right now is whether their tactics are going to have some consequences that right now they genuinely believe are fake. I think Boehner has to be at his wit's end trying to reason with them.
 
#43
#43
"implying that the administration had falsified the default deadline."

obama can decide what things he wants to pay. it is HE who will decide to default. that is not up for debate. we have plenty of cash to pay our debt.
 
#44
#44
Saying the Tea Party is all about fiscal responsibility is complete lunacy.

What is happening in Washington regarding the debt ceiling is the exact opposite of fiscal responsibility. What's fiscally responsible about not being able to pay your bills? You don't "fix" a budgetary problem of this proportion in one fell swoop. It's done incrementally, with a long term plan, without tarnishing or challenging something that makes America great. I am all for a balanced budget, but it will take a LONG time to fix. What the TP is attempting to do is to pay America's bills on its terms only. It doesn't work that way. Enjoy your Joseph McCarthy moment, TPers, because that's all you are.

A default or failure to pay our bills isn't fiscal responsibility and to insinuate otherwise is a complete joke.
 
#49
#49
therealUT said:
Do you think the government has the right to outlaw smoking in restaurants/bars?

Do you think the government should be involved in marriage in any way?

Do you think a homosexual couple should be allowed to adopt a child?

Do you think evolution should be taught in public schools?

Do you think the government has the right to tell a person what they can do with their own private land?
Click to expand...

:whistling:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top