On the Republican civil war over defunding Obamacare
I haven’t yet written about the fight that’s been going on for quite some time between Senator Ted Cruz and the more (for want of a better word) “establishment” Republicans in Congress.
I haven’t commented on it yet because it wearies and depresses me, as do most of the many other battles between these two factions and their predecessors, which we’ll call (for want of a better word) the beltway crowd and the renegades.
Or maybe we should call them the RINOs and the Tea Party. Or perhaps the Rockefeller Republicans (there’s some history for you) and the conservatives.
But that’s all semantics. The point is that this particular war within the Republican Party has been going on for a long, long time, although this is the latest skirmish in it and the latest case of players.
The battle weakens the Republican Party; its enemies are laughing and celebrating as they watch. Get out the popcorn and the beer; what could be a better spectator sport than seeing your opponents attempt to destroy each other?
Just take a look at today’s roundup at memeorandum. It’s sad, and bodes ill for the success of either faction. And yet it is not a fake battle; it’s a real one about real issues and principles, and it’s been going on since at least the middle of the twentieth century, perhaps longer.
One thing I do know: when a similar big showdown happened during the Gingrich years it ended up helping the opposition. People don’t like the specter of a government shutdown.
Nevertheless, I have no good suggestions for the warring factions. They can’t kiss and make up. Defunding Obamacare is a worthy goal, and not only is the “base” behind it but the majority of the public still does not like Obamacare. But unfortunately there’s no magical way to undo it; Republicans do not control the Senate, and Obama has veto power. These are facts, which are stubborn things.
}}} People don’t like the specter of a government shutdown.
Yes, the specter of the nanny state being unable to impose its will is terrifying to all the sheep. They might have to actually bleat for themselves at some point.
:-S
When the gravy train stops, all kinds of people are in trouble. Can’t run a war without the sinews of money.
Although I would like to see the Affordable Care Act repealed or defunded, repeal is impossible as long as President Obama holds that office and the public is opposed to defunding. However, the public does support delaying implementation of the individual mandate, which really means delaying the major part of the legislation.
Since President Obama delayed the implementation of the employer mandate, the public seems to think it reasonable to follow that example and delay the other central part of the program.
I would advise Cruz to be patient–hard advice for a youth to take. He might remember Martin Luther King in another context when King said ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’. Obamacare delayed can eventually lead to it being denied.
Sheep are never Semper Paratus. They are by nature Nihil Paratus. They stop chewing their cuds only long enough to vote themselves more cuds.
Sheep were responsible for the permanent desertification of most of the Mediterranean basin….and it has never recovered. Sheep don’t graze there anymore.
I sheep rancher I once knew said, “Only two kinds of sheep: healthy sheep, and dead sheep. If they fall into a ditch, they just lay there until dead, never occurs to them to try and get out, though they could if they tried.” Sheep accept defeat eagerly.
The real victims are the majority of Republicans who are not represented by the likes of McCain and Graham. The low information crowd does not object to their elites. Conservatives object to their self-appointed elites who sell them out in less time than it takes to complete one cycle of award dinners.
The plain apparent fact of our misrepresentation makes the “civil war” not sad but necessary. I am not depressed or worried; I am outraged and oppressed, and I exhort and encourage all Ted Cruzes in all styles.
RINOs, bad; Tea Party, good. There’s the calculus. RINO’s are an enemy, and so we can’t really deem this a civil war. If we are defeated by RINOs or Democrats, at this point, what difference does it make? It’s like moaning the fact that we must cross the swamp before the desert. Both are obstacles that must be crossed.
So what if the Senate doesn’t vote along? This is the one place where politics should happen. If a down vote by the Senate results in RINOs and Democrats losing their seat in 2014, well, hey, that’s politics!
A big problem, as I see it, is the willingness of the dinosaur media to provide cover for the left and their policies. The wildest ideas are made to seem mainstream and matter of fact by journalists/advocates.
When great numbers of voters get information from Comedy Central and late night TV hosts, is anyone surprised that they don’t know all the facts?
That does not even account for the people who vote for a living, and do not want their programs cut.
As Glenn Reynolds says: “That which cannot go on, will not, promises that cannot be kept, will not, debts that cannot be paid, will not.”
We are a strong country, it will be difficult for some, but we will get through this mess. God Bless the USA.
On another note: Please remember the MIA/POW’s on this Day of Remembrance.
The power of the purse as a check on royalty goes back into ancient times.
So rather than being just 1/2 of 1/3 of the government, the House is expected to be 100% of the purse strings.
That’s ITS veto.
That’s its reason for being, its essence.
Blocking an extremely damaging law may prove to be very good politics.
It’s a certainty that when the fiscal burden slams home (part time hours, ramping unemployment, medical queues…) 0bamacare will become even more unpopular.
It’s the non-trivial nature of the issue that makes this fight different than all before.
0bamacare really can break the national economy.
Similar schemes in Europe vaporized their economic growth — going back for thirty years. It’s hard to believe now, but Italy, France and the rest used to have dramatically improving economies. One by one, they rolled over as the medical sector got its hands on the state purse.
The economic problem with health is that it has unlimited demand. When this is coupled to unlimited funding (via money-printing) then the industry expands like the blob.
In sum: it’s a fiscal cancer… and hell to eradicate once it gets a foothold.
In financial terms 0bamacare takes from the young adults and the elderly to give to the illegal immigrants, as a class.
It’s taboo to mention, but they are single largest class of winners — it’s not even close.
The elderly have been clipped as Medicare is the source of a huge block of the funding. Barry is un-LBJ-ing the Great Society — and no-one on the left is calling him on it.
The young adults are being taxed as a class at an astounding clip. Worse: the tax is being imposed (like poll taxes) per head. Hence, low wage employees are being hit with the largest, most regressive tax in history.
Out my way, Craigs List has been showing wage rate roll-downs across all blue collar jobs. Employees are being laid off/ shunted to part-time at the same moment that new hires are being picked up — at wages trimmed by $8 to $10 per hour.
This is the only way that employers can afford to pay 0bamacare.
They’re shunting all of the expenses down to their employees.
The idea that businesses are in a position to actually pay for this Democrat benefit plan is wacko.
In the out years, figure on a severe talent shortage. Paperwork must overwhelm these professions.
(My sister is a teacher. Thirty years ago she spent about one hour a week filling out DoE forms. At this time she complains that she’s up to eight hours a week — off the clock, too. Once the schools start taking Federal monies, then Washington gets to feed them paperwork. Too much is never enough. Or, as Russian officers relate: the more paper you use, the cleaner your butt — or some such.)
No tree will be safe from 0bamacare.
The repubs have a real problem, and they know it. When Rangel & Co proposed the draft be reinstituted in late 2001, iirc, the population presumed the republicans had proposed it.
Rangel & Co. figured it exactly right.
However, as Gingrich said, after we tried it in 94, we won the house and Clinton had to do what we said–taking credit for it.
We the people do not want to just delay obamacare, we want to defund it, let it flatline away.
You can go to( don’t fundit.com) and sign the petition and call your senators and let them know how you feel. The petition is brought to you by Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. Even if you thik it is hopeless, at least it lets the left know we know we are being used.
If there was ever a hill to die on, defunding Obamacare is probably it. Obamacare will become a permanent entitlement, and give the government complete control of every aspect of American life, for every individual for as long as there is a country. It will also bankrupt the country in short order…well to the degree that it isn’t ALREADY bankrupt.
It’s unfortunate that there is this difference of opinion on tactics. Neither the RINOs nor the Tea Partiers favor Obamacare. The argument is over how to fight against it. The Tea Party reps want to play chicken with Obama. They think he will be forced to blink if they push it to a government shutdown. IMHO, they’re wrong because: MSM. Obama wins if the government shuts down – period. The RINOs want to use every ounce of influence they have in arguing against it and hope to get a delay of the individual mandate. Again, IMHO, both have got it wrong. They should use the budget or continuing resolution as a bargaining chip for less spending, all the while saying over and over again that Obamacare is going to be a train wreck, but our hands are tied because of Reid and the democrat majority in the Senate coupled with Obama’s veto threats. (Even if they could get dem votes to defund the law, there would not be enough to override a veto.)
As blert says, “The young adults are being taxed as a class at an astounding clip. Worse: the tax is being imposed (like poll taxes) per head. Hence, low wage employees are being hit with the largest, most regressive tax in history.
Out my way, Craigs List has been showing wage rate roll-downs across all blue collar jobs. Employees are being laid off/ shunted to part-time at the same moment that new hires are being picked up – at wages trimmed by $8 to $10 per hour.
This is the only way that employers can afford to pay 0bamacare.”
As these things occur the Repubs should be out on the news shows giving interviews, doing press conferences, and any other way they can to get the word out that this thing is a train wreck of epic proportions. When 52% of the people get their backs up, and I think that is going to happen, the impetus for reform or repeal of the law will be too great to overcome. Our daughter is seeing her premiums nearly double for the same insurance benefits. I suspect she is just one of many millions. If implementation is delayed until after the 2012 elections, there won’t be nearly the outrage and the possibility of picking up more Republican seats in both houses in 2012. Of course, I could be wrong.
I have long argued that Third Party advocates are wrong. My position was that the GOP was the only hope for Constitutional Conservatism to have a voice in government.
I was wrong. I have now concluded that the GOP is hopeless, and the only recourse is to start again at the grass roots level. It will no doubt take decades, and it may come too late. But, I am afraid that “business as usual” with the existing parties is futile.
The only glimmer of leadership on the national scene is coming from those at odds with the two parties. It is time to unfetter them from the GOP yoke–or from the Demo yoke as well if there are any over there who are prepared to put Nation before party or personal ambition.
JJ,
I agree. Instead of letting the MSM set the message about chaos in the republican ranks, Reupubs should be emphasizing their unity in recognizing the problems in Obamacare. They should harp on the failed software to determine payments and subsidies, the 2-week training of gov’t workers who will be advising them, The security problems when unvetted advisors get access to all their personal information. And then they should say very loudly, In comparison to this mess, our tactical problems are nothing. We will work them out because we are aiming for the same goal: protecting Americans from a half-baked plan.
70% of doctors oppose obama(doesn’t)care
J.J. said:
“The Tea Party reps want to play chicken with Obama. They think he will be forced to blink if they push it to a government shutdown. IMHO, they’re wrong because: MSM.”
Today, at a Ford Motor plant in Liberty, Missouri, Obama said:
In the MSM war of the sound-bites, that’s going to be pretty hard to beat.
Ok, I realize I’m still a young pup, not yet having hit 40, but I would love for someone to explain to me how shutting the government down in 1995 resulted in some kind of massive loss for the GOP…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1996
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1996
According to the above, the GOP lost a MASSIVE number of seats. I mean, the tidal wave of Dem support that year was… enough to net them +1 seat between the House and Senate… The GOP gained 2 Senate seats, and lost 3 House seats.
So aside from Clinton once again winning the presidency because H Ross split the conservative vote (kinda like what happened in 1992, to give Slick Willy his initial tenure in the Oval Office), and the media talking about what a huge defeat it was, I’m not really seeing how this was some kind of terrible outcome.
The GOP lost a grand total of 0.35% of the 283 combined (230 house, 53 senate) seats that they had (net) prior to the election. IE – The had 99.65% of the number of seats after the election as they had prior to.
Just for comparison, let’s look at the 1998, 2006, 2008, and 2010 election results in terms of %.
1998:
% of seats retained: 98.94%
(282 before election : 279 after election)
2006:
% of seats retained: 87.46%
(287 before election : 251 after election)
2008:
% of seats retained: 88.31%
(248 before election : 219 after election)
2010:
% of seats retained: 136.36%
(220 before election : 289 after election)
I mean, I’m sorry, but if you look solely at the results of the Congressional elections from those years, 2006 and 2008 could qualify as a shellacking (maintaining a grand total of 76.3% of the seats over the 2 elections 287 : 219). 1996 and 1998 were pretty close to a total wash.
So again, aside from pointing me at media reports talking about how the GOP got their clocks cleaned by maintaining 98.6% of their Congressional seats between the 1996 and 1998 elections (283 : 279), on what rationale was the government shutdown some huge, lasting loss for the GOP?
As I said, I’m young, but looking at the numbers, mathematically, the shut down in 1995 didn’t result in some kind of tidal wave of Democrat support, but this whole “it was terrible for the GOP!” the last time they shut down has been going around for as long as I can remember, but the actual figures don’t tell that story…
Why didn’t they just pass the votes from Ross to the second listed candidate?
Oh right, democracy.
Sure.
Let’s say I was trying to convince you to buy a stock. I tell you “Man, these guys are rock stars, they made over $50 million last quarter.” Is that enough information for you to decide if they are in fact a good investment?
Of course not. At a very minimum you’d need to know not just how much they made but how much they were expected to make. If they made $50M but the market expectation was that they were going to make $500M then that’s not a great sign.
Similarly the conservative revisionism that 1996 “wasn’t that bad” relies on looking on absolute change as opposed to how well or poorly the GOP met expectations. Of course there are a range of expectations when it comes to political forecasting but the median seemed to be that the right would pick up 20 house seats. They instead lost 3. That’s a swing of 23. By way of reference a swing of 23 right now would put the dems comfortably in charge of the house (233R-200D -> 210R-223D).
That help?
I wasn’t taking a shot at Perot or anyone who voted for him. I thought he went a bit off the deep end for the 1996 election, but I agreed with a hell of a lot of what he said especially in 1992, and have enormous respect for many of the things he’s done, including his role in the Iran hostage crisis.
The point was to illustrate that the vote between a relatively weak candidate in Dole and a sitting President in Clinton was close enough that a 3rd candidate was able to take enough of the vote to swing the election results in the direction of Clinton. IE – It’s used to illustrate that this wasn’t some kind of groundbreaking victory of liberal ideology.
This reeks of being a snarky comment, and if it is, I don’t need it. I’m not some idiot who needs a lesson in what a democracy is.
On a side note this should be just one of many reasons nt to accept, much less promote, anti-intellectual know-nothing-ism in your party. I can’t be sure whether Cruz was a gullible idiot or a con man preying on other gullible fools but there’s no doubt at this point that his entire quixotic quest is going to blow up in the GOP’s face. The house is now committed. The senate will strip the obamacare defunding language with a straight majority vote. The only opportunity for the right to filibuster will be before hand when they would be filibustering the bill with the anti-obamacare language (the howls of laughter at that in the media, and the house’s absolute fury at Cruz if that happens will be detectable from orbit). The house will then promptly abandon the fight seeing as they have no interest at this point at catering any more to Cruz.
Net result- the right looks weak, Cruz comes off as a con man willing to shiv his own side if it makes him a buck (and to his credit, as it were, he has made lots of money off of burying the blade in Boehner), house leadership is virtually non-existent at this point and with the 2014 election looming what do republican congressmen run on? “We’re too incompetent to listen to our own strategists” or “We’d be effective but our base won’t let us!”
*golf clap*
So far all the Cruz haters have breathlessly announced what is going to happen. What has happened is that Cruz, who is not even in the House, has rallied the House. And if he gets a chance to fillibuster, that will be hours of letting Cruz talk. Since he has demonstrated the idiocy of Feinstein (I know gun control because I’ve put my hands in the bullet holes of shot people.) and other leading lights, the left is terrified when Cruz gets an uninterrupted opportunity to talk. Since this episode has given him publicity and credibility, maybe everyone is running around spouting nonsense about “not being able to win” (something already conceded).
I’ll wait to see exactly how it all turns out, but I’d like to know one thing up front. Why haven’t the RINOs said they will support any effort to defund Obamacare and educated the public; that they are representing the will of the people and can try defunding as well as delaying. No. Notice its always the Elites against the people and when it comes down to anything but delay and talk, they crucify the “anti-intellectual know nothings.”
Point taken, Tlaloc, but to use your analogy, the way it’s talked about, you would think that rather than making $50 million, they’d have lost $500 million.
And in hindsight or whatever distortion you’d like to call it, I’d argue it would have been folly to believe that the GOP would have picked up another 20 seats. That would have put them at a number that they hadn’t approached since the 1946 election, and hadn’t actually reached since the election of 1928. Despite projections, history was not on their side.
If you’re a knuckle dragging anti-intellectual know nothing, here’s a petition to sign.
https://secure.giveworks.net/conservativemajority/newobamacarepetition/AME1654
Grass and roots! Good food for us apes!
One could argue that the best way to defeat Obamacare would be to require that it be enforced as written — no waivers, no delays. That would cause such a clusterf**k that people would want it repealed.
nyght
I wasn’t protesting third party candidates. Rather, there is an election system that allows people to vote for multiple candidates and if their candidate loses, the votes go to their second candidate prioritized on the list. So “no votes are wasted” and “all votes are counted”.
A plurality is still the determining factor. But because of democracy, we don’t see that.
The house seems to have a different concept of an appropriate term for what Cruz has done:
entrapped
badgered
screwed
betrayed
used
victimized
manipulated
…and probably many more that aren’t immediately coming to mind.
Point is, legislating depends a lot on relationships. Seems like Cruz has mastered appealing to his base with demagoguery but it really seems like nobody in congress likes him. Or more importantly respects him. That’s going to make it hard for him to actually do anything.
Voting no only gets you so far. A good legislator has to find ways to get things accomplished.
As an addendum-
I suppose a case could be made for a different legislating mode. One in which things are accomplished by manipulating the base into browbeating other legislators into agreeing with you. There may even be a case that with the way the right has emasculated their leadership in both houses this is the only legislative mode they can realistically aspire to (although the various gangs would undercut that).
still I have to wonder just how viable such a mode really is. It would require continuous and extensive grassroots energy and would almost certainly lead to huge amounts of resentment across the party. It would though have the rather neat property that the person best able to manipulate the base becomes the defacto party leader automatically.
Once Obama has vetoed the bill, he will be unable to resist the urge to crow about it – to make himself look big and the Republicans small. People are noticing how much he treats others with contempt and scorn – he just can’t help himself.
The voters who tune out politics are increasingly aware that their pay is declining, their taxes are increasing, and their expectations are diminishing. To Obama once more “pop off” about the bad republicans will irritate the people who are suffering. They are seeing that everything he touches becomes a disaster.
One day, they will realize that Obama has been an emotional indulgence given to themselves and like many vanity goods, there is a price to be paid for buying something only for its looks.
He is the vanity President. Hillary is the vanity candidate. Can this country survive its own vanity?
Gosh, Thaloc. You sure seem to know a lot.
Thanks. Do you think Cruz could ever get as likeable as Obama. Gee, then he could do ANYTHING, huh?
Wouldn’t that be great? Cause Obama always listens to the other side and he never does all them things you mentioned.
Tlaloc wants to make more sausage, but I don’t want to watch. Amateur sausage makers will put principles into the grinder along with the pork and sell us the Realpolitick sausage as “It’s really pretty good. No?? But it’s the best we could make.”
sharpie, et al:
Cruz was targeted for destruction a long time ago.
Let’s see whether he can stave it off.
I believe (although not 100% sure) that Tlaloc may be what’s known in the business as a “concern troll.”
The President and the Senate do not control spending. It’s not a 2 out of 3 wins.
Like Obama is Commander in Chief, the House is Spender in Chief.
Obama can go straight to you know where, and so can harry Reid.
Not a dime for Obamacare. No compromise. No retreat. No surrender. No nothing.
We are in a battle for civilization. If there was ever a time for the most drastic measures, that time is now.
Government shutdown? All the way baby. The worst it will do is help the economy since all the tyrants will be on vacation.
People don’t get their checks? I don’t care. They are taking other people’s money anyway. My suggestion is that the real charity cases get charity, and the others can get a job.
Thanks, Neo.
You forgot a period after “al” though!
Unless a colon can function as a period?
Poole:
What bill is he going to veto? The obamacare defunding will be striped out of the senate version, at which time the house is going to pass a clean version (albeit probably at sequestration levels) or the house GOP will revolt and Boehner will need Dems to pass the CR and thus at higher funding levels.
There’s no realistic version that involves a bill that defunds that goes to the Whitehouse desk to be vetoed.
sharpie:
Yeah, it’s not like he continued the bush surge or spent a huge amount of time and energy to pass the republican health plan from the 90s. Why that’s the kind of thing a man willing to meet halfway would do…
nnc:
“I believe (although not 100% sure) that Tlaloc may be what’s known in the business as a “concern troll.” ”
I suppose. I’m not righty in the slightest. That said I guess I’m more of an observation troll. As I see it this is a fascinating chance to watch a party either spiral into irrelevancy or recover from the same. Sociologically it’s quite the opportunity.
My preference is that you guys pull away from the insanity. Why? Because it’s a two party system and it’s much better for the country if both parties are sane.
On the other hand, if you guys do choose to go down the rabbit hole it will lead to more self destructive behaviors and thus further marginalize your base of support limiting the damage you can do.
Either way I think I’ll come out fine. So, in that sense sure call me a concern troll if you like.
mike:
Federal government spending accounts for about 20% of GDP. What do you think will happen to a fragile recovery if you suddenly subtract 20% of GDP from it?
Keep in mind that all polling as well as history strongly suggest the GOP will get the blame for the shutdown. So are you really sure you want to present yourselves as the party that voluntarily chose to tip america into a depression all because you can’t accept that the people chose a path you don’t like?
Golly gee whiz I would love the blame/credit for the shutdown. This government needs to be shut down and rebuilt as a constitutional republic again.
ANd the White House needs to be fumigated and the State Dept and the DOJ and on and on…….
The people chose hmmmm
Democracy at a certain point, is just the 1% telling the 99% what to do, based on the moral righteousness that 51% always knows best.
It’s just that if you do the 51% split, then split the 51% controlling decision maker in the majority half, then do it again and again, eventually you end up with 1% of the population telling the 99% what to do.
That’s democracy.
Woof.
Concern troll was right.
Tlaloc, if it gets to rough, I promise to hold your hand. We’ll get through it together.
Tlaloc,
My answer is: Read Milton Friedman.
The Government is a drain on the economy. It takes money out of the economy, which has a cost, and spends it irrationally at more than cost.
If Government spending was halved, we’d be better off.
20% That’s called a good start and a great day for freedom everywhere.
Government employees? If they don’t want to work at real jobs – i.e jobs that are not made up and where the salary and rich benefits for them are not confiscated by threats of imprisonment from normal, decent hardworking people, then they should not eat. For that I refer you to St. Paul
If you accept the status quo – which is unjust – it will continue.
Is that your way of saying that obamacare isn’t extremely heavily based on the heritage? Or that somehow it doesn’t count as bipartisan when Obama passes a righty plan because…?
The right has insulated itself from info it doesn’t want to hear to a frightening degree. Obviously the 2012 election results matching almost exactly to those horribly skewed polls is just one very recent example.
Another example is how the right has convinced itself that a centrist politician like Obama is some kind of far right ideologue. Consider again the issue of healthcare reform. The real lefties, me included, wanted a single payer system. At the very worst we wanted a public option. Obama never even tried to get either of those. Instead he put forth a lot of effort over months trying to get the right to sign on to obamacare- a program based on the work of (far right think tank) heritage and (more centrist) Romney’s Romneycare.
This is not the action of a hard left ideologue. That obama has of late become somewhat harsher towards the GOP is a function of 5 years of them screaming “marxist kenyan socialist!” in his face. It’s hard to compromise with people who literally call you the antichrist routinely.
expat and Ann, I agree.
The way to attack this thing is to point out all the problems and when the law takes effect, run on the theme of: “Give us a Republican Congress and we will repeal, replace, or reform this monstrosity.”
Another thing to keep pointing out is that the law, as it now stands, is not what was passed by Congress. The Obama administration has unilaterally and unconstitutionally rewritten the law. Look at all the exceptions and changes they have granted to favored groups – especially Congress and their staffs. It is now not only unmanageable but is patently unfair to the middle class. And a job killer. Cleveland Clinic announced big layoffs today, as did Home Depot. It’s also a budget buster. Some knowledgeable people are saying it could break us or make it impossible to maintain our present level of defense. These are all the things that the Repubs should explaining by going on talk shows, holding press conferences, and talking to anyone who will listen. When the s**t hits the fan, as it is going to starting Oct. 1, more and more people are going to hear the message.
Isn’t one of your complaints that the government is deficit spending? If it is deficit spending then it isn’t taking money out of the economy now is it?
I’m really quite fine with paying the salaries of the good folks at the FBI, FDA, FCC, NASA, et cetera. These people provide a service for society and we pay them for it. Most of them provide services that the private sector would do very poorly if at all. If you really want to live in a country without a government I’m sure you can find real estate in the sudan for very cheap. Somehow I suspect though that an actual experience with what you claim to want will not really suit you.
I suppose we could talk crazy talk and ask those who want exemptions or subsidies–Congress, the IRS employee union, AFL.CIO, etc, what they know that caused them to take their position.
Can’t hurt to find out.
You’re braking (that’s redneck talk) my hart, JJ.
No, not really.
But sometimes you have to think with your heart and not your head. I’m trusting Cruz. I’m trusting his motives and his strategy. It’s working so farl you can tell when the trolls appear and tell us why we need to jump ship.
Fear. We’ve got to abandon our principles because we might alientate some voters! Really. I mean is that who we are.
It’s a good risk. It’s worth taking. The opposition is scared shitless. That’s a good hint Cruz is on the right track.
These crazy wannabe slave masters are like sunspots.
I wouldn’t put much credence in the MSM or the Establicons opinions. They are all in the tank. The former for the Democrats and the latter for protecting their cushy jobs.
Too hell with all of them. Filibuster away, Ted.
FYI, the Left is very, very afraid of Ted Cruz. The demonizing has been going on for months.
Don’t you believe it.
sharpie: “You’re braking (that’s redneck talk) my hart, JJ.
No, not really.
But sometimes you have to think with your heart and not your head. I’m trusting Cruz. I’m trusting his motives and his strategy. It’s working so farl you can tell when the trolls appear and tell us why we need to jump ship.”
If that is true, why not go for the whole nine yards – impeachment? There are grounds. Unilateral changes to the ACA, Benghazi, and Fast and Furious are all instances when the administration has not followed the Constitution – not upheld the oath of office. But the House Repubs know there is no chance because the Senate will not convict and the MSM would convict the Repubs. The same is true of the defund effort…..unless Cruz and company have some maneuver up their sleeves that isn’t readily apparent. This is still (barely, I know) a country where we try to follow the Constitution
and use persuasion to win the citizens’ votes. What counts is persuading the voters to trust you with the government. Because of academia, the MSM, and the vast numbers of LIVs it’s damn hard to persuade them unless they see a benefit. The costs that the ACA is going to shove down millions of people’s throats is what will open their eyes to the benefit of repealing the law.
Tlalock:
Good try at 10:10 pm. But that dog won’t hunt.
Obama is on record as wanting single payer but deciding that the transition to that system would be too abrupt and also politically unpopular, so an interim system was needed.
And Obamacare is actually quite different from so-called Romneycare as Romney envisioned it. See this for the facts about the differences, if you’re actually interested in learning them (which I tend to doubt). Remember that when Romneycare was passed, Romney had to deal with a legislature that was strongly liberal and 85% Democrat, and although he vetoed many of the bill’s original provisions, he knew there was no way he was getting the sort of health insurance system he would have chosen. The Massachusetts legislature was responsible for a great many of the provisions in the Massachusetts system.
And Obama is a leftist ideologue, as I’ve written many times. He is a pragmatic one, however, and a strategic one.
And you, my dear Tlaloc, are a concern troll.
The House bill will fail for all the reasons mentioned. Getting it passed is not the point of this exercise. The point is to get people on the record individually (no more of these 40 phony repeal votes) and to give the people a clear difference between the parties.
When Obamacare self-destructs and the Dems have proven that they won’t repeal it, voters will be left with only one realistic choice if they want it stopped.
Note that this will also tell the Republican base which of their leaders can be trusted.
nnc:
Except single payer was quite politically popular:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States#Public_opinion
what’s more it’s had plenty of champions in congress already:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States#Single-payer_health_care
What’s more if he had wanted a policy to segue into single payer at a future time the obvious choice was the public option, not the PPACA which strengthens insurance company death grip on healthcare.
I’m sure Obama said things about wanting single payer but the fact is he could have had it, it was all a play to try and keep the left happy with him as he sold them down the river. he just didn’t want it. As it was he passed the PPACA with 0 republican votes and especially among dems single payer is vastly more popular. Obama simply isn’t a liberal, he’s a centrist.
You’re right that I don’t really care about Romneycare. If it pleases you consider the point withdrawn.
Okay then tell me what exactly has he passed or even tried to pass. ERA? Nope. Has he pushed to rescind DOMA? Nope. Has he shut down all ICE enforcement? Nope. Hell he hasn’t even closed the Guantanamo detainment facility, something he could do with the stroke of the pen.
So what exactly is it that he’s done that has you convinced he’s a liberal ideologue, cause I got to tell you as someone who is quite liberal I don’t recall seeing Obama at the meetings.
Matt:
how exactly is the latest charade you yourself admit won’t pass any different than the previous , as you call it, “phony” votes?
And doesn’t it muddle the clear difference when you have republican filibustering their own bill and voting on both sides of the cloture vote?
Obama simply isn’t a liberal, he’s a centrist.
…and spent decades hanging around Communists, Islamists and America-haters; just like all the other “centrists” out there.
how exactly is the latest charade you yourself admit won’t pass any different than the previous , as you call it, “phony” votes?
The other 40 bills went straight into Reid’s trashcan without a vote. Dems were never forced to tell the voters anything about their positions. This new attempt is tied to the CR, so Dems will have to vote on something.
Now, Reid knows this and I assume he will try some sort of procedural move to avoid having his caucus vote…a vote that could later come back to haunt them.
Cruz knows that Reid knows this. The filibuster may or may not happen, and though I’m not privy to the inner workings of the Senate, I assume Cruz is maneuvering so that Reid will have to vote on either the bill itself or take another vote that can be held as a proxy for it.
And doesn’t it muddle the clear difference when you have republican filibustering their own bill and voting on both sides of the cloture vote?
(Continuing from previous post)
Or Cruz may realize that Senate Republicans can’t stop Reid from removing the defunding language, so he’s going to hold the filibuster merely to draw attention to what Reid’s doing. Once again ramping up the drama so the public will notice.
Voting on both sides of cloture is just a way of drawing it out, like a pregnant…………………pause.
Because really, who in the American public is going to notice much less understand the Republicans using Senatorial procedural moves?
The low-information voters? HA!
What does strategy have to do with passing bills?
This is like War Declarations failure 10x^27 here.
If T thinks it is politically popular to wipe out black skin in humans, would he declare that feasible too?
JJ,
As Neo notes, there are no good suggestions for the warring factions.
I can’t say but my proposal generates from two things. First, an incredible repugnance against the failed Republican attempt to win votes, basically schlepping votes. Why? Because the game is up already if more than half want security over freedom. Second, as you hinted, there may be an unlooked for result. We seem to accept that the Republicans will be blamed for a gov’t shutdown. Maybe not. The majority don’t want Obamacare and it will be Obamacare not the Republicans which shuts down gov’t. With impeachment, no such dynamic exists. With the people’s mistrust of Obamacare, there’s a chance. In fact, this has been Cruz’es argument from the begininng, that it would be a grass roots explosion that would unseat Obama’s popolarity. If we believe, it might happen. If we don’t, there’s no chance at all.
sharpie: “The majority don’t want Obamacare and it will be Obamacare not the Republicans which shuts down gov’t.”
You know that and I know that. The MSM will not put it in those terms. The LIVs will not know what we know. Perception is reality in this era of mass communications that is dominated by progressives. We are a small group of people who see it the way you say it is. Get out and talk to a few average citizens as I have in my neighborhood. We are a small minority. Numbers are reality. Smaller armies have to be smarter, nimbler, and accept that they cannot overpower the enemy, IMHO.
Don’t under-estimate the number of people who are very angry at our Imperial President.
If Obamacare isn’t a hill to die on to stop the destruction of American life as we know it, what is?
Ted Cruz was National Debate Champion when he was at Princeton. He is a nimble and brilliant lawyer who is willing to do difficult and seemingly impossible work that others are too frightened to do. He, Rand Paul, Mike Lee and others are the dawn of the new day for Conservatives.
Embrace them. Don’t straight arm them away as “impractical” lest we end up with Jeb Bush on the ticket next time.
And lose.
“establishment” Republicans…
Personally, I prefer the term “Institutional Republican Party”. Since many of them are in favor of amnesty, if we translate that into our future language, it becomes “Partido Republicano Institucional” or PRI, which has a nice southern flair.
leigh-
Thanks.
Principles (ours) over impracticality (theirs).
Got that right, Don Carlos.
The GOP establishment holds conservatives in contempt. Conservatives get that, now they know why the GOP has never delivered a single conservative structural change to the government. Conservatives understand that the GOP establishment wants nothing from them but their votes.
Why do republicans care if they get blamed??? Media criticism will energize the base, and low information voters don’t turn out in off year elections anyway.
And if the GOP wants to be “practical”, they need to know that the base will not turn out unless they put up a real fight.
Matt:
Guilt by association isn’t pretty, Matt. Nor is it logically valid.
Alright, fair enough.
Maybe I’m wrong but I think what the public will notice is that the news keeps talking about the givernment shutting down in…10 days now…and here’s this guy from texas conducting a fillibuster on his own party’s bill. What the heck is that about? Expecting most people to dig down enough to understand everything that is going on seems unlikely.
Look at it this way which narrative is more compelling:
Dems- once again the government hating reps are shutting down vital services to americans, OR
Reps- we really hate obamacare so much that we’ll pass a CR that defunds it, even though thats unpopular, then filibuster our own CR because otherwise blah blah blah Senate rules blah blah blah parlimentarian blah blah blah victory!
Tlaloc:
Of course, it means absolutely nothing that Obama’s closest associations over his entire adult lifetime (and even in childhood, if you count his relatives and Frank Marshall Davis) have been with leftists and other extremists such as Rev. Wright, and that he’s voiced leftist sentiments many times, particularly before 2008. It’s a very typical background for an American centrist leader, is it not?
Trolls are so tiresome.
sharpie:
But it won’t be. The senate will pass a clean CR. This will then go back to the house who will either pass it or not. Obama will say he’d sign the senate version but not the house one. It will be trivial then to pin the blame on the house for many reasons:
A) history- the memory of the 1995 shutdown will be invoked again and again
B) ideology- the right has painted dems as the lovers of big government and themselves as the opposite for decades. The latter role obviously fits more neatly with the idea of wanting a shutdown.
C) more history the several games of chicken with previous CRs have all been seen as the right threatening to shutdown government.
D) Bipartisanship- it is extremely likely the senate bill will be bipartisan, most likely including a significant number of reps. Why not, it’s a perfect opportunity to stick a thumb in Cruz eye while still having plausible deniability back home (“I proudly voted for cloture on the obamacare defunding house bill.”). Yes the house bill had two no name redstate dems sign on but the senate bill will almost certainly be passed thanks to the 2008 republican presidential nominee.
E) can’t help themselves- there’s no shortage of righties bragging that they want a shutdown and that it will be good for america. You can see examples in this very thread. Expect plenty of examples to be trotted out to prove it’s your side’s fault.
F) Unpopular kids are blamed first- the right’s brand is in the toilet. They lack the credibility to mount an effective PR campaign.
G) Unity beats division- the right is badly fractured right now in general and on this issue in specific. The dems by comparison are surprisingly united. When half your people are spending their media moments sniping each other rather than pushing a narrative, you’re sunk.
H) first impressions- polling indicates that people already strongly consider the GOP to be the cause of any shutdown. You’d have to counteract that initial impression even before trying to pin it on the dems.
An on and on. There’s no credible argument by which you win the argument with the public. Yes obamacare is unpopular but when specifically asked if they want to defund it well over half say no. That from the big comprehensive Kaiser poll on healthcare:
http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-august-2013/
nnc:
Just so I’m clear then, you’re explicitly saying you are just fine with guilt by association argument then? I’ll play by the rules you set but are you really sure that’s a door you want to blow open?
Think about your own life. How many people have you known or been related to that have had views contrary to your own. Your own mini-bio says you were surrounded by liberals for a good chunk of your life. So it’s perfectly fine then for everyone to insist you are a liberal no matter what you say or do?
Of course not. We judge people by what they do not by whom they have relationships with. Obama has governed very much as a centrist. He is a centrist. You can call him a liberal. Hell he calls himself a liberal when it suits him. But he isn’t.
You (and another poster) slipped into using a clearly false argument. So what’s better, to let you go on employing fallacies that distort your thinking or to point out the fallacy, even if the process is “tiresome”?
Tlaloc:
I am explicitly saying you are a troll, which means that arguing with you is a complete waste of time. But that is your goal: to waste our time.
I have mounted a number of perfectly good arguments that you have then misrepresented or ignored. For example, I’m not favoring guilt by association in some general sense, although that is the way you are mischaracterizing it. I am saying (and this is the last time I’ll be engaging you in argument, unless you get out of troll mode) that if a person—any person, but especially a politically-oriented person such as Obama—has, for most of his/her adult life, associated with, been friends with, kept company with, been backed and supported by, etc. etc.—people from a certain political persuasion, and has also voiced support for a certain political approach for much of his/her adult life, it is quite safe to conclude that is his/her political persuasion.
Obama calls himself a centrist in order to allow people such as yourself to claim he is. It is strategic (and Obama is very strategic, as well as an avowed and demonstrated Alinskyite).
Perhaps you are also an Alinskyite.
By the way, I have also been perfectly up-front about my political conversion: how, why, what, the whole process. No one could or should conclude I am still a liberal. Lots of other people have had similar conversions, and been up-front about them (David Horowitz, for example). It is not a matter for contention or ambiguity or dispute. Obama has undergone no such process, as you no doubt know only too well.
“Unity beats division.”
Indeed. This president and his minions in the media have been responsible for the most divided country in my lifetime.
It is quite possible to have differences of opinion, vast differences, yet debate the merits of each position without demonizing “the other”.
Our president seems to have skipped class when the coequal branches of government and their various responsibilities were discussed. He wishes the Congress to surrender the power of the purse as well as their duty to write, debate and pass or reject law. Sadly, some old heads in the GOP are just fine with this.
They need to go. And so does Obama.
My first ballot was cast for Reagan in 84. In the 90s, I remember how hopeful I was, and other conservatives seemed to be, as we overcame the decades old democrat rule in congress. Left and right, local and national politicians seemed to be switching to the republican party. Surely I thought, liberal government opression was stopped short, and would begin to be reversed.
But that didn’t happen. No, republicans just grew the government and put it further into my life than ever.
Republicans just seem to argue that they can run my life better than the democrats. Perhaps they can, but I want to run my life.
Now if my experience is anywhere near that of other conservatives, perhaps that explains why conservatives aren’t listening to the establishment anymore.
Just to amplify n-nc’s point:
The left loves them some lawyerly parsing of words.
Guilt by association may be a logical fallacy in the rarified air of the academy. When the record is decades long though, it’s referred to as “common sense” by everyone else.
nnc:
No, it’s really not. Why would it be? What possible gain do I get out of reducing your productive time?
so you don’t support general guilt by association just specific guilt by association. Sorry, but that’s not the way it works. A fallacy is a fallacy even when you apply it to people you don’t like. This particular fallacy is particularly problematic because it gives you an easy excuse to ignore information you don’t like, which is already a horrible problem on the right (see for instance the 2012 election and polling, or conservapedia, or any of a thousand other examples of the right retreating to intellectually inbred enclaves where outside thoughts and opinions are verboten).
Consider what I’ve written here. I haven’t personally attacked people. I’ve written what I believe to be true honestly and backed it up with references. So what exactly is it I’ve done that qualifies me as a troll? Disagree with you? Seems that way. See my statement above about the right retreating from outside information. Doesn’t that sound just slightly familiar?
Even when you know that you yourself are a perfect counter example. You had (at least according to your bio) lots and lots of liberal colleagues and, presumably, friends. Yet you claim not to be liberal. There’s a contradiction there.
What’s more when you say he’s surrounded by people who are extreme left that’s a function of confirmation bias. Every time you hear of a radical element from his past it confirms what you already “know” but the thousands upon thousands of times you hear of non-radicals from his past you discard the information as not relevant. Overtime you end up exactly where you are now- utterly convinced that the 1% of his friends who have been radicals means he has been surrounded by radicals all his life…
I’ll let you in on a secret- there’s no such thing as an Alinskyite. He’s an invention of the right. He’s Emmanual Goldstein. Seriously. Before the right started ranting about the guy nobody on the left had heard of him much less been devotees of his.
It’s glen beck conspiracy nonsense.
So you can peer into the man’s soul? Convenient power that for a political enemy.
Seriously do you not see how silly it is to simultaneously claim your own process of developing a political viewpoint is undeniable and unimpeachable but that you have every right to proclaim what other’s views are based on a limited and biased knowledge of their history? Not even a little hesitation there?
Isn’t it more reasonable to, as I suggest, judge people by their actions? Do you act as a conservative? I don’t know you anywhere near well enough to judge, so I’m willing to take your word for it unless you demonstrate otherwise. How does Obama act? Does he act as a far left ideologue or as a centrist? That question is what matters, not who he might have know a young man.
leigh:
Maybe he thought that rule had been suspended the millionth time he was called “kenyan socialist muslim oppressor” or after all the emails from official GOP parties that photoshopped Obama as witch doctor. You might want to be careful about throwing around the “don’t demonize other for differences of opinion” when that has been the right’s MO since Jan 2009. Is there any crime the right hasn’t accused him of? Or any high profile dem for that matter? The right routinely accuses dems of murder, for instance the Vince Foster thing.
Matt:
I’m a scientist by trade. My bachelors is in hard physical sciences. I worked in a world class (private) lab for a decade. Now I’m back in school (with kids half my age) getting a masters in computer science.
You’re d@mn right I parse words carefully.
Words matter. They have meaning . Sloppy use of language leads to sloppy thinking. Every time. No exceptions. It is literally not possible to think clearly when one has no facility with language.
So, yes, I take words seriously. And I hold people to the meaning of their words, because otherwise is to give up any hope of communication.
Finally- no. A fallacy isn’t just a fallacy in academia. It’s a fallacy not because some egghead doesn’t like it but because it’s wrong. It leads to bad conclusions, as it has with you and Obama. It distorts thinking and skews perception. You do not just casually accept fallacious thinking unless you want to divorce yourself from reason.
I don’t think you want that. I don’t think that little of you. I think you’re just angry at events and it has made you susceptible to accepting things, and espousing things, that you really know are wrong.
@Tlaloc
tl;dr.
Tlaloc:
Obama acts as a leftist, including the lying.
Alinsky was an invention of the right, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
And you are acting as a troll (how else do you think I immediately recognized that was the case?). Trolls like to waste the opposition’s time and frustrate them. First of all, it’s fun to watch. Secondly, it takes time and effort away from other pursuits. It happens all the time; it’s not a matter for dispute.
And I have wasted enough time with you. The reason I do it is not for you, by the way—it’s for other people who might wander into the blog and read. I do not believe you are reachable.
And people don’t always act as they believe, by the way, if they are trying to deceive.
@Tlaloc
“Maybe he thought that rule had been suspended the millionth time he was called “kenyan socialist muslim oppressor” or after all the emails from official GOP parties that photoshopped Obama as witch doctor. You might want to be careful about throwing around the “don’t demonize other for differences of opinion” when that has been the right’s MO since Jan 2009. Is there any crime the right hasn’t accused him of? Or any high profile dem for that matter? The right routinely accuses dems of murder, for instance the Vince Foster thing.”
Maybe Obama isn’t as “brilliant” as he portrays himself to be, eh? Maybe he’s a thin-skinned wanna-be tyrant?
Surely someone as ‘well spoken, clean and articulate” as he (Biden’s words, btw) would have a rejoinder other than: “They’re messing with me!” Welcome to politics, bucky.
After eight years of Chimpy McHitler chortling from the Left, could it be that we can play that game too?
How’s about 73% of the casualties in Afghanistan have happened since President Nobel Peace Prize took office is never talked about? Remember the daily death count on the news every night? What happened to it?
Can it be that Obama is incapable of leading? Why don’t we know what happened in Benghazi? Why isn’t he (Most transparent Presidency evah!) talking about it? Now the SOB is going to arm the Taliban/Rebels? Aren’t we fighting them in all over the ME?
I can go on, but it’s your turn, Answer Man.
@neoneocon, @leigh
Tighten it up, guys. He’s got you “monologing.”
; )
A troll? He thinks otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlaloc
Tlaloc (Classical Nahuatl: Tlaloc [‘t?a?lo?k]) was an important deity in Aztec religion, a god of rain, fertility, and water. He was a beneficent god who gave life and sustenance, but he was also feared for his ability to send hail, thunder and lightning, and for being the lord of the powerful element of water. In Aztec iconography he is usually depicted with goggle eyes and fangs. He was associated with caves, springs and mountains. He is known for having demanded child sacrifices.
The Leftist alliance loves death cults. They are a death cult.
I’ll let you in on a secret- there’s no such thing as an Alinskyite. He’s an invention of the right. He’s Emmanual Goldstein. Seriously. Before the right started ranting about the guy nobody on the left had heard of him much less been devotees of his.
Gosh, you’d better let Obama in on that secret — he himself “taught Alinsky’s concept and methods in workshops”. From a 2007 New Republic profile of Obama, The Agitator:
and
Ann:
And of course Hillary Clinton wrote a thesis on him.
But no one had ever heard of him.
Neo:
Maybe the catch in Tlaloc’s eyes will be that “nobody on the left had heard of him much less been devotees of his” holds true because Obama is, well, a centrist.
😉
Matt_SE,
Heh. I’ll let someone else take a turn.
there’s no such thing as an Alinskyite. He’s an invention of the right. He’s Emmanual Goldstein.
I think Tlaloc is our very own Emmanuel Goldstein, and I admit that this “two minutes of hate” thing is fun.
I think he’s all wet.
Well, we know he loves Big Brother.
@neoneocon
How about a new heading for the oppo research on Ted Cruz story? Chris Wallace should release the names.
As I said above, one of the goals of this defunding bill is to smoke out the RINOs.
Looks like it’s already working.
Where did that little boyo and his post birth abortion friends go to? They ain’t coming back any more.