Now would certainly be the time to do it. These Tea-Party members of Congress will fold like beach-chairs when faced with the prospect of middle class voters bringing home a lighter paycheck, just so upper earners can skate along.
Scot, agree -- and it's true that while the Wall Street Journal's mainline articles usually give a sense of trying to stick to researched facts and reasoned speculation, their op-ed's often often seem to be right-leaning emotion and hyperbole in the guise of researched facts and reasoned speculation. And, though they work hard at the disguise and some writers are extremely good at it (Peggy Noonan, for one), the effort is clear on thoughtful analysis, and their credibility suffers greatly.
Think back to 2010, when the country overwhelmingly rejected the path Obama had taken on the stimulus, and on Obamacare. Did a chastened Obama moderate his views to comport with the reality that his policies had been rejected? No. He doubled down on his approach, and began to pass laws by executive order. He was believed to have said "I don't need no stinkin congress".
Now, after he squeezes by with a razo thin victory, the punditry acts as though he has a voter approved mandate to raise taxes during a weak economy. They say this despite the GOP holding on to the House of Representatives, which the punditry declare is NOT a mandate to oppose tax hikes. Sounds like a very selective bit of whose victory equals a right to keep on doing what they are doing.
The fiscal cliff was created by the President, who never had any intention of reaching an agreement. It was conveniently accepted by both parties a a way to put off difficult decisions. It is at least a 50-50 chance that they will do the same thing again-agree to do nothing and extend the date from Jan 1 to July 1.
The republicans may accpts a modest increase in tax rates, as a way to get the Dems to accpet spending cuts. It will not raise any real revenue, but it will give the Dems the class warfare victory they think they have earned. So be it. The electorate has decided that slow economic growth is a fair price to pay to keep its rock star in the oval office. Republicans should hold to their principlas though, and not allow the President to bully them into submission.
The last term that would ever reasonably apply to a 332-206 Electoral victory (once Florida finally does end up as a Democtratic victory instead of merely leaning) is razor thin. Romney won the confederacy Tuesday night, but that's all. Obama won the presidency. With no snark whatsoever, I extend an open hand and invite you to join reality. We gave Bush a chance in 2000 (he did, after all, have a 90% approval rating shortly after 9/11), now it's your turn to acknowledge the will of the people.
One message from the election was this: It wasn't a mistake the first time. We really want Obama. Really. Now go back to Washington, suck it up and get the job done this time. Or we can send a much stronger message in two years. Really. We will.
Scot it is increasingly depressing to watch this floundering by the Republican Party and these so called conservatives. We just got our hats handed to us something like 332 to 206 and we call it razor thin. Then I sit down for laughs and watch FOX News and what do I see but a bunch of folks living a delusion. Crushed in the voting by women, minorities, gays and any other group that wasn't white and male they sit there and come up with hurricane excuses or even better pull off an O'Reilly and say the country has reached the point of all of those folks voting for Obama are takers and not givers. Great, lose an election and then insult everyone who just voted against you.
My favorite was and I can't remember who said it, "American's can't possibly want a European style country." Excuse me but we are and have been for years. We've got SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, unemployment everything except the shorter work week and longer vacations. It is about time real "conservatives" do what we do best, conserve that which the people have chosen and make it run efficiently and wisely. Not long after RR the Re[publican Party took these knuckleheaded religious right types seriously, then went to bed with "libertarians" which no conservative could actually like, then had a love affair with "social conservatives, an oxymoron and now everybody hates us. Many "conservatives" themselves left the Party in disgust and simply had their name stolen by these groups.
You look at the comment section and these folks have no idea what a conservative is. They think its Rush Limbaugh. The fight in the party has already started and a few real "conservatives" are talking sense but then get yelled at by these crazies, no we've got to go further right on abortion on this or that, issues that have nothing to do with conservatism. This is a nighmare scenario for the Party and if the crazies gain complete control the number of unaffliated voters will explode as the Party collapses. We need a two party system but both parties need to be sane. Right now conservatism doesn't have a real home.
It's really about money you know. Corporations are fine with whatever social or religious nonsense is being debated. The real power in the Republican party comes from the corporations backing the propaganda and the last thing these guys care about is abortion etc.There are always a few exceptions. Philip Anschutz being one-actually might be ideologically motivated-but most of this is driven by a desire for more money. What I find interesting is how powerful and seductive the propaganda really is. S. Lehigh talks about Victor Davis Hanson- who has a reputation of being an intellectual with something to say- but I find him and his ilk over at Pajamas Media to be just good wordsmiths with little to offer. Everyone has been taken in by the irrationality and a lament for a time of "Father Knows Best". Even the main street conservative pundits like George Will and Michael Barone got this way wrong, predicting a landslide victory for Romney. Was it wishful thinking or delusional thinking-I believe it was one or the other.
and you think that the Boston Globe would have brought the murders of our ambassador and 3 others to the attention of its readers....without Fox News everynight bringing the information about the lack of security and begging for help as they were being attacked to its viewers never would have happen....the other media & newspapers like NYT were in the bag for electing Pres. Obama an never would have reported anything about this terrible incident being a terrorist attack and the lack of response for requested added security and this administration will still stone wall and use executive privilege.
"salemreader" I was at one level attracted to conservatism long ago by Goldwater who laid down a simple tenent regarding "conservatism",
"The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."
Does that look like today's Republican Party, not even close. These folks hated Obama so much they couldn't even lay out a logical argument with which to oppose him. It was pathetic.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." and Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
Attaturk: I have to say, as someone who admires many classical conservatives, I find the state of today's GOP v. depressing. It has become untethered from factual analysis (of which more next week). I have to say, though I know conservatives all think it's great to have Fox News as a media platform, I think it has had a counterproductive side effect of dumbing down the movement's thought leaders. I mean, it's a long, long way from William F. Buckley to Sean Hannity ... JKupie: Agreed on the WSJ. A great newspaper with an egregiously counter-factual editorial page.
Do you really think Hannity or O'Reilly are "conservatives". To me they are merely entertainers throwing out raw meat to a gullible audience. I had problems with Buckley because he brought his religion with him into the argument but I do sorely miss Mr. Buckley and Mr. Vidal going at it. Now the intellectual debate is between O'Reilly and John Stewart. Stewart is at least "realistic".
Seriously I don't see a future for "conservatism" unless it moves away from this "social, anti-government, hate change mentality. I'm trying to recall when it became fashionable for "conservatives" to oppoe progress. I certainly never came across that in my readings in philosophy or politics.
I have to disagree a little on the WSJ. I've been a subscriber for 20 years. I'll agree they werer a great newspaper with an amazingly biased editorial page. Since News Corp took over, there's been a noticable bleed of the editiorial bias into the news side. Several friends have complained of the same thing.
"A bad case of political denial is infecting conservatives nationwide."
Well, no, I would say it is infecting partisan Republicans. You've laid claim to fiscal conservatism yourself, Scot, do you feel afflicted? Neither do I. Although Hanson is correct about the divisions that still exist, a returning incumbent President can afford to compromise or grandstand, depending on the issue, since he doesn't have to sell that point for re-election, while the Senators and especially the Representatives do have to worry about that. While I am concerned about the fiscal cliff whereat we totter, perhaps it is also time to re-evaluate whether or not this nation's best interests are served by a political process where re-election is job one. Personally I would favor a significant Constitutional reform to set a reasonable length of time for a term in office and eliminate incumbency.
The counter argument to that is you get a class of unelected professional beuarocrats running things, since they're the only ones who know how to get things done. We pretty much have that in Cambridge where the mayor changes every election cycle and the real power is with the City Manager.
Yes, that is very much a risk, although we already have that at all levels. I think it would give more people the opportunity to cycle from local political levels up through national levels (I also think we have too many state governments; local and federal seem like more than enough to me). Also, I should point out that I would not prohibit anyone from running again, just not for the office one is currently holding. I would also favor not being allowed to run for a different office while holding office. Sure, it forces people to go back to private life for at least a year each cycle, but I don't think that would kill any ambitions. I won't lay claim, however, to knowing what constitutes a practical solution. Cheers.
Scot, After re-reading your post I noted even you called those folks out there watching FOX "conservatives". I don't think they are. Perhaps a few but who really thinks of Coulter as "conservative". This love affair with Ayn Rand by so many. That's not conservative, it's radical. For me the problem is the name "conservative" got hijacked. I'm not sure real "conservatives" can ever get it back.
<<I'm posting this up here again because it was buried in the replies below.>> Hey, everyone! I know we've found "system" to be difficult to take, and I agree that it feels good to say "nyah, nyah", but let's do what we can to be gracious. In fact, it's the only thing I can think of we can do that might make a difference in his provocation-- that is, if we don't react, he won't goad. Now that we've won in the voting booths, lets win on the comment board, too. As Abraham Lincoln said, "With malice toward none..." Reasonable refutation has been useless, payback in kind can only be petty, so maybe we can all try unresponsiveness. I suggest we just don't reply to any of his comments. (This is the last reply to him that you'll see from me.) Peace, all!
Last night Charlie Rose had a pre-election tape where panel members expressed their doubts that Obama could 'handle' the 'fiscal - cliff' looming for the "next president." Why did Charie Rose wait until after the election to show this tape?
The discussion was prior to 11/6/2012, and discussion was around the dire straights of the U.S. future and the plunging U.S. economy???!!!~
Panel members expressed their concerns that Obama lacked skills and leadership to deal with it!
Canta: Here, you lapse into the paranoid worldview of certain other posters here. You really there Charlie Rose held back a chattering class panel on Obama to influence the election?
Scot, face it: You're a shill for the left. What's paranoid about that? If you had a sense of decency you would be ashamed of yourself. You are part of the "state apparatus," telling yourself you're a rebel and for the little guy.
Comments
Now would certainly be the time to do it. These Tea-Party members of Congress will fold like beach-chairs when faced with the prospect of middle class voters bringing home a lighter paycheck, just so upper earners can skate along.
Scot, agree -- and it's true that while the Wall Street Journal's mainline articles usually give a sense of trying to stick to researched facts and reasoned speculation, their op-ed's often often seem to be right-leaning emotion and hyperbole in the guise of researched facts and reasoned speculation. And, though they work hard at the disguise and some writers are extremely good at it (Peggy Noonan, for one), the effort is clear on thoughtful analysis, and their credibility suffers greatly.
So he wins by a razor thin majority and its an overwhelming mandate? Talk about contorting!
This comment has been removed.
Three million more American citizens. That's a fat razor.
This comment has been removed.
Think back to 2010, when the country overwhelmingly rejected the path Obama had taken on the stimulus, and on Obamacare. Did a chastened Obama moderate his views to comport with the reality that his policies had been rejected? No. He doubled down on his approach, and began to pass laws by executive order. He was believed to have said "I don't need no stinkin congress".
Now, after he squeezes by with a razo thin victory, the punditry acts as though he has a voter approved mandate to raise taxes during a weak economy. They say this despite the GOP holding on to the House of Representatives, which the punditry declare is NOT a mandate to oppose tax hikes. Sounds like a very selective bit of whose victory equals a right to keep on doing what they are doing.
The fiscal cliff was created by the President, who never had any intention of reaching an agreement. It was conveniently accepted by both parties a a way to put off difficult decisions. It is at least a 50-50 chance that they will do the same thing again-agree to do nothing and extend the date from Jan 1 to July 1.
The republicans may accpts a modest increase in tax rates, as a way to get the Dems to accpet spending cuts. It will not raise any real revenue, but it will give the Dems the class warfare victory they think they have earned. So be it. The electorate has decided that slow economic growth is a fair price to pay to keep its rock star in the oval office. Republicans should hold to their principlas though, and not allow the President to bully them into submission.
This comment has been removed.
The last term that would ever reasonably apply to a 332-206 Electoral victory (once Florida finally does end up as a Democtratic victory instead of merely leaning) is razor thin. Romney won the confederacy Tuesday night, but that's all. Obama won the presidency. With no snark whatsoever, I extend an open hand and invite you to join reality. We gave Bush a chance in 2000 (he did, after all, have a 90% approval rating shortly after 9/11), now it's your turn to acknowledge the will of the people.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
One message from the election was this: It wasn't a mistake the first time. We really want Obama. Really. Now go back to Washington, suck it up and get the job done this time. Or we can send a much stronger message in two years. Really. We will.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
Scot it is increasingly depressing to watch this floundering by the Republican Party and these so called conservatives. We just got our hats handed to us something like 332 to 206 and we call it razor thin. Then I sit down for laughs and watch FOX News and what do I see but a bunch of folks living a delusion. Crushed in the voting by women, minorities, gays and any other group that wasn't white and male they sit there and come up with hurricane excuses or even better pull off an O'Reilly and say the country has reached the point of all of those folks voting for Obama are takers and not givers. Great, lose an election and then insult everyone who just voted against you.
My favorite was and I can't remember who said it, "American's can't possibly want a European style country." Excuse me but we are and have been for years. We've got SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, unemployment everything except the shorter work week and longer vacations. It is about time real "conservatives" do what we do best, conserve that which the people have chosen and make it run efficiently and wisely. Not long after RR the Re[publican Party took these knuckleheaded religious right types seriously, then went to bed with "libertarians" which no conservative could actually like, then had a love affair with "social conservatives, an oxymoron and now everybody hates us. Many "conservatives" themselves left the Party in disgust and simply had their name stolen by these groups.
You look at the comment section and these folks have no idea what a conservative is. They think its Rush Limbaugh. The fight in the party has already started and a few real "conservatives" are talking sense but then get yelled at by these crazies, no we've got to go further right on abortion on this or that, issues that have nothing to do with conservatism. This is a nighmare scenario for the Party and if the crazies gain complete control the number of unaffliated voters will explode as the Party collapses. We need a two party system but both parties need to be sane. Right now conservatism doesn't have a real home.
You can count me as a conservative who unenrolled in disgust while exiting the polls in 2000.
It's really about money you know. Corporations are fine with whatever social or religious nonsense is being debated. The real power in the Republican party comes from the corporations backing the propaganda and the last thing these guys care about is abortion etc.There are always a few exceptions. Philip Anschutz being one-actually might be ideologically motivated-but most of this is driven by a desire for more money. What I find interesting is how powerful and seductive the propaganda really is. S. Lehigh talks about Victor Davis Hanson- who has a reputation of being an intellectual with something to say- but I find him and his ilk over at Pajamas Media to be just good wordsmiths with little to offer. Everyone has been taken in by the irrationality and a lament for a time of "Father Knows Best". Even the main street conservative pundits like George Will and Michael Barone got this way wrong, predicting a landslide victory for Romney. Was it wishful thinking or delusional thinking-I believe it was one or the other.
The WSJ is owned by Newscorp. Newscorp is owned by Rupert Murdock, who owns Fox News. The WSJ is a joke, just like Fox News.
and you think that the Boston Globe would have brought the murders of our ambassador and 3 others to the attention of its readers....without Fox News everynight bringing the information about the lack of security and begging for help as they were being attacked to its viewers never would have happen....the other media & newspapers like NYT were in the bag for electing Pres. Obama an never would have reported anything about this terrible incident being a terrorist attack and the lack of response for requested added security and this administration will still stone wall and use executive privilege.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
"salemreader" I was at one level attracted to conservatism long ago by Goldwater who laid down a simple tenent regarding "conservatism",
"The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."
Does that look like today's Republican Party, not even close. These folks hated Obama so much they couldn't even lay out a logical argument with which to oppose him. It was pathetic.
He also decried the religious Right:
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
and
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
This comment has been removed.
Attaturk: I have to say, as someone who admires many classical conservatives, I find the state of today's GOP v. depressing. It has become untethered from factual analysis (of which more next week). I have to say, though I know conservatives all think it's great to have Fox News as a media platform, I think it has had a counterproductive side effect of dumbing down the movement's thought leaders. I mean, it's a long, long way from William F. Buckley to Sean Hannity ... JKupie: Agreed on the WSJ. A great newspaper with an egregiously counter-factual editorial page.
Do you really think Hannity or O'Reilly are "conservatives". To me they are merely entertainers throwing out raw meat to a gullible audience. I had problems with Buckley because he brought his religion with him into the argument but I do sorely miss Mr. Buckley and Mr. Vidal going at it. Now the intellectual debate is between O'Reilly and John Stewart. Stewart is at least "realistic".
Seriously I don't see a future for "conservatism" unless it moves away from this "social, anti-government, hate change mentality. I'm trying to recall when it became fashionable for "conservatives" to oppoe progress. I certainly never came across that in my readings in philosophy or politics.
I have to disagree a little on the WSJ. I've been a subscriber for 20 years. I'll agree they werer a great newspaper with an amazingly biased editorial page. Since News Corp took over, there's been a noticable bleed of the editiorial bias into the news side. Several friends have complained of the same thing.
"A bad case of political denial is infecting conservatives nationwide."
Well, no, I would say it is infecting partisan Republicans. You've laid claim to fiscal conservatism yourself, Scot, do you feel afflicted? Neither do I. Although Hanson is correct about the divisions that still exist, a returning incumbent President can afford to compromise or grandstand, depending on the issue, since he doesn't have to sell that point for re-election, while the Senators and especially the Representatives do have to worry about that. While I am concerned about the fiscal cliff whereat we totter, perhaps it is also time to re-evaluate whether or not this nation's best interests are served by a political process where re-election is job one. Personally I would favor a significant Constitutional reform to set a reasonable length of time for a term in office and eliminate incumbency.
The counter argument to that is you get a class of unelected professional beuarocrats running things, since they're the only ones who know how to get things done. We pretty much have that in Cambridge where the mayor changes every election cycle and the real power is with the City Manager.
Yes, that is very much a risk, although we already have that at all levels. I think it would give more people the opportunity to cycle from local political levels up through national levels (I also think we have too many state governments; local and federal seem like more than enough to me). Also, I should point out that I would not prohibit anyone from running again, just not for the office one is currently holding. I would also favor not being allowed to run for a different office while holding office. Sure, it forces people to go back to private life for at least a year each cycle, but I don't think that would kill any ambitions. I won't lay claim, however, to knowing what constitutes a practical solution. Cheers.
Scot, After re-reading your post I noted even you called those folks out there watching FOX "conservatives". I don't think they are. Perhaps a few but who really thinks of Coulter as "conservative". This love affair with Ayn Rand by so many. That's not conservative, it's radical. For me the problem is the name "conservative" got hijacked. I'm not sure real "conservatives" can ever get it back.
<<I'm posting this up here again because it was buried in the replies below.>> Hey, everyone! I know we've found "system" to be difficult to take, and I agree that it feels good to say "nyah, nyah", but let's do what we can to be gracious. In fact, it's the only thing I can think of we can do that might make a difference in his provocation-- that is, if we don't react, he won't goad. Now that we've won in the voting booths, lets win on the comment board, too. As Abraham Lincoln said, "With malice toward none..." Reasonable refutation has been useless, payback in kind can only be petty, so maybe we can all try unresponsiveness. I suggest we just don't reply to any of his comments. (This is the last reply to him that you'll see from me.) Peace, all!
System, system who?
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
Last night Charlie Rose had a pre-election tape where panel members expressed their doubts that Obama could 'handle' the 'fiscal - cliff' looming for the "next president." Why did Charie Rose wait until after the election to show this tape?
The discussion was prior to 11/6/2012, and discussion was around the dire straights of the U.S. future and the plunging U.S. economy???!!!~
Panel members expressed their concerns that Obama lacked skills and leadership to deal with it!
This comment has been removed.
Other panels expressed doubts he would win the election....So much for "Panels".
This comment has been removed.
Canta: Here, you lapse into the paranoid worldview of certain other posters here. You really there Charlie Rose held back a chattering class panel on Obama to influence the election?
Scot, face it: You're a shill for the left. What's paranoid about that? If you had a sense of decency you would be ashamed of yourself. You are part of the "state apparatus," telling yourself you're a rebel and for the little guy.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.