President Obama’s surprisingly forceful inaugural address Monday heralding a leftward shift in American politics was just the latest bit of bad news for a beleaguered Republican Party. In November, Republicans blew their chance to defeat him. Then they lost the showdown over the fiscal cliff. Then, on Wednesday, they backed down from their threat to force a debt default if Democrats did not accept deep spending cuts, meekly agreeing instead to suspend the debt limit until May. Until recently, Republicans had insisted that the debt limit was their strongest point of leverage over Obama.
Since the election, the GOP has been a foundering mess — angry, defiant, confused, less popular than ever, and lacking any evident plan to right the ship. One reason for this crisis is that Republicans from Mitt Romney on down took it as an article of faith that Americans would reject a second Obama term. Most have not yet come to terms with the fact that Obama won, and did so handily. In a speech to the Ripon Society on Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner complained that Obama was determined to “annihilate” the Republican Party; but it would be closer to the truth to say that the party seems intent on annihilating itself.
Comments
I see Joshua is another liberal journalist willing to help President Obama in his "get rid of the GOP" agenda.
Joshua Green is a senior national correspondant for Bloomberg Businessweek - hardly a "liberal" bastion. The Boston Globe merely bought rights to publish his article, as they have done, periodically, in the past.
A working definition of a closed "mind" is the reflexive rejection of any concept that is in conflict with preconceived notions.
Joshua, it's just incorrect and myopic to say that the Republicans only stand for anti-Obama sentiment.
If that were true, the main fault of Republicans would be petty partisanship -- instead, their real agenda is much more evil and dishonest than this. Let's leave aside their evil social policies on guns, sex, race, and immigration -- their core is economic (a la Paul Ryan's politics and Ayn Rand's philosophy), and it's not pretty.
1) Republicans stand for pro-upper class economic policies. Republicans stand for giving the wealthy as many tax breaks as possible (capital gains, interest), while transferring tax burdens to middle and working class people (payroll, sales taxes).
2) Republicans really don't care about the deficit as long as Federal money is spent in ways that disproportionately benefit their upper class clients (defense, armaments procurement). The rhetoric about the deficit is just a smokescreen that they use to try to cut social spending in favor of military spending. Both parties are Keynesians, but the Democrats would rather spend on infrastructure, social services, and clean energy, whereas the Republicans would rather spend on war (military Keynesianism). If, God forbid, Romney had become president and they had control of Congress, they would be busily dismantling social safety nets and redirecting money towards the military-industrial complex. A good, old-fashioned profitable war would be in the planning -- so easy to start with the lameness of our mainstream Fourth Estate -- they will take any rationalization no matter how thin on face value.
America would be much better off if the GOP DID simply annihilate themselves as an organization and a political tendency. Political reform is sorely needed.
Their practice of taking the economy hostage until they get their way re: rewarding their rich clients is dangerous for the economic future of both the US and the world financial system. It's totally irresponsible. They are more of a threat to our future national prosperity than any combination of terrorists that are out there. A vote for Republicans, even here in Massachusetts, is a vote against the economic future of the American middle class and for the economic enrichment of robber barons, bonus pigs, and inherited wealth.
We would be much better off with a responsible conservative movement that was focused on good government. To begin with, they could champion the elimination of waste in government spending: (do we really need those oil and nuclear subsidies? do we need to spend $700 billion/yr to defend our shores? why shouldn't the Federal govt better negotiate to rein in health care and drug prices? why can't we import drugs from overseas? why are pharmaceutical companies allowed to profit from publicly funded research? why can't we prosecute the fraudsters who crashed the economy, break up the big banks, give the little guys -- small businesses, homeowners, patients, parents and students -- power and support? why can't we have broad-based job creation programs?).
This comment has been removed.
Toward: the answer to your question about prosecuting the fraudsters can be found this week in the PBS Frontline report called The Untouchables -- and that doesn't refer to the Elliott Ness series. Though unfortunately not mentioning the government insistence that banks give mortgages to "the cantaffordables", Frontline makes it clear that government prosecutors didn't make a serious effort to prosecute, which is why not one bank CEO went to jail for helping liberal meddlers in the free market almost destroying the economy.
Hmmmmm....I'm trying to decide who the bigger idiot is. Josh or TowardABetterWorld (who, I'm guessing, is Liz Warren)... It's not enough that the Bay State is getting SLAMMED by higher taxes on the state and federal levels so that we can pull off yet anothr "Mass Miracle"... A HUGE chunk coming from the Middle Class...This state is an example of Democrats who run amok... Keep writing crap to your choir, Josh, your career will advance (at least in this state).
Right on, tommyd!!
Josh used the phrase "defiant, angry, confused" to describe the GOP, but I thought that phrase perfectly described the Obama inaugural address. The president came across as an angry and bitter man, who has no need to work with Republicans. If they do not cave to his will, he will make them look like absolutists, and the cheerleaders in the media (like Josh) will support that narrative to make it appear true.
The GOP is up against the 4th estate, and will have to find a way to show the people who has a better path forward for our nation. It will need to push hard for entitlement reform, and to refuse the tax increases that would hurt our fragile economy. It is sad that the media is ignorant about basic economic principles, and forces the nonsense about "new revenues" as if it were factual. Unfortunately, it was largely the ignorance of the people that won the election for Obama.
The best way to grow tax revenue is to grow the economy. One of the primary reasons the economy have grown so painfully slow is the fear of tax increases the president has been promising all along. This is a truism that the people can be taught. The best way to do this would be for the GOP to force action on Simpson-Bowles. This is the president own debt commission, whose recommendations were never considered by the president. Making him act on his own commission's ideas would put to rest the lie that all the GOP wants, is to oppose the president.
Actually the economy has puttered along for two reasons. One the inability of the Congress to avoid constant crisis from debt ceiling to fiscal cliff to continuing resolutions. Turning the normal operation of govt. into a soap opera. The second is the pull back by consumers which had nothing to do with govt. and everything to do with a recession. The latter is coming to a close consumers are starting to spend again and one can only hope the Congress gets over it's case of institutional amnesia.
The GOP is the last to "grow the economy". Last I looked they almopst annihilated the economy.
Reading just a couple of comments regarding Mr. Green's piece shows exactly what needs to be purged from the Republican Party. Having recently attended a local Republican meeting I noted the number of moderate R's who showed up, not enough to change things but an improvement over my last visit.
Mr. Green is correct the party needs to focus on deficit reduction just as it should be an important issue to the nation, but not an overriding issue. The Party cannot simply be the Party that says we are going to undercut programs that have been part of the American psyche for over a generation. The public believes in these programs whether some of you do or don't. Political Party's oppose the main stream at their own risk. It may make some folks feel good to say cut,cut, cut, but that merely leads to lose,lose, lose.
The Party at this point has no concise plan to retain these public programs and balance the budget. Defense remains sacrosanct which is budgetarily stupid, tax reform with increased revenues remains off the table which is politially stupid.
Hopefully the adults within the Party will begin to develop ideas and plans that while reducing or at least balancing expenditures to revenues does not turn off what is a true demographic and political shift. One can either sit there and say I'm right and will die for my principles or one can be a political party and seek ways to win.
Very true, Turk. And not to bash Bush, but I'm going to...He swung the party too far to the right and away from the moderate base (the rational adults) that leaders like Reagan (and even Clinton) were able to attract. But to state the party is evil, is just crazy. The party has high standards and does understand when folks can't achieve those standards because of extenuating circumstances. To the dems, EVERYTHING is an extenuating circumstance that people with means SHOULD provide for by being taxed out of their class levels... If you need more moderate Reps just let me know.
Normal, rational people can argue that a balanced approach of cuts and new revenues is the only way to balance the budget. But in the real, abnormal, irrational world of Washington DC, once new revenues are passed, the cuts are forgotten, and the new revenues are used for spending and borrowing that make the national debt worse. The only way to address the deficit is to refuse new taxes until the spending is controlled.
Given the results of the Clinton years that is not always true. An arguement can be made that in addition to budgetary agreements in those years, economic growth helped to create the surplus. But that is really kind of irrelevant in that there were surpluses. It is not to say R's are at fault or D's did a great job the fact is the two party's in cooperating created a surplus that was sustained. There is no reason that cannot be a scenario that is attainable today.
I could be said the reverse may be true also, that once cuts are made revenues are forgotten.
The GOP is all for debt reduction. The exponential growth of the deficit over the past four years was one of Romney's biggest barbs against Obama during the campaign. The GOP is for expense reductions are part of balancing the budget and reducing the deficit. If the GOP is indeed a minority party, it's only because Democrats have grown the goverment to such a ridiculous level.
"The exponential growth of the deficit over the past four years "
"...it's only because Democrats have grown the goverment to such a ridiculous level."
This is where you and many of the Republicans I know lose me jselby. The Repuiblican parts is as guilty as the Democratic party of growing the deficit. The modern Democratic party has a proven track record of inability to decipher 'need' from 'gimme free stuff'. But to portray the modern Republican party as fiscally responsible - only because they 'talk' tougher on all/any welfare - masks the real problem. You do remember 10 years in Iraq right? And I'll give you the beneift of the doubt that you're not arguing that all 10 years was required due to imminent danger from terrorists... right? The bottom line is that we were 'borrowing' to pay for it the whole time. How many Republicans made a real effort to stop it? And the reason is they're willing to borrow (or let somebodey else pay) for whatever they think is important...just like the Democrats.
Sorry to single you out, you just happened to be the most recent post.
buying votes with freebies does not help the economy....democrats are a natural doing this.....we always were a country of can do, and work ethic by taking any job to survive until you can get on your feet....not run out and buy the latest Ipod...when you already have several and then complain...I have no money for food and then we go to a college that not only no jobs when you get out but you can owe thousands of dollars that will take you a lifetime to pay off. Where is common sense....I grew up poor, worked in factories and worked hard and spent what I could afford and today I am surviving, but who knows for how longe because of the way the government is spending and going into debt.....You have unemployment for 2 years (before 26 weeks) collect food stamps or EBT cards (missing 19000 receipents) and get medicaid....WHY work or to bad you may have to work 2 jobs...did it all my life...Like my mother said and she was a housekeeper and never own a home or car and did not complain as long as you are able body no one owes you a living get an education and take any job while achieving it....today the attitude I am owed....as JFK said not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.....we always helped those that are truly needy, but many are now gaming the system and the politicians are no better in their seeking of votes.
Or maybe the housing "recovery" (see: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-25/new-home-sales-miss-expectations-post-biggest-drop-february-2011)
Or the "recovery" (see: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-24/its-official-worst-recovery-ever)
Or our view on the future and economy (Gallup: he three previous points in time when ratings were as low as or lower than the 2013 rating were in August 1979 (34%), April 1974 (33%), and January 1971 (39%). The 1979 measure came at a time when the economy was in bad shape and inflation was rampant, while the 1974 measure came in the midst of the Watergate scandal.)
Or the economy/jobs: (see: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-24/kansas-fed-joins-ny-philly-and-richmond-fed-contracting-employment-index-drops-2009-)
So many to choose from.....................
Or maybe Obama's flaunting of the Constitution?
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Frida
The verb you mean is flauting, not flaunting.
Bush made far, far more recess appointments.
The judges were all Republican appointees.
Clinton 139 (8 years)
Bush 171 (7 years)
Obama 28 (first term)
Republican politicians are complete hypocrites in addition to their evil-ness.
Or maybe blocking silly cap and rtade and cliamte change hocus pocus
"A lot of you press me . . . on: 'Where is the bill on climate change? Where is the bill?' There doesn't have to be a bill," Mrs. Boxer explained in a briefing the day after Mr. Obama's speech. "I'm telling you right now, EPA has the authority in the transportation sector, the electricity sector, and the industrial sector under the Clean Air Act" to do everything that legislation might otherwise do.
or reform entitlements
Consider:
• Over the 50-plus years since 1960, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, entitlement transfers—government payments of cash, goods and services to citizens—have been growing twice as fast as overall personal income. Government transfers now account for nearly 18% of all personal income in America—up from 6% in 1960.
• According to the BEA, America's myriad social-welfare programs (the federal bureaucracy apparently cannot determine exactly how many of these there are) currently dispense entitlement benefits of more than $2.3 trillion annually. Since those entitlements must be paid for—either through taxes or borrowing—the burden of entitlement spending now amounts to over $7,400 per American man, woman and child.
• In 1960, according to the Office of Management and Budget, social-welfare programs accounted for less than a third of all federal spending. Today, entitlement programs account for nearly two-thirds of federal spending. In other words, welfare spending is nearly twice as much as defense, justice and everything else Washington does—combined. In effect, the federal government has become an entitlements machine.
• According to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly half (49%) of Americans today live in homes receiving one or more government transfer benefits. That percentage is up almost 20 points from the early 1980s. And contrary to what the Obama White House team suggested during the election campaign, this leap is not due to the aging of the population. In fact, only about one-tenth of the increase is due to upticks in old-age pensions and health-care programs for seniors.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578259940213918254.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
So, so many to choose from Josh
Conservatives have a very skewed idea of what constitutes a "transfer payment", which on its face sounds like money being transferred from one person ( a "maker") to another (a "taker").
But in the case of Social Security and Medicare, we pay into the system and are paid by the system when we reach age 65. These are not "entitlements" in the sense of an un-earned payment.
Medicare is being challenged by increases in health care costs, but conversely if we can control health care costs (like negotiating drug prices for seniors), then Medicare will be fine. Similarly, small adjustments in Social Security taxes (on the order of 1%) keep the system solvent with current benefits for decades to come.
In 1960 there was no Medicare. I presume that this means that conservatives like begolfing would like to see that program abolished.
Medicare (~$500 billion) and Social Security (~$700 billion) are paid for via dedicated taxes. Of the rest of the US budget, there is Defense (~$500 billion), Medicaid (~$300 billion), Discretionary (~$600 billion), Interest (~$200 billion), and other mandatory (~$450 billion).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
The biggest chunk is defense (more like $700 billion if you include current wars, dark budgets, and military pensions) and this is comparable to the military spending of the rest of the entire world.
Yes, Medicaid is a transfer, but we should remember also that a big chunk of it supports the elderly in nursing homes. Conservatives want to eliminate all that.
As was pointed out in the last election, that 49% of households with people receiving payments (if the figure itself is accurate) includes SS, disability, and verterans benefits -- welfare per se is a small part of this.
Radical conservatives have a very skewed map of our society, a map that reflects their own selfish, short-sighted values and their rejection of evidence and reason.
nah, how about gay marriage and climate change! that's what we need!
This comment has been removed.
Some of the posts below are TOO much. Basically, the hatred of the President is soooo blinding that they'll call someone from Bloomberg News a Globe taody! Gotta love conservatives who will never ever admit that they have ever made a mistake. Cheers!
Why is it when the Republicans don't compromise on an issue, the media portrays them as the obstructionist party-of-No. When they do compromise - like they did with the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling - they're portrayed as "meekly agreeing".
How about giving them credit for putting the good of the country ahead of their beliefs? Or is it only democrats that do this?
It's because, in historical terms, Republicans have been WAY more obstructionistic than the Democrats.
The number of blocked bills spiked up 2-3-fold over 2008-2012 vs 2004-2008.
If they can't win general elections they paralyze everything. Scorched earth. Tantrums.
We don't like politicians in general, and can't stand sections of the Democratic party, but the present Republican crop is really, really rotten to the core.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html
If Republicans really want to put the country ahead of their petty partisan interests, then they would eliminate this destructive debt-ceiling threat entirely.
In effect, they still have control of the hostage, they are simply saying that they won't threaten to harm it in the next few months. We are supposed to think more highly of them because of this?
You know the conservatives really need to get over blaming the media for the Republican's predicament. We're in a new media age and this idea of the "lamestream" media" and the liberal press is really out of touch with the reality of the media world as it stands today. If you think that Rupert Murdock's media empire influence or all the conservative bloggers and websites are any less influential, you're still living in the 80s. Time to take responsibility for your own party's inability to see how the world is changing. And perhaps you listen way to much to yourselves to realize you're being left behind.
I think "Dan3232" does raise a good point. While it is indeed in one sense a backing down by the R's regarding the "debt ceiling" it could also be argued they did it in the best interest of the country. I know that seems like a stretch but there were R's in the caucus who made the argument that one Business was vehemently opposed to going over the edge, two, it was political suicide, and three it was bad for the world economy. Now while it may well have been a political decision all decisions of this type are political and the media could well have pointed out that the R's did indeed back up do to fears for the economy as well as themselves. The phrase "meekly agreeing" was probably unnecessary.
This comment has been removed.
Everytime that the GOP has the choice between cutting taxes or reducing the deficit, they choose cutting taxes -- and adding to the deficit.