Would seem to indicate that besides being a narcissist that he isn't particularly keen on the idea of strikes in the face of a belligerent other party. I think he will need to 'clarify' his position with his union base....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEHKBqlpYwM&feature=youtu.be
But of coarse being the President and holding the upper hand in the 'dispute' he can do what so many employers try in a strike... they initiate a lock down and refuse to talk ........ its ok though.... cause he's 'winning'.
He is "winning" Obamacare has started it will be harder now to reverse. Every major poll concerning the shutdown puts the blame on the republican controlled house first Obama 2nd and the democratic controlled senate 3rd. Back off the our way or no way attitude and he will talk. He is not going to negotiate Obamacare he already told you that. Everything else is negotiable. He told you that also. Listen to the guy once in a while. Look he isn't my favorite president of all time but republican obstructionism from day one has made it astonishingly difficult for the guy to lead from behind, lead from the front or lead any other way. He was re-elected it's time for all in Washington to get over themselves and move the country forward, and stop the petty bickering. All of them!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I do not get the sense that Obama has ever negotiated any point that he felt strongly about. Except for the plan B of Obama's single payer dream which I am convinced, because of the way he plays politics, is designed and desired to fail, forcing the health care system, already controlled by the state into the arms of a single payer conclusion. He has not negotiated to the point of using Executive Orders adnausium to circumvent what he KNEW was the will or at least the stalemate of congress. AHCA was indeed passed into law and therefore the purview of the Executive to ENFORCE but keep in mind that he on at least 17 occasions has modified, exempted and delayed provisions without congress amending the law and also keep in mind how it was passed. First not a single Republican voted for it (regardless of the original vote, they still have opinions and NO LAW is above repeal, amendment or budget limitation by the congress) and the illustrious Rep. Pelosi sold this to her party loyal with the words "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." Well, as good little party minions did, they passed it without understanding that their job is to actually consider the effects of a law and ALL of its provision BEFORE they give it a 'yea' on the floor of congress. As we now see, the many heretofore unknown provisions have only intensified the controversy even to some democrats who, but for the fear of party rejection, would not stand with much of what is written in this law. So why shouldn't a majority in the House (Those responsible of initiation the budget) not install provisions that they feel are important? You can say this is politically motivated but given that it is the only place the most fiscal conservative members of congress can even hope to have an effect on the budget given that the left will not move on established social programs and the right will not move on defence, is that political or is it reality?
ReplyDeleteAs far as Obama's responses to this impasse and the last debt ceiling result, I would say that he is being 100% political and indeed 100% obstructionist. The result of the last debt ceiling calamity resulted in an automatic sequestration IF no reasonable spending cuts could be negotiated. Of course there were no meaningful cuts offered up by the left so sequestration, agreed to by the president, kicked in... What did Obama, the administrator of the law of the land do? Well he didn't use those automatic cuts to find places in various department to trim fat.... no, he did exactly what he is doing now today, cutting out services that are most visible and hurtful to the American public. Actually Obama was playing the sequestration card long before any of those funds were frozen in March of this year. After seeing his healthcare Facebook page bombarded with people complaining not just about the delays in being able apply which appears to be a nightmare but about the outlandish quotes they are receiving, Obama... during a shutdown is making sure that one website stays current...... http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/10/03/how-has-government-shutdown-affected-you ... It is all politics to him.
The Scott,
DeleteExcellent post. Sorry I was late in saying so.
Jean
The notion that the government shutdown is the fault of the "Big Government" Dems or that "socialist" Obama is totally laughable. I know the Pubs need their talking points, but the revisionist history here is absolutely Orwellian. It's a sad, sad joke.
ReplyDeleteThere's video all over the place of the TEAs talking about shutting it all down. There's a letter signed by 80 Pubs talking about their plan to shut down the government. But it's the Dems that are responsible ... Yeah, ok.
I'm no fan of either party here but at least the Dems aren't calling us a bunch of idiots to our face.
The Pubs, otoh, obviously think that we're nothing but a bunch of mouth-breathing mooks ...
When we elect people who hate government, we get shitty government. It's self-fulfilling prophecy. When we elect enough people who want to get rid of the government (TEAs), we get no government.
Agree or disagree, the elected TEAs are doing exactly what they said they do.
But to attempt to spin this as a Dem created shutdown is just flat out fuckin' false, and if you say you believe it, you're either lying or you're just carny-folk stupid.
1773-2009 yes we are limiting government using the constitution.
DeleteIt's going to be a frustrating three years for mr obama. Get used to it.
When it comes to barak and harry the word castration comes to mind.
1773-2009-2013
pfunky,
DeleteColorful language aside, I agree with your that to say it is the fault of the Democrats is, well, false. To suggest the blame falls exclusively on Republicans, though, is just as false, yes?
I would use your color by just declaring ( ) them all. All 536. No discrimination of any kind there.
Jean
With respect to name calling I would say that it is tit for tat but of course with the raised temperature and rhetoric I have, from the democrats heard Nazis, Terrorists and Racists within the last couple of weeks.....
ReplyDeletehttp://voices.yahoo.com/who-worse-democrats-republicans-7584038.html
As far as who wants to shut down the government, I would say that no one wants to shut down the government but there is a growing group of people in this country that are tired of the way our government, from to bottom is being run. It is tired of the types of people who are getting elected to 'responsibly' manage this country by people who can’t even tell you what the Declaration of Independence is or who don’t even know the name of the person they voted for. Tired of the debt clock moving in the wrong direction whether it is because of social programs that are 1) unaffordable and 2) not fit for purpose or defence spending that is turning this country into a federally controlled police state. I suppose you could say that the house republicans had no right to qualify a budget with limitations because the legislature has once again abrogated its duty to create a budget and just give the president what he wants. I could stay that the reason a growing group of people want to wipe out entire departments of government, want to because, beside the fact that some of these functions aren't described in any logical interpretation of the constitution, the office of the president and the entire executive branch is out of control. The hubris of the executive to demand an ever rising budget, no constraints on spending and when the money runs out demand more no questions asked...... and you agree with that?
Once again I hear how the ‘TEA’s’ want to get rid of government..... I want a government that conforms to the constitution and doesn’t try to wad it up like toilet paper. I want a government that is distributed as called for in the constitution. Do you think for one minute that this would be playing out this way had progressives not solved a minor problem at the state level with the 17th amendment. We have an upper and lower House of Representatives elected to do the same job by the same people. Had the state legislators had representatives in these processes, as it is the states that have to implement and manage so many of these arcane federal laws, we might see a much different atmosphere in Washington.... but then the socialists of the left and empire builders of the right would be looking for work.
Its funny, I listen to so many uninformed people name call the TEAs for what they THINK they stand for. Actually, TEAs, except for the lack of desire to run this country into the ground financially are much closer aligned with traditional left than you might think. Fiscally conservative (do you have a problem with wanting to not spend more than we make?) and socially moderate. Not that I believe in some things people want to do... I just do think that it is up to this legislative session or that skewed court decision to force social trends that, regardless of public opinion, become very difficult to turn around once enacted. The responsibility belongs with the growth and popularity (or lack their of) of the various states... where people can come and go to the social environments that appeal to them. Basic constitutional tenants and rights apply but the people’s right to reject certain behaviour in their community shouldn’t controlled by Washington. That’s not no government... that is distributed government.... very different things.
So you think that the president throwing his toys out of the pram by closing parking spaces at Mt. Rushmore is cool given that Mt Rushmore is private and only the parking is co-opted (Give the government an inch....) Or parking at privately owned Mt. Vernon?..... or trying to close the entire bay of Biscay in Florida? Or open monuments in Washington that are rarely visited by Parks employees? He has wasted more money throwing his tantrum than it would have cost to keep the parks open. Not the marks of a particularly effective or respectable leader.
ReplyDeleteI think Washington is going to see just how many people are pissed off on the 11-13th of this month. The two million bikers on 9/11 had their presence muted by a compliant media but I don’t think that they are going to be able to ignore the million truckers to DC... not for 4 or 5 hours but for 3 days.... in line with that will be millions of Americans who will not shop, drive and will have a ‘sicky’ in support.... Heck, the even have Canadian truckers driving to Toronto in sympathy.... Now you may not here much (the news you ascribe to probably won’t devote much cover) but if you look at the GDP numbers for Oct you might see some sentiment their..... Of course companies that the left real against the most, like Wal-Mart, have their own fleets... I just hope they have an epidemic amongst the drivers...
TS, my agreement or disagreement with the actions of the TEAs in Congress is completely irrelevant to the point(s) I was making. I was just calling "bullshit" on the spin that this shutdown is the Dems' doing.
DeleteIndeed, I gave credit to the TEAs for actually attempting to do what they were elected to do, which is much more than I can say for most of our other "representatives".
And I understand your Libertarian based political philosophy, and, believe it or not, I don't disagree with as much of it as you may think.
But make no mistake about it, the TEAs shut the government down. They ran for office on a promise to tank big government and, more importantly, to overturn Obamacare by whatever means they can.
If shutting down the government in an effort to defund the ACA, or, if defaulting (or threatening to default) on existing U.S. debt with the looming debt ceiling vote is what it takes, then so be it. Again, to their credit, I don't think the TEAs have ever hidden that agenda.
As for the name calling, well that's politics. If you decide to enter politics, please know that it's tough - go invest in a good, sturdy cup. I have never felt anything but disdain when one side starts whining about how the opposition "are a bunch of big meanies".
But the Pubs' claim that the shutdown is the Dems' fault is just factually incorrect.
Here's the thing - I don't blame the TEAs for the spin. As I've said with regards to them, what you see from the TEAs is pretty much what you get, and I don't think that they've ever really hidden their agenda.
I do, however, blame the Establishment Pubs' for the spinning - they're too scared of the TEAs in they're own party to call them out if they disagree with what's going on. They're afraid of possible political backlash, but more importantly, they're afraid of losing their jobs - not in a General election against a Dem, mind you, their districts are way too gerrymandered to worry about the Dems. They're worried about getting "primaried" by a TEA Party candidate.
As a result, and in a very gutless fashion, the Establishment Pubs turn to blaming Pelosi/Reid/Obama for the shutdown.
Now there's a ton of very real reasons to criticize or dislike those folks politically, but no matter how hard they spin, no matter how many times the Pubs' say the shutdown is their fault, it won't change the fact that that is simply weapons-grade bullshit.
The TEAs shutdown the government in their ongoing effort to defund Obamacare. Whether you agree or disagree with their tactics, that is what happened. Period.
And if you take part in spreading the Establishment Pubs' spin, you're lying. If you actually believe their spin, well, you're a moron.
That's all I was saying.
Pfunky, right as usual. The sad part of the whole carnival is: we need an effective government and we need two parties who are willing to work together for the good of all the people. Now we have a Republican Party which is self destructing by ignoring the will of the majority and allowing themselves to be hijacked down the road of extremism. Same thing happened when Barry Goldwater was nominated and again when George McGovern was nominated. Two different parties, same mistake. The majority of the people thought them too extreme, but the Parties were determined to "reform" the country. Ignore the electorate at your peril. They used to call the Democrats a circular firing squad. Now the Republicans are making the same mistakes. Who loses? We do, all of us.
DeleteYou're right, Doc. Gone is any kind of sense of stewardship. The Republican party of today is made up of a minority of conservative ideologues and a majority that are trying not to incur their wrath. True statesmen need not apply.
DeleteIn a previous thread, I had mentioned Reagan and O'Neill working together to extend the viability of Social Security back in the 80s.
There was Bush 41 who, while he may be no one's idea of a great president, fell on his political sword after his "read my lips" statement. He knew that it would kill him politically, but he did it cuz it was in the best interest of the country. And he was right - some charming, brilliant, virtually unknown hillbilly from Arkansas beat him over the head with it.
Speaking of Clinton, he and Gingrich got together during the last shutdown and hammered out a deal that turned out to be very good overall for the country. Clinton gave in on welfare, Gingrich gave in on taxes, and they came up with "PayGo". Shortly thereafter, the U.S. ran national budget surplusses for 2 1/2 years.
These folks, while holding on to their ideological bedrock, understood that they needed to actually govern and that to do so required compromise. Like them or hate them, they acted like statesmen when push came to shove.
Today, the Senate can't even manage to pass a resolution agreeing on what day it is without a 60 vote super-majority. There's very much a sense of "if they're for it, I'm against it" regardless of what the "it" is, driven entirely by ideology and hatred for the opposition. Forget actually trying to govern - that's for socialist pansies.
Oh well. We voted 'em in. We get what we deserve.
GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out.
I take your point pfunky, but not the implications behind it. That’s like blaming the parent for ending a teens’ party when it gets out of hand. Negotiating and ‘compromising’ with democrats is NEVER a zero sum game. It is ALWAYS a negative from a fiscal standpoint. If someone goes to Washington to actually hold the line on spending then they are called a terrorist because ‘compromise’ with people who can never get enough money is tantamount to insurrection and compromise ALWAYS ends in the increase in overall debt... period. While you may see the republicans in general and them dang teapartiers in specific as the absolute stonewall in this process because they refuse to raise taxes, we could tax America until it is blue in the face (pun intended) and we would (1) no longer have any wealth in America(they are, while small in numbers today, already exiting in record numbers) and (2) still not be able to manage the debt at the exponential rate at which it is diverging from real wealth (actual GDP – not government contrived hocus pocus but real wealth production). Knowing how difficult it is to dismantle pre-existing, ineffectual and wasteful social programs it seems perfectly logical to prevent (or limit) a new one, particularly one that is hugely expensive and with so many ‘gotchas’ imbedded in the detail. As I said before, Obama as the administrator of the budget COULD have used the sequester deal that he himself agreed to, to cut fat but instead used it to inconvenience the American people for political gain. Did it help cut the deficit... a little... did it help cut the mismanagement and waste... not a damn bit. So you can blame the ‘TEAs’ as being the cause of the shutdown which plays well in the psyche of the left (and some deflectors on the right) but at the root of the problem is a government that refuses to STOP THE DAMN SPENDING! So people can tell themselves that the tea/libertarian types are the CAUSE of the shutdown but if you really look at the problem... it is the petulance of an out of control federal government and their dependent minions who refuse to get a grip with reality.
DeleteYou seem to believe that the left is immune from the ‘TEAs’ as you call them but, I am afraid that what has started in the Republican party is making sense to a lot of moderate democrats. They are looking past the labels of the lefts propaganda machine. Spend some time on The Daily Paul and see how they come to argue a point only to end with ... “Hum... I never thought of it that way”. People who want to sell fresh milk to their neighbours and not fear being raided by federal commandos... people who are tired of the feds ever expanding wars and internal spy programs that have been sanctioned by just as many establishment lefts as rights. People who, while desiring freedom and liberty, do not believe that it is the right or responsibility of the federal government to define.... it is the will of the people in their own communities. People who see the futility of a federal government so bent on control that the federal tax laws alone have gone from a mere 400 pages a century ago to over 27000 pages...
As far as mainstream (Every group has its extremists and ultra extremists) libertarians go.... Who can call a philosophy of ‘do no harm’ extreme. (Perhaps those who have been raised, guided and eventually indoctrinated by the extreme ideologies of their own?... ideologies that they now call ‘normal’) Republicans who push the wars and democrats who push what many feel are long term harmful programs and both who are building a police state that, if not checked, put the Stazi in awe. I am sorry if people think that preventing ineffectual governess is somehow an act of terrorism.... I think that it is the other way around. 83% is still operational and of the 17% shutdown Obama is using them to inflict needless discomfort to make a political point.... if only by degree, what is the definition of a terrorist?
Thank you TS for your thoughtful, well-reasoned posts. I appreciate the time and effort you put in and they are a joy to read. If you were the Libertarian candidate running for Congress in my district, you'd get my vote.
DeleteThat said, I think there's a flaw in your reasoning with regards to the sub-discussion I was having with Mick: You're drawing a false equivalency between the "Left" and "Right" here.
There is no "lefty" equivalent to the TEAs within the Dem ranks - there are no liberal ideologues. Maybe there was 40 years ago but certainly not today. Today's Dems are the Pubs from 20 years ago.
Now there are plenty of folks that the Right would demagogue as such, but that's just what it is - demagoguery. BTW, your statement, "Negotiating and ‘compromising’ with democrats is NEVER a zero sum game" underscores your agreement with that demagoguery. Please refer to the Clinton/Gingrich example I provided in my post to Mick.
Even the "socialist" bane of the TEAs, "Obamacare" is a twice-recycled Republican plan. It's "Romneycare" on a national level which in turn was proposed by Bob Dole in response to "Hillarycare" in the 90s.
I don't have a problem with folks standing on principle. Indeed, I admire it even if I disagree with the principle that they're standing on.
But, at some point, if you're in Congress, you have to govern.
Historically, ideologues make great leaders of movements but they suck when they have to be bureaucrats responsible for making sure the nuts and bolts of government get turned.
Our system government was deliberately designed by the founders to be ponderous, adversarial, and most importantly, a function of compromise between disagreeing factions.
You're looking at the big the Big Picture, TS, and that's cool. The TEAs are not. They're looking only at Obamacare and they've been very public about their agenda in overturning it, including shutting down the government.
Now, my opinion with regards to Obamacare is that I think it's a bad law that's little more than a big, sloppy, government-subsidized blow-job for the health insurance industry, much like Dubya's perscription drug program was for Pharma.
That said, it is the law of the land - a law that's been validated by not one, but two Presidential elections, the latter actually having a candidate who lost on a platform of repealing Obamacare as his first official act were he to be elected, and a conservative Supreme Court.
Like it or not, Obamacare is law and the votes don't exist to repeal it. The 43 failed attempts to overturn it underscore that.
But instead of trying to strengthen their coalition, you know, getting more votes in the Senate, they turn to same tactics my 6 year old uses when she's not getting her way - the political equivalent of holding their breath & stomping their feet until that nasty Mr. Obama relents by repealing his signature legislation that voted into law by Congress, validated by the American people via elections, and upheld by the highest Court in the land.
At some point, they need to admit they lost - at least for now -, grow the fuck up, and govern, goddammit! Be statesmen instead of ideologues.
At what point does "standing on principle" cross the line to become a complete waste of taxpayer time & money? You used the words "ineffectual" and "waste" - isn't 43 futile votes the very definition of those terms?
Those are the points I was making in my subthread with Mick but they're irrelevant to the overriding point I was originally making:
The TEAs shut down the government in their continuing effort to get rid of Obamacare. They said they would and they did. This is what occurred.
To this point, my disagreement and your agreement with that tactic is irrelevant. To spin it any other way, however, is either an act of dishonesty or an act of stupidity.
Gee whiz, and here I thought the Tea Party Movement was dead. All this self pity over a tiny silver of political reality. Oh woe is me! Our checks aren't in the mail!
DeleteThe candy store is closed. Adults are back in charge. 16.7T is the high water mark? OMG! What swear words will The Bill Mahr types come up with to describe this travesty? One can only wonder.
Extortionist, terrorist, anarchist, arsonist, racist, bomb thrower, tea bagger,,,,,, honestly, we don't give a rats ass,,,
Listen up children, the time has arrived to follow our constitution, and cut the balls off of this multi headed, puss filled Harkonnen..
Hey William, I was hoping you'd post. Yep, the TEAs are running the show. Tip of the hat to ya - you said you would and you did. Congratulations.
DeleteBut please be careful. To quote Stan Lee from Spiderman, "With great power comes great responsibility."
Fair or foul, there are real people's lives you're playing with here. This is not some abstract exercise to demonstrate a theory of what the proper role of government should be.
We'll see what happens when someone's 87 year-old grandmother doesn't get her Social Security check or when she can't get medical treatment and she drops dead because her Medicare coverage is suspended due to the "adults" being back in charge.
Extreme examples, I know, but they do underscore the seriousness of the potential consequences of the actions that the TEAs are taking.
I just hope you do more with this shutdown than just use it as a good opportunity to tell Bill Maher to go fuck himself. I hope it means more to you than that ...
Oh pfunky I don't think so. We're still collecting over 2.7T a year, a record I believe, after Obama cowed the former congress and Boehner into raising taxes last January. So I think the swill will still be doled out on schedule. We'll just have to snip here and there to make ends meet.
DeleteSince Obama did such a great job giving away our influence in the Middle-East to the Russians, and losing Afghanistan and Iraq to boot, there will be a large dividend on the peace front. After all, how much can it cost to construct all these defensive bunkers to protect ourselves from North Korean and Iranian missiles?
Of course once Obamacare fully kicks in our longevity meter will start to run in reverse so not to many 87 year old momma's will be hanging around. Bad for the grandmamma's, good for the actuaries, and the death panels. So lot's of upcoming savings on that front.
And don't forget, Obama had that great sequester idea that's already saving us what? Thousands? Hundreds? That's bound to add up to a tidy sum. Not to worry.
And yeah, I have to agree, the movement is gonna affect lot's of real peoples lives. Like sorta, kids, young people, and future unborn's who won't be brought into generational financial surfdom and slavery.
So I guess we have all that going for us now that we've taken over.
1773-2009
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?p0=263&iso=20170120T00&msg=Time+left+until+Obama+leaves+office
Sorry for my lack of promptness but I wanted to take some time to digest and as you are probably aware, my posts are seldom succinct so anything I can do to add brevity is a blessing to me and most especially to anyone who takes the time to drudge through it......
DeleteTo be clear, I never gave any affirmative approval to their tactic. It was a good opener but they could have pulled back the curtain with, in my opinion, a slightly different tact. Having said that, this may be the prelude to the debt ceiling and we will see if what Rick said is true.... “everything except Obamacare is on the table” or as I am hearing, Obama will continue his obstructionist, no negotiating policy and a possible constitutional crisis by instructing the treasury not to prioritize payments in contravention to the 14th amendment......
As you have put me in a corner; had the rest of the House Republicans not lined up behind Ted Cruz then no, there would have been no shutdown. So yes, they did shutdown the government..... It is however tantamount to blaming the parents for ‘wrecking’ the out of control party of their teenage son.
A couple of points. Teaparty type candidates were not sent to kill Obamacare specifically. It was, as I said before, the most obvious target particularly after the cooperation we saw from the president and his cronies in the last debt ceiling ‘negotiations’ and their sequester aftermath. As I am sure you know the ‘teaparty’ movement started long before Obamacare got any air time specifically because congress did not listen to overwhelming rejection of TARP. Original members drafted only 3 core objectives: 1. The constitution 2. The rule of law 3. Fiscal responsibility.
Of course by 2010 it had been co-opted by mainstream republicans and started to look like the antithesis of the occupy movement and a more radical version of a mainstream republican. Ask 10 different people within the movement what the tea party stands for and you are likely to get 10 different answers. While I do not ascribe to much of the side noise I certainly support the original 3 principles. As long as they stayed on message, that is the original three objectives, they had my support and for that matter still do but when they started spouting other issues their message became as illegitimate, for me, as Romney.......
And by the way most of the people who are so strongly against Obamacare didn’t support the idea that ‘Romneycare’ was something that would be placed in the Republican platform and in my opinion it was lazy, go along republicans that came up with that idea as an alternative to single payer and it is that same lazy thought process that pushed the patriot act as a good idea..... Which makes, in my humble, but in this case, accurate opinion, a hell of a strong case for standing on principle.
Also, a note of caution. Not all people who oppose the unlimited expansion of the federal government, shredding of the constitution and obscene debt are not members of the ‘teas’ as you call them and all members of the ‘teas’ are not as narrow minded as you portray. It only looks that way through the lens of liberalism... which I address in my next diatribe... well... not really a diatribe. I hope this is all part of civil discussion and not just rant.
“There is no "lefty" equivalent to the TEAs within the Dem ranks - there are no liberal ideologues.”
DeleteFunny you should mention it. I had a discussion with Max some months ago about this very thing. You are correct that it is very difficult to get a liberal ideologue elected to high public office. The structure of ‘believers’ within the republican party are considerably more cohesive than they are from the left. While the right has a block of evangelical Christians... a block of constitutionalist and a block of federalists they as a group tend to agree more than they disagree, the left is a band of ragtag ‘I wanna gimmies’ (sarcastic, crude and overly general, but accurate) Small groups of people who want their particular fetish recognized and written into law. - gays, abortionists, social reformers, communists, druggies, anti-capitalists and a whole list of people who want the state to provide something for them from cell phones and food to college degrees and jobs agree to disagree and vote as a block. So you are correct without electing a schizophrenic it would be impossible to find individuals who embrace all of those things with passion, so the ideologues of this groups (and they are just as radical as ANY evangelical Christian) must elect the person most willing to throw all of these groups a bone, if elected. In my conversation with Max, he insisted time and time again that he was a moderate... and I believe him. The problem is that when a moderate votes for someone like Obama, they raise their hands for the most radical of these other groups.
An example. 99.9% of women, left and right, and most men support women’s equality.... But when a woman, who really only supports equality in life with the men around her, casts a vote for that equality, she casts a vote supporting the feminist movement whose ideologs push policies and propaganda that most moderate women would not agree with like: culling the male population to 10% of the female population or the promotion of sex selective and live birth abortions etc. Without VOICING strong opposition to these radicals, which an elected person will never do because they represent part of the voting base, a moderate votes for a progressive drift in that direction and in a backhanded way supports a larger ideology that is for bigger government, ever increasing debt and IMHO a country with ever lessening moral compass.
The problem is that the progressive movement is just that-slow, methodical and always in the same direction dragging a whole spectrum of relative moralists with it... as I said, negotiation with Democrats is NEVER a zero sum game. So I am sorry if you see pure ideologues as repugnant but would you agree that people should actually stand up and vote for what they believe in rather than throw in with various disjointed groups whose individual wants could never stand on their own merits? And please... don’t throw around the word demagogue... every leader that manages to get elected by the left must, by definition, be one.
One final point with respect to this comment:
“At what point does "standing on principle" cross the line to become a complete waste of taxpayer time & money? You used the words "ineffectual" and "waste" - isn't 43 futile votes the very definition of those terms?”
Perhaps when you are voting for a war you don’t agree with?... or a Patriot Act that stands against everything America is suppose to be about? Sometimes compromise only leads you down $17t roads you would never want to go and once there, find it very difficult to turn around... Sometimes falling on the sword of principle is better than drowning in a pond of ‘go along to get along’ mediocrity... So if Obama wants to use this process to needlessly ruin people vacations, kick people out of homes that they own, block access to monuments that rarely see a public employee and shut down websites like ‘Amber Alert’ while keeping Michelle’s ‘Get moving’ active, so be it. sounds more like a 6 year old than a principled leader
.
This is the TEA's and R's fault? Harry and Barry are the two constantly spewing "no negotiations". Anyone who does not recognize this needs their head examined.
ReplyDeleteDarn! I really got to this party late. Not gonna start now.
ReplyDeleteGood posts, all.
Jean