A lot of the post-mortems on the resolution (for now) of the partial government shutdown / debt ceiling crisis suggest President Obama and the Dems ate the House G.O.P.'s lunch. In a way, they did. In the end, the President got almost precisely what he asked for months ago: Legislation to fund the U.S. Government and increase the Department of Treasury's borrowing power with virtually no strings attached.
But this analysis from the progressive magazine/website, The NATION, argues - counterintuitively - the G.O.P. still won over the longer term. Please review the arguments, and tell me what you think...
If "winning" is completely destroying America's faith in the system, then yes, the G.O.P. is winning. This line from the article kinda says it all:
The Tea Party may be plummeting in public esteem, but it is taking government down with it.
Oh, great, so now we govern by the old "If I'm going down, you're going down with me" mentality. Then once the Tea Party dismantles our government, we're left with... what... anarchy?
And for the mrpizza's of the world, I'd like to drill this point home: Centrists solved this crisis. The extreme right wouldn't budge. The extreme left wouldn't budge. The only reason we haven't defaulted and our government is back open again is because of CENTRISTS:
The seeds of the deal to end the shutdown were sewn by a group of moderate G.O.P. senators led by Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine., who worked alongside Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski and New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte.
The trio assembled a group of 12 centrists, dominated by fellow women senators, to help craft a deal once talks in the House finally broke down. Their talks formed the framework of the eventual agreement to end the shutdown and reopen the government.
Senator John McCCain, R-Ariz., said on the Senate floor that the deal “was provided primarily by women in the Senate.” And Collins said the bipartisan nature of the group was more significant than its female leadership. “We put together a bipartisan group, I think it’s significant it’s led by women, but even more significant is the fact that it’s six Republicans, six Democrats and we’ve come to an agreement.”
This exercise was a win-win for the G.O.P. There was no loss here.
First, Obamacare is the law of the land. Congress can increase funding or decrease funding. De-funding is out of the question. Ted Cruz and the Tea Party folks knew that. But they made it an issue. THE issue. They kept the issue before the public on a daily basis. In the end, they knew they would have to give in and they did. THEY compromised when the Democrat Chief Executive refused to do so. They finally brought the exercise to a conclusion by allowing WOMEN in the G.O.P. - yes there are some - to lead the way with their Democrat peers.
But they proved to their supporters that they would fight! That keeps the folks back home happy. They also allowed Mr. Obama to be his normal vindictive, arrogant, people-hating self. Keeping WW2 vets away from their memorial? Keeping folks out of the Grand Canyon? That says more about Mr. Obama than a speech ever could.
Thu, Oct 17, 2013 1:07pm
Well said JimH.
Also, by making ACA the issue, people were actually paying attention to Obamacare's launch and paid attention to how ACA affected their own family's economy/welfare.
This added attention even had/has Liberals blogging and commenting about it on their "Comedy" shows and on their blogs (Jon Stewart, Jimmy Kimmel, Leno...)
Thu, Oct 17, 2013 1:25pm
They finally brought the exercise to a conclusion by allowing WOMEN in the G.O.P. - yes there are some - to lead the way with their Democrat peers.
Whoa! The G.O.P. leaders ALLOWED women to lead the way in the fight? So you admit that women in the G.O.P. aren't allowed to do anything without the man's say-so? You've just proven the G.O.P.'s problem with women... your views are stuck in the 1950s at best! Allowed women... wow... if ever a Freudian slip there was!
And your idea of a win for the G.O.P. is keeping an issue in front of the American people, all the while affecting their daily lives while the people causing the crisis felt no ill effects? Yeah, that's a great win. That's really governing for your constituents. Nice job! You must be so proud.
It's also amazing how short your memory is. Yes, Obama refused to negotiate... following MONTHS of the same tactic from the GOP. These deadlines - both funding and default - caught no one by surprise. We all knew they were coming. But where was the G.O.P. when previous attempts to prevent these deadlines were being made? That's right - NO WHERE. THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO NEGOTIATE. So somehow, it's okay to avoid negotiation when it's your guy doing it, but it's a problem when it's the other side? Hypocrites! All of you!
This was all, once again, a taxpayer-funded G.O.P. stage show. Don't get me wrong, I'm not fond of how the Dems handled it, either. Again I say, Centrism is the key. But how you can hold your head up high as a Republican today -- is beyond me.
"Your indignation would have been more convincing if it weren't so full of crap"
-- Jed Bartlett, The West Wing
Thu, Oct 17, 2013 11:36pm
In post-mortems after one gets horrifically beaten, you tend allow them a little respect... it makes YOU look good for doing so.
For Republicans, this was like getting totally shut out and humiliated on the football field losing 100 points to nothing, and when the loser says, "wow, did you see us make that first down in the third quarter? That was awesome!!!:" you don't say anything...
Everyone knows the Tea Party was used as a wipe and then flushed down the toilet...
Anything else is just being nice; letting them have whatever self respect they can twist to their advantage is harmless... because even they, looking at the scoreboard, know what they are saying is not true.
For the bottom line is that they shut our government down, put 800,000 on furlough, just so two reports can be now done by the HHS for means-testing on those receiving subsidies... Apparently they thought the IRS wouldn't have the information....
The harsh reality is that these are very sick people. The sooner we remove them, the faster we can have a growing economy... As long as they can shut the government down whenever they can't get their way, we will all suffer.
Republicans caused the first great recession. They almost caused another. Without Republicans, we'd have a balanced budget right now, with zero debt...
We can do it again, but first, we have to have zero republicans... When that happens, America will get back to work and make itself great again. But it can only be done when Republicans have less than 30 in the Senate and less than 80 in the House.
I guess one can liken Republicans to cancer. Our own flesh and blood, but working on a totally different agenda from the rest of us, having no regard to its effect upon the host...
Thu, Oct 17, 2013 11:42pm
In in case anyone here does not know, ... using the "G.O.P. wins" theme of the link Allan posted... Mitch McConnell "won" a $2.9 billion earmark for his state of Kentucky...inside these negotiations.
The conversation went like this: I'll completely sell out the Tea Party entirely, if you'll give me this earmark for $2.9 billion.
Reid said... OK! deal...
So Tea Party!... How does if feel to be sold out by your good friend Mitch McConnell for $2.9 billion pieces of silver?
Thu, Oct 17, 2013 11:55pm
Jim H's rant, to use a football analogy, would go like this...
Yep, we stayed on the field. Even though we were losing by 100-to-nothing, we didn't give up. We stayed on the field and let our opponents just keep walking their plays over top of us until the clock finally struck... Yep, we showed them how tough we were... We stayed on the field and just kept playing... We really won.
Dude, you lost by 100-to-nothing!
"Oh that's just a score. We really won that game, but they just scored things differently than we would have so that is why it looks so lopsided. They only score for crossing the lines at the end of the field. We call it a score every time we cross any white line on the field. You count all the white lines we crossed; our score was way higher than zero. You can't trust that liberal media one bit when it comes reporting on scoring. They lie about everything... And the refs ... they were against us too. Blowing the whistle every time we hit the ground, but not blowing it when we dropped the ball and they even let the other team pick it up and ran it back for a score... those refs blew the whistle when we went down, even though we could have easily picked ourselves up after everyone got off of us, and run some more. The refs were all for the other side.
And the fans were too. If the fans had been on our side, we would have won... It's the fans' fault we lost. It had nothing to do with us.... we're a good team. It's everyone else's fault....
Yep. That pretty much sums up the post-mortems in today's press.... especially on Rick Jensen's show...
Fri, Oct 18, 2013 1:53am
The Tea Party representatives did what they are supposed to do... represent the views of their constituents... and they did just that.
Like it or not, the Tea Party is growing in influence throughout the country...not so much in liberal states like Delaware or New Jersey, but definitely in other states of the Union.
McConnell did sell out the Tea Party and just may pay for that in the next upcoming election... the same may happen to Boehner, McCain, Lindsey Graham. The old guard needs to be removed from power...they have been in the D.C. bubble too long.
What does the fox say? ;)
Fri, Oct 18, 2013 1:57am
And kavips... If the Republicans hope to remain relevant, they need to embrace the Libertarians, not long extinct blue-dogs. Join in the Ron Paul Revolution!
Fri, Oct 18, 2013 7:52am
@Earl: Okay, let me step back from my earlier comments just a little, because I want you to know this is a very serious question. I'm actually interested in hearing your answer. Here's my question:
In what way is the Tea Party growing in influence in our country?
Every single poll I see... not just from the "liberal mainstream media", but EVERY poll, shows me that the only people who like the Tea Party are the people in the Tea Party. The ENTIRE rest of the country hates the Tea Party. Including other Conservatives, because of what it's doing to the G.O.P. brand. Moderate conservatives, social conservatives, centrists, independents, liberals... they ALL have overwhelmingly negative views of the Tea Party. So how can you hope to grow in influence if the only people who might like you are the people who already like you?
Fri, Oct 18, 2013 7:57am
PS - Libertarians and Tea Party conservatives are NOT the same thing. A rather simplified but not-too-far-off-the-mark way I can phrase a Libertarian viewpoint is, "I have the right to do anything I want, until my actions intrude on your rights." Which means they'd be okay with things like gay marriage, because two consenting adults entering into that kind of relationship has absolutely no effect on the rights of anyone else. Yet the Tea Party is against gay marriage because of the religious side of the Tea Party.
I would consider Libertarians to be social liberals and fiscal conservatives. That's not the same as a Tea Party-er. By any stretch of the imagination.
Fri, Oct 18, 2013 9:19am
Shawn: People around the country are getting tired of being told how to run their lives by government... these people want more freedom from government and more personal responsibility for their own lives. This is where the Libertarian and Tea Party meet..Ron Paul (Republican Libertarian) had a strong following by many in the Tea Party. However, trying to define a "true Libertarian" is about as easy as herding cats...there are many Tea Partiers, some Occupy Wallstreeters, some hippies and many other "misfits" who (while very different) want less government control over their lives.
I hope that answer in some way helped.
Sat, Oct 19, 2013 2:14pm
For anyone who thinks today's left isn't a threat, especially led by the current dictator-president, take a look at this video and listen for the parallels:
Mrpizza: I watched your Dick Morris video. Interesting. He made some interesting points. Did you watch it?
Funny, towards the end of it, Dick Morris advocated that as the US was the only nation to have Atomic weapons from 1945 - 1948 that we should have used our Atomic Bombs on the USSR to get them to get out of Central Europe.
That's kind of scary, don't you think? Hey we've got the only Atomic Bombs in the world, let's use them in a preemptive strike against the USSR to force them to do what we want. Next we'll go after the Chi-Coms before they get an A bomb [we could have avoided the Korean War]. Of course we could have avoided the Korean War by not getting ourselves involved in their civil war.
Using our Atomic Weapons on the USSR sure would have set a real dangerous precedent, which would have killed millions more than "Uncle Joe Stalin" killed himself not to mention the radiation, etc would affect millions who survived and made those areas in the USSR unusable for years.
Also, by doing that we'd be announcing to the world that we don't believe in trying to find a peaceful way to work out our differences, we'll just nuke ya to get our way. Sounds more like what Hitler would have done IF he had had the A-Bomb.
Truman used our Atomic Bombs on Japan to save American lives and bring a quick end to that bloody and costly war. It probably also saved many more Japanese lives than it took.
Using Atomic or as we say today, Nukes really isn't an option.
Below is an article about a book written by Geoffrey Roberts who is a Professor in the Department of History at the University College Cork, Ireland. The title of his book is: "Why Roosevelt Was Right About Stalin".
I realize you won't be interested, because this will be a different view than Dick Morris', and heaven forbid you'd hear a different perspective. I'm not saying I agree with this guy's point of view. Up until I read your post earlier today, frankly I hadn't given this topic any thought. So I'm reading and trying to learn the various points of view so I can make an informed decision as to where I stand on this [not that it really matters as it happened over 60 years ago].
I realize you don't like FDR [New Deal, Social Security, DEM, moderate who leaned left], so the Morris view will appeal to you more. As I am a fan of FDR, sure this other point of view attracts me, but now having heard both points of view, I can see some truth in both. Why isn't it ever just black and white.
Hopefully you take a few moments and scan that article.
Sat, Oct 19, 2013 6:37pm
Read the article. Can't find much difference between that and what Dick said. As far as my opinion of FDR, I consider myself neutral. Certainly a lesser evil compared to BHO.
As for nukes, I like the Reagan doctrine:
Peace through strength.
Mike from Delaware
Sat, Oct 19, 2013 8:57pm
Mrpizza: I too like Reagan's nuke policy, peace through strength. Being strong hopefully will mean you won't need to use them, the real theeat of those weapons are the deterrent. That worked well for Reagan, because many thought he'd use them whereas with Jimmy Carter, he was sooooo nice that most folks figured he'd never use that sort of force. I'll try to remember to go back to Dick Morris' web site & check out his other video messages.
I'll have to give his show another listen too. The time I tuned in he wasn't very interesting, the video was, so we'll give him another shot.
Sat, Oct 19, 2013 9:14pm
I think had we just threatened Stalin with the use of nukes that he would have backed out of Eastern Europe, based on our past victory over Japan. Once everybody else got 'em, all bets were off.
I think the Geoffrey Roberts article and the Dick Morris interview probably complete each other more than anything else.
Sat, Oct 19, 2013 9:29pm
Shawn: Gay marriage would be a lesser issue if there were no Federal income tax. As it is, same-sex couples now compete with legitimately married couples for so-called benefits, which in turn, costs everybody more. If we got rid of the Federal income tax, it would destroy a lot of incentive to manipulate the system.
Another issue is that adoption agencies, even those not government-run, could be forced to require children to go live with gay couples because of this so-called equality.
Also, landlords are likely now forced to rent their real estate out to homosexuals. While many likely don't have a problem with it, I personally would, and so I'd consider that an infringement on my rights if I were a landlord.
While I doubt I'll be personally impacted by it, I do believe it will ultimately result in anarchy to the culture somewhere down the road. I would call it a "cumulative effect".
There's a reason our forefathers founded this nation on Biblical principles. It's so America would be blessed of God and to protect the national peace. It's about much more than "religious" beliefs. It's about whether we'll be a blessed nation or a cursed one.
Sat, Oct 19, 2013 9:41pm
MFD: What sets Dick Morris aside from other talk hosts is that he's not an entertainer but more like a classroom instructor. Even if you don't agree with all he says, his style is non-aggressive and non-judgmental, which may put him in a class with Allan Loudell.
Mike from Delaware
Sat, Oct 19, 2013 11:25pm
Mrpizza: yes that was what I liked about the Dick Morris video. He was teaching, not ranting, no shots at anyone, just teaching a class. Very different from elRushbo, Hannity, or Jensen. Good point.
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.