Budget talks: This is getting nasty

Difference then would be that Congress "is giving Obama that power." If Obama claims the 14th amendment gives him the power to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, it would be a different story.

 

Who's in the field that can beat him, with any degree of certainty? Bachmann has a very high negative rating, and Romney is going to have the kitchen sink thrown at him regarding his so-called "job creation" skills (trying not to laugh) if the core GOP pros have their way and he gets the nom . . . his record at Bain is boiler-plate leveraged-buyout screw-labor bullying, and the public's already shown they want no part of that, especially given recent "the light bulb goes on" wakeup calls hitting the public in such states
as Wisconsin and Ohio . . .

 

Oh, you know why.

Everybody would know why.

The question would be, what percentage of the nation would be perfectly fine with that reason.

 

"Which doesn't belong and why . . . . .. ?

 

If the economy remains the way it is or (heaven forbid) gets worse, many voters will simply want Obama gone. They'll see that, for better or worse, there are only two choices in an election. And since Obama is the guy in charge during bad times, he'll pay the price.

Also don't forget that many states have passed Voter ID bills since last November, under the guise of "preventing vote fraud." That could hold down turnout from key Democratic constituencies in swing states like Ohio and Florida and even in lean-blue states like Pennsylvania, possibly enough to turn the election.

 

The fact also is that the American electorate delivered its own verdict on this colossal waste of time in the 1998 elections. The Senate flipped and Newtie lost his precious Speakership.

Move on, Boom. The country has. A long time ago.

 

I think this quote from the fiscal conservative Andrew Sullivan sums up the issue nicely:

The Republican refusal to countenance any way to raise revenues to tackle the massive debt incurred largely on their watch and from a recession which started under Obama’s predecessor makes one thing clear. They are not a political party in government; they are a radical faction that refuses to participate meaningfully in the give and take the Founders firmly believed should be at the center of American government. They are not conservatives in this sense. They are anarchists.

Abso-fucking-lutely.

This is a good summary of what's been going on, from an independent's point of view:

http://themoderatevoice.com/117275/boehner-walks-out-of-debt-ceiling-limit-talks-with-obama/

 

If they're anarchists, they sure know how to fool millions of people into voting for their candidates every year.

 

Truer words have never been spoken.

 

I don't see it as a contradiction, and here's why:

The House Democrats are just as unwilling to cut a deal as the "Tea Party" Republicans. They are just as against spending cuts as the "Tea Party" folk are against tax increases.

Their problem is, they don't have a Plan B. Driving off the cliff is unacceptable to them.

For "Tea Party" Republicans, driving off the cliff isn't a fall back plan. It's not a worst case scenario. For many of them, it's a perfectly acceptable outcome -- maybe even preferred for some.

More than that, if we do drive off the cliff, many of their constituents will be thrilled. They'll be cheering them on.

They will be doing exactly what they promised they would do during the recent campaign.

And, while Democrat constituents may blame Republicans, they will direct a lot of anger towards their own party as well.

All of this means the Republicans have a stronger hand. Now, maybe the Dems will close their eyes, hold on tight, and let the Republicans drive them off a cliff. Or, maybe they'll grab the wheel and turn away.

Either way, their decision won't be made because they're more open to a deal. It will be because they're more afraid of not doing a deal.

There is a difference.

 

Full-throttle propaganda.

 

In terms of the Tea Party-influenced Republicans, that is true in only one election. The comment is about what the GOP has evolved into at the moment, not what it was in the days of Lincoln, Ike or even Reagan.