December 21, 2012
— DrewM Let me say I'm not writing this from a Let It Burn perspective, I'm just looking at the actual state of play. Let me also say in looking at it from a GOP perspective, Plan B was probably the best play Boehner had left after screwing things up from the start.
That said nothing but some PR points were lost.
Supporters of Plan B like Gabe correctly point out that killing the bill does nothing to advance the cause of saving all the current tax rates. That's simply not on the table.
But supporters, again like Gabe, are also wrong when they say
Plan B prevents tax hikes for 99.81% of taxpayers, has permanent death tax relief, a permanent AMT fix, and permanent reforms to the marriage penalty.
Well it would have done all of that but only if Senate Democrats passed it and Obama signed it. That's a fanciful notion equal to the one they mock their opponents for.
Why in the world having won the White House and expanded their Senate majority would the Democrats simply cave into what the House GOP passes? This is especially unlikely considering it's not just a clean tax hike on millionaires but includes things they hate like the current death tax rate AND $242 Billion in cuts ABOVE the sequestration cuts.
I'm sure Democrats were just salivating at the chance to pass all that stuff they hate.
But wait! There's LESS!
Not only did Plan B include a ton of things the Democrats hate, it also offered nothing they like such as the payroll tax "holiday" or expansion of tax credits or new spending.
Why it's so obvious they would have jumped at that deal!
Passing it in the House alone was simply a public offer of good faith designed to have something to point to when Obama pushes the country over the cliff.
Now the GOP will take a greater publicity hit because they tried to do something and failed. They'd have been better off doing what the Senate did...nothing. The only difference between Harry Reid and John Boehner is that Reid didn't look like an ineffective jackass in the process of accomplishing nothing.
Speaking of Speaker Boehner, let's remember we have him to thank for a lot of this mess. We're at this point because of the deal that Boehner and the GOP made in the summer of 2011 to avert hitting the debt ceiling. The $1.2 billion in cuts from sequestration everyone wants to avoid like the plague? That was our PRIZE.
But don't forget that during the debt hike debate and shortly after, Boehner kept talking to Obama about a "grand bargain". As part of that talk he put revenue on the table ($800 billion or so). Obama then demanded more revenue and the talks died.
And remember, the debt deal was supposed to be about SPENDING CUTS to more than offset the debt hike. Obama however pocketed Boehner's willingness to include new revenue as a concession and gave nothing back in return.
So the deal was cut last year setting up the fiscal cliff (the tax extensions, the payroll tax holiday, the death tax cut, and of course the looming sequestration cuts once the "Super Committee" failed). The GOP was betting Mitt Romney or some other Republican would beat Obama. That was....unwise.
Now here we are.
Again, Boehner went first right after the election saying revenues were in play. In exchange for repeating this concession he got....nothing from Obama. Well, he did get a laughable and insulting offer from Obama.
Then Boehner conceded that tax rates not just revenue would have to go up. Again, he got nothing from Obama.
So tired of negotiating with himself, he decided to negotiate with his own conference. And last night he lost that negotiation.
This is the second time Boehner has had to pull a high profile bill from the floor because he badly misread his caucus. Perhaps he shouldn't have decided to pull members from committees two weeks before he desperately needed their votes, huh?
I fell bad for Boehner, he'd be a fine Speaker if the GOP had control of the White House and the Presidency and he just had to make the trains run on time. He is not however cut out to be the lead negotiator for a minority that only controls the House.
Sometimes when playing poker you get into a hand you are doomed to lose but you can do well by minimizing your loss. Good players do this so they can live long enough to get a good hand. Boehner has a nasty habit of finding a way to lose the maximum possible on every hand.
I doubt he will get a challenge but I wonder if he'll resign. This clearly isn't his thing and he's been rebuffed more than once by his own side. Maybe a new voice in the room would help.
Posted by: DrewM at
08:11 AM
| Comments (271)
Post contains 835 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 08:15 AM (Dnbau)
Posted by: yinzer at December 21, 2012 08:16 AM (/Mla1)
Boehner is a fool and hack end of story.
Posted by: General Woundwort at December 21, 2012 08:16 AM (RrD4h)
Banking on the benevolence of Dear Leader now.....
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 21, 2012 08:17 AM (da5Wo)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 08:17 AM (Dnbau)
7 -
It's possible Boehner knew exactly what he was doing, and got the exact result he wanted.
Many of these people have more in common with the other side of the aisle than they do with half the people on their own.
Posted by: BurtTC at December 21, 2012 08:18 AM (TOk1P)
Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna let it burn really.really bummed at December 21, 2012 08:18 AM (9+ccr)
The dems DO NOT WANT A DEAL. They want the taxes to go up. Thanks to their near monopoly on the media they can blame it all on the GOP.
They are trying to use this to gain more seats in 2014.
Posted by: Hard Right at December 21, 2012 08:18 AM (uhftQ)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 08:19 AM (Dnbau)
When the EBT cards start bouncing, that the signal.
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 21, 2012 08:19 AM (xpgUt)
Posted by: Beach me, pls. at December 21, 2012 08:19 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: Clemenza at December 21, 2012 08:19 AM (Q8Pu5)
Agreed, but that word "simply" diminishes the damage done by not passing it.
Sometimes when playing poker you get into a hand you are doomed to lose but you can do well by minimizing your loss. Good players do this so they can live long enough to get a good hand.
Agreed. I'm sure that's what he was trying to do. Like Roosevelt in the late '30s, he knew the people aren't yet ready to embrace unpleasant facts, but he wanted to do his best to prepare the ground so that when (if) they were, there was still room to move.
Posted by: pep at December 21, 2012 08:20 AM (USJNU)
Posted by: we are so screwed, deliver us oh SMOD at December 21, 2012 08:20 AM (HEa5q)
Posted by: Doomsday Prediction at December 21, 2012 08:20 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: The Guy Who Says "Fucking Romney" [/i] at December 21, 2012 08:21 AM (O7Q1u)
Posted by: beach & tgif at December 21, 2012 08:21 AM (LpQbZ)
SHUT.IT.DOWN
Posted by: Vic
-----------------------------------
Leaves L.I.B. camp, does drive-by on S.I.D. camp
Posted by: Hard Right at December 21, 2012 08:21 AM (uhftQ)
Posted by: Minuteman at December 21, 2012 08:21 AM (qs9G3)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 08:21 AM (Dnbau)
Ya think?
Posted by: DocJ at December 21, 2012 08:21 AM (A5uiv)
Posted by: 80sBaby at December 21, 2012 08:21 AM (YjDyJ)
Posted by: Ben Affleck at December 21, 2012 08:22 AM (LpQbZ)
Boehner is a Republican Congressman. Which means he wants more government, not less.
He's working WITH Obama, not against.
The sooner you people realize this, the less confusing it will become.
Posted by: BurtTC at December 21, 2012 08:23 AM (TOk1P)
Posted by: Y-not at December 21, 2012 08:24 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: cowards at December 21, 2012 08:24 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: DaveA at December 21, 2012 08:25 AM (syEB8)
Posted by: Vic at December 21, 2012 08:25 AM (53z96)
Posted by: Captain Hate (more dagny and less curious) at December 21, 2012 08:25 AM (ygCDu)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 08:26 AM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Colorado Alex at December 21, 2012 08:26 AM (3x3F6)
Posted by: sweat it out at December 21, 2012 08:26 AM (LpQbZ)
34 -
Heh. Gabe never quite responded to that one, did he.
I don't mind Gabe's warped point of view so much as the condescending manner in which he expresses it.
Posted by: BurtTC at December 21, 2012 08:27 AM (TOk1P)
Posted by: alexthechick - Told you we weren't worthy of SMOD at December 21, 2012 08:27 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: eureka! at December 21, 2012 08:27 AM (HPRku)
Posted by: Hollywood Accountants at December 21, 2012 08:27 AM (n2M+Z)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, keeper of the Sacred Ampersands at December 21, 2012 08:27 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: redguy at December 21, 2012 08:27 AM (oKH8p)
Reid was the only weak link and we made sure not to exploit that so we should just relax and let it burn.
Posted by: John Morris at December 21, 2012 08:28 AM (YhRJW)
Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 21, 2012 08:28 AM (GFM2b)
Posted by: Hollywood Accountants at December 21, 2012 08:28 AM (n2M+Z)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 08:28 AM (Dnbau)
He left out - crash the economy from the tax increase, add more sheeple to the FSA ranks - "between taxes go up" and "blame the pubs".
It's a win-win-win-win-win for the JEF.
But Boehner and Mitch are playing 5-dimensional chess, or something.
Posted by: DocJ at December 21, 2012 08:29 AM (A5uiv)
Posted by: Y-not at December 21, 2012 08:30 AM (5H6zj)
He's working WITH Obama, not against.
The sooner you people realize this, the less confusing it will become.
Posted by: BurtTC at December 21, 2012 12:23 PM (TOk1P)
So what political party do you support, Burt? What course of action do you recommend? More importantly, by what means do you propose to get your True Conservative Ideas (TM) implemented in the real world? Clear up the confusion, please.
Posted by: troyriser at December 21, 2012 08:30 AM (vtiE6)
Posted by: Dirks Strewn at December 21, 2012 08:30 AM (MeKa/)
41 -
I'll repeat this as often as necessary: Boehner is not stupid. If he did this, knowing he didn't have the votes, then this is the result he wanted.
Boehner may very well be complicit in the move to split the Republican Party. If he wants to point to the conservatives or Tea Partiers or whatever else he wants to call them, he can set himself up to be permanent Minority Leader.
It's less power, but to a guy like him, that may not be a bad thing.
Posted by: BurtTC at December 21, 2012 08:30 AM (TOk1P)
The $1.2 billion in cuts from sequestration everyone wants to avoid like the plague? That was our PRIZE.
Hehehehe. I actually like that part. They only did it because they really didn't believe that it would ever actually happen.
Posted by: Entropy at December 21, 2012 08:31 AM (TULs6)
But much of the driving force behind cutting a deal was to avoid damaging the R "brand" in anticipation of the presidential election.
Yup, and that's a problem. People want to follow a strong leader, someone they can trust even if they don't always agree with him. The Republicans would have done far better to force fights with the WH early and often and demonstrate that they were unafraid to stand up for their principles.
Posted by: Colorado Alex at December 21, 2012 08:31 AM (3x3F6)
52 -
Here's a thought though, how about being for less government? Is that something that maybe we could give a try?
Posted by: BurtTC at December 21, 2012 08:32 AM (TOk1P)
I retract my prior belief that this was all kabuki and revert to the belief that this is all bukkake.
I prefer the phrase "Tijana Circle Jerk".
Posted by: Colorado Alex at December 21, 2012 08:33 AM (3x3F6)
Posted by: Y-not at December 21, 2012 08:33 AM (5H6zj)
>>>But Boehner and Mitch are playing 5-dimensional chess, or something.
They are. They just failed to note they are in a boxing ring.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 21, 2012 08:33 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Citizen Anachronda is soooooo boned at December 21, 2012 08:33 AM (1c58W)
This has been Obama's desire and aim since He Won .
Look, we as a country have never been in Recent times as divided, with class warfare, or by ethnicity , or by political party. Now He's being successful dividing within OUR party.
I don't know the answer to this but i wish we wouldn't play ball on his terms.
and I guess LIB is official. I would feel comfortable betting Obama is smiling
and fk the progressive media .
Posted by: ette at December 21, 2012 08:34 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Harry Balsach Reid at December 21, 2012 08:35 AM (wAQA5)
Boehner's a fucktard, I'll take an unknown random replacement on the chance his replacement will not be worse.
Posted by: SpongeBob Saget's square dildo at December 21, 2012 08:35 AM (97nMP)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 08:35 AM (Dnbau)
Posted by: ette at December 21, 2012 08:36 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 08:37 AM (Dnbau)
So much of what has gone wrong can be attributed to the GOP positioning itself to elect Mr. Electable. It was fool-hardy. But I don't think we can pin all the blame on Boehner.
Oh no, there is plenty of blame to go around. Boehner however is the Speaker of the House, which gives him a lot of power and influence.
Personally, I think that he should have forced a budget to be passed back in 2011, even if it meant shutting down the government for a couple of months. Pass a very conservative budget, send it to the Senate, and then announce that there will be no CRs and no other business voted on until the budget issue is resolved and signed by the President.
Posted by: Colorado Alex at December 21, 2012 08:37 AM (3x3F6)
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 21, 2012 08:37 AM (xpgUt)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at December 21, 2012 08:37 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: Prez. B tothe O at December 21, 2012 08:37 AM (gCa4h)
Posted by: ette at December 21, 2012 08:38 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at December 21, 2012 08:38 AM (y5MGA)
Posted by: 80sBaby at December 21, 2012 08:38 AM (YjDyJ)
I nominate you for captain of the 3-D Chess team.
This was Boehners plan all along?
To look like a complete and utter fool?
Posted by: General Woundwort at December 21, 2012 08:38 AM (RrD4h)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, keeper of the Sacred Ampersands at December 21, 2012 08:39 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: jjshaka at December 21, 2012 08:39 AM (aGFhI)
You didn't ask me, but I'll answer for me...
I support any right-of-center not-Republicans (Libertarian, Constitutiona Party, whatever) who manage to get onto the ballot in this sh*thole known as Massachusetts.
I recommend anyone who wants less government to stop voting for a party who has increased government every freaking year of my entire life (and I'm 46), and vote for, literally, anyone else.
Your "real world" is a Scandi-like social democracy welfare state - my ideas are not going to be implemented until there is a great deal of pain and suffering - like having to actually pay, in real terms, for all this government. So, start by insisting - to the point of blocking everything and anything that comes through CONgress - that every dime of the spending the left-fascists want is paid for with current revenues. Bring on the f*cking pain, in other words.
I assume your plan is to continue to vote GOP in hopes that someday, a lifetime of evidence to the contrary, they will become "The Conservative Party". Please feel free to correct that.
Meanwhile, LIB.
Posted by: DocJ at December 21, 2012 08:39 AM (A5uiv)
They did. Reid has decided to transition the Senate into more of a social club, rather than a legislative body.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 21, 2012 08:40 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 21, 2012 08:40 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Mazzuchelli at December 21, 2012 08:40 AM (zAZNI)
Posted by: ette at December 21, 2012 08:41 AM (nqBYe)
He thinks he can control and direct the Jacobin mobs.
He didn't learn his lesson from the OWS debacle when his Frankenstein monster stopped responding to direction from the Whitehouse basement.
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 21, 2012 08:41 AM (xpgUt)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, keeper of the Sacred Ampersands at December 21, 2012 08:41 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 08:41 AM (Dnbau)
From what I've read, at least some of the Republican congresscritters who refused to vote for Plan B are upset with Boehner because at the final meeting before dismissing everyone he didn't give them a chance to slam him. There wasn't a chance in Hell that they were going to change their vote, but they're basically upset because Boehner acknowledged that fact. They apparently wanted an opportunity to verbally disparage him in front of the other Republican congresscritters.
Sounds like arrogance on their part figured into at least some of their votes as much as if not more than principle.
And Boehner probably isn't going anywhere. No one else wants the job, and I can't say I blame them. A Democratic president and a Democratic Senate Majority Leader, both of whom have made it exceedingly clear that they intend to pretty much ignore the House as much as possible and use the media lapdogs to cover for what they can't ignore? It's a thankless job, and it's going to remain that way for at least another couple of years.
Posted by: junior at December 21, 2012 08:41 AM (UWFpX)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 21, 2012 08:42 AM (HDgX3)
That's why we're here to begin with, and that's why he alienated a key segment of his party just before he needed them most.
Even that is overblown.
The GOP has already passed no tax hikes atll that wouldn't pass. This was no tax hikes on 99% that wouldn't pass. This is total posturing, total kabuki. The difference is 1%.
Not enough for anyone outside congress to give a shit about.
Posted by: Entropy at December 21, 2012 08:42 AM (TULs6)
Posted by: Y-not at December 21, 2012 08:42 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at December 21, 2012 08:43 AM (Ec6wH)
Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at December 21, 2012 08:43 AM (UU0OF)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 08:43 AM (Dnbau)
Posted by: alexthechick - Told you we weren't worthy of SMOD at December 21, 2012 08:43 AM (VtjlW)
Re: The 2011 ceiling deal.
Boehner was betting Obama would lose in the 2012 election.
Another rule of poker is bet on the cards you have.... not the ones you want.
Posted by: fixerupper at December 21, 2012 08:43 AM (nELVU)
Posted by: beans at December 21, 2012 08:44 AM (sofSX)
Posted by: Butters at December 21, 2012 08:44 AM (NIZHJ)
BWAHAHAHA!
Were you here during the debt ceiling debate. He layed the foundation for his doom then. So he either deliberately F*ked us and his own caucus, and the Republican party in general or he is incompetent.
Hanlon's Razor if you want to buck it, you need a better reason than "I think he's smart"
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 21, 2012 08:45 AM (0q2P7)
The Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P 500, and the Nasdaq lost between 1.1% and 1.4% in afternoon trading.
Whee!!!!
and the day isn't over yet!!!!
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 12:41 PM (Dnbau)
__________________
And it'll be up 1% on Monday. 1% drops are nothing these days. Remember the stock panic after the A++ downgrade? It lasted all of 2 days and then stocks jumped right back.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 21, 2012 08:45 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: alexthechick - Told you we weren't worthy of SMOD at December 21, 2012 08:45 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Joe in MI at December 21, 2012 08:45 AM (3R8wQ)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 08:45 AM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 21, 2012 12:42 PM (HDgX3)
___________
and then the JEF will cut them. Because Booooosshhh, or something
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 12:43 PM (Dnbau)
______________
Huh?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 21, 2012 08:45 AM (HDgX3)
Preferred language going forward:
You know if the Clinton era tax structure is restored, a lot of the 47% who pay no taxes, will start paying some taxes.
N.A.R.R.A.T.I.V.E.
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 21, 2012 08:45 AM (xpgUt)
Because leaders sometimes take a gamble by getting out in front of the troops to encourage them and make them go where they don't want to? He lost, and possibly lost his speakership as a result. IMO, he knew full well that was the risk he was taking.
Posted by: pep at December 21, 2012 08:46 AM (USJNU)
Good for you. Unfortunately, this is how the sausage is made.
Posted by: SpongeBob Saget's square dildo at December 21, 2012 08:46 AM (97nMP)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 08:47 AM (Dnbau)
Another rule of poker is bet on the cards you have.... not the ones you want.
Yep.
Posted by: DocJ at December 21, 2012 08:47 AM (A5uiv)
Posted by: ette at December 21, 2012 08:48 AM (nqBYe)
You know if the Clinton era tax structure is restored, a lot of the 47% who pay no taxes, will start paying some taxes.
N.A.R.R.A.T.I.V.E.
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 21, 2012 12:45 PM (xpgUt)
__________________________
Good point. This is something Republicans absolutely suck at....using the right language. Can't they hire a psychologist or 2 as consultants?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 21, 2012 08:48 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at December 21, 2012 08:49 AM (Ec6wH)
Have the popcorn, the couch, and our lawyer for chapter 11 on speed dial.
Chapter 11 my ass, you will take chapter7 and like it
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at December 21, 2012 08:49 AM (R8hU8)
shouldn't you be studying for finals or getting high or something?
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 12:47 PM (Dnbau)
_______________________-
Testy, testy.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 21, 2012 08:49 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 08:49 AM (Dnbau)
Oh the evil "gridlock" strikes again. The only people who are "concerned" about gridlock are liberals and the news media.
Posted by: Vic at December 21, 2012 08:49 AM (53z96)
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 21, 2012 08:49 AM (xpgUt)
Wouldn't that simply make everyone you play with fold as soon as you started betting on a strong hand?
Posted by: pep at December 21, 2012 08:50 AM (USJNU)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 12:45 PM (Dnbau)
And the Democrats know this and that's why they can play chicken with the "fiscal cliff" because no matter what happens the Republicans are the villains and the Dems the heroes.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 21, 2012 08:50 AM (1Jaio)
He dressed provocatively. He was practically begging for it.
Let me clue you in. We are going to get nothing from negotiations. The collapse will come. Republicans WILL get blamed. We will sink further into debt.
ALL OF THIS HAPPENS NO MATTER WHAT DEAL BOEHNER CUTS. The President WANTS the Fiscal cliff, and WANTS the crash. Because no matter what, he can always blame the Republicans.
Whether we are full throating him or not. Whether he is Mr. Negotiator or not. NONE OF THIS WILL CHANGE ANYTHING.
LIB
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 21, 2012 08:50 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Hollywood Accountants at December 21, 2012 08:51 AM (n2M+Z)
The most effective thing Congress can do is recess.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at December 21, 2012 08:51 AM (n8LUb)
Yeah, but back then a lot of folks were busy demonizing Newt Gingrich, so the OMG Shutting Down the Govt Is Political Suicide was a big thing. At least, that's how I remember it.
We were supposed to be Reasonable and Unscary so we'd win the WH.
Yup, I remember it as well. I just thought it was bunk at the time and I still do.
Posted by: Colorado Alex at December 21, 2012 08:51 AM (3x3F6)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, keeper of the Sacred Ampersands at December 21, 2012 08:51 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Joe in MI at December 21, 2012 12:45 PM (3R8wQ)
It won't be that bad. I got an email from the Secretary of the agency I work with saying that there won't be any immediate spending cuts if we go off the "cliff". But there COULD be SOME by the end of the fiscal year. This idea that the "cliff" is going to gut the government is a joke.
Posted by: yinzer at December 21, 2012 08:52 AM (/Mla1)
Posted by: pep at December 21, 2012 12:50 PM (USJNU)
----
OK point taken..... perhaps "Another rule of poker is bet BIG on the cards you have.... not the ones you want."
Boehner went all in on 3-4 suited.
Posted by: fixerupper at December 21, 2012 08:52 AM (nELVU)
Posted by: jwb7605 (Let It Burn) at December 21, 2012 08:52 AM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 08:52 AM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 21, 2012 08:52 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 21, 2012 08:53 AM (xpgUt)
Posted by: Hollywood Accountants at December 21, 2012 08:53 AM (n2M+Z)
CR2011, CR2012 and the last Debt Ceiling rise Boehner played Mr. Cooperative Adult and still lost the country to SMOD.
Now he's still playing to keep the Speakership in 2014, third in power over a barren wasteland.
Cap'n Queeg.
Posted by: gary gulrud at December 21, 2012 08:53 AM (uv0Aw)
--First, Boehner has learned from prior negotiations.
--Obama wins the election. The next day, a reporter asks Boehner what House Republicans plan to do. Boehner says, "We await President Obama's leadership."
--Two days later, a reporter implies Boehner and the Republicans intend to do nothing. Boehner responds, "We await President Obama's leadership."
--Five days after that, a reporter outright lies in his/her premise, "Is it true the GOP intends to do nothing to save the country from the fiscal cliff?" Boehner responds, "We await President Obama's leadership." (No one ever said the GOP intended to do nothing--no one outside NBC's newsroom, that is.)
--Ten days after the election, Obama's staff starts wondering when the GOP will fold, because... they always do. All they have to do is wait, they think.
--A day later, Boehner says: "[nothing]."
--Two weeks after the election, President Obama and his staff are getting itchy about the fiscal cliff. Someone suggests lying in a news conference in order to get Boehner's goat, make him nervous, and spill the beans on what concessions the GOP are willing to offer--without offering any themselves. Because, it's worked before.
--A day or two after that, Boehner says: "[nothing]."
--Three weeks after the election, the White House is getting very itchy. They decide to proceed with the news conference plan, and Obama lies about GOP intransigence, while not offering up anything himself.
--That afternoon, Boehner is asked by several different reporters what the GOP is willing to do to avert the fiscal cliff. Boehner responds, "We await President Obama's leadership." And he adds this time, "If you will note, President Obama did not say what his administration or the Democrats are willing to do." And with that, he turns on his heels and walks away.
--The next day, an even more hostile press hits Boehner with several pointed questions. Boehner responds, "We await President Obama's leadership."
--Later that day, someone on Obama's team suggests they "throw Boehner a bone" and hint at what they might be willing to cut. Just to get him talking about GOP concessions. An Obama surrogate mentions the words "Social Security" in a brief statement to the press.
--That evening, a reporter mischaracterizes the statement, "Mr. Speaker, the White House mentioned Social Securty today. Will the GOP agree to raise revenue in order to avert the fiscal cliff?" Boehner responds, "We await President Obama's leadership." This time, he adds, "I didn't hear the White House offer up any spending reductions. Did you?"
--At the White House meeting the next day, people are fidgeting like they're covered with ants. They start talking about real legislation to avert either 1) the fiscal cliff or 2) the coming political disaster. Two weeks later, they offer a solid package to Speaker Boehner, who does not accept. Instead, he responds, "The White House has made a bold first step toward solving the country's fiscal woes." He gives a brief list of the other things the GOP needs to see from the administration in order to move forward with a deal.
Note that Boehner never said a word about revenue increases or anything else the GOP would be willing to do. Not that he and the GOP are unwilling, but that the proper time for making any such statement or suggestion has only now arrived. He proceeds forward incrementally with talk of closing loopholes, not raising rates. They get a deal, and everybody is happy.
The End.
Posted by: rdbrewer at December 21, 2012 08:53 AM (Iyg03)
Meanwhile, LIB.
Posted by: DocJ at December 21, 2012 12:39 PM (A5uiv)
No, not a 'lifetime of evidence to the contrary'. Reagan was in my lifetime--and yours, although you're a few years younger than me. If you're to the right of Reagan--which is certainly possible since he was moderate on some issues--then good luck with a third party. And no, we're not yet 'a Scandi-like social democracy welfare state' although we're headed rapidly in that direction.
Thanks to you and the other righteous members of The Conservative Purity Brigade so intent upon dividing the GOP and peeling off votes when it matters most, conservatives will soon be irrelevant to policy making and legislation. Compromise is at the essense of the legislative process. Those who refuse to compromise, ever, will be shunted off to a dark corner of the fringe somewhere, out of sight and out of mind, ineffectual and forgotten.
Doesn't sound like much of a strategy to me.
Posted by: troyriser at December 21, 2012 08:53 AM (vtiE6)
Posted by: Hollywood Accountants at December 21, 2012 08:53 AM (n2M+Z)
Posted by: Vic at December 21, 2012 08:53 AM (53z96)
Will we have any opposition political party's after this?
srs question?
Posted by: ette at December 21, 2012 08:54 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 08:54 AM (Dnbau)
Dang it - short answer is yes I do. Hope you'll forgive me for not broadcasting it, though!
Posted by: DocJ at December 21, 2012 08:54 AM (A5uiv)
Posted by: Hollywood Accountants at December 21, 2012 12:53 PM (n2M+Z)
__________________________________
People who don't take risks seldom succeed.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 21, 2012 08:54 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Sandy Fluke at December 21, 2012 08:54 AM (zF6Iw)
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 21, 2012 08:55 AM (xpgUt)
Posted by: Joe in MI at December 21, 2012 08:55 AM (3R8wQ)
I repeat the post's main point for a few people, the plan B deal was not even going to be considered in the senate. We lost PR points, but the cliff is what Oblather and the dems want, they wants tax increases on the middle class and want to blame the GOP.
Don't fool yourselves that the GOP can do anything until the public gets into an uproar.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 21, 2012 08:55 AM (69Mdf)
Posted by: Y-not at December 21, 2012 08:55 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 21, 2012 12:53 PM (xpgUt)
________________
bbbbbut gridlock means politicians aren't solving problems. Why are you such a raist?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 21, 2012 08:56 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Hollywood Accountants at December 21, 2012 08:56 AM (n2M+Z)
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 21, 2012 12:55 PM (xpgUt)
----
Except for the MSM putting Granny McPherson on every night who saved her entire life savings for a trip to Washingto DC and couldnt get into the Lincoln Memorial because Republicans are evil racist greedy fucks.
Posted by: fixerupper at December 21, 2012 08:56 AM (nELVU)
Posted by: Hollywood Accountants at December 21, 2012 08:57 AM (n2M+Z)
Posted by: Y-not at December 21, 2012 08:57 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: 80sBaby at December 21, 2012 08:58 AM (YjDyJ)
guns in every school
guns for every teacher
arm your parakeet
infants with Uzi's!
you guys are a joke
Posted by: walter at December 21, 2012 08:58 AM (a+BXY)
Nothing really.
ALL means of enforcing law are in the hands of the executive. The judicial and legislative have no significant enforcement agencies at their disposal.
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 21, 2012 08:58 AM (xpgUt)
Posted by: maddogg at December 21, 2012 08:59 AM (OlN4e)
Don't fool yourselves that the GOP can do anything until the public gets into an uproar.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 21, 2012 12:55 PM (69Mdf)
Correct. That's why conservatives should have passed this anyway. It wasn't going anywhere, so it was a free vote. They wouldn't have raised taxes, and it would have put the democrats fingerprints all over the economy's murder weapon. (I think it was the democrats with the candlestick in the parlor)
Now we will be treated to Republican obstructionism, and god forbid, the Obama Tax cuts... conservatives are setting themselves up to be outflanked. To the right.
Posted by: Jollyroger at December 21, 2012 09:00 AM (t06LC)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 21, 2012 09:00 AM (1Jaio)
the plan B deal was not even going to be considered in the senate. We lost PR points, but the cliff is what Oblather and the dems want, they wants tax increases on the middle class and want to blame the GOP. ------------------------------
This
Don't fool yourselves that the GOP can do anything until the public gets into an uproar.-------------------------------
Unfortunately GOP has a credibility problem right now. Thanks to media and lack of ability of the GOP to state their case .
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 21, 2012 12:55 PM (69Mdf)
Posted by: ette at December 21, 2012 09:00 AM (nqBYe)
Republicans never do this. There is never a cohesive message that every Republican from Boehner down to the lowest of backbenchers sends out. And that's why we get rolled repeatedly. And don't blame the MSM for this. The MSM didn't force this vote to fail.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 21, 2012 09:00 AM (HDgX3)
1. Negotiate a Position that by doing nothing, the opposition gets EVERYTHING they want.. higher taxes, and Axe the Defense Budget.
2. ????
3. Profit??? (or deficit reduction?)
Posted by: Boner, the Congress Gnome at December 21, 2012 09:01 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: walter at December 21, 2012 09:01 AM (a+BXY)
Federal outlays in 1981: $678,241M
Federal outlays in 1989: $1,143,744M
I'm a big fan of Reagan, but please, let us not kid ourselves into thinking that government did anything but grow, every year, during his presidency.
Posted by: DocJ at December 21, 2012 09:01 AM (A5uiv)
@158
Fuck you Walter. I wouldn't own a parakeet. Everyone knows they can't handle the recoil of a .38. Thats why I've been weaponizing eagles.
Posted by: Jollyroger at December 21, 2012 09:01 AM (t06LC)
Posted by: Hollywood Accountants at December 21, 2012 09:02 AM (n2M+Z)
>>>>I retract my prior belief that this was all kabuki and revert to the belief that this is all bukkake.<<<<<
I must put in a rare appearance from work just to say I love this woman.
Posted by: the guy that moves pianos for a living..... at December 21, 2012 09:02 AM (52S34)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 09:02 AM (Dnbau)
Posted by: ette at December 21, 2012 09:02 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: maddogg at December 21, 2012 09:03 AM (OlN4e)
Federal outlays in 1989: $1,143,744M
I'm a big fan of Reagan, but please, let us not kid ourselves into thinking that government did anything but grow, every year, during his presidency.
Posted by: DocJ at December 21, 2012 01:01 PM (A5uiv)
________________________________
That's about an 8% a year growth. Obama's growth has been about 20% a year. I'd give my left nut to go back to an 8% a year growth in govt.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 21, 2012 09:03 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Y-not at December 21, 2012 09:03 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 21, 2012 09:03 AM (zF6Iw)
True, but those who were affected would get 24x7 news coverage complete with countless tearful interviews.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 21, 2012 09:03 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: jwb7605 (Let It Burn) at December 21, 2012 09:04 AM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: ette at December 21, 2012 09:04 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 21, 2012 09:05 AM (xpgUt)
Posted by: Thunderb at December 21, 2012 09:05 AM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Hollywood Accountants at December 21, 2012 09:05 AM (n2M+Z)
Posted by: walter at December 21, 2012 01:01 PM (a+BXY)
You want sacrifice? Go slit your wrists
Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 21, 2012 09:06 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: John P. Squibob at December 21, 2012 09:06 AM (0KvVl)
They're just collateral damage in a larger battle. The real goal is to establish the total dominance of the state over the individual.
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 21, 2012 09:07 AM (xpgUt)
Posted by: DAve at December 21, 2012 09:07 AM (XDC0v)
Posted by: Joe in MI at December 21, 2012 09:08 AM (3R8wQ)
Posted by: 80sBaby at December 21, 2012 09:08 AM (YjDyJ)
Posted by: John Boehner at December 21, 2012 09:08 AM (eHIJJ)
You haven't been paying much attention to Boehner during his role as speaker, have you?
He may be a lot of things, but an autocrat isn't one of them. If anything, he's been too accommodating.
Yes, a few backbenchers (including a Ron Paul Mini-Me and a moderate) lost their favored committee assignments, but for the most part they had it coming.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 21, 2012 09:09 AM (SY2Kh)
No it's pretty obvious. They have failed to deliver. Your side has done the same thing many many times to the Dems. Need I remind you of the sad fate of LBJ? Carter? both of whom your side hung out to dry. How many purges of pro-life pro-gun democrats you have done?
I mean really. Extreme us!? Laughable; You put Alan Grayson back in congress and kept Pelosi as minority leader. You want to know why Republicans still have control over the house? Look no further than San-Fran-Nan. Her crazy doomed her own speakership, and your continued insistence that she be speaker again if Dems win the house back is what is keeping Republicans in charge of the house.
And you're bashing us for whipping RINO the Orange a little for negotiating like a wimp when your leader in the house can barely put together a coherent thought inside of a moonbat omelet? Pfffft.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 21, 2012 09:09 AM (0q2P7)
They wouldn't have raised taxes, and it would have put the democrats fingerprints all over the economy's murder weapon.
Fucking ridiculous. Totally magical thinking.
Posted by: Entropy at December 21, 2012 09:10 AM (TULs6)
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 21, 2012 01:07 PM (xpgUt)
Barry: You make that sound like a bad thing
Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 21, 2012 09:10 AM (1Jaio)
I don't think anything they do helps us Y-Not. I am also not really concerned with the republican party anymore. I don't care who gets blamed either, the people of this country must live with what they voted for.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 21, 2012 09:10 AM (69Mdf)
why do they deny that the man was unstable as many before them and as such STOLE guns to harm the defenseless among us, while not answering to the fact that THEY themselves by their Laws made those teachers and babies defenseless against the madman?
Posted by: ette at December 21, 2012 09:11 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at December 21, 2012 09:11 AM (6zgse)
there are no permanent fixes- just fixes without automatic expiration dates. when more revenue is needed tax rates will increase, either directly or by changing the mix of deductions, exclusions, etc.
estate taxes will forever be a moving target, as will gift taxes- because it's "unfair" that some have accumulated and passed wealth on to future generations. the only question will be a line-drawing one.
the biggest tax increses in the recent past have been tax increases targeted at funding social security and medicare. at least those tax increases were relatively flat. those tax increases generated the clinton era phantom surplus- and those surplusses were used for more gov't spending.
Posted by: wm flip at December 21, 2012 09:11 AM (lB/5N)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at December 21, 2012 09:12 AM (6zgse)
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 21, 2012 01:07 PM (xpgUt)
yes
Posted by: ette at December 21, 2012 09:13 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Joe in MI at December 21, 2012 09:13 AM (3R8wQ)
This theater act won't save anything. You act as if Plan B had a chance to become law! The whole show was a meaningless exercise, and I'm having trouble feeling sorry for Boehner. This is the bed he made. So what IF (and that's a big IF) a representative decided to vote in their self interests. Their was NOTHING on the table for the US anyway. They might as well vote in their self interests.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 21, 2012 09:13 AM (0q2P7)
the point is that the 2nd Ammendment was designed to protect us from tyrannical government....the government is already tyrannical and your guns aren't doing shit about it, just causing violence.
the way to stop a tyrannical government is to stop bitching at Democrats and Liberals and go after the real evil which is the overly powerful institutions: corporations, Washington revolving-door where corporations scratch the politicians backs and vice versa; ordinary schmucks like u and me have been left out of the equation.
Posted by: walter at December 21, 2012 09:14 AM (a+BXY)
Odd, isn't it, how the people who insist on massive transfers of other peoples' earnings so they can get "free" food, and "free" heat, and "free" education for their kids, and "free" phones, and "free" housing... are never, ever thought of as "selfish".
Posted by: DocJ at December 21, 2012 09:14 AM (A5uiv)
They took a "meh" stick and pulled it out of our hands.
No, they ruined your lala-land fantasy. That is all, nothing more.
Plan B was not a stick, it was self delusion.
Posted by: Entropy at December 21, 2012 09:14 AM (TULs6)
Because Reid isn't going to pass or even vote on anything without first getting Obama's blessing.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 21, 2012 09:15 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Cricket at December 21, 2012 09:15 AM (DrC22)
Posted by: DAve at December 21, 2012 09:15 AM (XDC0v)
Posted by: 80sBaby at December 21, 2012 09:16 AM (YjDyJ)
Posted by: maddogg at December 21, 2012 09:16 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Exasperated Expat at December 21, 2012 09:16 AM (gkfSV)
Posted by: Hollywood Accountants at December 21, 2012 09:18 AM (n2M+Z)
Posted by: Hollywood Accountants at December 21, 2012 09:19 AM (n2M+Z)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at December 21, 2012 09:19 AM (QupBk)
The durability you attribute to a social structure under stress is not supported by historical precedent.
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 21, 2012 09:20 AM (xpgUt)
Boy are you just dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.......dumb.
You want to go after corporations with.....what exactly?
Ohhh. Laws. So you want to fight big government by making it MORE powerful, assuming that once government usurps the power that corporations now control (largely means of production and investment capital) that this now monolith of societies power (Physical force, means of production, and all money) will somehow become a faithful servant of the people and be a good government?
I suggest you move to China. They've got just your hookup goin' on. If they are too corp friendly for ya try North Korea instead.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 21, 2012 09:21 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 21, 2012 01:07 PM (xpgUt)
Well said. Based on the gun store mobs in my hometown and elsewhere, as well as the online SOLD OUT messages in just about every ammo category, I think more people than we know have internalized that threat (even if they can't articulate it) and are doing something about it.
Finding 7.62 x 39 ammo for my SKS is proving nearly impossible.
Posted by: troyriser at December 21, 2012 09:23 AM (vtiE6)
This.
Posted by: rdbrewer at December 21, 2012 09:23 AM (Iyg03)
ooooo good plan. Have no fallback position in case a complicated event way in the future you don't have a lot of control over doesn't go exactly how you think it should.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 21, 2012 09:24 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Joe in MI at December 21, 2012 09:26 AM (3R8wQ)
Posted by: DAve at December 21, 2012 09:26 AM (XDC0v)
Posted by: PersonFromPorlock at December 21, 2012 09:27 AM (2VCZA)
rules (laws) are to protect us against the greedy, unscrupulous assholes
Posted by: walter at December 21, 2012 09:27 AM (a+BXY)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 21, 2012 09:27 AM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: KG at December 21, 2012 09:29 AM (p7BzH)
It was bad enough when you supported the invasion of Iraq
Posted by: walter at December 21, 2012 09:29 AM (a+BXY)
Posted by: The retarded American public at December 21, 2012 09:30 AM (YmPwQ)
1000 * Wasn't me !
Posted by: A thousand drunks - hic at December 21, 2012 09:35 AM (syEB8)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at December 21, 2012 09:35 AM (6zgse)
Posted by: Disgrunled Monkey at December 21, 2012 09:39 AM (RgkHE)
For those of you bitching about the deal made in 2011....the deal was made with the assumption that Obama would lose.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo
And now for our final move in the great game. We shall nominate Mitt Romney and crush our enemies!
Atari!
Posted by: The Republicans (tm)
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 21, 2012 09:40 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, keeper of the Sacred Ampersands at December 21, 2012 09:41 AM (GBXon)
But then they'd have a more difficult time blaming going over the fiscal cliff on republicans.
Ridiculous, preposterous absurdity.
Posted by: Entropy at December 21, 2012 09:41 AM (TULs6)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, keeper of the Sacred Ampersands at December 21, 2012 09:44 AM (GBXon)
It was at least a half-assed attempt at doing something, that we could have used to beat on the dems. We don't have that now, do we? Why not? And what do we have now?
Nothing? Oh.
Shmuck. Fucking shmuck. At least try to get your hands on 1 accurate fact.
The GOP has already voted for not raising taxes on any earners (100%). They lost their brilliant, 3d-chess-worthy 98% gambit.
They still have 100%. It's 2% away. No one who cares about the top 1% doesn't lump the top 3% in with them. Rhetorically, you're still in the same position. You want to beat them with that, then do it.
You will likely continue to pretend that Boehner's 2% under the bus makes Plan B a realistic possibility in the Senate or changes the optics of the debate. It does neither.
Posted by: Entropy at December 21, 2012 09:45 AM (TULs6)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at December 21, 2012 09:47 AM (QupBk)
Lets look at the great 'Conservative' Republican Party. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney. One in eight, and remember Reagan only slowed the decline briefly. While Reagan pushed the Soviet Communists over the edge of insolvency he did exactly nothing about the Communists in the USA who kept right on Long Marching through our Institutions, a march that is now complete. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Never again. I will push for a Conservative nominee in the next Republican round of primaries but this time when they nominate Jeb or Christie, and we both know they will, I'm done with em. Third Party. Because it won't matter a good God Damn whether either of those losers actually manages to beat the Wicked Witch of New York in the General (they won't) because 'winning' that race is pointless.
Posted by: John Morris at December 21, 2012 09:49 AM (YhRJW)
So lets strap in and just go over the fucking cliff now please. I mean, I really don't get enough abuse from the party of class warfare and media partisans.
It's your own fucking fault if you continue to delude yourself into believing that throwing the top 2% under the bus is going to make democrats be reasonable.
Plan B was no tax cuts for anyone in the bottom 98%. How the flying fuck does that make it look less like what the democrats claim? It doesn't. It doesn't at all. It does 2%. Nobody gives a shit about 2%.
How you can be so silly, I do not understand. You seem to believe if we draw the line at the top 3% the democrats can't play class warfare and claim we're doing exactly what we are doing - holding all the tax cuts up because we want a deal that includes the top 3%.
Posted by: Entropy at December 21, 2012 09:49 AM (TULs6)
It was bad enough when you supported the invasion of Iraq
Posted by: walter at December 21, 2012 01:29 PM (a+BXY)
Er, enough Democrats in both the House and the Senate supported the Iraqi invasion to give congressional approval to the undertaking. Unlike President Obama, President Bush did not do an end-run around the legislative branch (and the Constitution) to pursue a major foreign policy objective. Libya, anyone?
Supporting billionaires? I dunno. Ask George Soros and William Buffet about that since both are huge Obama supporters. I assume that support runs both ways. And how about John Corzine, former state governor and big Obama campaign bundler? He somehow misplaced a billion dollars of other peoples' money and, for some unfathomable reason, hasn't been prosecuted. Does he count as a billionaire if there's a billion dollars missing and he was the last person to hold it in his possession?
Supporting the NRA? Last I heard, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) is a big NRA proponent, so much so that he's received the NRA's coveted endorsement in every election year of his career.
You got anything else, sport?
Posted by: troyriser at December 21, 2012 09:52 AM (vtiE6)
Posted by: Count de Monet at December 21, 2012 09:53 AM (BAS5M)
Thanks to you and the other righteous members of The Conservative Purity Brigade so intent upon dividing the GOP and peeling off votes when it matters most, conservatives will soon be irrelevant to policy making and legislation.
Posted by: troyriser at December 21, 2012 12:53 PM (vtiE6)
"Purity!" Everyone take a drink!
Posted by: Big McLargeHuge at December 21, 2012 09:56 AM (YuNMe)
Posted by: Cynthia at December 21, 2012 09:57 AM (lhhNH)
The Republican party can show up if it wants, but I don't owe them a damn thing. It's not so much a L.I.B. strategy as it is a, "fuck it, it's already over" strategy. I'm just working on surviving the downfall, and the good news is, I will, SMOD willing.
And by the way, if we all vote West, we don't need to bother with some stupid third party crap. Get him in office, and make the party afterward.
Posted by: K-Bob at December 21, 2012 09:58 AM (fklmM)
Remember: It's not about anything concrete or actual. It is about the emotion. It is about finding a way to blame everything on the Purity Brigade so you don't have to feel any dissonance and continue to live in denial.
What other excuse can there be? I'm all ears. All I keep getting is this fantasy where Harry Reid caves and votes for cutting the tax hikes on 98% of the economy because of the optics of holding out for the top 3%.
Posted by: Entropy at December 21, 2012 09:59 AM (TULs6)
Posted by: Big McLargeHuge at December 21, 2012 01:56 PM (YuNMe)
Amen. That's the only thing reasonable about that label.
Posted by: K-Bob at December 21, 2012 10:00 AM (fklmM)
What other excuse can there be? I'm all ears. All I keep getting is this fantasy where Harry Reid caves and votes for cutting the tax hikeson 98% of the economy because of the optics of holding out for the top 3%.
Posted by: Entropy at December 21, 2012 01:59 PM (TULs6)
I'm not blaming everything on the Conservative Purity Brigade, but I am faulting them for their intransigence and unwillingness to offer a unified front to a pack of hardcore Marxist weasels intent upon the destruction of the Republic. Those of us who tend to vote Republican agree on more than we disagree. We either hang together or hang separately. It's that simple.
Posted by: troyriser at December 21, 2012 10:17 AM (vtiE6)
More of the same from troyriser. Unity for posturing sakes is apparently paramount.
Well... then why didn't Boehner drop the 2% sop and just vote to stop all tax hikes and keep the whole caucus united then?
Posted by: Entropy at December 21, 2012 10:30 AM (TULs6)
Posted by: Entropy at December 21, 2012 02:30 PM (TULs6)
Yep. What would be the point of caving together?
Posted by: K-Bob at December 21, 2012 10:37 AM (fklmM)
What would be the point of caving together?
Caving to the democrats with 0 democrat support and without democrats even accepting the cave.
But we need unity, because... um, we're trying to avoid blame for doing what we're doing.
Which we appear to be doing specifically just to avoid blame for doing it.
Posted by: Entropy at December 21, 2012 10:49 AM (TULs6)
Posted by: MakeMyDay at December 21, 2012 10:52 AM (mAWUy)
Well... then why didn't Boehner drop the 2% sop and just vote to stop all tax hikes and keep the whole caucus united then?
Posted by: Entropy at December 21, 2012 02:30 PM (TULs6)
Yep. What would be the point of caving together?
Posted by: K-Bob at December 21, 2012 02:37 PM (fklmM)
You're missing my point, both of you. I'll spell it out: for better or worse, Boehner is currently Speaker. This is not a lifetime appointment. He can be removed by means of a confidence vote held by the majority Republican caucus. But for now, this moment, he has the job. In order to hold our own against a Democratic majority in the Senate and (obviously) Democratic control of the Executive branch, Boehner needs to maximize his bargaining position, which means he absolutely must have the votes (and support) of GOP members of the House. He's not getting that support. The Republican Speaker of the House is not getting unified Republican support because some of its members are self-seeking, short-sighted assholes who want to be able to say they didn't go along with a tax increase. You know, because they're so principled and pure. Like you.
Let it burn, my ass. That whole point-of-view is fucked up from the start. It's just an excuse for doing nothing. When the country's in trouble, you do what you can to make it right.
Posted by: troyriser at December 21, 2012 10:57 AM (vtiE6)
Posted by: Conan at December 21, 2012 01:53 PM (hYX5c)
Posted by: Joe in MI at December 21, 2012 02:28 PM (3R8wQ)
Posted by: Joe in MI at December 21, 2012 02:35 PM (3R8wQ)
Posted by: MotherGoss3, 10 hours behind at December 21, 2012 04:43 PM (44WKP)
Posted by: MotherGoss3, waiting at the bottom, gas can in hand at December 21, 2012 04:51 PM (44WKP)
This.
Does the concept "circular firing squad" ring any bells in this here audience? Seriously, the whole LIB is a juvenile goddamn emoshit pose. Just saying.
Posted by: Caramba at December 22, 2012 02:39 AM (hoJnS)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3754 seconds, 399 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Stipulated!
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i] at December 21, 2012 08:12 AM (sbV1u)