The conventional wisdom they are trying to establish is that deficit reduction will never happen without hiking taxes and nobody in the GOP wants to be that kamikaze pilot.
Cantor specifically is being painted as selfishly putting his power first. Even if we wanted to grant that may be true, it's only 1% of the story. They are ALL putting their power first.
This is a crisis that may take the nation to fiscal armageddon, and President Obama is throwing Biden under the bus by putting him in charge of the negotiations while he plays the part of a mere spectator watching Congressional Republicans participate in an episode of "Dancing with the Tard."
After decades of govenrment growth they championed finally collapsing under it's own weight, Democrats expect the Republican to be the Atlases to shrug the weight they piled on by accepting a solution that is no solution at all – tax hikes that suck what oxygen is left out of the economy.
Neither side wants to make the tough choices for fear of political suicide, and they can't count to 3 before jumping off together because Biden is in charge, and nobody wants to teach him how to count.
The Democrats problem is they're like the bosses who refuse to go on vacation for fear of the company realizing they'd get along fine with out them. The tough choice for them is giving up the heart of their platform of dependency they use against the country to build up their power base.
For the GOP, it's how much they want compromise so the Old Yellers live to see another day.
That's what this epic battle is really about – do we shut down the only space program liberals still support by finally bringing the size of the government back to earth, or do we let them continue tricking the American public into thinking the country needs their "help."
The 9% of Americans who are unemployed – and the scores of people who aren't because they gave up – don't need the government to raise taxes to balance their books, they need it to foster economic growth so they can become taxpayers again, and the government can balance their books on that money instead.
This concept, as with most of what conservatives stand for, is so frighteningly simple that it makes sense how "the smartest people in the room" can't see it. They think it's so "progressive" to turn 1+1 into equations only they understand so the public will depend solely on them for the answer.
Elections have consequences, and giving a political party of narcissists total power over our purse strings in 2008, and letting them continue to have a seat at the table in 2010, is why we have to accept hiking the mother all debt ceilings even higher to make room for trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
Ezra Klein has it wrong. The Democrats are the ones selfishly insisting on protecting their New Deal/Great Society sand castles from getting knocked over by throwing taxpayers under the bus so they can build a wall of dollars to keep the default high tide at bay. They are unwilling to accept the reality that the day is fast approaching where they have totally run out of raw material to continue building that wall higher.Add a comment
Rich Lowry and many other pundits are starting to remark how the current crop of GOP presidential candidates are running from the memory Bush has burned in our national brain...
The backlash against Bush has long been brewing. Compassionate conservatism was a product of the moment when Bush began to run for president in the late 1990s. The congressional wing of the party had immolated itself in the government-shutdown fights and then the impeachment of Bill Clinton. A rebranding was in order, and Bush wanted to signal to general-election voters that they needn't fear him.
Bush-style conservatism never really took with the broader party, although it gained acquiescence.
He still has throngs of fans, and he should receive a great level of appreciation (especially from Obama) for many of the efforts he made in fighting the war on terrorism. Also, until Obama came along the alternatives the Democrats offered to America made choosing Bush easy. Even then Al Gore and John Kerry weren't really the top choices for liberals to execute the Democratic party platform, but Jack Kevorkian was stuck in prison so...
Why are Republican's disowning the Bush legacy? Is it because it was an abject failure? Sort of. Bush's quest to establish a permanent GOP majority only serviced the Republican Party. What's worse was that conservatism, which is more concerned with preserving what makes this nation work so well, was thrown under the bus in order to co-opt certain issues away from the Democrats.
Republicans figured out that doing this was a great strategy if they wanted to become Democrats. Many of them were jackasses to begin with so this made sense to at least them.
Democrats thought this was a great strategy if they wanted to become full blown leftists. They knew the country would be ready for it the same way it would be ready for Barry White music, ten shots of tequila and Nancy Pelosi telling you Victoria's secret.
Thats right kids, as far as domestic policy is concerned that is the real Bush legacy....the right lurched to the left, and the left went over the cliff, but their entire philosophy is so cartoonish to begin with that as long as they didn't look down they won't actually fall.
It's working too. Their president is a golf-a-holic who has led the Democrats to jamming down the nations throat, by their own loose admission a new trillion dollar entitlement that nobody actually wanted on top of tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities. They're calling proposed cuts to the deficit by 3% "unworkable."
They - are - not - looking - down.
Bush tried to make the GOP into liberal light on domestic issues, because that is much easier than making the case for liberalism doesn't work and sends us over the cliff. When the strategy failed Democrats called it "conservativism" while conveniently leaving out the fact that their way, which is what Bush was doing, but more unbridled than Biden playing Scrabble without a dictionary, was the alternative.
Rather than putting on the brakes when they took power, liberals floored it, and things have only (and predicably) gotten worse. So why on earth would any Republican look to Bush as a model for governing success?
Unfortunately for fans of President Bush, if the GOP wants to beat Obama they'll have to put their guy's domestic legacy right where it belongs.....
...next to President Obama's.Add a comment
Dozens of new designs were made, but a winner has been chosen!
All kidding aside, I mentioned last November that large labels like the one above are coming...
Beginning September 2012, FDA will require larger, more prominent cigarette health warnings on all cigarette packaging and advertisements in the United States. These warnings mark the first change in cigarette warnings in more than 25 years and are a significant advancement in communicating the dangers of smoking.
From the FDA
"These warnings mark the first change in cigarette warnings in more than 25 years." It would be frightening if boredom with the old warnings was a motivating factor making the change....it wouldn't be shocking though.Add a comment
It's fairly well known by now how Jon Stewart gave a big hug to Fox News viewers with the following...
So he huffed, and he puffed, but did he blow the house down?
They rated his claim "false," which according to their rating system, leaves no room deference to Stewart that he is even a little right.
He's a sharp guy, very sharp....like, a hot knife to Biden's brain sharp. So I'll soften how wrong he is by using Jonny's own scapegoat...he's just a comedian. That's what he says every time somenone tries to hold him accountable for the bent he takes with his own work. He's just a comedian, therefore he deserves no credibility.
As someone cut from the same cloth, but on the other side (and on a MUCH smaller scale), I say a broken shot glass holds more water than that excuse.
Humor only works if it lives in truth. So it's impossible to not give someone who is successful at making people laugh at the news credibility, because it has to be laced with opinion and commentary that lives in reality (or rather, the reality that a certain political point of view provides), and it rises in people's consciousness because it's being presented to them in a fresh way that they probably would never see it otherwise.
He thinks he gets that credibility because the news media fails to do their job and that he's being sucked up in some kind of vacuum, as opposed to it being a reflection how seldom his viewers probably consume other media. For them, when "The Daily Show" is on it's time to watch the news.
For Stewart to say he is only trying to entertain people is something that Politifact could award their lowest rating, "pants on fire."Add a comment
Even though he's out now, this guy is the gift that keeps giving. With a little embellishment I provided a hint for the identity of his doppleganger...
If you're not a child of the 90's and have no clue then check out the answer at Death by 1000 Papercuts. If you still don't know you might actually be better off for it.Add a comment
Except for any ethos Mitt Romney probably brings to the economic debate (being rich has that effect on people, for all I really know he knows economics like Hugh Hefner knows the dust emanating from his pores is an aphrodisiac) I've always been a bit uneasy about him. This weekend he didn't do himself any favors to assuage that uneasiness.
When it comes to abortion, Romney waffles so much Eggo should pay him for being a walking advertisement. Abortion won't, and shouldn't, be the primary issue of the next presidential election his position, or lack of one. However, this is a fantastic indicator of the McCain-esque clarity of message we could expect out of him.
It's too bad he's gone past the point of no return on this issue, I know someone he should have looked to for guidance when staking out a which side of the debate to join...
To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life;
Circumcisions are barbaric, fur is murder, but abortion deserves ambiguity?
No, abortion is murder, too.
The surest sign this isn't debatable is the way liberals, and any pro-choicer, exploits man's hubris, pride, and narcissism by making the discussion about choice, or "reproductive rights." Some even have the audacity to rationalize it by saying a fetus is not a life (right, that's why groups like NARAL lose it when states want to require ultrasounds before abortions are performed).<>
The bottom line for
pro-choicers abortion fan club members is it can't be about ending life, because nobody wants to be a murder...they just want laws kept off their body.
Nevermind the laws aren't dealing with their body.
As long as there are diametrically opposing views on what life is, abortion will always be a polarizing issue...but maybe we can at least put it in a way that everyone from all perspectives can agree on...
Add a comment
As President, Barack Obama has done his best at national fathering, but his own experience deprives him of an essential truth about the role: Children have to know in their bones that, when they are in trouble, their fathers will come and take them home....with the best of intentions, (he) seems unable to communicate to anxious Americans that government is not an enemy under the same national roof but a source of help and support in the hardest times....the President will have to learn an essential truth about fathers is that, when you are in trouble, they are the ones you depend on to be there to help save you.
See more at Connecting.the.Dots (this blogger should consider a name change)
Oh, is that why Democratic presidents wag their finger at us? I thought they were trying to scold us into believing their lies, little did I know they were playing a game of "father knows best" with us.
We say George Washington is the "father of the country," but that's just a figure of speech. This is a really bizarre view/characterization of what the role of a president is.
Like it or not, American presidents from “The father of his country” on have assumed a paternal role in the society....Try imagining Romney, Pawlenty, Bachmann and Gingrich doing that.
How about I try imagining this liberal, Mr. Dots, writing these words for George W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan. Is that why they keep saying conservative presidents are big brother? I thought that insult was in reference to Orwell, little did I know that they're really just commenting on how conservative stewardship of the executive branch doesn't hold the same rank in their mind.
I wonder how many times Mr. Dots had to use the backspace key because instead of "president" he kept "mistakenly" typing "Lord Obama."
Or "Papa Bear"
Or "Our Father who art in Washington"
Notwithstanding that double standard, the president doesn't play a paternal role in a free society. This highlights one of the more frightening differences between liberals and conservatives today. I guess the silver lining to this is we can finally view his vacations and golfing positively as the country being grounded from his leadership.Add a comment
President Obama took his licks from progressives who are meeting in Minneapolis at the Netroots Nation Convention, the annual gathering of liberal bloggers and other social media activists.
The panel that drew one of the biggest crowds at Netroots Nation so far was called "What To Do When The President's Just Not That Into You."
"It's like the president's not our boyfriend anymore," Joan McCarter, an editor at the Daily Kos website, said during the discussion.
See more at NPR
Look at the picture above, does that look like he was ever even Michelle's boyfriend?
Can you imagine conservatives being this kind of crybaby over a Republican that supposedly abandons them. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you'll never see this kind of talk at Right Online since even conservative women have bigger balls than the toughest liberal man.
This is why the world doesn't take us seriously when liberals are in charge, they wants the United States to be a pitcher, and Obama can't even get the ball to home plate, much less throw strikes.
By the way, why are they so pissy? The left finally gets a commie in the White House and they think they can just rip the wax strips right they've forced onto the hairs of freedom on Uncle Sam's bikini line, and nobody would mind it?
Sorry for that visual, but that's what leftists are...a bunch of vain emasculating wimps, who need presidents to love them like they're his girlfriend....because that's exactly how it's supposed to work in a democracy.
And they wax their.....stuff....Add a comment
To avoid any sense of accountability for being abject failures there's a meme liberals have been pushing that GOP solutions to our problems aren't fresh enough...
(Regarding the GOP debate in New Hampshire) The 2012 GOP presidential field on display Monday offered not one idea about how to solve the problems facing our country that didn’t boil down to cutting taxes, slashing regulation or eliminating large swaths of government.
More from E.J. Dionne Jr. (that's the suffix for his name, not his intellectual designation...confusing, I know) here
This is interesting coming from a party that pontificates from a soap box they pulled from the ash heap formerly known as the Soviet Union. Liberals think that if they package Marxism using different buzz words and phrases that the ideas are somehow "new" and "fresh." To the contrary, all liberalism ever does is put the "mar" in Marxist.
As irritating as all that is, that's not even my real beef with this line of thinking. It's the lunacy that the "old" and "tired" solution to a sluggish economy is "cutting taxes" and "slashing regulation."
Instead of obsessing over new ideas (or faking them in their case) why don't liberals obsess over what actually works? Arguing for hiking taxes, ramming cost-of-business-hiking regulation, and blowing up a credit balloon that is maxed out with more spending isn't stimulus any economy can believe in.
If that is what is ailing the country then it's only logical to conclude that the opposite of those things would help it. If liberals are unwilling to admit this then I think it's time for them to come clean about their religious devotion to the power of lipstick for pigs.
Business doesn't operate best on what the latest fad that gets liberals in a tizzy is...like shopping at Whole Foods, waterless toilets, or the president's they elect.
Business models may change, but the concept of fostering conditions where capital can be amassed and profits can be kept as a recipe for prosperity is as true as it is old. If liberals want to spin their wheels trying to change the unchangeable they should perhaps divert their energy to figuring out what else 2+2 could equal.
I would love to be able to say they do understand all of this and are just being contrarian, but if that were the case we'd all be Republicans wouldn't we? Then who would the dead brain cells of the American electorate vote for?
New doesn't always equal better, pioneers didn't rely on NEW buffalo chips to fuel their campfires. When Biden offered a NEW perspective on history, FDR was president and TV existed in the 20's without a time machine. When disaster strikes in this country it's a NEW reason for Obama to go on vacation.
"New" works for babies, food, iPods and Twitter alias's for Anthony Weiner...not for economies.
That said, I have a new idea for how to help get jolt the economy....no more new ideas!Add a comment