If you've been listening to scuttlebutt, you may have heard that a large faction of the #NeverTrump movement have lost their collective minds. By which I mean: they are openly advocating that the Republican Party self-immolate rather than actually go through with nominating Donald Trump.
Oh, they won't say it that way. "He's behind by double digits!" they'll wail. "He can't win!" they'll cry. "He's a poo-poo head!" they'll whine. Okay, I may have made that last one up, but it's in line with their opinions. In fact, they are so certain of Trump's defeat in November (just how they were certain of his defeat in the Primaries), that they are now calling for the delegates at the Republican National Convention to change the voting rules so that those delegates elected in the expectation they would vote for Donald Trump will not do so, and instead will pick some party-insider to run for President.
To its credit, the RNC seems to be saying "That's stupid, don't do that." That's because they're the Stupid Party, not the Self-Immolation Party.
And let us be clear: that is what this is. This really is people who didn't get their way not merely settling for taking their ball and going home, but burning down the field and jumping into the conflagration.
Let's think this through for a minute.
What do you suppose will happen if the delegates overthrow the will of the people (pesky democratic processes anyway - you know they'll let ANYONE who is 18 or over, a US Citizen, and not a felon vote? How plebian)?
First, you have to select another nominee. Who? Ted Cruz? Already a loser (and I say that as someone who likes the man and thinks he'd be a good president). Seriously, he already lost to Trump, why do you think he'd fare better against Hillary? Any of the other primary candidates were named unacceptable by voters long even before Cruz. So not one of them. But then who? You think someone can put together a presidential campaign on the fly? Seriously?
But let's say you find another nominee who you believe can put together a presidential campaign at a moment's notice. Even assuming there is no problem getting him (or her) on the ballot (and I'm not sure about that), then you face one other problem. Seventeen million voters whose will you just spurned.
Think about that. Donald Trump did not just win the Republican Primary. He won with a record number of votes. Even assuming (as I do not, actually) that some of those are "false flag" votes from Democrats who are going to vote Hillary, what about the rest? You think those blue collar voters who were voting to "Make America Great Again" are going to say "Oh, yes, absolutely. Those party delegates know far better than we do, why did we ever vote for Trump in the first place?"
No. They're going to be so royally pissed off, they'll vote for Hillary out of spite.
And then what? Even assuming Hillary doesn't plunge us into Venezuelan Darkness in 4 years, do you think those people will come back to the Republican Party? After that betrayal? Who did those fighting for American Independence hate more: open loyalists, or traitors like Benedict Arnold?
No. You will have lost them forever. Worse, you'll probably have lost their children and grandchildren. "Don't listen to them," they'll tell their kids, "they lie. They'll tell you they want to represent you and support your interests, but the moment you speak up and say 'Then this man represents me,' they'll call you stupid and racist and xenophobic and stab you in the back."
So you're #NeverTrump? I think that's stupid, but whatever. Be #NeverTrump. But if you are advocating for a "delegate revolt" understand that you are advocating for the Republican Party to commit suicide.
As for me? That's what I said nearly a year ago. Donald Trump will kill the Republican Party. He'll either kill it from the inside - killing the power the so-called "elites" and establishment have making them once more answerable to those they're supposed to represent, or those "elites" (note the establishment seems to have come somewhat to their senses) will do it for him.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Friday, June 24, 2016
#Brexit and Donald Trump
First: Congratulations to the People of Great Britain for their courage and commitment to self-rule and local governance. I'm glad they voted to leave the European Union; it's in their best interests. The days ahead will be hard, and at every bump in the road talking heads will tell them how "it's their own fault" for choosing independence. To a degree they're right: independence, self-rule, these things are hard and not without difficulty. But they are worth far more than the fake "security" of being ruled from afar.
As the English withdrawal from the European Union is analyzed and constantly second-guessed, let me submit to you that it was inevitable, and it shows that Donald Trump has a much better chance to win in November than the Talking Heads would have you believe. See, I believe that Brexit and the Rise of Trump are both based on the same thing - the realization by the People that their so-called leaders have failed in their actual duties.
National governments have basically two jobs - ensure a "level playing field" inside their borders and protecting their citizens from non-citizens. That's it. Both of these are predicated on one foundational idea that the West seems determined to abandon: "Us First." A nation's government should always, as its first priority, put the well-being and interests of its citizens over the well-being and interests of non-citizens.
Whether that's non-naturalized immigrants living within its population, foreign threats, foreign business, or even just healthy old international competition, a national government's first priority should be "what is in the best interests of my citizens?"
That's a harder question to answer sometimes that it might seem. Are trade terriffs on imports good? How about a lax or strict immigration policy? What about (any given) war? Not always easy.
Sometimes, however, it is easy. Is illegal immigration good for a nation's citizens, or bad? Bad. There's not even a question here. Is unchecked immigration from majority muslim countries good, or bad? Bad. Again, not even a question - when your best answer is "we don't know they're a threat," you're not arguing that it's good, just that it might not be as bad as feared. Ergo: bad.
Now, most people don't even think of these things in these terms. I'm pretty sure the average Englishman doesn't think in terms of terriffs and duties, or immigration policy. What they do think of is: how easy it is to find a job (harder with lax immigration, and even harder with massive illegal immigration)? How good is my standard of living (worse with poor trade policy and massive immigration)? How safe am I in my home (worse with Muslim Terrorists moving easily about the globe, worse with illegal immigrants)?
And that brings us back to our own shores and Donald Trump. Donald Trump resonantes with people because he understands* these things. He understands them in his bones. Look at his campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again." That says it all in four words. America was great "before." What is "before?" Well, that's up to the individual. But it's not great now. So let's make it great again.
Let's put Americans first. Let's say that the well being of American businesses, the American worker, is more important to us than the well being of Iraqis, Afghans, Israelis, Austrialians, the British, Canadians, or anyone else. Let's get control of our borders - all four of them, and stop importing unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce (what, you think we didn't have one? Everyone starts "unskilled"). Let's stop immigration from majority Muslim countries - we owe them nothing - until either Mohammedanism can tamp down on its more violent tendencies or we can find a way to screen out the terrorists. Let's stop engaging in wars to benefit others and not ourselves. If American boys and girls are going to die, let's make it to the benefit of the country they serve, and not just someone else.
And that's where the leaders of Great Britain (not the EU) and the United States have failed. By allowing massive immigration (usually without requiring assimilation), we import unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce. The EU member nations are importing terrorists - and it won't be too long before one gets over here. The so-called leadership of Great Britain and the United States has failed to put their own citizens first, and the citizens are crying "no more."
Of course, they also said (as late as yesterday), that the Brexit would fail.
Will Donald Trump win in November? I don't know. People are saying he has no chance.
* - Understanding is not the same as agreeing with or supporting. Personally, I believe he does both, but whether or not he agrees with or believes in "America First," it is clear that he - unlike the talking heads and Washington Establishment - at least understands it.
As the English withdrawal from the European Union is analyzed and constantly second-guessed, let me submit to you that it was inevitable, and it shows that Donald Trump has a much better chance to win in November than the Talking Heads would have you believe. See, I believe that Brexit and the Rise of Trump are both based on the same thing - the realization by the People that their so-called leaders have failed in their actual duties.
National governments have basically two jobs - ensure a "level playing field" inside their borders and protecting their citizens from non-citizens. That's it. Both of these are predicated on one foundational idea that the West seems determined to abandon: "Us First." A nation's government should always, as its first priority, put the well-being and interests of its citizens over the well-being and interests of non-citizens.
Whether that's non-naturalized immigrants living within its population, foreign threats, foreign business, or even just healthy old international competition, a national government's first priority should be "what is in the best interests of my citizens?"
That's a harder question to answer sometimes that it might seem. Are trade terriffs on imports good? How about a lax or strict immigration policy? What about (any given) war? Not always easy.
Sometimes, however, it is easy. Is illegal immigration good for a nation's citizens, or bad? Bad. There's not even a question here. Is unchecked immigration from majority muslim countries good, or bad? Bad. Again, not even a question - when your best answer is "we don't know they're a threat," you're not arguing that it's good, just that it might not be as bad as feared. Ergo: bad.
Now, most people don't even think of these things in these terms. I'm pretty sure the average Englishman doesn't think in terms of terriffs and duties, or immigration policy. What they do think of is: how easy it is to find a job (harder with lax immigration, and even harder with massive illegal immigration)? How good is my standard of living (worse with poor trade policy and massive immigration)? How safe am I in my home (worse with Muslim Terrorists moving easily about the globe, worse with illegal immigrants)?
And that brings us back to our own shores and Donald Trump. Donald Trump resonantes with people because he understands* these things. He understands them in his bones. Look at his campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again." That says it all in four words. America was great "before." What is "before?" Well, that's up to the individual. But it's not great now. So let's make it great again.
Let's put Americans first. Let's say that the well being of American businesses, the American worker, is more important to us than the well being of Iraqis, Afghans, Israelis, Austrialians, the British, Canadians, or anyone else. Let's get control of our borders - all four of them, and stop importing unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce (what, you think we didn't have one? Everyone starts "unskilled"). Let's stop immigration from majority Muslim countries - we owe them nothing - until either Mohammedanism can tamp down on its more violent tendencies or we can find a way to screen out the terrorists. Let's stop engaging in wars to benefit others and not ourselves. If American boys and girls are going to die, let's make it to the benefit of the country they serve, and not just someone else.
And that's where the leaders of Great Britain (not the EU) and the United States have failed. By allowing massive immigration (usually without requiring assimilation), we import unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce. The EU member nations are importing terrorists - and it won't be too long before one gets over here. The so-called leadership of Great Britain and the United States has failed to put their own citizens first, and the citizens are crying "no more."
Of course, they also said (as late as yesterday), that the Brexit would fail.
Will Donald Trump win in November? I don't know. People are saying he has no chance.
* - Understanding is not the same as agreeing with or supporting. Personally, I believe he does both, but whether or not he agrees with or believes in "America First," it is clear that he - unlike the talking heads and Washington Establishment - at least understands it.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Why I’m Voting for Donald Trump (Probably)
Because f*ck Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Jeb Bush, that’s why.
Oh. You wanted the expanded version. I guess I can do that.
So, I’ve seen a lot on these here inter-tubez talking about “Trump supporters” this and “Trumpkins” that. Most of it is completely missing the point, so I’m going to try one more time. This is going to be incredibly cynical and self-serving. Also: long. I hope you’re ready.
First, a little history.
President George Herbert Walker Bush enacted a tax increase not very long after promising “Read my lips: no new taxes.” That betrayal of his word cost him the presidency far more than anything Ross Perot did. Here’s a hint: if you don’t want challenges from the Right, don’t move quite so far to the left. But remember those words and that tax law, we’ll get back to them later.
President Clinton was a slimy b-tard of a president, and actually pretty leftist. At least one self-described feminist offered him oral sex simply for “keeping abortion legal,” which says a great deal both about “feminism” and abortion – none of it good. Nevertheless he did sign a balanced budget and welfare reform. Sure, it was under duress, but he did so. Remember those bills, too, we’ll get back to them as well.
President George Walker Bush ran for the presidency in 2000 on “compassionate conservatism,” which, as far as I can tell, is Progressive Liberalism, but with more praying and less sex. Less beer, too, probably. He signed a number of bills with which he did not agree including at least one budget after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007. Bills he did agree with – indeed: fought for, included a Medicaid expansion, Medicare Part D, and No Child Left Behind. He also famously “destroyed capitalism to save it.” Oh, and inflicted Karl Rove on the Republican Party for, apparently, the rest of eternity.
Enter Barack Obama. Barack Obama (notorious stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor) took office in 2009 with a Democrat controlled congress including 60 Democrats in the Senate (okay, that came shortly *after* inauguration, but not long). He rapidly passed a “stimulus” package which was nothing more than pay-day to his cronies, ignored written bankruptcy law to give GM to the UAW, and generally made a menace of himself. The entire time this was happening, the Republican Leadership of Mitch McConnell (hereafter: Yertle) and John Boehner (hereafter: Agent Orange) in the Senate and House respectively made excuses for their failure even to slow very much of this down. Given the headaches Democrats caused Republicans in 2001 – 2006, those excuses were a little limp, but I guess they’re all they had.
Then came Obamacare. Now, I want to be clear here, Obamacare was passed by Republicans as much as by Democrats. Sure, no Republican vote was needed for final passage of the Orwellian Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but Republicans had plenty of chances to stop, or at least slow, its passage. Had they done so, then Scott Brown of Massachusetts would have been installed in his Senator’s seat in time to help a procedural filibuster kill the bill dead. Instead, they opted for comity and show votes. The bill was over 900 pages when it was first introduced. A simple refusal to grant unanimous consent to waive the reading of the bill would likely have stopped the thing cold. But Yertle and Agent Orange wanted to get home for Christmas.
Shortly after the passage of Obamacare, Republican voters swept the Republicans into office on a platform of “We’ll oppose Obama and repeal every word of Obamacare.” The echoes of their collective recitations of their oaths of office had not faded before Agent Orange started making excuses. The House was just “one half of one third of government.” I guess we were supposed to ignore the part where the House controls spending.
Republican voters gave them a pass, and in 2012, despite Obama’s reelection, Yertle became Senate Majority Leader. Surely now, we thought, with the full legislature under Republican control, we would get some things done. Hearings were called (remember Lois Lerner? Remember Hillary!’s “what difference, at this point, does it make? Remember Fast and Furious?). Much hot air was released. And. Nothing. Happened. No spending was cut. When it looked like spending *might* be cut, Republicans panicked and passed more spending. No, a budget “balanced” in out years does not cut, and a cut in rate of growth is not “a spending cut.” When a few Republican malcontents (Ted Cruz among them, but there were others) succeeded in forcing a meager and very partial shutdown, Yertle and Agent Orange couldn’t throw them under the bus fast enough, and quickly moved to authorize MOAR SPENDING!!!
All along the way we’ve had excuses. “We don’t have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.” “Obama will just veto it.” Remember those passed and signed bills I mentioned earlier? Funny how not having filibuster proof majorities in the Senate or veto-proof majorities in Congress did not stop Congress from getting Presidents to sign bills in the past. I guess there must be a new rule that says “If we’re not assured of success, we may as well not try.” I guess I missed that memo.
That doesn’t even begin to get to amnesty and illegal immigration failures and betrayals we’ve seen since the 1980s.
All of this is to say: “Burn it down. Scatter the stones. Salt the earth where it stood.” We have not had a two party system since at least 2006, and possibly as far back as 2001. There is no significant difference in outcome between having Democrats and Republicans in office. I mean, really, what’s going to happen if Republicans aren’t in office? Will Planned Parenthood be revealed as priests of Moloch selling the parts of babies butchered in (and sometimes just out-of) the womb for fun and profit and Congress won’t do anything? Will the Supreme Court overstep its bounds (again) and declare a constitutional right for homosexual partnerships to call themselves “marriage” while forcing those opposed to participate? Will the EPA dump great quantities of pollutants into a river in Colorado and face no consequences? Will the President make an unconstitutional Treaty with Iran virtually guaranteeing that they will gain nuclear weapons capabilities while ALSO promising to provide them protection from Israel?
When it comes down to actual outcomes, and not rhetoric, there is no significant difference between Republicans and Democrats. Just notice how fast Republicans pull out the race card themselves when confronted over their desire for amnesty. But our system cannot survive under one party. There must be an opposition – a real opposition acting against the majority. It is the only way to curb the excesses of the majority against the minority, and the only way to ensure that the Federal Government only uses its powers in ways guided by the Constitution for the purpose of protecting Liberty.
Therefore it is time for a third party. However, the game is rigged. Democrats and Republicans get on ballots automatically. Simply have the nomination of your party, and you show up on the ballot. How nice. Third parties have to have petition drives and hope they get enough signatures. Democrats and Republicans have advertising advantages and a national structure enshrined in law (or nearly so). Third parties must scrimp and scrape for every scrap of exposure they can get. A third party, in short, is denied access with the two establishment parties.
So we’re faced with a conundrum. Republican recalcitrance to be an opposition party means we need a new party. The party establishments have basically enshrined the two party system, so a third party is not a viable solution. What to do?
Destroy the party. Destroy its leadership. Destroy its ability to operate. And then conservatives might, possibly, maybe have a shot (but it would be a long one) at seizing control of the new power structures and returning the Republican Party – no longer controlled by the establishment and their Donor Class allies/masters.
But who can do such a thing? Not the seizing control part – conservatives will have to do that after the destruction part, and there’s no guarantee we’ll be able to do so. The best we can hope for is a chance. No, who can do the destruction part?
Answer – only someone not beholden to that current power structure. But how can we avoid that? How can one not be beholden to the current power structure. Well, first, he’d need to be self-funding, because he’s not going to get the big power donors like the Chambers of Commerce. And he’d need to have a lot of name recognition, because that power structure isn’t going to want his message to get out – so he’d need a way to get it out anyway. And he’d need to have some shred of credential to say “see, I’m a success” so that people can be convinced that he’d be a successful president.
Sound like anyone you know?
Now, if it looks like this defense of Trump has been short on what Trump will do or why I support him, it’s because it’s not a defense of Trump. I’m virtually certain Trump will be a terrible president (assuming he’s elected). I’m virtually certain he’s only in it for him, and is only conservative insofar as being conservative is a path to the White House. I’m pretty sure he’s saying what sells, and not really what he believes.
So be it. I’m not supporting Donald Trump. If there were someone else in the field who was self funded, had huge (or is that “yuuuge!”) name recognition, and the ability to sell himself as a success at something people respect, I would vote for that person instead. Donald Trump is a means to an end, and that end is already being achieved.
The Republican Party and its enablers in Conservative Media are busy telling everyone who is mad at the Republican Party that we’re idiots. We’re racists. We’re fools. And in so doing they are ensuring that many conservatives never vote for any Republican on the national level again.
Burn it down? Yertle, Agent Orange, Rove, Jeb, and all are doing that.
Scatter the stones? That will depend on the burn it down phase, but I’m pretty sure I can trust the hissy fit they’ll throw when they lose (and they will lose, one way or another).
Salt the earth where it stood? We’ll have to work on that.
No, I don’t support Donald Trump. But Donald Trump winning the Republican Party will suit my goals far better than if anyone else does.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Enough
Here, go read this.
Now, I'm not going to go over anything Drew says there. Read the whole thing, it's worth it.
So what we have here is the GOP, once again, trying to have their cake and eat it, too. The Chamber of Commerce really likes Amnesty. They've made no attempt to hide that fact. The Chamber of Commerce is a big Republican donor. No one has tried to hide that fact, either.
So when the SCOAMT enacted Executive Amnesty, the CoC and the Republican establishment were jubilant (in private, anyway). The CoC gets what it wants (amnesty) and Republicans get to pretend that they had nothing to do with it and no way to stop it.
Except then November 2014 comes along, and Republicans retake the Senate- largely on promises to stop ObamaCare (how's that going?) and Executive Amnesty, so the GOP is in a bind. If they actually act on their promise, they tick off the CoC and lose donation money. If they do nothing, they tick off the base and become the minority party again.
So rather than showing some moral fiber, making a decision, and explaining it like men, they hide behind this pathetic move attempting to be seen as trying to do something, while their actions actually make it impossible for anything to be done.
A commenter at the HQ summed it up like this:
This is correct.
The rest of this post goes out to the few Republicans who *do* love the American people.
Please join us. Various pundits, bloggers, and commenters have mentioned a 3rd party. The Republican party is going the way of the Whigs- they care too much for their privilege and "unity" than they do doing what is right.
It is time for a 3rd party. It is a time for you, you remnant of the Conservative Right, to stand up and say "No more." While you support Mitch McConnel and John Boehner even simply by wearing the same party label, you are supporting people who are willing to sacrifice the American People to their privilege.
You must disassociate with them. You must form your own bloc, your own Party. If you lead, there are countless Conservatives who will follow. You will be amazed at the support.
If you love this country- if you love her people- you will stand for what is right, even though the cost will be high. The cost will be so much higher if you do not.
Now, I'm not going to go over anything Drew says there. Read the whole thing, it's worth it.
So what we have here is the GOP, once again, trying to have their cake and eat it, too. The Chamber of Commerce really likes Amnesty. They've made no attempt to hide that fact. The Chamber of Commerce is a big Republican donor. No one has tried to hide that fact, either.
So when the SCOAMT enacted Executive Amnesty, the CoC and the Republican establishment were jubilant (in private, anyway). The CoC gets what it wants (amnesty) and Republicans get to pretend that they had nothing to do with it and no way to stop it.
Except then November 2014 comes along, and Republicans retake the Senate- largely on promises to stop ObamaCare (how's that going?) and Executive Amnesty, so the GOP is in a bind. If they actually act on their promise, they tick off the CoC and lose donation money. If they do nothing, they tick off the base and become the minority party again.
So rather than showing some moral fiber, making a decision, and explaining it like men, they hide behind this pathetic move attempting to be seen as trying to do something, while their actions actually make it impossible for anything to be done.
A commenter at the HQ summed it up like this:
"Or to paraphrase Rudy Giuliani, 'They do not love the American people.'"
This is correct.
The rest of this post goes out to the few Republicans who *do* love the American people.
Please join us. Various pundits, bloggers, and commenters have mentioned a 3rd party. The Republican party is going the way of the Whigs- they care too much for their privilege and "unity" than they do doing what is right.
It is time for a 3rd party. It is a time for you, you remnant of the Conservative Right, to stand up and say "No more." While you support Mitch McConnel and John Boehner even simply by wearing the same party label, you are supporting people who are willing to sacrifice the American People to their privilege.
You must disassociate with them. You must form your own bloc, your own Party. If you lead, there are countless Conservatives who will follow. You will be amazed at the support.
If you love this country- if you love her people- you will stand for what is right, even though the cost will be high. The cost will be so much higher if you do not.
Friday, December 12, 2014
I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me.
Okay. Let's get this straight.
For 5 years (2009 - 2014) the GOP said "Oh, we just don't have enough influence to do anything." At first there was some truth to that- minorities in both houses of Congress, and a Dem President will do that. Even so, they seemed unwilling to use what influence they did have, because the MFM would call them big meanies.
Porkuluous passed with nary a word. ObamaCare could have been derailed at any of several points, but Republicans wouldn't. At one point it could have been killed in committee. At any number of points it could have been killed by a single Republican refusing "unanimous consent" to skip the reading of the bill (or the various amendments).
Then Scott Brown was elected as the "41st Vote Against ObamaCare." All Republicans had to do to kill it was keep the debate moving until he could be sat. Instead, they allowed it to be passed because they didn't want to work over Christmas.
Then, 2010, we handed them the House. With which they immediately preceded to do... nothing much. "1/2 of 1/3 of Government!" we were told. "Oh, a Shutdown would ruin our chances in 2014!" we were told. (Hmm... almost as if winning elections were more important to them than doing the right thing)
Did they even pass a budget? No. "Oh, it will just get stopped in the Senate." So Continuing Resolution after Continuing Resolution passed. Did they stop raising the debt ceiling, or even get some kind of real budget cut in return for raising it? No. In fact, they ceded that power to the President, just so no one would ask them to do something scary like vote on it again.
So in 2012 (after 2 years of them doing nothing, and with a candidate who couldn't/wouldn't take on TFG) we let them maintain their control of the house. For another 2 years they proceeded to do... not much.
Admittedly, after Mitt Romney's loss in 2012, they were a somewhat reduced party. Lots of soul-searching had to be done. But they still had chances. The shut down was the most intestinal fortitude any Republican had shown in years, and the leadership fell over themselves to end it, and give up yet more concessions in the process. Only their (stated, though not acted upon) opposition to ObamaCare saved them.
Now in 2014 we have given them majorities in both houses of Congress. So rather than stall until the new congress can be sat of course they rush to pass a bill which takes away almost all of the influence they would be able to wield for nearly half (and really more than that, considering we'll be spinning up for 2016 at the end of 2015) of the next Congressional term.
Why should I ever vote Republican (for national office) again?
For 5 years (2009 - 2014) the GOP said "Oh, we just don't have enough influence to do anything." At first there was some truth to that- minorities in both houses of Congress, and a Dem President will do that. Even so, they seemed unwilling to use what influence they did have, because the MFM would call them big meanies.
Porkuluous passed with nary a word. ObamaCare could have been derailed at any of several points, but Republicans wouldn't. At one point it could have been killed in committee. At any number of points it could have been killed by a single Republican refusing "unanimous consent" to skip the reading of the bill (or the various amendments).
Then Scott Brown was elected as the "41st Vote Against ObamaCare." All Republicans had to do to kill it was keep the debate moving until he could be sat. Instead, they allowed it to be passed because they didn't want to work over Christmas.
Then, 2010, we handed them the House. With which they immediately preceded to do... nothing much. "1/2 of 1/3 of Government!" we were told. "Oh, a Shutdown would ruin our chances in 2014!" we were told. (Hmm... almost as if winning elections were more important to them than doing the right thing)
Did they even pass a budget? No. "Oh, it will just get stopped in the Senate." So Continuing Resolution after Continuing Resolution passed. Did they stop raising the debt ceiling, or even get some kind of real budget cut in return for raising it? No. In fact, they ceded that power to the President, just so no one would ask them to do something scary like vote on it again.
So in 2012 (after 2 years of them doing nothing, and with a candidate who couldn't/wouldn't take on TFG) we let them maintain their control of the house. For another 2 years they proceeded to do... not much.
Admittedly, after Mitt Romney's loss in 2012, they were a somewhat reduced party. Lots of soul-searching had to be done. But they still had chances. The shut down was the most intestinal fortitude any Republican had shown in years, and the leadership fell over themselves to end it, and give up yet more concessions in the process. Only their (stated, though not acted upon) opposition to ObamaCare saved them.
Now in 2014 we have given them majorities in both houses of Congress. So rather than stall until the new congress can be sat of course they rush to pass a bill which takes away almost all of the influence they would be able to wield for nearly half (and really more than that, considering we'll be spinning up for 2016 at the end of 2015) of the next Congressional term.
Why should I ever vote Republican (for national office) again?
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Not the response they wanted
Dear Republican National Committee
Before I get to my response to the fundraising letter you sent me today, please go see the comments of the new House Majority Whip's new Communications Director
.
Oh, you might also want to go take a look at the emails you are sending.
Now on to the response.
I am not some low-information, uninvolved voter. I assume you listed me as a registered Republican (more on this in a minute) because of a "citizens' congress" event I attended with Representative Joe Barton several years ago (he called me a better Lloyd Doggett than Lloyd Doggett- I'm still not sure if that was a compliment). I maintain a political blog. I have a fair idea of what is going on in my State, the country, and the world.
Further, I consider myself a "Tea Party" Conservative- note the word I did not use, that will be important later. I believe in limited, fiscally sound government. I believe that the Federal Government is supposed to be constrained by the Constitution- that it enumerated specific powers for the Federal Government and any which were not specifically enumerated were reserved to the People or the States. I believe "that Government governs best which governs least."
Since 2008, I have seen nothing that would make me support the Republican National Party, and much that disgusts me about you. People actively opposed to limiting government have leadership positions; those actively attempting to limit government are removed from leadership positions. When you had several chances to stop Obamacare cold, you have continually refused to take them. And don't give me "1/2 of 1/3 of government." The simple expedient of withholding unanimous consent during the "debate" over Obamacare would have ended it- no one was going to sit while 1800 pages were read so that a bunch of old men and women could hear them.
I could expound at length about how you seem intent on remaining disconnected from the American People (the vast majority support legal immigration while opposing illegal immigration or any form of amnesty, for instance, yet you continually seek "comprehensive immigration reform"). I could point out the awkward and pathetic attempts you have made to seem "hip" and "cool." I could point out time after time after time that senior Republicans have called those like me "the fringe."
But I will not.
Had I known that I had been registered as a Republican, I would have asked that registration be removed long ago. Any party of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and John Cornyn is not a party with which I identify. Perhaps you can hit me up again when you have listened to the likes of Mike Lee, Pete Sessions, and Ted Cruz. Maybe I'll be more willing to listen when you grow a spine, or testicles, or both. Until then, no, not one red cent.
More Sincerely than you can possibly Imagine,
The Dedicated Tenther
Before I get to my response to the fundraising letter you sent me today, please go see the comments of the new House Majority Whip's new Communications Director
.
Oh, you might also want to go take a look at the emails you are sending.
Now on to the response.
I am not some low-information, uninvolved voter. I assume you listed me as a registered Republican (more on this in a minute) because of a "citizens' congress" event I attended with Representative Joe Barton several years ago (he called me a better Lloyd Doggett than Lloyd Doggett- I'm still not sure if that was a compliment). I maintain a political blog. I have a fair idea of what is going on in my State, the country, and the world.
Further, I consider myself a "Tea Party" Conservative- note the word I did not use, that will be important later. I believe in limited, fiscally sound government. I believe that the Federal Government is supposed to be constrained by the Constitution- that it enumerated specific powers for the Federal Government and any which were not specifically enumerated were reserved to the People or the States. I believe "that Government governs best which governs least."
Since 2008, I have seen nothing that would make me support the Republican National Party, and much that disgusts me about you. People actively opposed to limiting government have leadership positions; those actively attempting to limit government are removed from leadership positions. When you had several chances to stop Obamacare cold, you have continually refused to take them. And don't give me "1/2 of 1/3 of government." The simple expedient of withholding unanimous consent during the "debate" over Obamacare would have ended it- no one was going to sit while 1800 pages were read so that a bunch of old men and women could hear them.
I could expound at length about how you seem intent on remaining disconnected from the American People (the vast majority support legal immigration while opposing illegal immigration or any form of amnesty, for instance, yet you continually seek "comprehensive immigration reform"). I could point out the awkward and pathetic attempts you have made to seem "hip" and "cool." I could point out time after time after time that senior Republicans have called those like me "the fringe."
But I will not.
Had I known that I had been registered as a Republican, I would have asked that registration be removed long ago. Any party of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and John Cornyn is not a party with which I identify. Perhaps you can hit me up again when you have listened to the likes of Mike Lee, Pete Sessions, and Ted Cruz. Maybe I'll be more willing to listen when you grow a spine, or testicles, or both. Until then, no, not one red cent.
More Sincerely than you can possibly Imagine,
The Dedicated Tenther
Friday, July 25, 2014
Who Abandoned Whom?
So, I got this in my email today.
Now, normally I get these emails and I just ignore them. If I decide I want to give money, I will. I don't give money to the RNC for lots of reasons, but those have been *my* reasons and I've kept them to myself. However, accusing me of "abandoning the Republican Party" is a bridge too far.
You know what Mr. RNC Treasurer Tony Parker? You asked for it, you're getting it.
When I was a kid in the 80s, I believed, with the innocence of youth, that the Republican Party was a conservative party. How could I not? Ronald Reagan was president. My Conservative (yes: Christian) parents loved him. My father (in banking) never bought into the idea that the S&L crash was due to too little government. The Republicans had reduced taxes, and, if they had also increased spending, at least it was spending on conservative things, right?
Then came the 90s. I got a little older. I was still a kid, still innocent, but I was pretty sure that raising taxes wasn't the conservative option, whatever George HW Bush had said. And I'd been taught lying was bad (Read my lips). Both George HW Bush and Bob Dole were certainly better than Bill Clinton- a draft-dodging womanizer (at best)- who never met a government program he didn't like, but I was beginning to see that things weren't so clear as I'd believed when I was (yet) younger.
My first Presidential election was in 2000. I enthusiastically voted for George W Bush. He'd been my governor, I knew I liked how Texas was running, I figured we'd be back to conservatism after 8 years in the Prog/Commie desert. And things started out well. The crash of 2000 happened (that no one remembers), and President Bush responded as he should have- by cutting taxes and putting money back in the hands of the citizenry. If he also gave some of my money to people who already didn't pay taxes... well, the economy was in a slump.
And after September 11th, 2001, I was incredibly glad he was at the helm.
But George Bush was never Conservative. Maybe "conservativist" might be a better term, but really he was always a big government progressive who happened to believe in slightly smaller government than the Democrats. The Patriot Act passed at his insistence. The Department of Homeland Security quickly started stepping on the Constitution. No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D both passed and were signed by President Bush.
For 2001, and the immediate aftermath, I was still young enough to believe that "as long as people we can trust" were in charge, the law giving them the power to trample on the Constitution would not be abused. I have since come to realize the error in that thinking was flawed. For one thing, people we trust will not always be in charge. For another, you should never trust government in the first place.
I've grown wiser since then. It's been nearly 13 years since Muslim Terrorists flew airplanes full of our neighbors, brothers, sisters, parents, and children into three buildings -and attempted another- in the largest single attack on US Soil in history.
And what does the RNC Stand for now?
1- They stand for big government. I have never heard a Republican on the national stage- except for Presidential debates, which don't count (words are cheap) call for an end to the grossly unconstitutional government overreach which exists. Find me the Constitutional Authority for the EPA, DoE (either one), No Child Left Behind, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, or any other big government program. The Constitution is short, I'll wait.
Republicans don't want to shrink government. They don't want it out of our lives as much as possible. They want it under their control.
2- They stand for amnesty. Over and over Republicans have tried to force amnesty (under the Orwellian term "comprehensive immigration reform") down the nation's throat. We don't want it. A nation which cannot or will not control its borders is not a nation.
And what do Republicans stand against?
1- They stand against small government. If you are for big government, you cannot be for small government. QED.
2- They stand against border control and sane immigration policy. See above.
3- Most importantly: They stand against their own constituents. Over and over since 2010, engaged Republican voters at a grass-roots level have shown their displeasure with the current status quo by selecting actual conservative candidates to run against incumbents. Some of those were... ill advised. But some were not. Some were men and women quite capable of winning their elections. How did the RNC respond?
When they engaged in the primary at all, they always did so on the side of the incumbent. I suppose that's fair enough. But what did they do *after* the primary? Well, when the incumbent won, they proceeded to rub Conservatives' noses in the fact that their candidate lost, and then immediately called for "party unity." When the incumbent lost, they gave words of faint praise, and then mostly did nothing. That was bad enough.
But then came the Mississippi run-off between Thad Cochrain and Chris McDaniel. In that race, the Republican National Committee shat upon Conservative Republicans from a great height. When Republican Leadership bought ads smearing Chris McDaniel as a racist homophobe- the very same deceitful attacks Democrats use- they were saying to Conservatives across the nation: "We don't want you. We don't value you. We don't think we need you to win."
To which I say, "Fine. Then you won't have me."
I will vote for Republicans in my Great State of Texas. I will vote for Ted Cruz- one Republican who does seem to get it. I reserve the right- if the Republican Party stops trying to urinate on me and tell me it's precipitation- to vote for whoever is the Republican nominee in 2016.
But the RNC will never see another dime from me. And if the candidates are not as conservative as I am, they will not get my vote. If they're too Progressive, I'll vote Democrat.
No more. You have pushed me too far, and you will push me no further.
Burn it down.
Now, normally I get these emails and I just ignore them. If I decide I want to give money, I will. I don't give money to the RNC for lots of reasons, but those have been *my* reasons and I've kept them to myself. However, accusing me of "abandoning the Republican Party" is a bridge too far.
You know what Mr. RNC Treasurer Tony Parker? You asked for it, you're getting it.
When I was a kid in the 80s, I believed, with the innocence of youth, that the Republican Party was a conservative party. How could I not? Ronald Reagan was president. My Conservative (yes: Christian) parents loved him. My father (in banking) never bought into the idea that the S&L crash was due to too little government. The Republicans had reduced taxes, and, if they had also increased spending, at least it was spending on conservative things, right?
Then came the 90s. I got a little older. I was still a kid, still innocent, but I was pretty sure that raising taxes wasn't the conservative option, whatever George HW Bush had said. And I'd been taught lying was bad (Read my lips). Both George HW Bush and Bob Dole were certainly better than Bill Clinton- a draft-dodging womanizer (at best)- who never met a government program he didn't like, but I was beginning to see that things weren't so clear as I'd believed when I was (yet) younger.
My first Presidential election was in 2000. I enthusiastically voted for George W Bush. He'd been my governor, I knew I liked how Texas was running, I figured we'd be back to conservatism after 8 years in the Prog/Commie desert. And things started out well. The crash of 2000 happened (that no one remembers), and President Bush responded as he should have- by cutting taxes and putting money back in the hands of the citizenry. If he also gave some of my money to people who already didn't pay taxes... well, the economy was in a slump.
And after September 11th, 2001, I was incredibly glad he was at the helm.
But George Bush was never Conservative. Maybe "conservativist" might be a better term, but really he was always a big government progressive who happened to believe in slightly smaller government than the Democrats. The Patriot Act passed at his insistence. The Department of Homeland Security quickly started stepping on the Constitution. No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D both passed and were signed by President Bush.
For 2001, and the immediate aftermath, I was still young enough to believe that "as long as people we can trust" were in charge, the law giving them the power to trample on the Constitution would not be abused. I have since come to realize the error in that thinking was flawed. For one thing, people we trust will not always be in charge. For another, you should never trust government in the first place.
I've grown wiser since then. It's been nearly 13 years since Muslim Terrorists flew airplanes full of our neighbors, brothers, sisters, parents, and children into three buildings -and attempted another- in the largest single attack on US Soil in history.
And what does the RNC Stand for now?
1- They stand for big government. I have never heard a Republican on the national stage- except for Presidential debates, which don't count (words are cheap) call for an end to the grossly unconstitutional government overreach which exists. Find me the Constitutional Authority for the EPA, DoE (either one), No Child Left Behind, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, or any other big government program. The Constitution is short, I'll wait.
Republicans don't want to shrink government. They don't want it out of our lives as much as possible. They want it under their control.
2- They stand for amnesty. Over and over Republicans have tried to force amnesty (under the Orwellian term "comprehensive immigration reform") down the nation's throat. We don't want it. A nation which cannot or will not control its borders is not a nation.
And what do Republicans stand against?
1- They stand against small government. If you are for big government, you cannot be for small government. QED.
2- They stand against border control and sane immigration policy. See above.
3- Most importantly: They stand against their own constituents. Over and over since 2010, engaged Republican voters at a grass-roots level have shown their displeasure with the current status quo by selecting actual conservative candidates to run against incumbents. Some of those were... ill advised. But some were not. Some were men and women quite capable of winning their elections. How did the RNC respond?
When they engaged in the primary at all, they always did so on the side of the incumbent. I suppose that's fair enough. But what did they do *after* the primary? Well, when the incumbent won, they proceeded to rub Conservatives' noses in the fact that their candidate lost, and then immediately called for "party unity." When the incumbent lost, they gave words of faint praise, and then mostly did nothing. That was bad enough.
But then came the Mississippi run-off between Thad Cochrain and Chris McDaniel. In that race, the Republican National Committee shat upon Conservative Republicans from a great height. When Republican Leadership bought ads smearing Chris McDaniel as a racist homophobe- the very same deceitful attacks Democrats use- they were saying to Conservatives across the nation: "We don't want you. We don't value you. We don't think we need you to win."
To which I say, "Fine. Then you won't have me."
I will vote for Republicans in my Great State of Texas. I will vote for Ted Cruz- one Republican who does seem to get it. I reserve the right- if the Republican Party stops trying to urinate on me and tell me it's precipitation- to vote for whoever is the Republican nominee in 2016.
But the RNC will never see another dime from me. And if the candidates are not as conservative as I am, they will not get my vote. If they're too Progressive, I'll vote Democrat.
No more. You have pushed me too far, and you will push me no further.
Burn it down.
Scatter the stones.
Salt the earth where it stood.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
SCOAMT^2
Readers of this blog know that I believe that the President of the United States is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor. I have been saying the same since shortly after September 11, 2012.
Well, now I have more evidence. Enter Bowe (pronounced, I’m told, “Bo”) Bergdhal. Young Mr. Bergdhal was rejected from the French Foreign Legion before joining the United States Army (hey: US Army- you might take that under consideration). Apparently, he believed that USA, in this case, meant US Aid and was a humanitarian outreach program, as opposed to a military force designed to kill people and break things.
So, upon being deployed to Afghanistan and actually required to fight against terrorists, he decided “this blows” and walked away. Literally walked away- he left his duty station along with a note (apparently) in which he declared his desire to renounce his citizenship. Now, the US Army has Views on people who leave their duty stations in the middle of a war. It’s called Desertion in the Face of the Enemy, and it’s perhaps the second-biggest no-no an Army private can commit.
But, it turns out, this was not the end of his parsimonious behavior. When US Army forces were sent to apprehend him, they discovered that he specifically wanted to join the Taliban. This moves from second biggest no-no (desertion) to the biggest no-no: treason. Providing Aid and Comfort to the Enemy. That crime for which there is exactly one punishment. Yes, Bowe Bergdhal is, at best, a deserter who got half-a-dozen of his buddies killed, and at worst a traitor.
So it makes all kinds of sense that the Traitor-in-Chief would release five of our highest-value terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison to secure his release. Absolutely. Hey, we’re only down a net 4 terrorists. This is also “Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.” Releasing five guys to do more harm to Americans (because that’s what they want to do) in order to get back one deserter? Whatever happened to “we don’t negotiate with terrorists?”
Oh, SCOAMT is all over that one, too. Now, apparently, these enemy combatants taken on the field with no uniforms, answering to no government, and representing no organized military force are somehow POWs. That deserter? Not a deserter who was taken hostage- but also a POW. So it’s a POW-swap. Because King Barakanhanen said so, you racist tea-bagger.
Now, I actually expect this kind of behavior from the Man-Child-in-Chief. He was under heat for the VA scandal, and wanted something to take that heat off. As Ace pointed out today, it’s a political decision that Democrats can spin- unlike the VA scandal. So it makes some sense.
What doesn’t make sense is that Republicans have remained almost uniformly silent on this. What does it take to get John Boehner and Mitch McConnell fired up? The President of the United States just arguably committed treason. He violated several laws to do so- on top of all the other laws he’s already broken, and his general Imperial approach to the Presidency. If that’s not grounds for Impeachment, what is?
It may already be too late, but Republicans must push back against the SCOAMT. They must start stone-walling him at every turn. No more bipartisanship, unless it’s unification against the SCOAMT. No more pushes for Amnesty. No more “my friends across the aisle.” Either the Democrats are with America, or they’re with Barack Hussein Obama. And the Republicans face the same choice; they are either for America, the Rule of Law, and basic moral decency, or they are with Barack Hussein Obama.
Which is it?
Friday, December 13, 2013
Ben, it's because they DO think it's good policy.
Oh, and they DO think we're idiots.
Several days ago (by the time you're reading this) Ben Domenech went on a Twitter rant slamming GOP Leadership (especially Speaker Boehner) for "lying" to Conservatives. That is, Ben's position is that the budget deal is good politics but bad policy, the leadership knows this (and agrees), and that the GOP reaction to Conservatives (who know that it's bad policy, and are dubious about the politics part) should have been to "tell the truth," and say, "Yes, we know it's bad policy, we're totally doing it for the politics. Don't call us sell-outs and we won't call you idiots."
Let me, by way of rebuttal, provide a re-phrasing of Occam's Razor. Put simply- the answer which assumes the fewest things not already in evidence is usually the correct one. The let me suggest an answer- they do think we're idiots and they think this plan is good policy.
Now, let's judge them both against Occam's Razor.
Ben's answer assumes the following-
Of those, only one fact is actually in evidence- that the deal is bad policy. Everything else is asserted but not proven.
My answer assumes the following-
All of my assertions have proof to back them up. They are all in evidence. The first is evident by the fact it increases both spending and taxes. The second two are evident by the words that GOP Leadership are using.
So which is more likely?
It is no secret that a large number of Republicans in Washington both resent and fear the Conservative Grassroots. Mitch McConnell uses harsher language against the Senate Conservatives Fund than he ever has against the President. Ted Cruz has been pilloried as much by Republicans as by Democrats. One miserable old troll in the Senate even called the TEA Parties "hobbits" (though- I'll take that one. The Hobbits won in the end).
It is similarly no secret that the GOP Leadership loves them some spending. None of them complained when Medicare D was passed. They have never once asked for actual cuts to any government program. Whenever Conservative Grassroots ask for something to be cut, they're among the first to tell us we're crazy, it can never happen, etc., etc.
Now, Occam's Razor only says that the answer which assumes the fewest facts not in evidence is the most likely answer- it doesn't make any guarantees. So it's possible that Ben is right and I am wrong. The fact is that it doesn't matter. Leadership that detests- or even pretends to detest- its base is not "leadership" at all and should be replaced.
Several days ago (by the time you're reading this) Ben Domenech went on a Twitter rant slamming GOP Leadership (especially Speaker Boehner) for "lying" to Conservatives. That is, Ben's position is that the budget deal is good politics but bad policy, the leadership knows this (and agrees), and that the GOP reaction to Conservatives (who know that it's bad policy, and are dubious about the politics part) should have been to "tell the truth," and say, "Yes, we know it's bad policy, we're totally doing it for the politics. Don't call us sell-outs and we won't call you idiots."
Let me, by way of rebuttal, provide a re-phrasing of Occam's Razor. Put simply- the answer which assumes the fewest things not already in evidence is usually the correct one. The let me suggest an answer- they do think we're idiots and they think this plan is good policy.
Now, let's judge them both against Occam's Razor.
Ben's answer assumes the following-
- the deal is bad policy
- the deal is good politically
- the Republicans know both of the above
- the Republicans are simply "lashing out" at Conservatives in response (pre-sponse?) to being called "sell-outs."
Of those, only one fact is actually in evidence- that the deal is bad policy. Everything else is asserted but not proven.
My answer assumes the following-
- the deal is bad policy
- Republicans think it is good policy
- Republicans think Conservatives are idiots.
All of my assertions have proof to back them up. They are all in evidence. The first is evident by the fact it increases both spending and taxes. The second two are evident by the words that GOP Leadership are using.
So which is more likely?
It is no secret that a large number of Republicans in Washington both resent and fear the Conservative Grassroots. Mitch McConnell uses harsher language against the Senate Conservatives Fund than he ever has against the President. Ted Cruz has been pilloried as much by Republicans as by Democrats. One miserable old troll in the Senate even called the TEA Parties "hobbits" (though- I'll take that one. The Hobbits won in the end).
It is similarly no secret that the GOP Leadership loves them some spending. None of them complained when Medicare D was passed. They have never once asked for actual cuts to any government program. Whenever Conservative Grassroots ask for something to be cut, they're among the first to tell us we're crazy, it can never happen, etc., etc.
Now, Occam's Razor only says that the answer which assumes the fewest facts not in evidence is the most likely answer- it doesn't make any guarantees. So it's possible that Ben is right and I am wrong. The fact is that it doesn't matter. Leadership that detests- or even pretends to detest- its base is not "leadership" at all and should be replaced.
But... but... Shut Down!!!!
Oh. My. Lord.
Not this again. Apparently the reason Republicans are caving on the budget talks is they're afraid the Government will shut down again. Well, guess what geniuses, it might. Guess what else? Too bad.
First off, despite what the MFM and inside-the-Beltway types believe, the shutdown earlier this year did not actually hurt Republicans. Here in Middle America, most people were for it. Secondly, there's no reason you can't parley this into being the Democrats fault. Yes, it might be hard, but so what? You can even do it by sounding more reasonable than they do.
Now, for those who don't know, the issue is (once again) the debt ceiling. OMG, if we don't raise the debt ceiling we can't pay our bills!!
Let's not discuss the absurdity of that statement. Maybe I'll get to it in a future post. Let's just look at just one possible Republican tactic. I call it "raising the debt ceiling."
Look, I'm as fire-breathing as the next Ultra-Con, and I don't like raising the debt ceiling. However, as a practical matter, ObamaCare is going down in flames, and we really don't want anything to give the President cover on that. We don't want him to be able to distract the public from the train-wreck that is ObamaCare.
So, we say this: "Alright, we'll raise the debt ceiling by 2 Trillion dollars. That should last us at least one more full year." And that's it. No discussing budgetary matters ("that's settled law") no fee increases, nothing. Republicans should simply say, "You're right, it would be irresponsible not to pay our debts, we'll agree to increase the debt ceiling by 2 Trillion dollars."
Then, when Chrissy Matthews spews the Democrat talking points of "you want to shut down government!" a simple rejoinder of, "Chris, we've agreed to raise the debt limit with no other preconditions. So how is that wanting to shut down the government?" What, really, can the Democrats say? "But we want to increase spending?" "But Democrats won't vote for that?" It will become quite clear to everyone that it is the Democrats agitating for a shutdown because they don't like sequester- not Republicans.
Okay, fine, we can't ask for more budget cuts. I don't like that, but I can accept it. That doesn't mean we have to agree to budget increases. The budget is set for FY2014 and FY2015- by sequester. So the only reason to "shut down" the government is over the debt limit. So let's take that off the table. At the very least we can turn it around so that anyone with half a brain (I know this excepts most Democrats, but they weren't going to be on our side anyway) will understand that it is the Democrats "shutting down" the government, not Republicans, which would take away most, if not all, of any "cover" they would hope to gain.
Not this again. Apparently the reason Republicans are caving on the budget talks is they're afraid the Government will shut down again. Well, guess what geniuses, it might. Guess what else? Too bad.
First off, despite what the MFM and inside-the-Beltway types believe, the shutdown earlier this year did not actually hurt Republicans. Here in Middle America, most people were for it. Secondly, there's no reason you can't parley this into being the Democrats fault. Yes, it might be hard, but so what? You can even do it by sounding more reasonable than they do.
Now, for those who don't know, the issue is (once again) the debt ceiling. OMG, if we don't raise the debt ceiling we can't pay our bills!!
Let's not discuss the absurdity of that statement. Maybe I'll get to it in a future post. Let's just look at just one possible Republican tactic. I call it "raising the debt ceiling."
Look, I'm as fire-breathing as the next Ultra-Con, and I don't like raising the debt ceiling. However, as a practical matter, ObamaCare is going down in flames, and we really don't want anything to give the President cover on that. We don't want him to be able to distract the public from the train-wreck that is ObamaCare.
So, we say this: "Alright, we'll raise the debt ceiling by 2 Trillion dollars. That should last us at least one more full year." And that's it. No discussing budgetary matters ("that's settled law") no fee increases, nothing. Republicans should simply say, "You're right, it would be irresponsible not to pay our debts, we'll agree to increase the debt ceiling by 2 Trillion dollars."
Then, when Chrissy Matthews spews the Democrat talking points of "you want to shut down government!" a simple rejoinder of, "Chris, we've agreed to raise the debt limit with no other preconditions. So how is that wanting to shut down the government?" What, really, can the Democrats say? "But we want to increase spending?" "But Democrats won't vote for that?" It will become quite clear to everyone that it is the Democrats agitating for a shutdown because they don't like sequester- not Republicans.
Okay, fine, we can't ask for more budget cuts. I don't like that, but I can accept it. That doesn't mean we have to agree to budget increases. The budget is set for FY2014 and FY2015- by sequester. So the only reason to "shut down" the government is over the debt limit. So let's take that off the table. At the very least we can turn it around so that anyone with half a brain (I know this excepts most Democrats, but they weren't going to be on our side anyway) will understand that it is the Democrats "shutting down" the government, not Republicans, which would take away most, if not all, of any "cover" they would hope to gain.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Fithy Quislings
I don't know enough curse words to capture my sentiment upon reading this story. It seems GOP Leadership (for whatever that is worth) has decided they "don't need no steenking Conservatives," and that they will be willing to pass Democrat Legislation, marginalizing the majority of their own caucus.
Once my immediate, word-stealing rage dies down (it flares back up every time I re-read the article), I have a couple of things to point out.
First: When grass-roots conservatives were calling to remove Boehner as speaker, we were pooh-poohed and told that of course Speaker Boehner was the best man for the job. Often this pooh-poohing came from the same Conservative representatives now at risk of being frozen out.
That is not to say that we expected this kind of betrayal. Squishy "moderate" stances? Sure. Outright betrayal of principle? Not so much.
Second: The current House Leadership is not Conservative. Oh, I think a Conservative or two snuck into the upper echelons somehow, but the vast majority of them are not now, nor have they ever been Conservative. They don't care about "We, the People." They care about themselves, their own power, and their privilege. Anything which jeopardizes that must be dealt with. Unfortunately, they seem to believe the best way to secure that power and privilege is to side with Democrats in making us serfs, or at least peasants (I don't think they quite view us as chattle. Yet.)
Third: The House has fallen into the old trap. It's one that grass-roots conservatives had hoped to avoid when we hoped to get rid of Boehner. It goes like this: "We have to do something! If we're not passing legislation, we're not doing our job!!!!"
In many ways this is the most important point. Conservatives know that Congress can do its job best by doing nothing in most cases. Pass a budget; confirm appropriations; oversee the Executive branch. That's all Congress should be doing in most cases. However, as full-time legislators, they believe their job is to write (well, vote on, I'm pretty sure none of them has written their own in quite some time) legislation. That mindset is the only one that could have produced this quote:
This, as Ben Shapiro notes, is tantamount to a declaration of War on Conservatives. The Moderates in Congress want their power. They want to be invited to the best parties. They want yet more government expansion. In fact, the only place Moderates disagree with Liberals is the pace. Liberals want More Government Now! Moderates want More Government Slowly!
After the initial publication of the Big Government article, Rep. McCarthy's office contacted Breitbart News and whined:
Of course "Whip McCarthy strongly supports returning to the regular order." "Strongly supports" is not "is committed to," and in no way is that statement a rejection of the original report. Whether Boehner and Cantor agree is unclear, but it seems unlikely that the Majority Whip would have made such an inflammatory statement without the blessing of his bosses.
Oh, and if this finds its way into Rep. McCarthy's hands: before you even think of "crossing the aisle" and enact gun control remember this: I'm a Texan. Consider well the meaning of "come and take it."
Once my immediate, word-stealing rage dies down (it flares back up every time I re-read the article), I have a couple of things to point out.
First: When grass-roots conservatives were calling to remove Boehner as speaker, we were pooh-poohed and told that of course Speaker Boehner was the best man for the job. Often this pooh-poohing came from the same Conservative representatives now at risk of being frozen out.
That is not to say that we expected this kind of betrayal. Squishy "moderate" stances? Sure. Outright betrayal of principle? Not so much.
Second: The current House Leadership is not Conservative. Oh, I think a Conservative or two snuck into the upper echelons somehow, but the vast majority of them are not now, nor have they ever been Conservative. They don't care about "We, the People." They care about themselves, their own power, and their privilege. Anything which jeopardizes that must be dealt with. Unfortunately, they seem to believe the best way to secure that power and privilege is to side with Democrats in making us serfs, or at least peasants (I don't think they quite view us as chattle. Yet.)
Third: The House has fallen into the old trap. It's one that grass-roots conservatives had hoped to avoid when we hoped to get rid of Boehner. It goes like this: "We have to do something! If we're not passing legislation, we're not doing our job!!!!"
In many ways this is the most important point. Conservatives know that Congress can do its job best by doing nothing in most cases. Pass a budget; confirm appropriations; oversee the Executive branch. That's all Congress should be doing in most cases. However, as full-time legislators, they believe their job is to write (well, vote on, I'm pretty sure none of them has written their own in quite some time) legislation. That mindset is the only one that could have produced this quote:
“It is better if the House does their work,” said McCarthy. “We should be sending bills to the Senate.”
This, as Ben Shapiro notes, is tantamount to a declaration of War on Conservatives. The Moderates in Congress want their power. They want to be invited to the best parties. They want yet more government expansion. In fact, the only place Moderates disagree with Liberals is the pace. Liberals want More Government Now! Moderates want More Government Slowly!
After the initial publication of the Big Government article, Rep. McCarthy's office contacted Breitbart News and whined:
In a statement to The Hill, McCarthy spokesperson Mike Long said: "Whip McCarthy strongly supports returning to regular order to bring legislation to the floor that has the support of a majority of the majority. Insinuation to the contrary is completely false."
Of course "Whip McCarthy strongly supports returning to the regular order." "Strongly supports" is not "is committed to," and in no way is that statement a rejection of the original report. Whether Boehner and Cantor agree is unclear, but it seems unlikely that the Majority Whip would have made such an inflammatory statement without the blessing of his bosses.
Oh, and if this finds its way into Rep. McCarthy's hands: before you even think of "crossing the aisle" and enact gun control remember this: I'm a Texan. Consider well the meaning of "come and take it."
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Nice State You Got There...
Be a shame if something were to... happen... to it.
That is the not-so-subtle meaning of this letter from The White House to the Great State of Texas. Yes, your State received a similar one as well. It details the specific cuts the White House will have made if Sequester goes through. Note that all of these cuts are from actual operations. Somehow not one mention is made of fewer vacations for the President. Somehow not one mention is made of fewer "fact finding missions" or reduced salaries rather than cut jobs. Not one mention is made, in short, of cutting anything that isn't useful. No, all the cuts will be targeted specifically to make the sequester as painful as possible, just so that the Traitor in Office can blame Republicans again.
I'm not going to review all the cuts, though you should do so to see what I mean. What I am going to do is look at the introduction to the letter, so you can see how this is operating exactly like a protection racket. If you don't want to click over, I'll be quoting the whole thing.
Okay, let's stop there. I know, it's just the title, but it's important. Note the tone the letter is already taking. "Oh, these cuts will have an 'impact' on Middle Class Families!" No scare-mongering there. None. At. All.
Note the blame of congress here. The President came up with the sequester. He recommended the sequester. He signed the bill that created the sequester into law. Yet now Congress must act. There's not a single thing he could do. He's powerless! Of course, he could target cuts at unnecessary expenditures. But this is President Dumbo. He's not going to do that.
Note the wording here: "cut the deficit." Democrats would have you believe, despite sixty-plus years' evidence to the contrary, that raising tax rates is a legitimate way to "cut the deficit." It is not. It does not work. It has never worked. It will not ever work. The Government is spending more money in a year than you could get if you taxed every US Citizen into poverty and beyond. The only thing we have not seriously tried in modern times are real spending cuts.
Note also two further obfuscations. That "$2.5 Trillion" is partially projected savings from winding down military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and partly projected savings from ObamaCare. However, the first is not "savings." Not spending money you weren't planning to spend anyway is not "cutting." The second is a lie. It is a known lie. Everyone who doesn't live under a rock knows it's a lie.
Then there's that last line: "The President's plan meets Republicans more than halfway and includes twice as many spending cuts as it does in tax revenue from the wealthy." This single line is so chock-full of errors its almost deserves its own post. I'll hit them quickly- 1) SCOAMT promised 3:1 spending cuts to tax increases during the election. That he's now proposing 2:1 is not "meeting Republicans more than halfway," it is moving the goalposts. 2) Notice that tax rate hikes are called by their new Orwellian Name "tax revenue." Never mind that they won't bring in any appreciable additional revenue. 3) The tax hikes the President are proposing don't hurt the wealthy. He himself has admitted it. His point in closing the supposed "loophole" for "corporate jets" (which is actually normal tax law anyone can use- if you buy a special uniform for work, you get exactly the same tax-cut. It's a business expense that can be written off your taxes) is that it will prevent the rich from buying new jets. That doesn't hurt the rich. It does hurt the middle class workers whose livelihood depends on the rich buying those jets.
How many lies can they pack in to one paragraph? Let's see:
1) Republicans are not refusing "to ask the wealthy to pay a little more." The know the wealthy- the working affluent, as I like to call them, are already paying nearly (and sometimes more) than 50 cents of every dollar to various levels of government. If you ask them to pay more, they'll either just quit making money, or move elsewhere. Don't believe me? Ask California and New York.
2) "Investments" is Democrat-ese for "spending," and "helping grow our economy and keep our country safe" is Democrat-ese for "F*ck you. Pay me." The sequester is a drop in the bucket. It comes out to somewhere between 1 & 2% of current spending. You cannot convince me that needed services have to be impacted. That is a choice Democrats are making, not one Republicans are forcing.
3) "Republicans are forcing our children, seniors, troops, military families, and the entire middle class to bear the burden of deficit reduction." "Everything he just said is Bullsh!t." I've already gone over this- this is Democrats' choices, not Republicans. One of the proposed cuts (by Republicans) was to cut congressional salaries. Nancy Pelosi refused those because her high station deserved the money she's making, and how dare you look at the your Betters, peasant?
4) "but [the SCOAMT] won't stick the middle class with the bill." Once again, this is a lie. The President has already raised tax rates on the middle class. He wants to do worse by raising the minimum wage (which will make everything more expensive and increase unemployment further). And, again, those "tax loopholes" he wants to close are things the middle class use every year. Every time you take the mileage deduction for your work car, or deduct the cost of your uniform from your taxes, you're using exactly the same "loophole" the "wealthy" are using for their corporate jets.
5) "The President is willing to compromise..." once again: moving the goalposts is not "compromise." He promised 3:1 (which Republicans said they might reluctantly support depending on the details), now he's offering 2:1. That's not compromise. As for "a deal that undercuts their economic security," maybe he could look at his own economic policies before he tries to blame Republicans. He might also look at his own (well documented) roll in the Mortgage Bubble.
There we have it. First, a couple more lies: "Our economy is continuing to strengthen..." well, maybe if you work in Government. It's still really freaking tough for the rest of us. "We cannot simply cut our way to prosperity," yes, we can. We've done it before. See the late 19-teens and what became known as "the roaring 20s." That was "cutting our way to prosperity." It wasn't the first time we did it, either, though I'm pretty sure it was the last.
But then there's the clincher: "Texas risks paying the price." See, the SCOAMT can't allow cuts that won't hurt, because this is a scam. He- not Republicans- is holding the middle class hostage. He- not they- can target cuts so that they trim "fat" instead of "muscle." He- not they- can move back toward the middle- his original proposal which had already been accepted in principle- 3:1 cuts-to-taxes. Most Republicans would have jumped on that in a second in January. That's what the President said in the campaign, the President was re-elected, obviously the people supported that. But now he has moved the goalposts to 2:1 cuts-to-taxes. That's after we've already increased taxes on everyone who makes a paycheck, and already increased the top marginal tax rate. The President would like you not to remember that those things happened at his insistence.
This is no different from a Mob Boss saying that if you don't pay your protection money, he "can't be held responsible for any damages," while his enforcers are right there ready to knock your display cases over and start a fire in your shop. This is all the President's doing. For him to attempt to blackmail Republicans this way is beyond outrageous.
Don't lean on the Republicans. Support them. Tell them "more please."
That is the not-so-subtle meaning of this letter from The White House to the Great State of Texas. Yes, your State received a similar one as well. It details the specific cuts the White House will have made if Sequester goes through. Note that all of these cuts are from actual operations. Somehow not one mention is made of fewer vacations for the President. Somehow not one mention is made of fewer "fact finding missions" or reduced salaries rather than cut jobs. Not one mention is made, in short, of cutting anything that isn't useful. No, all the cuts will be targeted specifically to make the sequester as painful as possible, just so that the Traitor in Office can blame Republicans again.
I'm not going to review all the cuts, though you should do so to see what I mean. What I am going to do is look at the introduction to the letter, so you can see how this is operating exactly like a protection racket. If you don't want to click over, I'll be quoting the whole thing.
Impact of March 1st Cuts on Middle Class Families, Jobs and Economic Security: Texas
Okay, let's stop there. I know, it's just the title, but it's important. Note the tone the letter is already taking. "Oh, these cuts will have an 'impact' on Middle Class Families!" No scare-mongering there. None. At. All.
Unless Congress acts by March 1st, a series of automatic cuts -- called the sequester -- will take effect that threaten hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs, and cut vital services for children, seniors, people with mental illnesses and our men and women in uniform.
Note the blame of congress here. The President came up with the sequester. He recommended the sequester. He signed the bill that created the sequester into law. Yet now Congress must act. There's not a single thing he could do. He's powerless! Of course, he could target cuts at unnecessary expenditures. But this is President Dumbo. He's not going to do that.
There is no question that we need to cut the deficit, but the President believes it should be done in a balanced way that protects investments that the middle class relies on. Already the President has worked with Congress to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion, but there's more to do. The President has put forward a balanced plan to not only avoid the harmful effects of the sequester but also to reduce the deficit by more than $4 trillion in total. The President's plan meets Republicans more than halfway and includes twice as many spending cuts as it does tax revenue from the wealthy. For details on the President's plan click here [link not reproduced].
Note the wording here: "cut the deficit." Democrats would have you believe, despite sixty-plus years' evidence to the contrary, that raising tax rates is a legitimate way to "cut the deficit." It is not. It does not work. It has never worked. It will not ever work. The Government is spending more money in a year than you could get if you taxed every US Citizen into poverty and beyond. The only thing we have not seriously tried in modern times are real spending cuts.
Note also two further obfuscations. That "$2.5 Trillion" is partially projected savings from winding down military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and partly projected savings from ObamaCare. However, the first is not "savings." Not spending money you weren't planning to spend anyway is not "cutting." The second is a lie. It is a known lie. Everyone who doesn't live under a rock knows it's a lie.
Then there's that last line: "The President's plan meets Republicans more than halfway and includes twice as many spending cuts as it does in tax revenue from the wealthy." This single line is so chock-full of errors its almost deserves its own post. I'll hit them quickly- 1) SCOAMT promised 3:1 spending cuts to tax increases during the election. That he's now proposing 2:1 is not "meeting Republicans more than halfway," it is moving the goalposts. 2) Notice that tax rate hikes are called by their new Orwellian Name "tax revenue." Never mind that they won't bring in any appreciable additional revenue. 3) The tax hikes the President are proposing don't hurt the wealthy. He himself has admitted it. His point in closing the supposed "loophole" for "corporate jets" (which is actually normal tax law anyone can use- if you buy a special uniform for work, you get exactly the same tax-cut. It's a business expense that can be written off your taxes) is that it will prevent the rich from buying new jets. That doesn't hurt the rich. It does hurt the middle class workers whose livelihood depends on the rich buying those jets.
Unfortunately many Republicans in Congress refuse to ask the wealthy to pay a little more by closing tax loopholes so we can protect the investments that are helping grow our economy and keep our country safe. By not asking the wealthy to pay a little more, Republicans are forcing our children, seniors, troops, military families, and the entire middle class to bear the burden of deficit reduction. The President is determined to cut spending and reduce the deficit in a balanced way, but he won't stick the middle class with the bill. The President is willing to compromise, but on behalf of the middle class he cannot accept a deal that undercuts their economic security.
How many lies can they pack in to one paragraph? Let's see:
1) Republicans are not refusing "to ask the wealthy to pay a little more." The know the wealthy- the working affluent, as I like to call them, are already paying nearly (and sometimes more) than 50 cents of every dollar to various levels of government. If you ask them to pay more, they'll either just quit making money, or move elsewhere. Don't believe me? Ask California and New York.
2) "Investments" is Democrat-ese for "spending," and "helping grow our economy and keep our country safe" is Democrat-ese for "F*ck you. Pay me." The sequester is a drop in the bucket. It comes out to somewhere between 1 & 2% of current spending. You cannot convince me that needed services have to be impacted. That is a choice Democrats are making, not one Republicans are forcing.
3) "Republicans are forcing our children, seniors, troops, military families, and the entire middle class to bear the burden of deficit reduction." "Everything he just said is Bullsh!t." I've already gone over this- this is Democrats' choices, not Republicans. One of the proposed cuts (by Republicans) was to cut congressional salaries. Nancy Pelosi refused those because her high station deserved the money she's making, and how dare you look at the your Betters, peasant?
4) "but [the SCOAMT] won't stick the middle class with the bill." Once again, this is a lie. The President has already raised tax rates on the middle class. He wants to do worse by raising the minimum wage (which will make everything more expensive and increase unemployment further). And, again, those "tax loopholes" he wants to close are things the middle class use every year. Every time you take the mileage deduction for your work car, or deduct the cost of your uniform from your taxes, you're using exactly the same "loophole" the "wealthy" are using for their corporate jets.
5) "The President is willing to compromise..." once again: moving the goalposts is not "compromise." He promised 3:1 (which Republicans said they might reluctantly support depending on the details), now he's offering 2:1. That's not compromise. As for "a deal that undercuts their economic security," maybe he could look at his own economic policies before he tries to blame Republicans. He might also look at his own (well documented) roll in the Mortgage Bubble.
Our economy is continuing to strengthen but we cannot afford a self-inflicted wound from Washington. Republicans should compromise and meet the President in the middle. We cannot simply cut our way to prosperity, and if Republicans continue to insist on an unreasonable, cuts-only approach, Texas risks paying the price.
There we have it. First, a couple more lies: "Our economy is continuing to strengthen..." well, maybe if you work in Government. It's still really freaking tough for the rest of us. "We cannot simply cut our way to prosperity," yes, we can. We've done it before. See the late 19-teens and what became known as "the roaring 20s." That was "cutting our way to prosperity." It wasn't the first time we did it, either, though I'm pretty sure it was the last.
But then there's the clincher: "Texas risks paying the price." See, the SCOAMT can't allow cuts that won't hurt, because this is a scam. He- not Republicans- is holding the middle class hostage. He- not they- can target cuts so that they trim "fat" instead of "muscle." He- not they- can move back toward the middle- his original proposal which had already been accepted in principle- 3:1 cuts-to-taxes. Most Republicans would have jumped on that in a second in January. That's what the President said in the campaign, the President was re-elected, obviously the people supported that. But now he has moved the goalposts to 2:1 cuts-to-taxes. That's after we've already increased taxes on everyone who makes a paycheck, and already increased the top marginal tax rate. The President would like you not to remember that those things happened at his insistence.
This is no different from a Mob Boss saying that if you don't pay your protection money, he "can't be held responsible for any damages," while his enforcers are right there ready to knock your display cases over and start a fire in your shop. This is all the President's doing. For him to attempt to blackmail Republicans this way is beyond outrageous.
Don't lean on the Republicans. Support them. Tell them "more please."
Friday, February 15, 2013
More Please
Politico has a story which is trying to highlight just how... uncouth Texas Senator Ted Cruz is. Senators are positively dismayed that he's not "following the rules" and just playing the game of go along to get along. Phrases like "unfair line of questioning" and "combative line of questioning." Why, he's not playing like the Democrats are his friends! How barbaric.
If I had any lingering qualms over electing Ted Cruz, this piece has gone a long way toward dispelling them. It's about time Republicans quit pretending that Democrats were their friends. Getting combative with Chuck Schumer on a Sunday TV Show? More, please. Strong questioning of cabinet nominees? More please.
More please.
More please.
More please.
More. Please.
If this is enough to give sitting senators the vapors, maybe it's time we got all new senators.
More please.
If I had any lingering qualms over electing Ted Cruz, this piece has gone a long way toward dispelling them. It's about time Republicans quit pretending that Democrats were their friends. Getting combative with Chuck Schumer on a Sunday TV Show? More, please. Strong questioning of cabinet nominees? More please.
“I made promises to the people of Texas that I would come to Washington to shake up the status quo, to fight for conservative principles and to lead a concerted and meaningful effort to end the unsustainable spending, deficits and debt that have been propagated, unfortunately, by members of both parties,” Cruz said.
More please.
“Of course comity is important, but comity does not mean avoiding the truth concerning a nominee’s policy record,” Cruz wrote in an email.
More please.
“Your continued anti-gun crusade may well cause some to wonder if the interests of the citizens of Chicago are being sacrificed in pursuit of a partisan agenda,” Cruz told Emanuel in an unusual letter, calling the mayor’s efforts a “bullying campaign.”
More please.
On Thursday, Graham argued Cruz wasn’t being unfair to Hagel but that he feared the Texas Republican’s questions about the sources of the former Nebraska GOP senator’s income would create a new and difficult standard for future nominees.
More. Please.
If this is enough to give sitting senators the vapors, maybe it's time we got all new senators.
More please.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
And This is why Rick Perry Didn't Woo The Media
In Rick Perry's 2010 run against Bill White, he fairly scandalized the Texas Media by not once agreeing to sit down with the various Newspaper editorial boards to "seek their endorsement." When asked about it, he said it was because he knew they weren't going to endorse him anyway, so why bother? He was excoriated and ridiculed. And won by (if I recall) ~7 percentage points.
And he was right to eschew the Texas Media, beyond what was absolutely necessary to get his message out. Here's a contemporary example of what he was dealing with:
Headline: "Perry Ending Calif. Trip Empty Handed- So Far."
It's also important to recognized that "So Far" is on a second line. Note the tone of the headline (which is all most people will read or remember): "That loser Rick Perry who thought he could compete when to California to woo businesses and came back empty handed. Ha!"
Never mind the fact that a business, even a small business, can't just decide to move in 3 days. Small business people are exceptional, but they aren't miracle workers. Larger companies take even longer just to make up their minds to move.
Never mind that Texas has already been successful in either wooing businesses away from California all together, or at least into expanding into Texas.
Never mind that apparently Rick Perry was in Governor Brown's head enough, that Brown thought he had to insult Rick Perry, instead of sticking up for his own state's business climate.
Now, all of that is of interest to me, here in Texas. Why should it interest you outside of Texas?
Texas is one of the most conservative States in the Nation. We have plenty of doozies, but our local Democrats tend to be only flirting with insanity, rather than being actually insane. Rick Perry himself was once a Democrat, back when "Conservative" and "Democrat" went together without hysterical laughter. Our news organizations tend to reflect that. Even the very liberal Dallas Morning News can't stomach some of the more blatant bias in, for instance, the New York Times. If a Republican Governor in a Republican State knows that he can count on the State (and local) Media machines to be hostile, then it's time our national Republicans learned the lesson, too.
John Boehner: MSNBC is not your friend.
Mitch McConnel: The New York Times will never like you.
John McCain: ABC, CBS, and NBC will be glad to use you against other Republicans, but they will never, ever support you.
National Republicans need to take a page out of Rick Perry's book (actually, they need to take several, but one hopeless battle at a time) and start treating the National Media as the Hostile, if not outright Antagonistic actors they are.
And he was right to eschew the Texas Media, beyond what was absolutely necessary to get his message out. Here's a contemporary example of what he was dealing with:
Headline: "Perry Ending Calif. Trip Empty Handed- So Far."
It's also important to recognized that "So Far" is on a second line. Note the tone of the headline (which is all most people will read or remember): "That loser Rick Perry who thought he could compete when to California to woo businesses and came back empty handed. Ha!"
Never mind the fact that a business, even a small business, can't just decide to move in 3 days. Small business people are exceptional, but they aren't miracle workers. Larger companies take even longer just to make up their minds to move.
Never mind that Texas has already been successful in either wooing businesses away from California all together, or at least into expanding into Texas.
Never mind that apparently Rick Perry was in Governor Brown's head enough, that Brown thought he had to insult Rick Perry, instead of sticking up for his own state's business climate.
Now, all of that is of interest to me, here in Texas. Why should it interest you outside of Texas?
Texas is one of the most conservative States in the Nation. We have plenty of doozies, but our local Democrats tend to be only flirting with insanity, rather than being actually insane. Rick Perry himself was once a Democrat, back when "Conservative" and "Democrat" went together without hysterical laughter. Our news organizations tend to reflect that. Even the very liberal Dallas Morning News can't stomach some of the more blatant bias in, for instance, the New York Times. If a Republican Governor in a Republican State knows that he can count on the State (and local) Media machines to be hostile, then it's time our national Republicans learned the lesson, too.
John Boehner: MSNBC is not your friend.
Mitch McConnel: The New York Times will never like you.
John McCain: ABC, CBS, and NBC will be glad to use you against other Republicans, but they will never, ever support you.
National Republicans need to take a page out of Rick Perry's book (actually, they need to take several, but one hopeless battle at a time) and start treating the National Media as the Hostile, if not outright Antagonistic actors they are.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
On Illegal Immigration
It's just a topical cornucopia today.
So, also big on the national stage at the moment is "Immigration Reform" which we all know is code for "amnesty." Apparently, some Republicans (including Marco Rubio. Awesome), think that catering to Democrats on this issue will somehow win them votes with Hispanic voters. I'm not exactly sure how that's supposed to work.
First off, there's the fact that Hispanics vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. They're not quite to the Black Community numbers, but a vast majority. Indeed, it is considered "impressive" that Rick Perry pulls nearly 40% of the Hispanic vote in Texas. Think about that for a minute.
Secondly, the only people who benefit from amnesty (I don't care what they call it, that's what it is- own it Republicans) are Democrats (who get more voters on a better than 7 : 3 basis) and illegal immigrants. These immigrants are often poor, usually on multiple forms of Government (that is: tax-payer provided) assistance, and generally not the kind of crowd that is normally going to vote Republican (that is: to have their "free" stuff taken away).
Third, it royally screws over legal immigrants. For those who have already completed the process, it makes a mockery of the trouble they went through to follow our laws. For those completing the process now, it says "hey, why bother? We don't care about our laws, why should you?" Even those who decide to stick it out are going to be negatively affected as ICE is overwhelmed with paperwork related to enforcing whatever new amnesty is passed.
And what will Republicans get? Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Enforcement? If you're granting Amnesty, what is there to enforce? Oh, you want me to believe we'll suddenly start enforcing it for any "new" illegal aliens? You'll excuse me if I'm skeptical.
Now, one of the rhetorical devices Liberals will use to defend amnesty is this line: "What do you want? We can't deport them all!"
This line gets used so often that it needs to be carefully reviewed. There are three ways that illegal aliens could be deported. The method preferred by the enforcement crowd is self deportation. We believe that if we enforce the laws (more on that in a minute), and stop claiming they should be eligible for tax-payer funded benefits like Social Security, Medicaid, and TANF, that most of them would leave on their own. They might go home; they might go somewhere else. Either way they would no longer be here as a drain on our social services.
The second method, and the one Liberals accuse us of supporting is "mass deportations." Now, this tricky because it could mean one of two things. What they mean when they say it, though they may not be willing to admit it, is the idea of mass mobilization of LEO in a systematic manner, kicking down doors, throwing smoke grenades, and generally terrorizing the "poor" illegals. Then anyone who could not prove their citizenship or legal status would be deported.
This is important, because no one is actually advocating that. It's not on the table. It's a particularly weak straw-man.
The third method, (and liberals will try to claim that this is "mass deportation" as well- thus trying to confuse the matter) is deportation of illegals as they are identified through other means. If one is caught driving without a license, or through some other contact with law enforcement, deport them. The reason Liberals claim this is "the same" as mass deportation is that "it would be deportation on a massive scale." See? "Massive scale" = "mass deportation." QED.
Or not. To say that it would be "the same" as the more generally accepted definition of "mass deportations" is the same as saying that we have "mass drunk driving enforcement" because there are a lot of drunk driving cases. Absolutely not. With the exception of "Driver Checkpoints" (which I believe are unconstitutional), cops are not specifically seeking out drunk drivers, but when they find them they don't hesitate to fine or jail them. And we don't hesitate, if they plead not-guilty, to try them in a court of law. The same would be true of immigration. No one, except possibly ICE agents (whose job it is anyway) would be looking specifically for illegal aliens. When they are found, however, we should not hesitate to start deportation proceedings.
Which brings us back to the "enforce the law" point. Yes, we understand that enforcing the law will necessarily result in deportation on a massive scale- either through self deportations or through deportation proceedings or (more likely) some combination of both. I won't say that it is "the point," but it's definitely a side benefit. These people are here illegally. I'm supposed to care if they experience some inconvenience when we enforce the law? Why?
So let's start with that, first, huh? Take any form of amnesty off the table. In fact, take any legislation off the table. The laws are already written. We don't need more. We simply need to enforce the laws that exist. There's no need for "Immigration Reform." What is needed is "Customs and Border Enforcement Reform."
So, also big on the national stage at the moment is "Immigration Reform" which we all know is code for "amnesty." Apparently, some Republicans (including Marco Rubio. Awesome), think that catering to Democrats on this issue will somehow win them votes with Hispanic voters. I'm not exactly sure how that's supposed to work.
First off, there's the fact that Hispanics vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. They're not quite to the Black Community numbers, but a vast majority. Indeed, it is considered "impressive" that Rick Perry pulls nearly 40% of the Hispanic vote in Texas. Think about that for a minute.
Secondly, the only people who benefit from amnesty (I don't care what they call it, that's what it is- own it Republicans) are Democrats (who get more voters on a better than 7 : 3 basis) and illegal immigrants. These immigrants are often poor, usually on multiple forms of Government (that is: tax-payer provided) assistance, and generally not the kind of crowd that is normally going to vote Republican (that is: to have their "free" stuff taken away).
Third, it royally screws over legal immigrants. For those who have already completed the process, it makes a mockery of the trouble they went through to follow our laws. For those completing the process now, it says "hey, why bother? We don't care about our laws, why should you?" Even those who decide to stick it out are going to be negatively affected as ICE is overwhelmed with paperwork related to enforcing whatever new amnesty is passed.
And what will Republicans get? Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Enforcement? If you're granting Amnesty, what is there to enforce? Oh, you want me to believe we'll suddenly start enforcing it for any "new" illegal aliens? You'll excuse me if I'm skeptical.
Now, one of the rhetorical devices Liberals will use to defend amnesty is this line: "What do you want? We can't deport them all!"
This line gets used so often that it needs to be carefully reviewed. There are three ways that illegal aliens could be deported. The method preferred by the enforcement crowd is self deportation. We believe that if we enforce the laws (more on that in a minute), and stop claiming they should be eligible for tax-payer funded benefits like Social Security, Medicaid, and TANF, that most of them would leave on their own. They might go home; they might go somewhere else. Either way they would no longer be here as a drain on our social services.
The second method, and the one Liberals accuse us of supporting is "mass deportations." Now, this tricky because it could mean one of two things. What they mean when they say it, though they may not be willing to admit it, is the idea of mass mobilization of LEO in a systematic manner, kicking down doors, throwing smoke grenades, and generally terrorizing the "poor" illegals. Then anyone who could not prove their citizenship or legal status would be deported.
This is important, because no one is actually advocating that. It's not on the table. It's a particularly weak straw-man.
The third method, (and liberals will try to claim that this is "mass deportation" as well- thus trying to confuse the matter) is deportation of illegals as they are identified through other means. If one is caught driving without a license, or through some other contact with law enforcement, deport them. The reason Liberals claim this is "the same" as mass deportation is that "it would be deportation on a massive scale." See? "Massive scale" = "mass deportation." QED.
Or not. To say that it would be "the same" as the more generally accepted definition of "mass deportations" is the same as saying that we have "mass drunk driving enforcement" because there are a lot of drunk driving cases. Absolutely not. With the exception of "Driver Checkpoints" (which I believe are unconstitutional), cops are not specifically seeking out drunk drivers, but when they find them they don't hesitate to fine or jail them. And we don't hesitate, if they plead not-guilty, to try them in a court of law. The same would be true of immigration. No one, except possibly ICE agents (whose job it is anyway) would be looking specifically for illegal aliens. When they are found, however, we should not hesitate to start deportation proceedings.
Which brings us back to the "enforce the law" point. Yes, we understand that enforcing the law will necessarily result in deportation on a massive scale- either through self deportations or through deportation proceedings or (more likely) some combination of both. I won't say that it is "the point," but it's definitely a side benefit. These people are here illegally. I'm supposed to care if they experience some inconvenience when we enforce the law? Why?
So let's start with that, first, huh? Take any form of amnesty off the table. In fact, take any legislation off the table. The laws are already written. We don't need more. We simply need to enforce the laws that exist. There's no need for "Immigration Reform." What is needed is "Customs and Border Enforcement Reform."
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
The "Lawful Stupid" Party
Confession time: I'm a nerd. I've played Role Playing Games (real ones, where you use pencils and paper and dice and (for preference) miniatures) for as long as I can remember. I played Red Box D&D long after it stopped being TSR's primary product. I played 2nd Ed. AD&D. I played Vampire: The Masquerade. I played the Buffy: The Vampire Slayer RPG. I played all 3 flavors of the Star Wars RPG (the best version is still the West End Games D6 version).
Through all of this, a few "archetypes" of characters became apparent across all games.
There's always that guy who's trying to be funny, but really is just incredibly annoying. For him, my brother coined the term "Kinder-malkie," from the Dragonlance Kinder and the Vampire Malchavians (both of which were often played to this archetype).
Another was "Lawful Stupid." This is found most often in D&D Paladins, but you'll find it across all genres. The next most often is the Jedi in Star Wars. The Lawful Stupid character is someone who is supposed to be pure, and just, and a bright shining light of bright shininess. Instead they come off as naive and, well, stupid.
I'm not even sure why this popped into my head this morning, but it did, and almost immediately I thought of the Republican Party. Sans the "pure," "just," and "bright shining light of bright shininess" parts, "Lawful Stupid" seems to fit Republicans, especially John Boehner, to a T.
The hallmark of a Lawful Stupid character is that they not only hold themselves to a strict set of standards, but they believe (or act as if they believe) that everyone else holds themselves to those same standards despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In D&D, this results in the Paladin letting someone go when everyone at the table knows they're a bad guy "because it's in character." In Politics, it results in last night's "Fiscal Cliff" fiasco, not to mention Romney's loss to the SCOAMT in November.
It's the only thing I can think of that would explain the Republicans' move last night. Despite the fact Democrats always promise spending cuts "later," and despite the fact those cuts never materialize, Republicans once again took Democrats at their word that we would "address spending later." How stupid do you have to be to believe that again?
Personally, I prefer to play the Lawful Ruthless character. This character holds himself to a strict standard, and then punishes others for not in any way he can conceive. A Lawful Ruthless character would have held the SCOAMT's feet to the fire over his entire failed record- and dropped the term "miserable failure"- as often as possible during the campaign. A Lawful Ruthless character would returned to the Senate an amended bill that contained the higher, Plan B, tax rate increases and massive spending cuts.
For all his affability, Ronald Reagan was Lawful Ruthless. He had absolutely no scruples against showing his political opponents in the worst light possible. To some degree, it was Romney's willingness to do this against Republicans that made some people absolutely sure he'd do the same against the SCOAMT. That never happened. John Boenher appears not only to be unwilling to drag his opponents' names through the mud, he seems bound and determined to show them in the best light possible.
If Republicans are going to both win national elections and fix the fiscal problems that plague this country, they are going to have to stop being Lawful Stupid, and start being Lawful Ruthless. Their opponents won't meet them in the ring with referees, so they must be willing to fight in back alleys with brass knuckles, beer bottles, and knives, politically speaking.
We want Republicans to be principled, and forthright. We never once said anything about "nice."
Through all of this, a few "archetypes" of characters became apparent across all games.
There's always that guy who's trying to be funny, but really is just incredibly annoying. For him, my brother coined the term "Kinder-malkie," from the Dragonlance Kinder and the Vampire Malchavians (both of which were often played to this archetype).
Another was "Lawful Stupid." This is found most often in D&D Paladins, but you'll find it across all genres. The next most often is the Jedi in Star Wars. The Lawful Stupid character is someone who is supposed to be pure, and just, and a bright shining light of bright shininess. Instead they come off as naive and, well, stupid.
I'm not even sure why this popped into my head this morning, but it did, and almost immediately I thought of the Republican Party. Sans the "pure," "just," and "bright shining light of bright shininess" parts, "Lawful Stupid" seems to fit Republicans, especially John Boehner, to a T.
The hallmark of a Lawful Stupid character is that they not only hold themselves to a strict set of standards, but they believe (or act as if they believe) that everyone else holds themselves to those same standards despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In D&D, this results in the Paladin letting someone go when everyone at the table knows they're a bad guy "because it's in character." In Politics, it results in last night's "Fiscal Cliff" fiasco, not to mention Romney's loss to the SCOAMT in November.
It's the only thing I can think of that would explain the Republicans' move last night. Despite the fact Democrats always promise spending cuts "later," and despite the fact those cuts never materialize, Republicans once again took Democrats at their word that we would "address spending later." How stupid do you have to be to believe that again?
Personally, I prefer to play the Lawful Ruthless character. This character holds himself to a strict standard, and then punishes others for not in any way he can conceive. A Lawful Ruthless character would have held the SCOAMT's feet to the fire over his entire failed record- and dropped the term "miserable failure"- as often as possible during the campaign. A Lawful Ruthless character would returned to the Senate an amended bill that contained the higher, Plan B, tax rate increases and massive spending cuts.
For all his affability, Ronald Reagan was Lawful Ruthless. He had absolutely no scruples against showing his political opponents in the worst light possible. To some degree, it was Romney's willingness to do this against Republicans that made some people absolutely sure he'd do the same against the SCOAMT. That never happened. John Boenher appears not only to be unwilling to drag his opponents' names through the mud, he seems bound and determined to show them in the best light possible.
If Republicans are going to both win national elections and fix the fiscal problems that plague this country, they are going to have to stop being Lawful Stupid, and start being Lawful Ruthless. Their opponents won't meet them in the ring with referees, so they must be willing to fight in back alleys with brass knuckles, beer bottles, and knives, politically speaking.
We want Republicans to be principled, and forthright. We never once said anything about "nice."
Monday, December 10, 2012
GOP Communication Classes?
On the CBS morning show "This Morning" Dick Armey suggested that much of the Republican plight in the November election stemmed from candidates who "said some dumb things." He believes the Republican Party needs to educate candidates on how to avoid saying such dumb things. With due respect to former Leader Armey, this is hogwash. No one should need to be "educated" so that they don't say that the body has rape-sensing hormones that prevent pregnancy, or that rape is "a blessing." In fact, no one did say the latter, and the former was at least based on a scientific hypothesis. The hypothesis has been soundly debunked, but it was an actually proffered hypothesis once.
No, the Republican Party needs to figure out that the Tea Party isn't going anywhere, and join forces. If the Republican party would partner with local tea party groups to help vet candidates, and put forward candidates who are both acceptable to grass-roots conservatives and unlikely to say "dumb things" in the first place, then we'd be in a better position. The problem with that is that the Tea Party represents opposition to much of what is wrong with the Republican Party, and the Republican Party doesn't like to admit that it has things wrong with it.
Until the local Tea Parties are accepted as legitimate partners with the Republicans, the two will work to cross purposes and Democrats will continue to be elected. In those instances when Republicans have embraced the Tea Party, they have experience success. Take a look at the Texas Congressional Delegation, for instance. Scott Brown was elected on Tea Party sentiment. He was not re-elected because he tried to out-Democrat the Democrat.
Communication is, indeed, an issue. It probably did cost us a couple of otherwise safe seats. But rather than focus on the window-dressing, the Republican Party needs to partner with grass-roots groups to help select men and women who are already able purveyors of the Conservative Message.
No, the Republican Party needs to figure out that the Tea Party isn't going anywhere, and join forces. If the Republican party would partner with local tea party groups to help vet candidates, and put forward candidates who are both acceptable to grass-roots conservatives and unlikely to say "dumb things" in the first place, then we'd be in a better position. The problem with that is that the Tea Party represents opposition to much of what is wrong with the Republican Party, and the Republican Party doesn't like to admit that it has things wrong with it.
Until the local Tea Parties are accepted as legitimate partners with the Republicans, the two will work to cross purposes and Democrats will continue to be elected. In those instances when Republicans have embraced the Tea Party, they have experience success. Take a look at the Texas Congressional Delegation, for instance. Scott Brown was elected on Tea Party sentiment. He was not re-elected because he tried to out-Democrat the Democrat.
Communication is, indeed, an issue. It probably did cost us a couple of otherwise safe seats. But rather than focus on the window-dressing, the Republican Party needs to partner with grass-roots groups to help select men and women who are already able purveyors of the Conservative Message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)