Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: Why the Shutdown is a Republican Victory

  1. -1
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    7,938
    vCash:
    27915
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Why the Shutdown is a Republican Victory

    The news from Washington is all about President Obama’s impending triumph in the government shutdown/debt ceiling standoff. “Boehner Blinks,” declared a recent headline in The Washington Post. “Republicans,” explained ABC’s Jonathan Karl, “are working out the terms of their surrender.”

    If this is Republican surrender, I hope I never see Republican victory.

    To understand how upside down the current media analysis is, you need to go back a couple of years. In 2011, with Republicans threatening to provoke a debt default, President Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011, which cut government spending by $917 billion over 10 years. The agreement also created a congressional “supercommittee” charged with finding additional cuts. If the committee failed to do so, cuts totaling $1.2 trillion over ten years would kick in automatically at the end of 2012, via a process called “sequestration.”

    Traditionally in Washington, budget compromises had meant Democrats agreeing to cut domestic spending and Republicans agreeing to raise taxes. But by raising the specter of default, Republicans had changed the equation. In the Budget Control Act, taxes weren’t raised a dime. Democrats compromised by cutting spending and Republicans “compromised” by agreeing not to let America default on its debt and provoke a global financial crisis.

    Not surprisingly, conservatives liked the deal more than liberals. In the House, Republicans backed it by a margin of almost three to one while Democrats split evenly. “Is this the deal I would have preferred? No,” Obama admitted. By contrast, House Speaker John Boehner boasted, “I got 98 percent of what I wanted.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...n-victory.html

    I agree with just about this entire piece. The Republicans certainly could have picked more sensible ground to make a stand on, but the Democrats shouldn't pat themselves on the back after this. IMO they left a lot of leverage on the table. And worse than that, it doesn't appear as if they're going to learn that their strategy has to be more than to stand to the side, let the Republicans look ridiculous, and wait for the GOP to become "chastened."

    That's not going to happen any time soon, though of course I'm hopeful that it will and we can come back through the looking glass. But the Democrats should be trying to win. Don't just be solid now and then when the Republicans come after you. Go on the offensive. Win. Unfortunately neither Obama nor Harry Reid has the stomach or aptitude for this, which really sucks.
    Last edited by TheWalrus; 10-17-2013 at 01:10 PM.
    No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,721
    vCash:
    3749
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    My biggest criticism of the Democrats continues to be that they are pansies. They are afraid of a fight and fold when presented with one. Obama in particular is bad at this. I think this is why Hillary is such a popular name right now. She has shown to have the kind of cajones that the rest of the party lacks. With the Republican party being replaced by nutbag Tea Partiers internally and being legitimately threatened by an ever-growing liberal population on the outside, they have turned even more aggressive in getting what they want. Democrats are tired of their politicians allowing themselves to be bullied. Hillary is kind of a beacon of hope in that regard...

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,723
    vCash:
    2315
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    My biggest criticism of the Democrats continues to be that they are pansies. They are afraid of a fight and fold when presented with one. Obama in particular is bad at this. I think this is why Hillary is such a popular name right now. She has shown to have the kind of cajones that the rest of the party lacks. With the Republican party being replaced by nutbag Tea Partiers internally and being legitimately threatened by an ever-growing liberal population on the outside, they have turned even more aggressive in getting what they want. Democrats are tired of their politicians allowing themselves to be bullied. Hillary is kind of a beacon of hope in that regard...
    I think your giving Hillary a lot more credit then she deserves.

    What has Hillary done thats so ballsy? Other then the Iraq war vote(which she supported), i cant remember anything she did as a Senator. Shes a consummate politician and something of a stereotypical Democrat. When she was in a position of influence she kept her head down and her mouth shut...until a camera was in front of her during a debate or a congressional hearing on a hot topic issue.

    Hillary is popular as a brand because shes a Clinton and most people have equated his Presidency to comfort and stability...even if its in hindsight.

    I absolutely agree that its beyond frustrating how Obama doesnt step on the GOP's neck when they intentionally put themselves under his heel. And yes, progressiveness has taken a beating the last few years and that only looks to continue.

    But the article makes an assumption that is off: this is a Republican victory so long as a "centrist" like Chris Christie is in position to benefit from the underlying attitude shift. I dont think the Gingrich/Bush example is apt for this situation. I believe the better example is happened to the left in the 80's and early 90's, and the GOP simply hasnt gotten to the point that the Democratic Leadership Council did under Reagan. The point of removing the veil from their eyes, bluntly diagnosing their problems, and fight their own party in order to win out. As other threads have covered, campaign funding gives them ample incentive to continue the delusion.

    As comfortable(or at least tolerant) as people are with conservative policies, GOP candidates arent going to win a damn thing as long as their primary is as vicious as it is. A "moderate" cant win at the moment, at least not win without compromising themselves. McCain and Romney, neither of whom were considered the most conservative of candidates, have proven that.
    The longer the dysfunction continues the more the Republican image will be equated with stupidity. Between that, a poisonous primary, and the shift in demographics, no one on that side of the aisle is going to be able to benefit from this shutdown and other retarded tactics...no matter how cynical our populace has become towards the process and policies.
    "I'm not here to be a distraction," Pouncey said.
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10...ogical-testing
    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,721
    vCash:
    3749
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    I think your giving Hillary a lot more credit then she deserves.

    What has Hillary done thats so ballsy? Other then the Iraq war vote(which she supported), i cant remember anything she did as a Senator. Shes a consummate politician and something of a stereotypical Democrat. When she was in a position of influence she kept her head down and her mouth shut...until a camera was in front of her during a debate or a congressional hearing on a hot topic issue.

    Hillary is popular as a brand because shes a Clinton and most people have equated his Presidency to comfort and stability...even if its in hindsight.

    I absolutely agree that its beyond frustrating how Obama doesnt step on the GOP's neck when they intentionally put themselves under his heel. And yes, progressiveness has taken a beating the last few years and that only looks to continue.

    But the article makes an assumption that is off: this is a Republican victory so long as a "centrist" like Chris Christie is in position to benefit from the underlying attitude shift. I dont think the Gingrich/Bush example is apt for this situation. I believe the better example is happened to the left in the 80's and early 90's, and the GOP simply hasnt gotten to the point that the Democratic Leadership Council did under Reagan. The point of removing the veil from their eyes, bluntly diagnosing their problems, and fight their own party in order to win out. As other threads have covered, campaign funding gives them ample incentive to continue the delusion.

    As comfortable(or at least tolerant) as people are with conservative policies, GOP candidates arent going to win a damn thing as long as their primary is as vicious as it is. A "moderate" cant win at the moment, at least not win without compromising themselves. McCain and Romney, neither of whom were considered the most conservative of candidates, have proven that.
    The longer the dysfunction continues the more the Republican image will be equated with stupidity. Between that, a poisonous primary, and the shift in demographics, no one on that side of the aisle is going to be able to benefit from this shutdown and other retarded tactics...no matter how cynical our populace has become towards the process and policies.
    No argument from me on that. I've heard her handling of the Benghazi "hearings" after she was released from the hospital being the most frequent example of her being ballsy. Democrats loved the attitude she gave back to McCain and Rand Paul when they were throwing their propaganda at her. There are a few other examples of her being feisty, but that was the biggest one. I mean, there is a reason those on the right call her a **** and bitch so often. If you're male and feisty, you're a proud red-blooded American. If you're female and feisty, you're uppity and need your man to teach you a thing or two.

    I agree with the second half of your post. Though I would say that this entire thing didn't have a winner. It had different levels of losers. I would say the Democrats lost the least since everyone already knew they were gonna be pansies. Moderate Republicans lost because now Ted Cruz and his ilk have taken over their party. And the far righties lost because they pissed off the GoP donors. It's a bad state of politics all around...
    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    7,938
    vCash:
    27915
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    I think your giving Hillary a lot more credit then she deserves.

    What has Hillary done thats so ballsy? Other then the Iraq war vote(which she supported), i cant remember anything she did as a Senator. Shes a consummate politician and something of a stereotypical Democrat. When she was in a position of influence she kept her head down and her mouth shut...until a camera was in front of her during a debate or a congressional hearing on a hot topic issue.

    Hillary is popular as a brand because shes a Clinton and most people have equated his Presidency to comfort and stability...even if its in hindsight.


    I absolutely agree that its beyond frustrating how Obama doesnt step on the GOP's neck when they intentionally put themselves under his heel. And yes, progressiveness has taken a beating the last few years and that only looks to continue.

    But the article makes an assumption that is off: this is a Republican victory so long as a "centrist" like Chris Christie is in position to benefit from the underlying attitude shift. I dont think the Gingrich/Bush example is apt for this situation. I believe the better example is happened to the left in the 80's and early 90's, and the GOP simply hasnt gotten to the point that the Democratic Leadership Council did under Reagan. The point of removing the veil from their eyes, bluntly diagnosing their problems, and fight their own party in order to win out. As other threads have covered, campaign funding gives them ample incentive to continue the delusion.

    As comfortable(or at least tolerant) as people are with conservative policies, GOP candidates arent going to win a damn thing as long as their primary is as vicious as it is. A "moderate" cant win at the moment, at least not win without compromising themselves. McCain and Romney, neither of whom were considered the most conservative of candidates, have proven that.
    The longer the dysfunction continues the more the Republican image will be equated with stupidity. Between that, a poisonous primary, and the shift in demographics, no one on that side of the aisle is going to be able to benefit from this shutdown and other retarded tactics...no matter how cynical our populace has become towards the process and policies.
    I agree with that completely. Hilary can be a completely craven political animal one minute and then stick to her guns like an idiot the next. Usually she picks the exact wrong things to hold and to fold on, too. Her instincts are almost unerringly wrong. During the "Hilarycare" debates, for example, Bill Clinton would schmooze one guy after another, cutting deal after deal, but since he had put her in charge everything had to go through her. And when these guys would come to her after having to agreed to a compromise with the POTUS about something she would lecture them, beat them up, and the deal would die. She's the #1 reason the deal eventually fell apart.

    She's also an inept manager of people, far more concerned with loyalty than competence. The series of stories the Atlantic Monthly did on her '08 campaign's dysfunction was absolutely devastating. No one who read it could think to themselves that she would make a good president. It was appalling.

    Right now she gets to keep her mouth shut and ride on a wave of goodwill. Given the human centipede the Republican Party has become as a mechanism for electing presidents, you have to imagine she's in a good position to win if she wants, even though the historical trends are against her. But once she actually has to start running the bloom will come off the rose, as it must.

    I don't think the late 80s, early 90s Democrats are a good model for predicting what the Republicans will or should do right now. Bill Clinton might have won the presidency in 1992 but he lost the Congress in 1994 and spent basically his entire presidency with an opposition Congress. The Democratic Party didn't get it's **** together and remake it's base and it's image until 2006, and when it did it wasn't in the Clinton mold. It was in the Netroots mold.

    Right now what the Republican party thinks is wrong with it is that it's not conservative enough. They're tired of compromise candidates like McCain and Romney who the party elders say have to be nominated because "they can win" and then those guys go out there and don't win. This time they're going to go with their hearts and see what happens. Then, if they get their asses handed to them, maybe they'll take a long look in the mirror and the Republican answer to Bill Clinton might have a shot. But that reckoning, if it's indeed coming, is like eight or 10 years away. For now they'll continue with the purity routine and keep pulling the party to the right, buoyed by the invincibility that redistricting has given them.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    Dogbone34's Avatar
    cowboy surfer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    2,708
    vCash:
    2195
    Loc:
    Los Angeles
    Thanks / No Thanks
    the GOP will continue to fissure. the establishment right/french republicans have been at war with the fiscally sane populace reagan republicans for years. usually left wing lunacy brings them together. the split is much bigger now. tea party started over W and the debt. democrats can't split because their souls belong to daddy government. the left isn't into liberty these days, they're into the koch brothers.

    its funny when liberals brand the tea party as nut jobs. it makes me think of nancy pelosi and the team. a little self awareness could go a long way.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    7,938
    vCash:
    27915
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogbone34 View Post
    the GOP will continue to fissure. the establishment right/french republicans have been at war with the fiscally sane populace reagan republicans for years. usually left wing lunacy brings them together. the split is much bigger now. tea party started over W and the debt. democrats can't split because their souls belong to daddy government. the left isn't into liberty these days, they're into the koch brothers.

    its funny when liberals brand the tea party as nut jobs. it makes me think of nancy pelosi and the team. a little self awareness could go a long way.
    Oh, the irony. Jesus.

    There are so many hilarious things in your post but since when do "fiscally sane" and "Reagan" belong in the same sentence? You do realize he started this run of debt we've been on, right?
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,723
    vCash:
    2315
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogbone34 View Post
    the GOP will continue to fissure. the establishment right/french republicans have been at war with the fiscally sane populace reagan republicans for years. usually left wing lunacy brings them together. the split is much bigger now. tea party started over W and the debt. democrats can't split because their souls belong to daddy government. the left isn't into liberty these days, they're into the koch brothers.

    its funny when liberals brand the tea party as nut jobs. it makes me think of nancy pelosi and the team. a little self awareness could go a long way.
    I hope the bold is a typo and you meant "right" instead of "left". I especially hope that after the jab about "self awareness".
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    Dogbone34's Avatar
    cowboy surfer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    2,708
    vCash:
    2195
    Loc:
    Los Angeles
    Thanks / No Thanks
    i was gonna add a disclaimer but i'm sure you remember tip oneil and dan rostenkowski.

    the fed's business model is to drive debt, the left and right just take turns taking blame.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    7,938
    vCash:
    27915
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogbone34 View Post
    i was gonna add a disclaimer but i'm sure you remember tip oneil and dan rostenkowski.

    the fed's business model is to drive debt, the left and right just take turns taking blame.
    Tip O'Neill isn't the one who wanted to slash income taxes and sold the public a line of runny bull**** about how prosperity would trickle down and actually lead to more tax revenue. It was crap then and it's crap now. Now, the upside is that deficits are actually better for the economy than surpluses, so at least we're not going that route. But if you're looking for someone to blame for the debt -- if you actually think the debt is a huge problem -- there's no better place to start than Ronald Wilson Reagan.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Our Next Shutdown Corner is on the roster
    By CaSh in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-01-2012, 03:57 PM
  2. shutdown CB and other needs.
    By absoluteLance in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-16-2008, 10:57 AM
  3. Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southern Republican?
    By calphin in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 07-19-2005, 10:08 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-17-2005, 03:06 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-03-2005, 04:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •