Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

Aceventura · Feb 4, 2014

rogue49 said: ↑

And going along the lines of the GOP eating itself...

McCain Censure the Latest Sign of GOP Fratricide

Many conservatives, including yourself @Aceventura, are more comfortable continually blaming Obama for all the US's ills,
not taking note that much of the blame for woes, both nationally and in the party...are their own.
Click to expand...

Please! I am a bit more specific than your comment suggests. Republicans who censure McCain are fascists. Republicans like me blame Obama for all the US ills....where does this crap come from?
--- merged: Jan 28, 2014 at 3:51 PM ---

redux said: ↑

Do you always defend meaningless gestures? Why?
Click to expand...

No, I do not always defend meaningless gestures. More often than not I am critical of them. I thought I stated why I engaged in this discussion. One being the implication they are fascists - that got my interest.

Do you think expressing one's frustration in meaningless ways is productive or an example of adult behavior?
Click to expand...

No, but it happens. I would rather they work harder to make sure he does not get re-elected. The censure will be ineffective in that regard - I could be wrong, but there is talk that because of this McCain may be motivated to run again. Illustrating what a small minded man he is - imagine a perceived slight like a meaningless censure is the reason to run for a 6 year term as a US Senator???? I have less respect for McCain today than yesterday.

rogue49 · Jan 28, 2014

Aceventura said: ↑

Please! I am a bit more specific than your comment suggests. Republicans who censure McCain are fascists. Republicans like me blame Obama for all the US ills....where does this crap come from?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I believe you then...but I don't think you've read your comments over time.
Much of it, like many conservatives, tends to shoot the opposition first, ask questions later. (especially Obama...)
I don't see you as a fascist...but you're not exactly middle of the road either.

I'm not a person of exaggeration, I calls them as I sees them.
You might be more independently minded here & there, but that's more the exception than the rule. Most of the time, you're eating your red meat raw, IMHO.
Frankly, I like it when you're more calm minded...much easier to swallow.

Me? I have my faults too.
Although, I'm not typically in a war of words with people. (although the Death Penalty thread and the Feminism thread were doozies)
You've had some serious battles here.
And BTW...just for your own sanity...much of the "active" board IS more left-leaning...so you are swimming up river.

Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that Obama is middle of the road himself.
But he's certainly not the liberal socialist that others claim him to be. (If he was that, then he'd be more like France's François Hollande, who's NOT doing so hot)
He's a pragmatic center-left politician like Bill Clinton. (although, he certainly doesn't have Clinton's schmoozing abilities or skill of triangulation)

See, there's too many screaming, too much pushing for "face", too much attempt to undermine the others' rep.
We need to be a bit more practical.

Sometimes, I think we're more into the argument and proving who's right & wrong...then making sure that what we are doing is ACTUALLY better or best.
I'm sick of the pettiness and bile.

redux · Jan 28, 2014

Aceventura said: ↑

....

No, I do not always defend meaningless gestures. More often than not I am critical of them. I thought I stated why I engaged in this discussion. One being the implication they are fascists - that got my interest.

No, but it happens. I would rather they work harder to make sure he does not get re-elected. The censure will be ineffective in that regard - I could be wrong, but there is talk that because of this McCain may be motivated to run again. Illustrating what a small minded man he is - imagine a perceived slight like a meaningless censure is the reason to run for a 6 year term as a US Senator???? I have less respect for McCain today than yesterday.
Click to expand...

In fact, if as you suggest, it will encourage McCain to run again, it would appear to be potentially counter-productive given that in his last primary race against a Tea Party candidate in 2010, he won by 30 points. Those Arizona Tea Party kids are not the brightest.

In closing, I have had less respect for McCain since he picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

Aceventura · Jan 29, 2014

rogue49 said: ↑

Fair enough, I believe you then...but I don't think you've read your comments over time.
Much of it, like many conservatives, tends to shoot the opposition first, ask questions later. (especially Obama...)
Click to expand...

My ideology is consistent and generally at odds with the President's - it is not personal. I did not support TARP when Bush was President and I did not supported while Obama was President - seems that no matter how one explains a disagreement with Obama, he is made out to be a victim of people who disagree with his policy.

I don't see you as a fascist...but you're not exactly middle of the road either.
Click to expand...

I hold extreme views or I am indifferent (only three possibilities with me), I am not a person of moderation - in anything. I don't like the murky middle - that should be pretty clear in my posts.

Street Pattern · Jan 29, 2014

I often find myself at odds with ideologues and absolutists. Human society and behavior are complicated by many factors, and rarely conform to anyone's simple theory.

Absolutism (left or right or religious or whataver) has the same emotional pull as paranoia. The absolutist, like the paranoid, feels special because he knows what's going on. He knows all the answers. Everybody else is wrong and therefore inferior to him. Because he's right, he feels no particular obligation to argue honestly or in good faith, or to seriously entertain data or arguments that contradict his point of view.

redux · Jan 29, 2014

Street Pattern said: ↑

I often find myself at odds with ideologues and absolutists. Human society and behavior are complicated by many factors, and rarely conform to anyone's simple theory.

Absolutism (left or right or religious or whataver) has the same emotional pull as paranoia. The absolutist, like the paranoid, feels special because he knows what's going on. He knows all the answers. Everybody else is wrong and therefore inferior to him. Because he's right, he feels no particular obligation to argue honestly or in good faith, or to seriously entertain data or arguments that contradict his point of view.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Public policy making is rarely as simple as ideologues extremists would like to make it, particularly if you consider the need to represent the majority while also protecting the minority. Which is why compromise and consensus-building are so important and have been since the founding of the Constitution (starting with the Great Compromise).

I consider myself a pragmatic progressive. I accept the fact that I wont always get what I want out of public policy and I will accept good policies at the expense of perfect policies (from a ideological perspective)..the Affordable Care Act is a good example when I prefer a single payer system.

Or as Voltaire said, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." As an extremist in a representative democracy, when you demand 100% of what you want, particularly when your position is out of the mainstream, you are more likely to get nothing at all. Take note Tea Party.

rogue49 · Jan 29, 2014

If you haven't noticed, I haven't posted much on the Dems...
However, to give some the benefit of the doubt, there's usually not much press out there on the Dems...and if there is a bit, it's all relatively blah.

Most of the juicy stuff coming out is either on the GOP or Obama.
With the GOP playing Lex Luthor to Obama's Superman...or vice versa, Obama playing Brainiac to the GOP's Justice League.
The Dems are like a guest star mostly observing the banter between the main antagonist & protagonist...but very necessary for the plot movement.

And now, depending on your viewpoint, one of your character players is in the news again.
Now this would be a very important twist to the plot.

Is this a fake or a fade?? Or are they just tired of getting the blame for it? Because it doesn't seem to be falling on Obama.
I guess it would be good to look like the nice guys in the coming elections.
But to be honest, it depends on how their local parties pressure them to play during the primaries and general election.
But I don't think they're going to fall to following their loud-mouths again.

That and the business community leaders are on them to keep the waters calm for investing and markets.

GOP ready to surrender on debt ceiling
By: Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan - January 28, 2014

House Republicans are getting ready to surrender: There will be no serious fight over the debt limit.

The most senior figures in the House Republican Conference are privately acknowledging that they will almost certainly have to pass what’s called a clean debt ceiling increase in the next few months, abandoning the central fight that has defined their three-year majority.

The reason for the shift in dynamics in this fight is clear. Congress has raised the debt limit twice in a row without drastic policy concessions from President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats, essentially ceding ground to Democrats. Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are again ruling out negotiations over the nation’s borrowing limit, which would leave Republicans fighting against a unified Democratic front. It’s a tricky situation for the GOP in an election year: They would have to pass a clean debt limit bill or risk default.

The vast majority of Democrats will vote against everything except a clean debt ceiling increase, so if Republicans try to tack extraneous policy onto a debt ceiling measure, they’ll have to pass it on their own. At least a dozen Republican aides and lawmakers are highly skeptical they will be able to craft something that will attract the support of 217 GOP lawmakers. In short, Republicans have few options and even less time: The Obama administration says the debt limit must be raised by the end of February. Republicans, though, are skeptical of that date.

“I’ve been saying publicly that once we voted for the budget, you knew that you were going to get a clean debt ceiling,” said conservative Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), referring to the recently passed budget deal that he voted against. “The time to fight for spending cuts is when you’re talking about spending, not at debt ceiling time. So when people caved on the budget and caved on the [Ryan-Murray] agreement, it’s really hard for them to come back and say, ‘We don’t want to increase the debt ceiling’ when they’ve already voted for something that increases the debt.”

Labrador added, “In my opinion, we should just pass a debt ceiling with Democratic votes, then they can go back to their constituents and explain why they don’t want to reform the way Washington is doing business.”

It’s against this backdrop that House Republicans are heading Wednesday to their annual policy retreat in Cambridge, Md. Unlike in past years, Republicans are intent on developing an agenda that goes beyond fiscal issues, holding a major session on immigration reform where Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) intends to unveil the broad principles that will guide the overhaul process in the House.

Discussion about what Republicans will try to extract as a concession for raising the borrowing limit won’t be completely absent from the gathering on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. Some in the party are already discussing attaching to the debt limit bill a provision to eliminate so-called health insurance risk corridors — a mechanism that allows health insurance companies to avoid premium spikes. Language that would instruct Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline has also been discussed.

Republicans might tack something onto legislation in an opening gambit, but observers would be wise to ignore it: It’s mostly just theater.

Abandoning a fight over the debt ceiling would be a major shift for Republicans. The creditworthiness of the United States has been at risk several times since Speaker John Boehner took the gavel in 2011. Repeatedly flirting with a debt default has been a political mess for Republicans, but these fights have forced Washington to cut trillions of dollars in spending.

The GOP has an easy out: They say Obama doesn’t want to negotiate.

“It’s clear that after watching what happened last fall, that the president is willing to take this country to default or shutdown … in order to cement his spending programs,” said Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.), who was a leading figure in the unsuccessful fight to strip funding from Obamacare during last fall’s government spending skirmish. “It’s very unfortunate that he’s unwilling to negotiate solutions that would fix some of these problems.”

Of course, shifting dynamics in either the Republican or Democratic Party could spark a fight over the borrowing limit. If Republicans find a proposal that could attract 217 of their own members — the number needed for House passage — Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) would put that bill on the floor. If they can craft a proposal that attracts significant Democratic support, that could also change the political dynamic. Neither appear likely.

Budget politics will get some time at the retreat: Former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin will hold an hourlong session on “America’s fiscal crisis.”

But no one is as dug in as they were in years past. Boehner, speaking to reporters Tuesday, didn’t seem nearly as resolute in holding up the debt limit as he has been in the past. The menu of options for dealing with the debt limit is thinning, he said.

“I don’t think we Republicans want to default on our debt,” Boehner said during a news conference at the Republican National Committee headquarters. “Secondly, the president has made clear he doesn’t want to negotiate. Thirdly, it’s become obvious to me after having tried to work with the president for the last three years that he will not deal with our long-term spending problems unless Republicans agree to raise taxes. And we are not going to raise taxes. And so the options available continue to be narrower in terms of how we address the issue of the debt ceiling, but I’m confident we’ll be able to find a way.”

The deadline is rapidly approaching. In a letter to Boehner, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said Congress should lift the debt limit some time in February. The Obama administration would like to see the ceiling lifted before Feb. 7 — although that might be difficult. Treasury said it must be done before the end of the month. Many senior Republican aides doubt this calculation but refuse to give an estimate of their own.

For now, conservatives aren’t giving up the fight. Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a member of leadership who is running for the Senate, is advocating for entitlement cuts to ride along the debt ceiling. That’s a virtual nonstarter for the Republican leadership.

Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise, chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, said he doesn’t “want to see a clean debt ceiling pass.” But, in an acknowledgement of the political distance between Republicans and the president, Scalise said: “Right now, you don’t see the president being willing to talk about solving the spending problem in Washington. We still need to push for that. That’s something I am still very interested in addressing.”

The political dynamics of abandoning the fight are tough for a Republican Party that’s made its mark by promising to get the nation’s fiscal house in order.

“If we can work through [the budget agreement], we can find a way to work that issue as well,” National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Greg Walden of Oregon said. “Stay tuned, we’ll come up with something on that.”

© 2014 POLITICO LLC
Click to expand...

Baraka_Guru · Jan 31, 2014

Is this the core of the GOP strategy?

Cory Doctorow: minghella: sandandglass: For a little...

rogue49 · Feb 11, 2014

All I can say it's about fuckin' time.
Not that Obama won anything, but that the GOP realized they can't hold the debt hostage.
It was a MAD scenario. (Mutually Assured Destruction)
And they kept coming out looking like big bad Mother Russia...instead of all American.

So the questions are these...
1. What "weapons" do they have in their arsenal, that they will leverage? (Many are disappearing)
2. Will they pay a price in their primaries vs. the more radical right?

Obama might have dodged hay-makers launched at him foolishly again and again,
but he's still weaving a bit and weary from the fight...with more rounds to go.
The GOP may get a 2nd wind...and go to the ground.

IT'S OFFICIAL: Obama Has Completely Dismantled The Debt Ceiling As A Political Weapon
By Brett LoGiurato

If there was any doubt after the government shutdown and last protracted battle over the debt ceiling, this cave from Republicans should make it clear: The debt ceiling is no longer a legitimate political weapon.

House Speaker John Boehner will bring a "clean" debt-ceiling increase to the floor on Tuesday night. For Republicans, it completes an epic swing in positions from 2011, when they first made the debt-ceiling increase a major vehicle to try to force spending cuts from President Barack Obama and Democrats.

Consider the swing: In 2011, Boehner established the rule in his namesake — "the Boehner rule," which required a dollar in cuts for every dollar raised in the debt ceiling. In 2013, the Boehner rule is dead. And in the end, even before Republican leaders conceded and said they would allow a "clean" hike to come to the floor, Republicans were talking about spending increases that would be attached with the bill.

It got to the point last week, when House leaders were considering a method called "pension smoothing" as a "pay-for" on debt-ceiling-related provisions, that some Democrats were left baffled. Because, as a Senate Democratic aide explained, every Senate Democrat had voted for the method as a "pay-for" on an extension of unemployment insurance the previous day.

"Every single Senate Democrat voted for pension smoothing yesterday as a pay-for on UI. I don’t know how Boehner is pitching this to his caucus — if we need to participate in the kabuki that they’re 'really getting one over on us' with something we’re actually fine with in order to avoid a worldwide financial calamity, then so be it," the aide said.

The dismantling of the debt ceiling as a weapon goes back to the fiscal cliff fight of late 2012, when Obama said that he wouldn't negotiate again with the full faith and credit of the U.S. on the table. He would not normalize that negotiation. That became the Democratic line, and they stuck to it. They have been remarkably unified in their stance, and it has largely worked in diffusing the threat.

Last January, House Republicans attached a "No Budget, No Pay" provision to a debt-limit suspension. In October, when Republicans agreed to reopen the government and suspend the debt ceiling again, there were no strings attached.

Democrats knew that, even though Republicans didn't want a fight over the debt ceiling this time, they had backed themselves into a corner. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, time after time called Republicans' bluff on the issue.

"As you all know, they have tried this before, and the bottom line is the story always ends with a debt-ceiling increase," Murray wrote in a late January memo to colleagues.

Democrats stuck to their position, while Republicans spent the better chunk of a month deciding what to do. When they finally did decide, it underscored how debt-ceiling brinksmanship is no longer a winning issue for the splintered caucus.

Republicans couldn't even unify around two legislative priorities — approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline or repeal of a provision of the Affordable Care Act — because too many members of the caucus oppose a debt-ceiling increase on principle.

They eventually settled on a restoration of military pension benefits as an add-on to the debt-ceiling increase. But that couldn't garner enough support, either, because conservatives realized that the vehicle they used to enact $1.2 trillion in cuts just 2.5 years ago was now being used to advance spending increases.

As Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, told Business Insider late last month: "That's the risk of painting yourself in a corner with no exit strategy."
Click to expand...

rogue49 · Mar 5, 2014

If the country is stupid enough to hand over the Congress fully to the GOP, then it deserves what it gets.
No ideas.
Radical ideology
Aggressive rhetoric
Exclusionary and xenophobic
No proven method
High unemployment
High spending
Military action without an out
No safety net
Tax cuts for corporations and the rich
Higher food costs
Higher energy costs
Even more corruption

I have yet to see where the current GOP has any good idea.
Yet, they benefit from the ADD of the US voter...and the languishing of those who don't participate.

I'm not saying the moderate philosophies of conservatives are incorrect.
But their application and execution sucks...and what they allow when they do come to power is abysmal.

I'd rather have the spineless pathetic pace...than the ignore the speed and traffic lights driving method.
At least we'd get to the goal alive...and with a car.

When you learn to drive safely...and remember there are passengers and pedestrians...call me.
Unfortunately, it seems that the public are going to get in the car with a drunk driver...again.

And the GOP economic plan is … ?
By: David Nather - March 5, 2014

It’s the sixth year of Barack Obama’s presidency, the job market is still sluggish, most Americans say they’re unhappy with the economy, and Obama’s approval ratings are down.

So what’s the Republican plan to turn it around?

The answer is, they don’t all think they need one and those who do can’t agree on a unified view. But some prominent Republicans are warning their compatriots that they need to get their act together — because just running against the Obama record isn’t going to be enough.

Especially if they want to be ready for 2016 … as in, see Romney, Mitt.

From all the outward signs, Republicans could do just fine in the midterms. GOP strategists say voters are so frustrated with the economy that they’re ready to give Republicans a chance, and could hand them the keys to the Senate as well as the House. The problems with the Obamacare rollout haven’t exactly helped Democrats, either.

But it’s one thing to run against the “Obama/Mark Pryor economy” — or the Obama/any-red-state-Democrat economy — and another to lay out the positive alternatives. Some Republicans and influential conservatives are warning the party that if they don’t lay out alternatives, they’ll miss a big opportunity.

Their argument: Voters are ready to listen to Republicans, but they’d better have something to say. Fighting Obamacare can be part of the conversation, they say, because Republicans can make the case that it has economic impact — but the conversation can’t end there.

And if all they do is run against the Obama record and hope that’s enough, these Republicans and conservative thinkers say, that’s what Romney did in 2012 — and it didn’t work.

“This is a time when the party out of power should have these kinds of discussions,” said Pete Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics & Public Policy Center and a former adviser to President George W. Bush.

Even if the Republicans could do well in the midterms just running against the problems with Obama’s record — as they did in the 2010 midterm elections — they won’t be laying the groundwork for 2016, when the party will need to be ready with economic plans, he said.

“My concern is that [Obama’s record] creates a false dawn, just like 2010 did, and it reinforces the view of people who don’t want to put forward a positive vision,” Wehner said. “It might not hurt them in 2014, but it could hurt them in 2016.”

David Winston, House Speaker John Boehner’s pollster, says the party needs to have a clear focus leading up to the midterms: “As a political party, you need to be addressing the No. 1 issue concern as identified by the electorate. In this case, there’s no question it’s jobs and the economy.”

Some prominent Republicans already are on board. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has framed the GOP legislative agenda for this year around the theme of “An America That Works,” outlining plans in National Review — and in a memo to House Republicans — that put the spotlight on economic themes, such as regulatory relief and skills training to help create jobs. That’s based on the speech Cantor gave to House Republicans at their retreat in Cambridge, Md., in January, when he told rank-and-file members that the party needs to present its own ideas to the public, not just criticize Obama’s record, according to aides.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp is framing his tax reform plan as an economic agenda, too. He says it would create 1.8 million new jobs, and pitched it as a way to “start offering concrete solutions and debating real policies that strengthen the economy and help hardworking taxpayers.”

There’s more on the way. Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio is preparing to put out his own seven-point jobs plan that he says will include “pro-growth tax reform,” regulatory relief, expanded exports and opening up public lands for more energy exploration.

And Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman and former vice presidential candidate, is preparing another balanced-budget plan this year that will give House Republicans a platform to talk about their economic policies. “We’ve got to show that we are capable of governing and of leading this country. And we have to offer better ideas,” Ryan told an audience at a Cantor campaign breakfast in Richmond last week, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

The problem is, individual legislative efforts don’t always get much national attention — especially when they’re freelance efforts like Portman’s — and the ones cobbled together by the party leadership don’t always have a lot of meat on the bones. (Did you know there was a House Republican Plan for Economic Growth and Jobs? It’s light reading — each issue gets a sentence.)

That doesn’t necessarily mean they need to nationalize the election with one agenda, like House Republicans’ “Contract With America” in 1994 or their “Pledge to America” in 2010. But Republican candidates should at least have their own economic alternatives, said GOP pollster Whit Ayres: “What would you do differently? What’s your plan?”

And there’s so much dissatisfaction with the economy that “the environment is probably closer to a national election” than most midterms, said Republican pollster Ed Goeas, noting that 77 percent of voters in the January George Washington University Battleground Poll said their personal economic situation has either stayed the same or gotten worse over the past four years.

To many Republicans, though, the easiest way to say they’ve talked about the economy is to bash Obamacare.

In their view, fighting Obamacare is so central to their economic message that they’re content to keep the focus there. When Rep. Tom Cotton, the Arkansas Republican who’s running a strong race to unseat Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor, delivered the national GOP weekly address on Feb. 22, it was about Obamacare — with just a quick nod to the lagging economic recovery.

And Cotton is hardly an outlier. Of the 21 weekly Republican addresses since October — when the disastrous health care rollout began — 12 have been about Obamacare. Just three, in late January and early February, have had a clear focus on the economy and jobs.

That’s pretty far out of balance with what voters are calling the top priorities in this election. In February, unemployment ranked as the most important problem facing the country in a Gallup poll, with 23 percent of Americans putting jobs and unemployment at the top of the list. Health care ranked fourth, behind jobs, the economy in general and dissatisfaction with government.

“You can’t get around the fact that the voters would want the candidates to be talking about the economy and jobs,” as well as government’s ability to function in general, said Frank Newport, Gallup’s editor in chief. “Clearly, health care is near the top of the list, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Obamacare, good or bad. It just means health care is on their minds.”

In an interview, Cotton acknowledged that Arkansas voters are asking him plenty of questions about the economy, but he insists the two are tied so closely that they should be part of the same discussion.

“I hear as much from voters about the economy as I do about Obamacare, but they see them as really tightly linked,” Cotton said. “If your premiums are doubling or tripling, that reduces your take-home pay. If your employer is reducing your hours … that reduces your take-home pay.”

It’s not that other Republicans worry that Obamacare is off-topic in an election about the economy. They say the Congressional Budget Office gave them a clear economic tie-in with its report that found the law creates incentives to reduce work hours. Cantor says the House will take up a bill this month to rewrite the law’s employer health coverage mandate to define full-time work as 40 hours or more, rather than 30 hours, so businesses don’t cut back on people’s work hours.

And Republicans jumped on a report from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that said 65 percent of small businesses will see their premiums go up under the health care law, while just 35 percent will have their rates go down. Boehner called the small-business premiums report “another sucker punch to our economy.”

But other Republicans and conservative analysts say fighting Obamacare shouldn’t be the beginning and end of the discussion about fixing the economy.

“I think the Republicans are right to make it a central focus, and Democrats are right to be nervous about it,” Wehner said. “But that just is not enough, and I hope Republicans don’t think it’s enough.”

It’s not an easy call for everyone in the GOP. Some Republicans aren’t convinced that it makes sense for candidates to put out more than general principles on the economy — because the more specific their plans get, the easier it is for their opponents to pick them apart.

If a Senate Republican candidate has a 10-point lead, “providing more grist is not going to be something you want to do,” said one GOP consultant who is working on Senate races. “I don’t think that gets you anywhere.”

But to Republicans and conservatives who say the party can’t just run against the Obama record, one point comes up over and over in the conversations: Look at what happened to Romney.

In their view, the Romney campaign thought he could just run against Obama, slam his economic record, and play it safe on the policies — and voters would pick Romney because they were so dissatisfied with Obama. Even Ryan, his running mate, was restrained in spelling out policy details.

It’s true that Obama was vulnerable on the economy. In the exit polls that year, 77 percent of voters said the national economic condition was “not so good” or “poor.”

And yet, somehow, there is no President Romney.

“I think that was implicitly the thinking of the Romney campaign,” said Yuval Levin, editor of the conservative policy journal National Affairs. “They didn’t want to get in their own way … I think that was a mistake.”

Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute, who has written a “Jobs Agenda for the Right,” says Republicans could probably “get away with” just playing to the base and running against Obama’s record. But “a better strategy that looks beyond 2014, and looks ahead to 2016, 2018 and 2020, is not just to be negative, but to say, ‘Here are our ideas. And here’s what we think government should be doing, not just what it shouldn’t be doing.’”

In Strain’s view, what government should do on jobs is to spend money differently to help the long-term unemployed — by offering relocation subsidies to help them move to where the jobs are, and by letting employers pay them less and offering wage subsidies to make up the difference.

And Wehner has written that “conservatives should offer a menu of structural reforms that do not simply attack government but transform it on conservative terms” — including the usual suspects like entitlement programs but also education, the Tax Code, infrastructure repairs and immigration.

Cantor’s packaging of the legislative agenda doesn’t go quite that far — you won’t find hot-button issues like entitlement reform or immigration on the list. Instead, he says the House will focus on measures to cut back on regulations, including one that would make agencies consider how their regulations would affect jobs in wages in specific industries.

House Republicans also will keep the pressure on the Senate to take up the “SKILLS Act” it passed last year, an easy way to keep job training in the conversation. The bill would wipe out a series of programs the GOP considers ineffective and make it easier for community colleges to participate in job training. (Democrats say it would hurt disadvantaged people and “eliminates programs for the sake of eliminating programs,” which means a Senate vote probably isn’t likely anytime soon.)

And Cantor says the House will vote on an alternative to Obamacare, though it’s not clear yet exactly what that will be. Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.) said at a POLITICO health care breakfast briefing Wednesday that getting Republicans to agree on one plan has been like “herding cats,” and the House could end up voting on “multiple bills” rather than one alternative.

Not all Republicans think it’s a good idea to be pushing economic alternatives that become political targets on their own. Camp, in particular, has gotten pushback against his tax reform proposals from Republicans who don’t think it’s a good idea to spell out who’s going to lose what loophole — and who’s going to have to pay higher rates — when the plan has no chance of becoming law this year. (Boehner offered only that it’s “the beginning of the conversation.”)

And even some conservatives who say the GOP should develop its own ideas don’t think it’s necessarily a priority for 2014.

“I think that’s ’16. I don’t think that’s ’14,” because no one expects Republicans to be able to pass an economic plan without the White House, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the American Action Forum. For now, the GOP should just make the case that whenever Obama and the Democrats are faced with a choice between economic growth and a social objective — like Obamacare — they “always pick against growth,” Holtz-Eakin said.

But other influential conservatives argue that Republicans will never gain a mandate for their economic ideas if they don’t start building it now.

“I’m not moved by the argument that by creating a target, you’re undermining your chances,” Levin said. “You have to gain some kind of mandate, and you can only do that by spelling out what you’re for.”

© 2014 POLITICO LLC
Click to expand...

rogue49 · Mar 6, 2014

And to add on to my rant of last night...
It's THESE type of antics that just piss me the fuck off.

Why can't the GOP do things in moderation and consideration?? I'm not ideologically opposed to them.
Is it because they are losing momentum in the population trends??
Or is it just in their nature to be constantly assholes??

Darrell Issa silences Democrats and hits a new low
By Dana Milbank, Published: March 5

Darrell Issa, chairman of the House committee leading numerous investigations of the Obama administration, found a new way to silence Democratic critics who question his actions: He shut off the microphones.

The California Republican had said that Lois Lerner, a key figure in the IRS targeting of tea party groups, would testify before his House Oversight and Government Reform panel on Wednesday, but instead she refused to answer questions. After Issa forced Lerner to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights no fewer than 10 times, the committee’s top Democrat, Elijah Cummings (Md.), raised his hand to speak.

Issa looked at Cummings, ignored him, adjourned the hearing and slammed down the gavel.

“Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?” Cummings bellowed.

Issa, who was gathering his papers, turned around. “We’ve adjourned,” he said.

“Mr. Chairman, you cannot run a committee like this,” Cummings fumed. “We’re better than that as a committee. I have asked for a few minutes to ask a procedural — ”

Issa had stood up and now pressed a button in front of him that silenced Cummings’s microphone.

But the Democrat, who has a booming voice, continued to speak, and the microphones went back on whenever Issa released his override button. Finally, Issa made a throat-slitting gesture to his staff and said, “Close it down.” The sound system went dead.

Issa and fellow Republicans walked off to cries of “Shame!”

“Mr. Chairman,” Cummings called after Issa, “what are you hiding?”

Said Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.), “He’s taking the Fifth, Elijah.”

Even by today’s low standard of civility in Congress, calling a hearing and then not allowing minority lawmakers to utter a single word is rather unusual. But Issa, now in the fourth and final year of his chairmanship, is an unusual man.

Earlier in his capricious tenure, he banned Democratic witness Sandra Fluke from a panel about birth control, leaving an all-male slate of witnesses and giving his Republican Party a major embarrassment. His hearings have been chaotic affairs in which he talks over members of his panel, and he has often discredited his committee’s investigations by making incendiary accusations that turn out to be unfounded.

His latest: speculating at a fundraiser last month about why Pentagon assets were not mobilized to protect American facilities in Benghazi, Libya, when they were attacked in 2012 because Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton “told them to stand down.” But the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee found that there were no such orders. “Well,” Issa told Fox News’s Chris Wallace when pressed about this on Sunday, “the use in answering questions in a political fundraiser, that was in response to a question, the term ‘stand down’ is not used in some sort of an explicit way.”

On the IRS, similarly, Issa had said that it was “the targeting of the president’s political enemies effectively and lies about it,” and that he would prove it was directed “out of Washington headquarters.” But Issa found no such proof, and on Wednesday he acknowledged that “roads lead to Ms. Lerner.”

Issa told Wallace on Sunday that Lerner’s “attorney indicates now that she will testify” after refusing to do so at a hearing last year. The lawyer denied this, and Lerner did not testify Wednesday — and that would have been the news, if not for Issa’s sound-system antics. Because it was technically a continuation of last year’s appearance by Lerner, Issa didn’t allow opening statements, and he didn’t let his Democratic counterpart speak after Lerner had declined to testify.

“Now you’re turning me off?” Cummings said, incredulously, as Issa pressed the silencing button.

Issa must have realized it didn’t look good for him to be standing and holding the mute button while the ranking Democrat spoke. He briefly sat and allowed Cummings to speak, but then stood and silenced the microphone again.

“I am a member of the Congress of the United States of America! I am tired of this!” Cummings shouted. “You cannot just have a one-sided investigation. . . . It is absolutely un-American.”

Issa gave Cummings a look of loathing and said, quietly, “We had a hearing. It is adjourned. I gave you an opportunity to ask a question. You have no question.”

While Cummings continued to read his unamplified statement, Issa walked out and was asked by reporters in the hallway why he shut the sound. “He was actually slandering me at the moment that the mikes did go off by claiming that this had not been a real investigation,” Issa said. “This has been a bipartisan investigation.”

Bipartisan: one party to protest, and the other party to unplug the microphones.

© The Washington Post Company
Click to expand...

ASU2003 · Mar 6, 2014

And I want to know what the Democrats are going to be running on this year. What are they going to propose to get people to vote from them instead? Where are the national conventions and think tanks for the Democrats to get on the same page and win over other voters?

And why does the media keep pushing controversy over what is actually happening? Why isn't covering the inaccurate stories and opinions a news story?

rogue49 · Mar 6, 2014

ASU2003 said: ↑

And I want to know what the Democrats are going to be running on this year. What are they going to propose to get people to vote from them instead? Where are the national conventions and think tanks for the Democrats to get on the same page and win over other voters?

And why does the media keep pushing controversy over what is actually happening? Why isn't covering the inaccurate stories and opinions a news story?
Click to expand...

Because the media likes a controversy...it sells.
And they really have nothing else on the Dems, everything else is how the GOP'rs keep screwing up or saying outlandish things.

What I want to know is...why don't the Dems simply do a "impending doom" ads push on the GOP??? Like they do to them.
State everything the GOP has done wrong...remind the masses. Question why they do what they do.
Then strike with how they'd help the public.

The thing is...the GOP has the advantage, simply because they have the energized base. They vote every election.
But the Dems base, only come out in volume during cycles with Presidential elections. So the GOP wins more by default.
The Dems need to figure out how to get out the vote.
If they do, they win.

The GOP really needs to figure out how to get their moderates back on top...and how to shut up their crazies.
Actually, there are many that would like to vote for them...but are cringing and are afraid of the consequences.

ASU2003 · Mar 6, 2014

The Democrats need a platform that is fair and centered on good policies from the past and how it could help the country in the future. They also need to figure out how to get people motivated to vote, even though the right-wing people who were elected in 2010 and 2012 in Ohio are trying to make it as hard as possible for the non-ultra-motivated and low-income areas to vote.

rogue49 · Mar 13, 2014

Can the GOP waste any more time...instead of doing work?

House backs bill to sue president over laws

The Senate will block this...then even if it passes, it's vetoed instantly.
This thing won't see the light of day.

They complain they are being "primaried"
then they cater to those voting in the primary.

Do something useful for a change. Do some work.

Street Pattern · Mar 13, 2014

rogue49 said: ↑

Can the GOP waste any more time...instead of doing work?

Do something useful for a change. Do some work.
Click to expand...

"We have got this tailspin of culture, among Republicans in particular, of politicians not working, and just generations of congressmen not even thinking about working or learning the process of governance," Paul Ryan said (as amended).

Baraka_Guru · Mar 13, 2014

Not everyone in the party can be morally, politically, and intellectually bankrupt.

Can they?

rogue49 · Mar 13, 2014

Street Pattern said: ↑

"We have got this tailspin of culture, among Republicans in particular, of politicians not working, and just generations of congressmen not even thinking about working or learning the process of governance," Paul Ryan said (as amended).
Click to expand...

Wow, a glimmer of hope.
Now if we can get them all aboard.

Street Pattern · Mar 13, 2014

rogue49 said: ↑

Wow, a glimmer of hope.
Click to expand...

(Note the "as amended". If you follow the link, you'll see he wasn't actually talking about politicians.)

rogue49 · Mar 14, 2014

Street Pattern said: ↑

(Note the "as amended". If you follow the link, you'll see he wasn't actually talking about politicians.)
Click to expand...

Ah...I get it now.
I've still got a naive side to me...I need to get my cynical side sharpened.
Then again, my definition of cynical is an optimist who's been slapped around by life and others.
Just another slap...

Log in or Sign up

Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Street Pattern Very Tilted

redux Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

ASU2003 Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

ASU2003 Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Street Pattern Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Street Pattern Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Log in or Sign up

Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Street Pattern Very Tilted

redux Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

ASU2003 Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

ASU2003 Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Street Pattern Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Street Pattern Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Useful Searches