The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: famousdayandyear on October 12, 2013, 07:05:42 am
-
http://lonelyconservative.com/2013/10/republicans-cave-offer-obama-just-about-everything-he-wants/ (http://lonelyconservative.com/2013/10/republicans-cave-offer-obama-just-about-everything-he-wants/)
Republicans Cave, Offer Obama Just About Everything He Wants
by Lonely Conservative • October 11, 2013 • 19 Comments
My first thought when I heard how the Republicans caved to Obama is “We’re just screwed.” Not much has changed. They pretty much have offered him everything he wants, in exchange for a promise to negotiate in the future. Sound familiar?
Aside from reopening the government and agreeing to raise America’s debt over the current $16.7 trillion limit, the Republicans made several other concession to President Obama and the Democrats. One such example is that Obamacare would receive funding. The Republicans would get to take out a portion of the president’s signature legislation, but the law would substantially remain intact. The AP reports:
Under a proposal she and other GOP senators have been developing, a medical device tax that helps finance the health care law would be repealed, and millions of individuals eligible for subsidies to purchase health insurance under the program would be subject to stronger income verification.
In addition, some of the across-the-board “sequester” cuts would be reversed under the GOP plan. It has not been determined which specific cuts will be targeted at this time.
In exchange for meeting, at least momentarily, all of Obama’s demands, the House GOP is seeking a “framework” for future negotiations on addressing longer-term budget issues. (Read More)
To be honest, at this point I don’t care what Republicans do anymore. Maybe they should just go home and let the Democrats have their way. No matter what happens, they’re going to be blamed by the media and the Democrats, so why not just leave and say “we’re done.”
Update, Although the GOP offered Obama just about everything he wanted, they didn’t offer everything. So he has rejected their offer. What a piece of crap.
-
How can this be? I thought the grass roots was going to rise up and demand the GOP stay strong. This couldn't be a sign of the power of the Tea Party could it? Like when they stopped immigration reform and gun restrictions? Looks like the Tea Party couldn't outmatch Boehner the rook of the Illuminati. What is so bizarre about this is the number one issue of the Tea Party is opposition to Obamacare. It is the cause of the birth of the movement, but when the GOP stood strong for 2 weeks the public didn't rally around the GOP. Even though polls showed 80% of Americans felt no effect from the shutdown the American people seemed angry at the GOP for saving the American people from Obamacare
I can't understand this. Did conservatives forget to call their Congressmen? My rat Congressman http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/426791/june-03-2013/better-know-a-district---wisconsin-s-2nd---mark-pocan (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/426791/june-03-2013/better-know-a-district---wisconsin-s-2nd---mark-pocan) was not receptive to my demands he defund Obamacare even though I informed him the American people were behind me and he would pay a heavy price...right after the Tea Party expunges tyrant Senator Ron Johnson http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/08/tea-party-backed-senator-shutting-down-the-government-wasnt-the-best-strategy/ . Johnson is one of those 25 Senators who voted against Cruz 2 weeks ago and hijacked the plan.
And that in itself is a wake up call. Here are the targets.
These weak spine GOP Senators betrayed the American people by voting to send the CR back to the House with ObamaCare funding.
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Chiesa
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Graham
Hoeven
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Thune
Wicker
Only 19 GOP Senators voted with Cruz
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Grassley
Heller
Inhofe
Lee
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Toomey
Vitter
Cruz really sucks at convincing his colleagues. Boehner actually passed Cruz's CR and Cruz couldn't even muster half his guys. Just these 19.
Jiminey Cricket on crutches! Is that Portmans name on the list? Who is he trying to kid? That guy voted for the prescription drug entitlement, No Child Left Behind, and he's pro homo. Conservatives should drop Heller and Rubio who voted for AMNESTY! Sessions and Grassley voted for the Freddy Mac/Fanny May bailout in 2007 and Grassley voted for TARP too. So that's 14 solid conservatives who...wait a minute. Shelby refused to sign the Cruz pledge http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/top-republicans-refuse-sign-pledge-de-fund-obamacare. I dunno. He could be just be covering his a$$ from the butt whipping that will befall all who refuse to do their duty. 13.5 Freedom Fighters with courage! What more do you need to change the world.
ur...now that I think about it...Crapo and Risch voted for the odious public land grab Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009...and then there's big wind Jerry http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2012/02/21/senator-jerry-moran-wants-to-pick-losers-in-the-market-his-choice-is-big-wind/
So who does that leave?
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Inhofe
Lee
Paul
Roberts
Scott
Shelby - .5
Toomey
Vitter
10.5 conservatives, real patriot conservatives with guts, and yet, probably still over represented in the Senate. These are the only Senators conservatives can trust, and I ain't too sure about them either. Scott has been real chummy with Graham http://www.gopwrite.com/1/post/2013/07/graham-gives-scott-big-boost.html. If conservatives are so poorly represented in our government, pretty soon you got to start considering that...
even though we all know the majority of Americans are conservative because it is shouted so often...I think they must be somehow brainwashed into voting for liberals and RINOs.
Maybe it is high time conservatives stopped talking about a 3rd party and got to gettin'.
-
(note: too long to insert quote)
Nice work here.
My "senator" Burr drank the Kool-Aid. Beyond repair. Three more yrs left.
Oh my lawd.
-
How can this be? I thought the grass roots was going to rise up and demand the GOP stay strong. This couldn't be a sign of the power of the Tea Party could it? Like when they stopped immigration reform and gun restrictions? Looks like the Tea Party couldn't outmatch Boehner the rook of the Illuminati. What is so bizarre about this is the number one issue of the Tea Party is opposition to Obamacare. It is the cause of the birth of the movement, but when the GOP stood strong for 2 weeks the public didn't rally around the GOP. Even though polls showed 80% of Americans felt no effect from the shutdown the American people seemed angry at the GOP for saving the American people from Obamacare
I can't understand this. Did conservatives forget to call their Congressmen? My rat Congressman http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/426791/june-03-2013/better-know-a-district---wisconsin-s-2nd---mark-pocan (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/426791/june-03-2013/better-know-a-district---wisconsin-s-2nd---mark-pocan) was not receptive to my demands he defund Obamacare even though I informed him the American people were behind me and he would pay a heavy price...right after the Tea Party expunges tyrant Senator Ron Johnson http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/08/tea-party-backed-senator-shutting-down-the-government-wasnt-the-best-strategy/ . Johnson is one of those 25 Senators who voted against Cruz 2 weeks ago and hijacked the plan.
And that in itself is a wake up call. Here are the targets.
These weak spine GOP Senators betrayed the American people by voting to send the CR back to the House with ObamaCare funding.
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Chiesa
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Graham
Hoeven
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Thune
Wicker
Only 19 GOP Senators voted with Cruz
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Grassley
Heller
Inhofe
Lee
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Toomey
Vitter
Cruz really sucks at convincing his colleagues. Boehner actually passed Cruz's CR and Cruz couldn't even muster half his guys. Just these 19.
Jiminey Cricket on crutches! Is that Portmans name on the list? Who is he trying to kid? That guy voted for the prescription drug entitlement, No Child Left Behind, and he's pro homo. Conservatives should drop Heller and Rubio who voted for AMNESTY! Sessions and Grassley voted for the Freddy Mac/Fanny May bailout in 2007 and Grassley voted for TARP too. So that's 14 solid conservatives who...wait a minute. Shelby refused to sign the Cruz pledge http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/top-republicans-refuse-sign-pledge-de-fund-obamacare. I dunno. He could be just be covering his a$$ from the butt whipping that will befall all who refuse to do their duty. 13.5 Freedom Fighters with courage! What more do you need to change the world.
ur...now that I think about it...Crapo and Risch voted for the odious public land grab Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009...and then there's big wind Jerry http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2012/02/21/senator-jerry-moran-wants-to-pick-losers-in-the-market-his-choice-is-big-wind/
So who does that leave?
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Inhofe
Lee
Paul
Roberts
Scott
Shelby - .5
Toomey
Vitter
10.5 conservatives, real patriot conservatives with guts, and yet, probably still over represented in the Senate. These are the only Senators conservatives can trust, and I ain't too sure about them either. Scott has been real chummy with Graham http://www.gopwrite.com/1/post/2013/07/graham-gives-scott-big-boost.html. If conservatives are so poorly represented in our government, pretty soon you got to start considering that...
even though we all know the majority of Americans are conservative because it is shouted so often...I think they must be somehow brainwashed into voting for liberals and RINOs.
Maybe it is high time conservatives stopped talking about a 3rd party and got to gettin'.
And maybe it's high time moderate republicans stopped bad mouthing other republicans and stopped acting so much like democrats and a little more like people with some political spine.
-
That 3 years is a long time to find a replacement.
-
And maybe it's high time moderate republicans stopped bad mouthing other republicans and stopped acting so much like democrats and a little more like people with some political spine.
I look forward to your defense of McCain Graham and the majority of GOP Senators who voted for a clean CR when they get attacked. And your defense of Boehner when conservatives are excoriating him. Or is your 11th commandment different than Reagan's. If Reagan was a conservative he naturally wouldn't speak ill of his fellow conservatives, so his 11th commandment must have been an instruction to stop acting like democrats and stop attacking moderates.
-
I look forward to your defense of McCain Graham and the majority of GOP Senators who voted for a clean CR when they get attacked. And your defense of Boehner when conservatives are excoriating him. Or is your 11th commandment different than Reagan's. If Reagan was a conservative he naturally wouldn't speak ill of his fellow conservatives, so his 11th commandment must have been an instruction to stop acting like democrats and stop attacking moderates.
Sorry. I'm slow on the uptake to the response here. Would you take more time to elaborate for us backbenchers? Thanks in advance.
-
And maybe it's high time moderate republicans stopped bad mouthing other republicans and stopped acting so much like democrats and a little more like people with some political spine.
Awwwww. Poor little picked-on Cruzites!! They can label their fellow Republicans Nazi enablers, but let someone dare question their tactics, and immediately the 11th Commandment is invoked.
The 11th Commandment is not uni-directional.
-
Sorry. I'm slow on the uptake to the response here. Would you take more time to elaborate for us backbenchers? Thanks in advance.
Sure. Reagan is considered by many as our greatest conservative President. He could have said "thou shall not speak ill of conservatives," but instead said "thou shall not speak ill of Republicans." There were many Republicans who disagreed with Reagan. It stands to reason that Reagan's commandment is an admonition to not speak badly about Republicans who disagreed with Reagan. That Reagan would think it a bad idea to attack people who agreed with him is a truth that doesn't need to be stated except to the most dense of ideologue.
-
Sure. Reagan is considered by many as our greatest conservative President. He could have said "thou shall not speak ill of conservatives," but instead said "thou shall not speak ill of Republicans." There were many Republicans who disagreed with Reagan. It stands to reason that Reagan's commandment is an admonition to not speak badly about Republicans who disagreed with Reagan. That Reagan would think it a bad idea to attack people who agreed with him is a truth that doesn't need to be stated except to the most dense of ideologue.
Well, if I remember correctly, it was John McCain that started the republican name calling when he called Cruz & some of the other conservatives a "wacko bird." Then again, McCain is not a moderate, he's a democrat without using the word lite.
-
Well, if I remember correctly, it was John McCain that started the republican name calling when he called Cruz & some of the other conservatives a "wacko bird." Then again, McCain is not a moderate, he's a democrat without using the word lite.
OK 11th Commandment do your stuff. Olivia has called a Republican who earned a perfect 100 score from the American Conservative Union in 2010, and the 2008 GOP presidential nominee a democrat. Boy, are you gonna get it now Olivia.
-
You know one thing I like about our new poster Liberal Spy -- he actually has the nerve to ADMIT he is a liberal - unlike some other posters who "claim" they are Republicans and only support the Progressive Republicans who are destroying the GOP from within. I will take a honest liberal over a dishonest Republican any day of the week.
-
McCain was not even a little conservative in 2010 no matter what group claims it.
-
You know one thing I like about our new poster Liberal Spy -- he actually has the nerve to ADMIT he is a liberal - unlike some other posters who "claim" they are Republicans and only support the Progressive Republicans who are destroying the GOP from within. I will take a honest liberal over a dishonest Republican any day of the week.
Yeah. Those Republicans who warned that Cruz was taking the GOP down a rat hole with his insistence on defunding Obamacare are sure destroying the party.
Why don't you take a look at that 24% approval rating for Republicans, the lowest since polling began. Your boys Cruz and Lee are responsible for that.
And guess what? They had no strategy beyond shutting down the government and the GOP is going to get NOTHING out of this shutdown except a tarnished image. The good news is, though, the rest of the party in Congress has listened to the Tea Party for the last time and won't allow them to pull this shutdown stuff again.
-
Yeah. Those Republicans who warned that Cruz was taking the GOP down a rat hole with his insistence on defunding Obamacare are sure destroying the party.
Why don't you take a look at that 24% approval rating for Republicans, the lowest since polling began. Your boys Cruz and Lee are responsible for that.
And guess what? They had no strategy beyond shutting down the government and the GOP is going to get NOTHING out of this shutdown except a tarnished image. The good news is, though, the rest of the party in Congress has listened to the Tea Party for the last time and won't allow them to pull this shutdown stuff again.
And once again you make up your personal paradigm and ignore posts showing you how badly the had to skew their pols (Democrats vs Republicans) to make it seem bad for the GOP. How are those rainbows and unicorns working out for you in later La la land. At least Cruz is working for the people instead if K Street.. but then we all know you prefer K street.
-
And once again you make up your personal paradigm and ignore posts showing you how badly the had to skew their pols (Democrats vs Republicans) to make it seem bad for the GOP. How are those rainbows and unicorns working out for you in later La la land. At least Cruz is working for the people instead if K Street.. but then we all know you prefer K street.
Of course, polls are always wrong (when they show Republicans in the ditch) but always right when they show Obama at 37%.
Talk about la la land. After last November, you ought to have second thoughts about the fallacy of polls.
Cruz is working for Cruz. If you know anything about his life, you surely know that.
-
Of course, polls are always wrong (when they show Republicans in the ditch) but always right when they show Obama at 37%.
Talk about la la land. After last November, you ought to have second thoughts about the fallacy of polls.
Cruz is working for Cruz. If you know anything about his life, you surely know that.
You hate all conservatives with a passion that runs deep... and - of course - the only thing worse in your mind than a conservative is a female conservative)... but your hatred for Cruz is disgusting. He has more brains in his little finger than most people will ever have.
-
I will take a honest liberal over a dishonest Republican any day of the week.
I ain't never found an honest liberal.
-
You hate all conservatives with a passion that runs deep... and - of course - the only thing worse in your mind than a conservative is a female conservative)... but your hatred for Cruz is disgusting. He has more brains in his little finger than most people will ever have.
Your narrow vision of "conservative" would leave out Ronald Reagan, were he still around. He raised taxes three times and grew the size of government.
And there you go again with the rabid hyperbole. There are plenty of conservative women I admire who aren't half-term Alaska governors.
And Ted Cruz, again, is out for himself. He'll come out of this smelling pretty good with his massive email lists. By the way, a story I'm about to post indicates that Cruz is no longer accepting constituent calls in his Houston office. Wonder why that is?
-
There you go skewing the truth about Reagan again, too... you love to twist these conservatives around to fit your paradigm.. I bet you fit right in over on DU.
-
There you go skewing the truth about Reagan again, too... you love to twist these conservatives around to fit your paradigm.. I bet you fit right in over on DU.
It is a FACT that Reagan raised taxes three times and did now even slow down the growth of government.
What is DU?
-
The assumption that "Tea Party" is a winning brand, is not proved at present. In fact several polls show it losing 10 to 20 points in approval polling.
What happens online is an ever declining demographic, talking among themselves, remains convinced they are winning.
Polls refute it, so they deny the polls. But the info is there, even if you close your eyes and cover your ears.
https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=tea+party+approval+rating+2013&oq=tea+party+approval&gs_l=hp.1.0.35i39j0i20j0l2j0i22i30l6.1233.6116.0.10142.18.18.0.0.0.0.264.2247.3j13j2.18.0....0...1c.1.28.hp..0.18.2238.wQclJdjXPYY
-
It is a FACT that Reagan raised taxes three times and did now even slow down the growth of government.
What is DU?
Seriously, every person with even the slightest knowledge of history and doesn't have a liberal agenda, knows that the 'Reagan raised taxes three times' is twisting the facts in the same way as Obama's saved or created math. It is the the old gross versus net fallacy. The net result was drastic tax cuts under Reagan, even in those areas where after they were cut, they then went up a small amount. To put it simply, he cuts a tax 50% then that goes up 4% and people are only focusing on the 4% it went up and not the 50% it was already cut.
-
It is a FACT that Reagan raised taxes three times and did now even slow down the growth of government.
What is DU?
Don't Olay coy with us. You know what it is. Democrat Underground. You are so good at regurgitating their talking points...
-
Seriously, every person with even the slightest knowledge of history and doesn't have a liberal agenda, knows that the 'Reagan raised taxes three times' is twisting the facts in the same way as Obama's saved or created math. It is the the old gross versus net fallacy. The net result was drastic tax cuts under Reagan, even in those areas where after they were cut, they then went up a small amount. To put it simply, he cuts a tax 50% then that goes up 4% and people are only focusing on the 4% it went up and not the 50% it was already cut.
I believe sinkspur's point is that today, people get called "rino" by the current version of "true conservative" for departures from dogma, of the same type that Reagan did over and over.
During the Reagan years, I understood what he did, and why he did it, until amnesty. That pushed me over the edge. It taught me to NEVER become emotionally invested in any politician. Not even Ronald Reagan.
For sinkspur to be called a DU type for telling the truth about Reagan, is unbefitting this site, and all the more so, by a mod.
But is a reflection of the same type of political judgment, and perspective, that throws name calling around, as an ordinary manner of what passes as discourse, but not civil discourse.
A party in decline, along with its subsets and practices.
-
I believe sinkspur's point is that today, people get called "rino" by the current version of "true conservative" for departures from dogma, of the same type that Reagan did over and over.
During the Reagan years, I understood what he did, and why he did it, until amnesty. That pushed me over the edge. It taught me to NEVER become emotionally invested in any politician. Not even Ronald Reagan.
For sinkspur to be called a DU type for telling the truth about Reagan, is unbefitting this site, and all the more so, by a mod.
But is a reflection of the same type of political judgment, and perspective, that throws name calling around, as an ordinary manner of what passes as discourse, but not civil discourse.
A party in decline, along with its subsets and practices.
I am seriously enjoying your dispassionate and reasoned posts on this thread.
-
For sinkspur to be called a DU type for telling the truth about Reagan.....
Except he isn't telling the truth. A half-truth at best but by playing the same 'gross/net' game the left does in claiming Reagan raised taxes (when he had a net cut). Those kind of crap games should be called out. It is the same kind of numbers lying Obama uses when he claims to have cut the deficit in half.
-
Except he isn't telling the truth. A half-truth at best but by playing the same 'gross/net' game the left does in claiming Reagan raised taxes (when he had a net cut). Those kind of crap games should be called out. It is the same kind of numbers lying Obama uses when he claims to have cut the deficit in half.
And I for one WILL call them out no matter who gets their panties in a bunch over it. Like the Nazi lie about Cruz or the half-truths about why Palin only served part of her term as government. I'm sick of lies no matter which side of the aisle the person claims to reside.
-
[[ They pretty much have offered him everything he wants, in exchange for a promise to negotiate in the future. ]]
If there is anything that is meaningless in today's politics, it's a "promise" from a leftist to "negotiate" in the future.
They never negotiate or change their positions.
For the leftist, "negotiation" means YOU change YOUR position to suit him.
Did Boehner really sell out for something so worthless?
If so, the Pubbies are going to pay a price for it. Maybe sooner, maybe later.
Maybe in November 2014.
-
Except he isn't telling the truth. A half-truth at best but by playing the same 'gross/net' game the left does in claiming Reagan raised taxes (when he had a net cut). Those kind of crap games should be called out. It is the same kind of numbers lying Obama uses when he claims to have cut the deficit in half.
Any remarks on the other, several points I raised? I know about Reagan, his overall record on taxes, etc. I know he signed an abortion bill as Governor, and I know he signed amnesty in 1986.
Each detail is not the point, so much as that we've given him divine status, yet today vilify others for the same sins.
BTW did you know that Todd Akins was a member of the House Tea Party Caucus, when he ran for the Senate and lost?
That's the guy that referred to "legitimate rape." I've been lectured he was not the TP choice, but alas I was getting spun.
The idea of course was that the Tea Party would not endorse somebody who made such a politically stupid remark; which cost the party a nearly sure seat.
I brink you the truth. Scroll to Former Members. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus
-
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/02/karl_rove_s_american_crossroads_is_attempting_to_prevent_the_wrong_conservatives.html
Why Karl Rove can’t stop the “wrong conservatives” from running for office.
By David Weigel
Photo by Whitney Curtis/Getty Images
The would-be saviors of the Republican Party have one question, one that must be answered before the comeback can truly begin. What about your gaffes?
It’s the sure-thing applause line in Gov. Bobby Jindal’s current speeches. “We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments,” said the Louisiana governor in front of party audiences last month. “Enough of that!” It’s the theory behind the Conservative Victory Project, an as yet murky outgrowth of Karl Rove’s American Crossroads. In a front page Sunday New York Times story, American Crossroads president Stephen J. Law said that Republicans had “blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected.” Rep. Steve King, an Iowa conservative now thinking about a Senate race, might have to be mercy-smothered by super PAC cash, because “all of the things he’s said are going to be hung around his neck.”
Who were the wrong candidates, the scrubs who cost Republicans the Senate? This is the list: Christine O’Donnell (Delaware), Ken Buck (Colorado), Sharron Angle (Nevada), Richard Mourdock (Indiana), and Todd Akin (Missouri). In two of these cases, in Indiana and Delaware, Republican elder statesmen who could have won easily were replaced with losers. In Delaware, in 2010, the Democrats lucked out when Christine O’Donnell advanced in the GOP primary. By 2011 the Democrats were actually recruiting a candidate in Indiana because they bet Sen. Richard Lugar, unbeatable in a general election, would be brought down in the primary.
“The damage has already been done,” says former Delaware Rep. Mike Castle, the stem-cell-research-supporting, compromise-seeking candidate whose 44-year career was ended by O’Donnell. “I’m not an insider when it comes to this new effort, but the goal seems to be to stem future damage. I think that's good.”
But will it really be this easy? Law, who was Mitch McConnell’s chief of staff before he entered the semi-private sector, talks as if the “bad candidate” problem is easy to detect and easy to burn out, and as if no one has tried it before. It has been tried before. In 2012, the American Action Network saw Lugar imploding and bought $600,000 worth of TV ads to try to save him, accusing Mourdock of benefiting from “illegal tax breaks” and other hypocrisies. It failed spectacularly, with the little-known state treasurer topping Lugar by 20 points.
Those ads started late. The Conservative Victory Project, theoretically, would get the jump on the unelectables. But what makes a candidate unelectable? “Electability,” as conservatives know it, was the concept that delivered Republicans President Mitt Romney and President John McCain.
American Crossroads has funded plenty of electable candidates. In 2012, it spent around $26.5 million to elect Republicans who were heartily supported by the party establishment. That meant $11.3 million in Virginia, $7.4 million in Wisconsin, $5 million in Montana, $1.8 million in North Dakota, and even $1.1 million in New Mexico, where America Crossroads co-founder Heather Wilson was busily losing an open Senate race. No Republican consultant has accused these candidates of gaffes. George Allen’s campaign in Virginia was almost eerily gaffe-free. But most of these candidates ran behind Mitt Romney anyway.
“All these reasonable moderate voices that ran with establishment support lost,” says Chris Chocola, the two-term Republican congressman who now runs the Club for Growth. “The Club for Growth has gotten involved in seven election cycles, and Republicans have gone on to lose only two of those general elections—Nevada and Mourdock.* And, look, I’m from Indiana. Richard Mourdock had won statewide, twice. When he won those races, he didn’t talk about social issues. He did once. It was a big mistake. There’s no question: He blew it. He wasn’t Todd Akin, but he had a Todd Akin moment.”
The funny thing about Akin is that no side can really claim him. (Why would they want to?) The 2012 Missouri primary was a three-way race between Akin, businessman John Brunner, and former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman. “Todd Akin is often called a Tea Party candidate,” says Tea Party Express strategist Sal Russo, “but we didn’t support him in the primary. Steelman was our candidate.” In defeat, Steelman attacked the National Republican Senatorial Committee for tacitly backing Brunner, a “Stepford Wives” candidate, and suggested that “the Republican Party should actually listen to what Sarah Palin has to say, instead of stiff-arming her.” That’s not exactly the promise of the Conservative Victory Project.
No, Akin’s specific problem was speculating, based on disturbingly popular pseudoscience, that the stress caused by nonconsensual sex could “shut down” conception. He elevated a social issue, when Republicans realized social issues introduced the wrong way could only hurt the party.
“My view is Republicans will need to be a little more thoughtful in their approach to issues,” says Mike Castle. “They may vote the way they would have before, but be less vehement in how they talk about the issues.”
So why do they talk that way? Akin, we know, actually believed it. Other Republicans feel pressure to prove their conservative bona fides, because they fear a challenge from someone who’ll make them prove it. Former Rep. Steve LaTourette, who left Congress this year and took over the moderate Republican Main Street Coalition, watched Ohio State Treasurer Josh Mandel disprove years of hype and blow tens of millions of dollars in a failed bid for the Senate. (American Crossroads spent $6.4 million.)
“The campaign reflected the way someone afraid of a primary challenge might campaign,” says LaTourette. “He spent a lot of time talking about [fetal] personhood legislation, and that really isn't a big deal when it comes down to it.”
But Mandel didn’t start talking about “personhood” because he had a death wish. The issue arose, and was elevated, by Republican legislators and conservative activists. At the supply side of the Republican Party, at the base level and in the primary electorate, there’s a greater and greater demand for conservative fealty. The early-money-for-moderates strategy doesn’t get at the root of that. It doesn’t even try to. In November 2012, in one of the first “the GOP blew it in Senate races” thumbsuckers, Wall Street Journal columnist Kim Strassel accused Republicans of “dismal” recruitment efforts, without identifying what had been dismal about them. She had special derision for Montana loser Rep. Denny Rehberg, “whose first bet was to sell out his own party on Medicare reform with ads trashing Paul Ryan … in a state where 55 percent of voters voted for Mr. Romney (and his Medicare reforms).”
Sadly, there’s no proof that snuggling up with the Ryan budget could have helped Rehberg. In the Montana exit poll, voters who were most worried about health care went for Obama by a landslide, 70-28. This is probably why the would-be saviors, in their would-be donor pitches, offer no proof that Republicans can solve their problems if only they knock off the gaffes. It’s called the Conservative Victory Project, not the Let Moderates Be Moderates Project.
“Politics is marketing,” says Chris Chocola. “You have to market your ideas in an appealing way.”
Correction, Feb. 5, 2013: This article originally stated that Club for Growth has gotten involved in seven primaries. It has gotten involved in seven election cycles. (Return to the corrected sentence.)
-
and speaking of Mike Castle - the guy who had already indicated he was going to switch parties - why are we sending anyone back to the senate for 44 years? Especially when over 44 years the country has continued to spiral the drain?
Why are these people getting huge retirement packages instead of contributing to a 401K and paying into SS like everyone else? Why do they get "special" healthcare no one else is eligible for?
-
Seriously, every person with even the slightest knowledge of history and doesn't have a liberal agenda, knows that the 'Reagan raised taxes three times' is twisting the facts in the same way as Obama's saved or created math. It is the the old gross versus net fallacy. The net result was drastic tax cuts under Reagan, even in those areas where after they were cut, they then went up a small amount. To put it simply, he cuts a tax 50% then that goes up 4% and people are only focusing on the 4% it went up and not the 50% it was already cut.
Did Ronald Reagan raise taxes? Yes he did.
George W. Bush NEVER raised taxes, of any kind, at any time.
Ronald Reagan did. In fact, under his administration, Social Security was taxed for the very first time.
-
Except he isn't telling the truth. A half-truth at best but by playing the same 'gross/net' game the left does in claiming Reagan raised taxes (when he had a net cut). Those kind of crap games should be called out. It is the same kind of numbers lying Obama uses when he claims to have cut the deficit in half.
A net cut? LOL!! That's like a boss who says "I gave you a raise, so don't be pissed if I took half of it back."
Ronald Reagan raised taxes.
-
I am seriously enjoying your dispassionate and reasoned posts on this thread.
Can you teach him how to punctuate?
-
A net cut? LOL!! That's like a boss who says "I gave you a raise, so don't be pissed if I took half of it back."
Ronald Reagan raised taxes.
Here is the facts - for the umteenth time ......
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/
Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times? The real story
Posted By Matt K. Lewis On 9:30 AM 06/06/2012
Ronald Reagan may have presided over the most significant tax reform effort in our nation’s history, yet historical revisionists are attempting to besmirch that legacy — while using him as a straw man against modern Republicans.
Saying Ronald Reagan raised taxes is like saying Michael Jordan was a guy who struck out a lot — or that he was a failed baseball player: It’s factually correct, but misleading, nonetheless.
I’ve decided to examine Reagan’s tax cuts and tax increases in order to set the record straight and end this tomfoolery.
Over the course of his two terms in office, Reagan presided over several changes to the tax code. What is important to remember — what is vital to understand — is that not all taxes are created equal.
When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.
Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets — a double whammy.)
Yet the notion that Reagan was a tax-hiker has persisted. In recent years, Republicans ranging from former Sen. Alan Simpson to Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett have been cited noting that Reagan raised taxes (he did.) But their statements are often taken out of context — as if to muddy the waters — to make it appear that Reagan was a fan of tax hikes.
The typical tactic is to say Reagan raised taxes 11 or 12 times (the exact number depends on whom you ask.) But it’s unhelpful — in fact, it’s a bit misleading — to talk about how many times Reagan raised taxes. That’s because (as noted earlier) tax increases are not created equal. Some are much worse than others. And many of Reagan’s so-called “tax increases” were actually examples of ending deductions.
Overall, Reagan dramatically cut the most odious of taxes.
So, for those who care about the truth, here are some details.
One of the tax increases Reagan signed (the Highway Revenue Act of 1982) was a temporary increase in the federal gas tax from 4 to 9 cents. (This could be thought of as a sort of “user fee,” inasmuch as the revenue generally went to roads and infrastructure.) Another was a cigarette tax (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.) These are real tax increases, but should not be confused with the income tax.
(Reagan also deserves special criticism from free marketers on the right for raising the capital gains tax rate — as well as the corporate rate — in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.)
Make no mistake, these were real tax increases — in some cases, “regressive” taxation — but they pale in comparison to the scale of the income tax cuts that defined the Reagan era. Again, it’s important to put things in context. When inaugurated, Reagan inherited a nation with 16 tax brackets — ranging from marginal rates of 14 percent to 70 percent. By 1989, that was down to two brackets — with marginal rates of 15 percent and 28 percent. (Those rates — and brackets — were short lived. By the time Clinton left office, the top marginal rate was back up to 39.6 percent. But you can’t blame Reagan for tax increases that came after his tenure. That’d be like President Obama blaming George W. Bush for tax cuts passed in 2011…)
Again, my argument is that some taxes are more important than others. Do massive cuts to income taxes — perhaps the most confiscatory and arbitrary form of taxation (which disencentivize the very act of working) — carry the same weight as a temporary consumption tax increase which raised just over 3 billion in revenue a year? I would argue that the two clearly aren’t the same thing — and yet that distinction is seldom made.
So how has this canard advanced to a state where it would demand correction so many years later? Both sides have contributed to advancing this misleading narrative. It’s in nobody’s interest to clarify the distinction — that not all taxes hikes and cuts are equal. Conservatives who oppose all tax hikes (or revenue raisers such as removing deductions) gain little by exposing Reagan’s nuanced approach. Liberals benefit most from the opaqueness — because they can label Reagan a serial tax increaser — while ignoring the broader impact of his work on the federal tax racket.
Facts matter. Reagan’s legacy has been co-opted and mangled by both sides. Yes, he raised taxes. Yes he cut taxes. The real story is how he raised taxes and how he cut them. And the overarching theme is that Reagan dramatically lowered tax rates and broadened the base. He was a reformer willing to make tough decisions. And at the end of the day, his legacy is that of a free market tax cutter. “If you aggregate together all the tax hikes … Reagan was a net tax cutter,” says Americans for Tax Reform’s Ryan Ellis. “I believe that makes him unique in the 20th century Cold War era. (Kennedy’s were passed by Johnson, who later raised taxes to pay for Vietnam).”
Why is it important to set the record straight on this? Because liberals continue to attempt to hoodwink conservatives into supporting deficit reduction plans along the lines of tit for tat. “We’ll cut spending if you raise taxes.” Looking to history, though, conservatives should be wary of this feint.
Reagan was offered such a deal (a 3-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases) in 1982, and it’s the reason he reluctantly agreed to the largest tax increase of his presidency, the “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.“ The Democratic Congress then promptly proceeded to ignore the planned spending cuts. George H.W. Bush encountered the same trick in 1990. It cost him the presidency. The same idea was tossed out last summer — and smartly rejected by the GOP.
President Reagan deserves better than to have his legacy misrepresented. It is healthy for us to properly assess his policies. He came into office amid very difficult times, vowing to restore the American dream. Considering the full body of his work, I’d say that was a mission well accomplished.
-
Now regarding Bush #43 and your statement that he never raised taxes. If you are going to ding Reagan for fees... then #43 does not get off scott free here.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/news/2004/02/20/531/the-bush-tax-increase/
The Bush Tax Increase
February 20, 2004
President Bush said on 2/12/04 that “we cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket.” However, for the majority of Americans, the tax cuts meant very little. By next year, for instance, 88% of all Americans will receive $100 or less from the Administration’s latest tax cuts. But even above and beyond this, the tax cuts and the deficits they have created have forced the Administration to raise fees and cut services for most Americans – which is an effective tax increase on average Americans. In many ways, the Administration’s fiscal/budget policies are actually taking more money out of people’s pockets.
DIRECT TAX INCREASES PROPOSED IN THE BUSH BUDGET: President Bush’s 2004 budget proposed an increase of $5.9 billion in fees on taxpayers from just one year ago. In 2005, the Bush budget assumes the “government will take in 13% more in taxes and fees next year than in fiscal 2004.” [Source: WP, 2/19/03, Boston Globe, 2/3/04]
STATE TAX INCREASES, BROUGHT ON BY BUSH BUDGET: The latest Bush tax bill/budget proposes a 3% decrease to federal grants to states, a $16 billion decrease in state tax revenues – all while proposing between $23-$82 billion in unfunded mandates. Because of this “millions of American individuals and businesses face tax hikes this year… wiping out the savings that some taxpayers would otherwise see on their federal 1040.” Since President Bush took office, states have raised taxes by a total of $14.5 billion, after 7 consecutive years of cutting taxes. The total 2003 net tax increase was $6.9 billion for the 42 reporting states – following a 2002 net tax increase of $9.1 billion. Seventeen states raised taxes by more than 1% with four states raising taxes by at least 5%. USA Today reports “squeezed by tight budgets, Republicans in at least a dozen state legislatures across the country are feuding over the party’s bedrock principles of holding down spending and not raising taxes.” Similarly, the Wall Street Journal noted, Republicans in states all over the country “are undercutting the election-year message: They are for raising taxes…Worried about declines in schools and basic services, many Republican leaders in the states say they have little choice.” [Source: CBPP, 10/17/03, 6/3/03 & 2/3/04; Christian Sci. Monitor, 2/2/04; NCSL, 2003; USA Today, 2/9/04; WSJ, 2/20/04]
TAX INCREASE ON STUDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES: Since President Bush took office, state colleges and universities across the nation imposed their “steepest tuition and fee increases in a decade” – some as high as 40%. Tuitions rose at public institutions in all of the 37 states responding to a recent nationwide study, almost all due to federal/state budget cuts in the state budgets. In the 2003-04 academic year, college tuition and fees increased an average of $579 at public universities, $1,114 at private institutions, and $231 at two-year public colleges. Meanwhile, the Administration proposed a rule change that would deny Pell Grants to 84,000 students, while freeze funding the program. Bush’s latest budget also proposes to “prohibit agencies from waiving a 1% Stafford Loan fee and forces students to collectively pay $1 million in interest each year.” [Source: Washington Post, 7/22/03; U-Wire, 2/6/04]
TAX INCREASE ON VETERANS: “Two years after tripling the co-payment that veterans pay for prescription drugs the Department of Veterans Affairs wants to raise it again.” Specifically, President Bush’s 2005 budget would increase prescription “drug co-pays from $7 to $15 for many veterans.” In 2002, the co-pay went from $2 to $7.” Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) said the proposal raises questions about the impact on “near-poor” veterans whose incomes are just high enough to require that they pay the new premium. Meanwhile, the American Legion called it “utterly ridiculous.” [Sources: Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2/7/04; WP, 2/19/03]
PROPERTY TAX INCREASES: The Administration has left a $9 billion hole in funding its own education bill. That unfunded mandate, along with “cuts in federal taxes and programs have shoved some of the tax burden down to states and municipalities” forcing them to “hike property taxes to pay for schools and other services.” As one expert noted “county and city governments have been raising taxes” with “property tax collections rising more than 10%” last year alone. [Source: Christian Sci. Monitor, 2/2/04; PPI, 2003]
TAX INCREASE ON LOW-INCOME FAMILIES & KIDS: According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, 32 states have effectively increased taxes on low-income families by raising their Medicaid co-payments. Additionally, “50 states reduced or froze payments to Medicaid providers, 34 states have reduced or restricted Medicaid eligibility, 35 states have reduced Medicaid benefits.” In Florida, for instance, deficits caused by tax cuts have left more than 80,000 kids on waiting lists for health care. Overall, because of these tax Medicaid fee increases and deficits, 1.7 million people could lose minimum health coverage. [Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 12/2003; CBPP, 3/20/03]
CEMENTING TAX INCREASE ON USERS OF PUBLIC PARKS: The Bush Administration proposed to make “entrance fees at some national forests and parks permanent, opening the door to new charges at some locations.” [Source: WP, 19/03]
TAX INCREASE ON SMALL BUSINESSES: The Bush Budget proposes to eliminate funding for the Small Business Administration’s “flagship 7(a) loan program” – a program “which backs 40% of all long-term lending to the country’s small businesses” – and instead fund it by a massive fee increase on borrowers. Because of the cut, “hundreds of small businesses have been caught in a vise.” According to Rep. Nydia Velasquez (D-NY), ranking minority member on the Small Business Committee, the move “leaves small businesses shouldering yet another tax” at the same time President Bush’s supposed “small business tax cuts” leave roughly 96% of small business with almost nothing. [Source: States News Service, 2/2/04; Chicago Tribune, 2/2/04; CBPP, 5/3/01]
DEFICITS MEANS TAX INCREASES TO COME: Reagan supply side guru Bruce Bartlett “is beginning to sound the alarm that Bush’s tax-less, spend-more budgets are unsustainable and will force the president to raise taxes.” As he says, “These tax increases, when they come, are the result of conscious deliberate decisions this Administration made.” His bet for next year or the year after: “A tax increase of more than $100 billion a year.” [Source: Wall Street Journal, 2/19/04]
-
BTW this is a trick both parties use... hiking "fees" while supposedly lowering tax rates. So they say 47% do not pay taxes (today) but no one discusses the fees the poor pay today they didn't pay in the past. Fees are a much more stealthy form of taxing the poor.
-
I give up. You and others here are attempting to put lipstick on the pig that are the Reagan tax increases.
Reagan WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO PRESIDE OVER A DIRECT TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS. And he raised the capital gains tax, something even Bill Clinton didn't do.
He joins Obama in that regard.
Obfuscate all you want. Facts are facts.
-
Can you teach him how to punctuate?
:nono: Bad, Zoot! Bad, bad, evil, Zoot! :smokin: