The fanatical Republican faction may well destroy the Republican Party's chances for electoral victory through and well beyond 2012 – if they don't first destroy the republic
Send your comments to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Rocky at arrowbiz@texasorp.com or click on the "comments" at the bottom of the story
Commentary
By Rocky Boschert
Legislating while under the influence of an ideological addiction is not only bad government, it is also a menace to much of what Americans hold dear for themselves and their children.The dominant Republicans in the US House – both the new and many of the longer-term incumbents – appear to be in heat. It is as if a mob psychology has seized them, starved them of facts, and deprived them of reality. Their chief mad dog is Eric Cantor; he of the sneering sound bites.
John Boehner is clearly allowing himself to be bullied by the fanatic from Virginia, and the even younger fanatics elected in 2010 on the Tea Party wave. Yet the Republicans have suckered President Obama into a game of budgetary chicken, and the uncompromising fanatics aren't blinking.
Why should the nation's debt limit be raised to pay for debts already incurred by Congressional appropriations – especially the interest accumulating debt on our two trillion-dollar wars rubber stamped by the Republicans in the last decade, as has been routinely done dozens of times? And what gives with these fanatical Tea Partiers behind Cantor?
First, it seems they're having fun just getting all the attention shaking up Washington on spending. This is called “dysfunctional arrogance and grandiosity” in the addiction community.
These extremist Republicans are also having fun and getting off with a spineless president who already has given them 80 percent of what they want and seems ready to slip further into their budgetary abyss. But as I mentioned in a recent column for the Roundup, maybe President Obama isn't spineless, maybe he is closer to his opponents in his real beliefs than his liberal/progressive supporters like to think.
The right wing fanatics in Washington are having fun because many of the House Republican freshmen class don't care about being re-elected if the price is to adopt the old ways of a despised Washington.They must be thrilled with the attention, holding hostage small health and safety budgets such as food safety, auto/truck safety, air and water safety, and needy children's programs, while giving a pass to massively bloated military spending and very profitable corporations that pay no federal income taxes.
Their fanatical addiction is reinforced by other wealthy addicts when they go back to the country clubs where the wealthy elite slap them on the back and cheer: "Way to go, Congressman!" Wealthy Americans are absolutely beside themselves, paying the lowest rates of taxation on their capital gains and dividends in modern history.
New York Times columnist David Brooks, a conservative, thinks the "Republican Party may no longer be a normal party," but is "infected by a faction that is more psychological protest than a practical governing alternative." He sees this dominant faction as having "no sense of moral decency," having "no economic theory" worthy of the “conservative” name.
If they are really against Big Government, why aren't they cutting hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare, subsidies, handouts and giveaways or gigantic Pentagon over-spending and waste, or enabling federal law enforcement to crack down on corporate crime that is looting Medicare, Medicaid, royalty collections and violating pro-competition laws?
Arrogant fanatics tend to shoot themselves in the foot. Already, 470 business leaders have written Congress urging it to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a financial crisis, along with spending restraints. More than a few of these leaders, Republicans or not, think the Tea Party faction on Capitol Hill is nuts and playing Russian roulette with the American economy.
The fanatical Republicans are playing a game of Russian roulette with their own Party's electoral future. The polls are starting to turn against them. Wait until October when the cuts hit conservative Main Street and Elm Street.
Republican voters want at least some tax increases on the wealthy and tax scamming corporations, as part of a deal. Independent Republican-leaning voters are starting to turn away from the right wing fanatical extremism on Capitol Hill.
In the end, the Republican faction that David Brooks and other functional conservatives are increasingly appalled by may well destroy the Republican Party's chances for electoral victory through and well beyond 2012 – if they don't first destroy the republic.
Although the Democrats on Capital Hill may not be much better at this point, let’s hope Brooks is right.
18 comments:
Yes, fanatical Republicans such as John McCain will damage the party's chances of victory in 2012.
The radical idea that government should operate outside the confines of a balanced budget is worthy of debate by our elected officials in the U.S. Senate.
I can't help but think about what would happen if all Americans lived by the Tea Party fiscal philosophy- lower your revenues, don't borrow at all, and ignore those in need- it sounds simple. That's the problem. It is simple because it is simple minded.
It is not "Addiction" or "Nation Slaying" it is simply the fact that the Frogs have awakened to the fact that their government intends to boil the water.
The Government is run by anarchists led by a President who apparently shares their goal.
When people continue to borrow more than they can repay, they end up homeless. What do you think happens to a Country the does the same thing? Countryless?
In answer to the statement,
"I can't help but think about what would happen if all Americans lived by the Tea Party fiscal philosophy- lower your revenues, don't borrow at all, and ignore those in need"
I say, We can not and should not try to save everybody from their mistakes and excesses.
Our Government is out of control and must be reigned in.
.
First Anonymous states:
"The radical idea that government should operate outside the confines of a balanced budget is worthy of debate by our elected officials in the U.S. Senate."
Actually a discussion about a balanced budget is a good idea. But it should not be on the minimal living income backs of seniors, students, the laid-off unemployed, and the the responsible poor.
The fanatics in Washington should be focusing on shameful government spending on corporate welfare and their unnecessary tax subsidies, and the bloated and wasteful military budget, that lobby money buys. And that applies to the Democrats as well.
Third Anonymous says:
".. we can not and should not try to save everybody from their mistakes and excesses."
Do you mean the unemployed who got laid off because an American company moves their manufacturing overseas for lower wage labor so you can buy stuff cheaper?
Do you mean the seniors who are planning their modest future based on expected social security payments and Medicare coverage?
Do you mean our soldiers who are overseas fighting for your passively supported wars whose families back home are dependent on the government paying thier salaries?
I wonder, Third Anonymous, who specifically are those "everybody and their excesses and mistakes" in your mind?
If balancing the budget and cutting spending and government is the goal of the Tea Party then Bill Clinton must be God. Because he did just that, cut spending, cut the size of government and reduced the deficit. And George Bush must be the Devil. Because it was George that increased the budget, increased government, increased spending and increased the deficit.And how many times did George send us a check for $300.00, where did that come from? And how many times did the Republican raise the deficit for George? Like 11 times! Be careful what you wish for. Kick
"Legislating while under the influence of an ideological addiction is not only bad government, it is also a menace to much of what Americans hold dear for themselves and their children." Is a strong statement that applies to both parties at the present time, whether it regards voting for a healthcare bill that no one has read or the current debt debate. One can not isolate the tea party when ideologues on the left like Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Sheila Jackson-Lee and others just blindly follow an ideology as well. Many pieces of atrocious legislation have been passed with votes along party lines.
Your article raises some important points like what role should ideology play in government. In American history, there have been times that a representatives beliefs and philosophy were more influential than the philosophy of pragmatism that is currently in vogue. Each have their own dangers. Whether it be the Whigs, Radical Republicans, or other groups. In many ways, each group slayed or changed some aspects of the nation at the time they were in vogue.
Blindly following either Pelosi or the tea party is dangerous and so is voting for bills that no one sees, spending when you do not have the money and making promises that you can not make good on.
It remains to be seen what will happen. The debate has raised awareness about the profligate spending that has been going on. A tight budget means that tough choices will have to be made.
@Anonymous on July 31, 2011 8:05 AM
Bill Clinton had to be drug kicking and screaming to reduce spending and the size of government by the Republican majority in congress. Remember Clinton invented or at least perfected the art of triangulation.
Agreed, Geo. Bush Jr. was the Republicans clone of Jimmy Carter (the second worse president in history) and the present occupant of the White House is a dismal failure on all fronts, but so far not quite as bad as LBJ. I certainly don't need to be reminded of Bush the younger spending money like a drunken sailor. He never vetoed a single spending bill unless you count that stem cell bill which was religiously based.
Okay, so they were or are total losers, now what?
I say, Ron Paul for President!
Any ideology that clearly benefits the rich and the already very cash-flush Wall Street corporate sector over the average American - liberal and conservative - is an ultimately evil ideology that is really a media-supported totalitarian plutocracy (or with someone like Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann potentially at the helm - a theocratic corporatocracy.)
All of those belief systems are elite manipulated destructive ideologies being disguised as fiscally responsible legislating and fear mongering solutions to the so-called moral decay of American society.
Politically, the obvious symptoms of a failed American state that we are seeing now are: 1) Democrats selling out to the rich; 2) scapegoating xenophobia; 3) an obvious increase in domestic hate group membership, 4) blaming educators, government workers, and unions (with their already minimal membership) instead of Wall Street for our high unemployment and a declining living wage; and 5) the war profiteering industry being immune from massive deployment scalebacks and federal budget cuts on the part of both political parties.
If the Tea Party had not been taken over by the irresponsible and ominous religious extremist right wing war hawks and had focused on the growing plutocracy in America, I probably would be more supportive of their tough political stance in some ways.
One Anonymous says:
"Geo. Bush Jr. was the Republicans clone of Jimmy Carter (the second worse president in history) and the present occupant of the White House is a dismal failure on all fronts, but so far not quite as bad as LBJ."
What a biased statement. Carter didn't kill over 5000 young Americans and maim over 30K in the Middle East based on now proven lies.
And at least Johnson ushered in the Civil Rights movement, even though he also lied shamelessly and was directly responsible for the unnecessary deaths of Americans in Vietnam.
Name me one thing W did right? He was even President 1 1/2 years when 9/11 occurred.
There is no dispute except from lame right wing apologists that George W. Bush was the most most ignorant and incompetent US President in the last 100 years. Even the Tea Partiers can't defend him.
He is also a war criminal in my mind.
Regarding Jimmy Carter as President, I thought he could have become a good President, but no one gave him a chance. He had a lot of good ideas that the politics of the time did not permit, so in a sense he was ahead of his time.
The Debt Ceiling
The Debt Ceiling is a load of crap. It was created by Congress in the 1960’s and it is simply a tool that Congress uses to manipulate the political system and the public.
The Debt Ceiling is an imaginary amount that Congress votes on periodically, but it can be raised or lowered by the decree of Congress. We are the only nation in the World that has a Debt Ceiling. The Debt Ceiling is bogus.
There is no money set aside to cover the imaginary Debt Ceiling. It is simply a number provided by Congress and every few years it votes on whether or not to increase the Debt Ceiling.
There is no intent to pay off our debt, so we maintain an imaginary “ceiling to our debt” that is a number on paper that really does NOT mean anything. So, will the nation stop in its tracks if Congress doesn’t “raise the debt ceiling” by a significant amount? Heck no!
So, don’t lose sleep over the Debt Ceiling, as it is not important to the economic well-being of our nation. It is simply Congress using the tool it created to continue playing political games and ruffling their feathers. Life will go on no matter what happens to the Debt Ceiling.
Peter Stern said... "Regarding Jimmy Carter as President, I thought he could have become a good President, but no one gave him a chance. He had a lot of good ideas that the politics of the time did not permit, so in a sense he was ahead of his time."
Mr. Stern, you must be joking or have a very bad case of DENIAL!
"could have been a good president, but no one gave him a chance" LOL
That is the best laugh line of the year from the left (and you are on the left, sir). A President is supposed to be a leader and HE is responsible for his time in office not anyone else. Carter was a worthless President simply because he was worthless. It was nobody's fault but his own and the fools that voted him into a job he couldn't do. He was so bad that he couldn't find anyone else to blame for the mess he created.
One thing Carter did accomplish was to destroy the myth that someone with a high IQ is smart. He was the first, but that proof just keeps on giving.
+
Carter was no Dwight D. Eisenhower (my personal "hero"), but he had some good qualities that he brought to the office.
Anonymous, you are so reductionistic in your comment to me. Why does my opinion on Carter make me a "leftist" and not merely someone with an opinion obvioualy different from yours?
BYW, I did not vote for Carter. So, what does that do to your "left" statement?
No one is all bad or all good. Carter had some good qualities, even George W. Bush has some good qualities --- although I can't think of any right away. LOL
I said the politics of the time did not aid Carter and I stick to that statement. And I said he could have become a good President, NOT a great one.
A President is not merely responsible for himself in office, he is responsible for his entire administration, those he selects to guide and assist him in the office.
Hey Let'sGetReal. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Explain yourself. We are not limerick fans.
Otherwise, change your name to:
"Let'sBeObtuse."
Makes perfect sense to me. Maybe your head needs to get clearer, Mr. LetsGetClear.
The Anon stated:
"A President is supposed to be a leader and HE is responsible for his time in office not anyone else."
The "limerick" you allude to, which is NOT a limerick, is a statement in response to that.
Why don't you READ what is written here instead of just wanting to rant. Not a question, merely another statement.
The best Eisenhower Joke of the time;
"Why is everybody down on Ike, he hasn't done nothin'."
+
Carter... and the surgical precision of Brzezinski's foreign policy led to the U.S. helping to topple a popular and freely-elected Afghan government (that educated women) because they were a little too left-leaning and friendly with the Soviets. The CIA recruited, funded, armed and trained the mujahideen, which spawned al-Qaeda.
A good president? If you're into that...
Post a Comment