Applauding his leadership? The GOP couldn't lead an alcoholic to a bar.
Standing Ovation for Boehner on the floor
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
he obviously did not join... it was all a fricken act.
its why he wore his befuddled face in the beginning of negotiations... when he clearly should have said... we have funded the govt and if the Dems want to fund obamacare...on that point we negotiate.
He should have said we have funded exactly as before nothing has changed except now the Ds want new funding...
yet somehow these great politicans... could not figure out a coherent sound bite or message.
the teaparty held the power of the purse... therefore
there had to be a standoff...
and when the establishment Rs pretended the shutdown got got serious they had their pretense for their cave.
it is sickening.
if they do not take these 2 months to change and start representing those who voted for them...
may they rot in hell.
Boehner said they all share the same prinicples. I am not so sure about that, but even if it's true, what difference does it make if they're not prepared to do whatever is necessary to win?
Romney was a decent man of considerable talent with great principles. He wasn't prepared to do what was necessary to win. It wasn't like it would have taken a lot. All he had to do was be willing to attack Obama relentlessly and not make a couple of idiotic decisions, like picking paul Ryan. McCain was a pompous idiot, a hothead who had no business being president or running anything. Somehow he got the nomination. He wasn't prepared to do what was necessary to win either. Watching and listening to his campaign, I wouldn't have been surprised if he voted for Obama.
So I'm not impressed about people having the same principles. Clearly republicans in general are slightly preferable to democrats, but in politics there are no style points. Winning is what matters.
If Boehner was an honorable man, he would resign. He just led his caucus to a humiliating beatdown at the hands of Obama and Reid. The moderates will tell you it was an unwinnable fight, but we'll never know because Boehner and McConnell folded the minute things got tense. Boehner is a weak leader. He caved to the Tea Party guys at the start, then he caved to Obama at the end. At least pick a position and stick with it. The republicans will never win anything with this leadership.
Romney was a decent man of considerable talent with great principles. He wasn't prepared to do what was necessary to win. It wasn't like it would have taken a lot. All he had to do was be willing to attack Obama relentlessly and not make a couple of idiotic decisions, like picking paul Ryan. McCain was a pompous idiot, a hothead who had no business being president or running anything. Somehow he got the nomination. He wasn't prepared to do what was necessary to win either. Watching and listening to his campaign, I wouldn't have been surprised if he voted for Obama.
So I'm not impressed about people having the same principles. Clearly republicans in general are slightly preferable to democrats, but in politics there are no style points. Winning is what matters.
If Boehner was an honorable man, he would resign. He just led his caucus to a humiliating beatdown at the hands of Obama and Reid. The moderates will tell you it was an unwinnable fight, but we'll never know because Boehner and McConnell folded the minute things got tense. Boehner is a weak leader. He caved to the Tea Party guys at the start, then he caved to Obama at the end. At least pick a position and stick with it. The republicans will never win anything with this leadership.
Here is the problem for the Republicans as I see it. They have within their ranks, and particularly in the house, a fraction of their party that is quite far from the centrist thinking of something close to 60-70% of the electorate. These representatives come from safe districts, so politically their concern is less with centrist America and more with their particular constituents -- that's politics! From a purely practical standpoint, however, the Senate Republicans, who have to answer to a much broader electorate, recognize that their electorate is more centrist than a narrowly focused fraction of their party in the House.
These Senators realize that with a Democrat in the White House, and a minority in the Senate, there is no possibility of their getting their way by shutting down the government or causing a default. They know that they are playing with political fire, and they have nothing to gain politically by throwing their lot in with the Tea Party House Republicans. They are between a rock and a hard place, and trying to salvage their political careers.
The fundamental problem for the Tea Party is that they are out of step, they are wrong, and they will never be able to build a consensus for taking the country back to the kind of non-existent Libertarian paradise they envision. That is an impossibility in a large complex country such as the U.S. If they had their druthers, the chaos they would create would be monumental. They will, as other splinter groups of the past have, remain a vocal, and exasperating sideshow.
There is a reason that this House faction of mainly Tea Party Republicans has not garnered more support from mainstream citizens. While their populist message of a broken government rings true with tremendous irony, their solution is to disrupt, and destroy, indiscriminately. For example, their solution to the problems with Obombney care was to defund it. Failing that they wanted to delay the individual mandate-- a key feature without which there is no Obombney care. That's not negotiating, that's not being constructive, and that's not being helpful, nor anything close to logical. The reason there is Obombney care is because there are 38 million Americans who can't afford health care. And while Obombney care doesn't solve that problem, because it insufficiently addresses cost, the Tea Party would set us back even further by slashing and burning.
These people are wedded to a false ideology that can never succeed in a complex country of 350 million. If they brought a reasonable message to the electorate, they could succeed. If they focused on specific measures to make the government better without it becoming larger, and possibly shrink some, their message would resonate with the broad electorate. They very badly need an articulate spokesperson within their ranks that has above average intellectual comprehension. Young Paul is perhaps the closest they have to that. Perhaps they should rely more on him to lead their fringe party to a more palatable message.
The Tea Party has potential to become the dominate party by representing broader interests in the plutocratic world of Washington, D.C. So far they are only a bunch of lunatic ideologues wanting something ridiculous that they will never get and are unwilling to settle for anything else. To the anti-intellectual ET crowd they look like heroes. To mainstream America they look like idiots.
These Senators realize that with a Democrat in the White House, and a minority in the Senate, there is no possibility of their getting their way by shutting down the government or causing a default. They know that they are playing with political fire, and they have nothing to gain politically by throwing their lot in with the Tea Party House Republicans. They are between a rock and a hard place, and trying to salvage their political careers.
The fundamental problem for the Tea Party is that they are out of step, they are wrong, and they will never be able to build a consensus for taking the country back to the kind of non-existent Libertarian paradise they envision. That is an impossibility in a large complex country such as the U.S. If they had their druthers, the chaos they would create would be monumental. They will, as other splinter groups of the past have, remain a vocal, and exasperating sideshow.
There is a reason that this House faction of mainly Tea Party Republicans has not garnered more support from mainstream citizens. While their populist message of a broken government rings true with tremendous irony, their solution is to disrupt, and destroy, indiscriminately. For example, their solution to the problems with Obombney care was to defund it. Failing that they wanted to delay the individual mandate-- a key feature without which there is no Obombney care. That's not negotiating, that's not being constructive, and that's not being helpful, nor anything close to logical. The reason there is Obombney care is because there are 38 million Americans who can't afford health care. And while Obombney care doesn't solve that problem, because it insufficiently addresses cost, the Tea Party would set us back even further by slashing and burning.
These people are wedded to a false ideology that can never succeed in a complex country of 350 million. If they brought a reasonable message to the electorate, they could succeed. If they focused on specific measures to make the government better without it becoming larger, and possibly shrink some, their message would resonate with the broad electorate. They very badly need an articulate spokesperson within their ranks that has above average intellectual comprehension. Young Paul is perhaps the closest they have to that. Perhaps they should rely more on him to lead their fringe party to a more palatable message.
The Tea Party has potential to become the dominate party by representing broader interests in the plutocratic world of Washington, D.C. So far they are only a bunch of lunatic ideologues wanting something ridiculous that they will never get and are unwilling to settle for anything else. To the anti-intellectual ET crowd they look like heroes. To mainstream America they look like idiots.
