So as to escape Rick Perry's shine and keep themselves on the front page (wow, Mitt Romney), the Republican presidential field (minus a few) really showed out in last night's debate. The Jerry Springer-like cheers from the crowd really underscored the spectacle that presidential debating has become, with so much emphasis on who "won" and who "lost." Aside from all the Pawlenty-Bachmann scrapes and Ron Paul distinguishing his anti-war position (and how), what really stands out?
The moment you see above, when every single Republican presidential candidate on the stage refused a hypothetical budget deal that contained $1 of taxes for every $10 of spending cuts. Steve Benen puts that in rather stark perspective:
Let’s note for context that in March — just five months ago — Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee released a report on deficit reduction. In it, House GOP officials outlined their ideal cuts-to-revenue ratio, and concluded that “successful” attempts at deficit reduction meet this goal: “85% spending cuts and 15% revenue increases.” Roughly speaking, that’s about a 5-to-1 ratio in Republicans’ favor — and this is what GOP officials characterized as their ideal earlier this year.
And yet, as of last night, every Republican running for president believes a 10-to-1 ratio simply isn’t good enough. What’s more, as the video shows, the crowd of Iowa Republicans roared with approval.
10 to 1, especially in this instance, is not just a win. It's a rout. And it's still not enough. Ezra Klein made a good point that last night was less about differences in opinion than about "fealty to (Republican) policy," and took the scorecard mentality so many apply to political debates and flipped it on its head:
A world in which the GOP will not agree to deficit reduction with a 10:1 split between spending cuts and tax increases is a world where entitlement reform can’t happen. It’s a world where the “supercommittee” fails and the trigger is pulled, and thus a world in which $1 out of every $2 in cuts comes from the Pentagon. It’s not a world that fits what many in the GOP consider ideal policy. But it is a world in which none in the GOP need to traverse the treacherous politics of compromise...
The losers in tonight’s debate were anyone who wants to see the sort of compromise necessary for the political process to work, and anyone who has been convinced that they can achieve their goals simply by restating their convictions. As for the winners? Well, I didn’t see too many of those.
Leave a Comment:
The fact that the question was $10 worth of "entitlement cuts" for $1 of closing tax loopholes and these people are against it proves two things:
1) These people are traitors to we the people and should never again hold a public office!!!
and
2) They not only don't have a clue about economics - but they don't give a da-n about working Americans!!
And why exactly is it that Grover Norquist has as much power over these people the way that he does!! Psst Grover, don't like paying "taxes" - then how about you secede - I'm sure you might like living in Saudi Arabia!!
3) They have no idea what they stand for.
It's been pretty scary watching the Republican Party drift into the abyss on the concept of leadership. (That would be participation in drafting real solutions and legislating in the best interest of ALL their constituents.) But in their hesitation to the question followed by the domino effect of hands, they appear to have no idea what principles they themselves stand for.
STOP peeking at your neighbor's paper!
I just saw Michelle on Meet the Press. She claims she will govern based on what the people want done. Last time I checked the people want to raise taxes on those who can afford it and those who don't need it.
Why does she ignore those people who want taxes raise? By 3-1 in most polls people want taxes raised.
Great elementary question, J Edgar. Perhaps she only feels called to serve what she considers the non-barbariac and non-dysfunctional people, and attributes this "false majority" to said same. We may never know, as she appears incapable of answering the most basic of questions.
And so, we have yet more proof that repubs are so unwilling to compromise even a fraction of an inch that they will let their masters in the Pentagon absorb a big hit in funding. Let's see them try to defend themselves to angry constituents in Washington, California, Georgia, Texas, Virginia, Mississippi and other places where many large defense contractors are located, defense contractors that will see their projects killed and tens of thousands of workers tossed out of jobs.
But at least they made Grover Norquist happy, right? As long as they keep that important point in mind, I'm really, really, really sure their unemployed constituents will be eager to forgive them and return them to DC in the next election...NOT!
Who was it that said: "Purity doesn't win elections?"
Who was it that called the Democratic primary for a presidential candidate in '76 "the contest to see who is the world's tallest dwarf?"
My memory is stuffed with all these quotations from Republicans and I can't pin down the speakers. Any way...what goes around comes around and I'm sticking my li'l ole fingers in my ears and singing la-la-la for the next 5 months because nothing that happens before January will be very important.
It's time for the starred generals et al at the Pentagon demand the lesser generals and their minions produce the budgets that will "support" the military after the (aptly named) trigger is pulled. Now. OK, maybe 30 days from now. What will it look like in real life, not on an actuarial sheet somewhere.
Politics is murdering Governance.
Of course, once the first candidate said NO, the rest HAD to follow. That's just the way the rules are written.
Agreement on the super committee? Snowball's chance in hell.
Unless the Democrats cave.
The Amygdala Strain: Right-Wing Teabaggery as Psychological Pandemic
With the ascendency of a barefaced buffoon to the apex of right-wing politics some began to suspect that conservatism was not just a political disposition. And as George W. Bush’s corporate-Jesus coalition evolved into a throng that could call Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann its own, Republicanism completed its transition from political ideology into psychological disorder ...
Article:
http://beeryblog.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/the-amygdala-strain-right-wing-teabaggery-as-psychological-pandemic/
[GOOGLE] beeryblog
Slightly off topic, but still related to Rick Perry... Heard on NPR yesterday some woman claim that he's created more jobs in Texas than all the other states put together. I want to know where she got this information and what the truth of that matter is.
He has created a lot of jobs....except that many of them weren't really created, just moved in from other states. The fastest growing sector for jobs in TX is in the low-paying service and hospitality industry. TX's debt is climbing faster than the rate for the federal government. You DON'T want Rick Perry to bring his "economic miracle" to the entire country, believe me.
My father in law in Texas said less than 4% of Texans would vote for Perry. They hate him and what he has done to TX. Texas is a "Right to Work" state. Perry layed off over 100,000 people - teachers, etc. got rid of all the unions. My daughter in law is a teacher in Houston, and has to pay over $400 a month for her healthcare. He can't win his own state.
I understand a great percentage (sorry, I forget the number) of the new jobs are minimum wage and under. Not a great victory, as far as I'm concerned!
And, don't forget, even though Perry is not an economic genius, that doesn't mean he can't run as one. Remember, George W. ran as the education president and no-one ever questioned it.
There can be only one! Loser, that is. And it will be Republican.
Does anyone seriously expect Obama to lose to these crazies?
Of course not. The smart Republican leadership know they've got a great thing with Obama, regardless of how they trash-talk him, and didn't want to ruin it with credible candidates. That is why the beard woman, the dog boy, and the live chicken eater are running against Obama.
Gotta hand it to Rick A-for-America-Parry, it's smooth operating to announce his run after the debate and before the straw-poll so he can get the numbers without being accountable to anything. Kinda like Bachmann's announcement of her candidacy during a debate for presidential candidates.
Perhaps all future debates should be held off until the deadline for filing candidacy requests has passed.
Carol's right. While campaigning, this behaviour is standard and expected. Both parties are probably working on a slogan right now about this topic.
I wish Dems would take a page from the Reds: 1. Don't ever stand down. Be a bulldog and don't give in to them on any points. 2. Unify - "so says one, so say all".
So far, the R's have had it their way and we've had to take the highway. We shouldn't ever stoop to their low level of brutal lies and underhandedness, but we should stand as boldly and firmly for our principles as they do for their unprincipled demands.
They want what is best for them, not what is best for our Country. They are creating their own Armageddon.
By the way: the 11th District Court of Appeal just ruled the the individual mandate in the Health Care Bill was unconstitutional. Could you belive that one of the judges was an extreme radical appointed by Bill Clinton? The other was a normal radical appointed by George H.
So when are the people of MA going to have to stop paying their individual mandate under Romneycare? Just asking.
Inside a state the is no Interstate Commerce Act. I have no problem with indivudal states mandating coverage. The Federal Government has to respect states rights and not use the Interstate Commerce Clause to ride roughshot over them. The MA Supreme Court should decide whether the MA mandate is a violation of state law. As far as I am concerned the MA law does not affect other states.
Without an individual mandate, what is there to end the current situation where the uninsured get basically free healthcare? If someone under the new system decides they don't want health insurance, and then gets sick, should they be treated at all? Currently, most of the uninsured are not that way by choice. If a mandate was good enough for Romney back when he was governor, why isn't a mandate good now? I don't care if it's for state or federal level...I am questioning the very validity of the individual mandate.
In MA if you can't afford healthcare under the mandate, you have to pay the fines which are cheaper than insurance, so you pay for nothing and still have no coverage.
Shocker! 10 to 1 ratio not good enough for the Repubs. They've just been saying this, and doing this, for the last two years or so. No compromise is their only position. Please, someone in Washington tell Obama so he will stop this endless "negotiation". You cannot negotiate with someone who will not give, even an inch, no matter how many committees you appoint. What is that definition of insanity? Oh, yeah. Repeating the same actions over and over again expecting different results.
It is obvious from the reaction to the raise of hands that the audience is composed of those "Human Corporations" that Mitt Romney spoke of early in the day at the state fair.
I continue to be awestruck, flabberghasted, dumbfounded, astonished, etc. that people, such as in IA, WI, MI where the economic downturn has been felt hardest are still willing to put the same party back in office and maintain the status quo.
Pundits trying to understand the antics of the Tea Party/Republican party are like politicians trying to understand Hitler in the 1930s without reading his book "Mein Kampf". Jeb Bush of all people, back in 1995, wrote a Mein Kampf essay that explains what the Tea Party are up to -- and it is far more radical and crazy than you would ever dream.
See http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=1995&month=06
nah, they wouldn't have an agenda would they? do ya suppose people can read between the lines on the right? all hail the Bush family. the saviors of the middle class American.........one more of them and you can kiss off any middle class. right or left......
The closer we get to elections and the more apparent it becomes that the Tea Party is going to get kicked out of Congress dragging the Republican party down, the Republicans are going to be saying "Tea Party? - Never heard of it."
My skin crawls when I hear any of them speak ( except for Ron Paul- I must admit I like him). I am very troubled that they even have the slightest chance of winning anything! After watching what happened in Wisconsin, I feel like we're in the twilight zone. I feel like Lefko looking out the plane window at the creature on the wing chewing up the engine.
Exactly!!
I'm troubled also. If they win anything then I know where this country wants to go in the future.
History has proven a harsh stance in the political arena is not a winning position to be in. Off with their heads! That's what happens when the elite overreachs.
People will revolt!
Spelled his name wrong - John Lithgow - in " Nightmare at 20,000 Feet"
The real losers are the American people period. They don't care about people! All they care about are corporations. Is business booming that much where they would throw millions of people under a bus to make a dollar?
Hmmm. Those Republicans don't sound like folks you would want to try and compromise with. Seems like it would be stupid to even try.
And yet, it's exactly what I see the White House and the National Democrats doing over and over.
Seems like a really stupid game plan.
The name of the game in traditional politics is to win over the majority of voters. To do this, you have to straddle the middle and force your opponent into an extreme position. Oddly the Tea Party are committing suicide by competing for which presidential candidate can be the most extreme. This just loses votes from the middle. The name of the game is not to drive your base to ecstasy, but to win over the majority. Have they forgotten the history of George McGovern on the left and Barry Goldwater on the right? Perhaps they are counting on the base blissing out and liquidating all their assets and giving them to the Tea Party like members of the Rashneesh cult.
Speaking of games...Look at that picture above. Don't they all look like pawns on a chess board?
Don't be dumb to think any of them would fall for a trick question like that. A yes answer would be a one-way ticket to the bottom of the polls, and their campaign wouldn't even make it outa Iowa.
These folks know who they have to play-to now, the republicans who'll vote for in the primary. you won't see their real colors until the convention.
The Republican party is dead. What is the entity that we're stuck with until Overmber 2012?
It's all about the pensions. Babyboomers are retiring and they don't want to pay up. They don't want to pay Social Security back what Bush borrowed, and Wall Street doesn't want to let the boomers' money go... if it was ever there...
I just can't get it out of my head that maybe these pension funds on Wall Street are all Ponzi schemes, and the money has never really been there. Now when its due....Wall Street tanks, we bail them all out, which has bought them a little more time. But no more TARP- No more too big to fail... NO MORE BAILOUTS... that won't work- Obama must go. Instead of paying the bill, they burn the bill.
It's a double cross of America.
It's "The Big Squeeze".
If Republicans win we all lose.
Maybe this is why the Myan calendar ends in 2012.
So all those Babyboomers are starting to retire. When they got paychecks did they not pay the required amount into the Social Security fund? Most of them worked 50 years or so. Millions of Babyboomers times 50 years of contributions equals quite a tidy sum of retirement money. I'm married to one of those greedy Babyboomers. He's almost 66 and has earned a Social-Security-paying paycheck since the age of 16.
Suddenly we find there's not enough in the fund for them to retire. Why? Social Security money has been snarfed for other purposes. NOT because the Babyboomers are retiring. Certain folks think Social Security should be abolished. Why? If you can't pay your bills, abolish one of your major creditors!
These certain folks would rather have Wall Street friends handle everyone's retirement accounts. I know quite a few people who relied on that route. They are now retirement age and are trying to figure out how to manage on a quarter or a half of what they planned to have in their nest eggs.
Exactly. There was a 3 trillion dollar surplus in Social Security under Clinton. The surplus fund is equal to the amount in Social Security that exceeds the already committed funds needed to make the monthly payments to retirees.
Instead of holding that surplus in savings for when its needed, the current law allows the government to borrow money from the Social Security surplus fund. George Bush borrowed 3 trillion dollars from the surplus fund for the Iraq & Afghanistan wars. The cost of those wars was not in the budget, and he knew there was no money to pay for the Iraq War. It didn't matter- he spent it anyway. So now instead of cash in the fund, there are treasury notes/bonds (like promisory notes) that the government has no money to pay. Even though Social Security itself is off budget, and is not counted in the budget deficit, it is being targeted for cuts as a solution to balance the budget. The government doesn't have the money to pay it back and new retirees are coming onboard every day. So the Republicans refusing to increase taxes on the wealthy are in essence filing bankruptcy on the Social Security fund. You've heard them- they would rather default.
Their solution is not to take in more money to pay what they owe.
Their solution is to reduce the amount they owe by cutting benefits.
For that I would downgrade their credit too!
That's like saying, I take a loan out from a bank. When the payment is due, instead of making the payment I agreed to, I tell the bank to make my payment with the bank's money. Those Republicans are some financial geniuses! And we are morons to ever agree to such a thing.
The more disturbing part about that is the thunderous cheers from the audience who are the ones getting screwed over by the lopsided ratio. The TeaOP has been genius in getting people to vote against their interest.
It's the 'Licking the boot that kicks you' syndrome. Perhaps one too many times...
Are any of these people business people? I don't know of any business that will cut their way to prosperity without figuring out how to bring in more money. The question should have been "if you owned a business, would you cut 10% of your spending and boost your revenue by 1% with a new product line? If your answer is no, please raise your hand."
What Paul Ryan didn't say when he began his "we don't have a revenue problem, but a spending problem" is "We also have a management problem, and since we are the managers, we're the problem."
The candidates raising their hands have told Americans that they flunked math, skipped economics 101, and had everything they wanted handed to them without needing to pay for it. In other words, the education of the 80's is biting us in the tush.