Senate The Future of the Republican Party

I'm sorry, what? You mentioned me, but you want me to explain what exactly?

Are you referring to Senator Ted Cruz's filibuster? While he's a republican from Texas, I don't really speak for him. But generally, even though he knows it's not going to be successful, his goal seems to be to draw attention to the concerns over Obamacare. He wants to defund the ACA out of the larger budget. Rand Paul spoke a bit in support of him, but Rand Paul is certainly more of a Tea Party guy, and wants to see smaller government in general, including Obamacare as well. But many republicans like Orrin Hatch don't agree with Cruz's methods, which is why there is an ongoing dialog within the party. Again though, even though Congressmen like Hatch and Cruz and Paul and so on are republican (since the US is a two party system) each represents their own districts and have their own focus. This all comes from open sources and the media, so I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know... But then again, you asked.

This is what you never seem to understand, SJ. I don't question your disagreement,- it's that you use a HUGE brush to paint a general picture, or at least pretend that every politician is the same. If this forum is any indication, democrats seem to be more comfortable with the "uni-mind/hive" mentality...ie the infamous "just vote democrat and everything will be fine-if you don't understand you never will" platform. I guess if you self-identify with that party, then you're more willing to accept such broad strokes. Maybe that's why this always seems to come up, because that concept is so utterly foreign to me. I'd rather have ongoing disagreement and debate, instead of an unquestioning hive mentality.

So yeah. I guess to recap your original question, the goal of Ted Cruz is to remove Obamacare from the overall federal budget. That's his own goal. Most republican Congressmen don't agree with that. Knowing that it's not going to be successful, his realistic goal is to highlight the concerns over the law. Because the fact is there are huge problems with the law. So how do you reconcile them? But beyond that, I have no idea what you mean by the republican's "end goal," because there is no republican uni-mind out there.

 

Except that's a vast, I mean v-a-s-t oversimplication of the issue. None of that is productive either. Wouldn't it be just as simple to point out that all Harry Reid has to do is remove the ACA from the budget, and the government will be funded in perpetuity? I mean, even kindergarteners realize that, except that it is ignored by his democratic party base...

The simple fact is that Obamacare is seriously flawed. The theory behind it is sound, but the law itself is just about garbage as can be. Small business is against it as written. labor unions are against it as written. Tax exempt organizations are against it as written. The only ones who are supporting it lock, stock, and barrel are the President's party base, and any debate is stifled. So, while I don't agree with the methods of politicians like Ted Cruz in wanting to shut down government, how do you draw attention to the issue if the other party won't even talk about it?

Imagine if you will, if back in 2003, instead of simply being a rubber stamp for the Bush administration like they ended up being, a group of democrats threated to hold up the funding for government if Bush carried out the invasion of Iraq? Would you dismiss them as holding the administration hostage? If Dennis Kucinich gave an impassioned 16 hour filibuster about the folly of invasion, would you label his views less than a kindergartener simply because Congress passed the use of force resolution and gave Bush a blank check back then? What's the point of Congress then?

So what's the answer? Since the key portions of the health care law have been either delayed or haven't entered into force yet, the debate is still valid. You can't continue to hide behind the fact that you know the Affordable Care law is flawed, but everyone should just shut up about it because it's a "legacy issue." Especially since the flaws could be examined and truly workable health care reform be installed in the US in its place.

 

Well, when I said Republicans were threatening a government shutdown if Obama won't defund Obamacare, you replied that "This is your "go to" statement? Which republicans? Is it all of them? One of them? Who? Defund what? Everything? The problem with Shinjo's 2 week old opinion now is that it's kind of a conspiracy-based exaggeration, it's not factual analysis" and "Yes, it is rather annoying when you make statements like "republicans want to shut down government." Because, as you said, it's not all republicans, nor is it an official platform. So why say it all? Or why make a post like that in the first place?" and "See, the problem with the way you make such statements is that they do start off very, extremely conspiracy-laden."

So I'm just wondering if this is still a conspiracy - or not actually the Republicans despite Cantor and Boehner siding with Cruz.

I get that there are dissidents (McCain), but last time I checked the NRSC and RNC are backing the "defund" delusion as well as Congressional leadership and most outside parties on the right.

You tend to hide behind the "see, not EVERY Republican so stop using the term Republican" but that only gets you so far when their Congressional and political leadership is backing it.

What I actually wanted you to explain was how I was engaging in some fact-free conspiracy over Republicans wanting to defund Obamacare or shutdown the government when that seems to be, you know, what they're about to do unless they get their way.

 

Who in the base? EVERYONE in the base? Or just some?

This is your opinion, and many would disagree with you. And while some unions have come out against it, many are against it because it reduces the influence and appeal of collective bargaining so your repeated use of them as a flaw is rather odd. Simply because you think a law is "seriously flawed" doesn't justify this circus the GOP is currently causing. Remember when it was passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court? Not to mention the American people just reelected that President last year. The right's chance to defund or change was in November 2012 and they lost - elections have consequences.

If Democrats were threatening a government shutdown and a breach of the debt ceiling over defunding the war (or Medicare Part D or No Child Left Behind or whatever you choose to pick) then I would be embarrassed to consider myself a member of that party. Because it is embarrassing.

How many instances have there been when Republicans en masse showed a willingness to work to fix some of the problems in ACA? Where are their alternative proposals (some have them, I'm sure, but they sure aren't touting them).

I get that you (and the GOP) think that this law is flawed. Great, you have every right to - that's the beautiful part of a democracy. But I can't exactly name a time when there was this much obstruction and hostage taking over a law simply because the opposing party didn't like it. The GOP has every right to be able to change it. That is why we have elections. And this doesn't even start on the fact that "defunding Obamacare" as they want to will not actually defund the entire law, but you know what are facts?

The GOP had their chance to democratically "defund" and "repeal" Obamacare under a President Romney.

 

Eh, Shinjo, it's just soooo tiring to see your same "The GOP is the enemy..." or "republicans suck" or "prove the negative that all republicans aren't bad..." arguments over and over and over. I don't know what made you so single minded, and it's none of my business. The bottom line is that I have no idea what someone like Ted Cruz thinks, no more than I have any idea what Sophia Vergara is thinking... (although I hope she's wondering what my phone number is)

While I do tend to vote for Kang over Kodos because of the two party system, I'm not beholden to the republican party. I don't care if it implodes, or self destructs, gets blasted into space, or whatever you continue to predict will happen, as long as some form of alternative party takes its place to offer debate. Because it would be bad mojo for one party to dominate everything unopposed-and this applies equally to either the democratic party or the republican party.

So I guess I don't really know what you're asking me about any kind of conspiracy or grand scheme, or whatever you seem to be digging for.

 

And, likewise, I'm tired of your comments of "stop blaming the republicans see it is all because Obama is terrible" argument.

I'm not as much of a Democrat as much as I absolutely abhor the Republican Party of today. But I don't try to hide that.

And, again, I am simply looking for an explanation as to how you called my claim of GOP obstructionism over Obamacare a conspiracy.

 

That wasn't an actual filibuster.

Despite that not even being a filibuster, Ted Cruz still decided to waste time by reading "Green Eggs and Ham" from Dr. Seuss, among doing other irrelevant things to make it an even bigger waste of time.

And even despite that, Ted Cruz ended up voting for the bill... it passed 100-0.



Cruz only did this to raise publicity for himself, nothing at all to do with actual public policy.




If that is the future of the GOP... it has no future.





Though John McCain did basically just say that Obama got re-elected, and Republicans should stop trying to stop ObamaCare because the American People have spoken.

 

No. It only is what it is. My comment was specifically about Republican attempts to spin a threatened government shutdown as an act of Democrats. The "logic" of the hostage-taker is a joke, and there is nothing complex about it.

I didn't really need you to provide yet another example of what I was talking about, but... thanks?

So, you give the kidnappers what they want, and everyone gets to go home? It is indeed simple to point such a thing out, as simple as it is to blame the victim. What remains unclear is why such an observation would be considered useful if one's objective is to dispel the notion that the Republicans are involved in hostage-taking.

 

I live in the "Swing" state to the south, and I still completely agree with this.

It's definitely a hornet's nest. It has the added bonus of being an emotional roller coaster. Various administration's whims heavily impact the futures of government employees and their families. There were times I was genuinely scared I would lose my house when I've lived here 20 years, I've had best friends move away who were like my family. I've been miraculously lucky in this economy, even though I still don't have a job. (Nobody's that lucky).

Bush administration policies had caused huge visible economic failure that only took effect in my area during Obama's administration. It was like a giant powder keg set to evaporate the area's economy but timed so ingeniously so that Bush wouldn't have to deal with the fallout until the second he left. Obama did lie through his teeth to win the first election that he would never cut our budget- and it's the first thing he did even though the unsustainable initiatives were proposed by Bush.

This is why hatred for Obama in my area seems 'well-justified'. I'm not going to explain to people on the street who to blame for their troubles. If Obama's who they are going to scapegoat, that's who they are going to scapegoat. This is why I am apolitical.

 

These are some of the demands Boehner is making to not cause an economic crisis: "a yearlong delay of Obamacare, Rep. Paul Ryan’s tax reform plan, the Keystone XL pipeline, more offshore oil drilling, more drilling on federally protected lands, rewriting of ash coal regulations, a suspension of the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to regulate carbon emissions, more power over the regulatory process in general, reform of the federal employee retirement program, an overhaul of the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, more power over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s budget, repeal of the Social Services Block Grant, more means-testing in Medicare, repeal of the Public Health trust fund, and more."

Considering they keep tweeting the hashtag #MakeDCListen, it's kind of ironic: the American people spoke in November 2012 and rejected all of those things. Now Boehner is holding the world economy hostage for, give or take some proposals, Romney's platform.

The Republican Party is going to the bargaining table with a letter that says "give us everything we want or we'll destroy the economy." Their contempt for democracy and refusal to accept that they lost is utterly staggering and without precedent in the United States.

The only two things they are missing is Obama's resignation and a Reagan monument.

 

Gee, I wonder how that one would turn out.

 

Didn't you hear? That's next.

 

I honestly think Cruz is such a pompous ass that he thinks that 30 percent of the republican party will assure him complete victory as a president. I wonder how many times Boehner wants to strangle the guy because its like dealing with a complete Diva. You know if Boehner actually called out Cruz and called him dangerous to the party and the America he might actually get reelected as head of his party.

Maybe they should just call him The new Republican Diva. He lives for the applause.

 

No one cares - PG mod edit

 

Thanks for the autobot spam.

 

So correct me if I'm wrong, but a government shutdown only ends when Congress passes an appropriations bill or whatever to authorize the government to resume its functions right? How long will it take for that to happen? Will it happen at all?

 

They already passed how the money should be appropriated... they just haven't passed a "continuing resolution" to authorize the money to actually be spent.

They could do it within a day, if they wanted. But they don't want to. The House has said that they will only do it if Obama agrees to delay/repeal/partially-repeal ObamaCare, among other things. I think they added outlawing any health insurance that covers contraception to their latest demands, and defunding the consumer financial protection bureau.

 

So I guess my question is, what makes us think the Tea Party will be more amenable to compromise a week from now? Or god forbid, six months from now? Hell, we've got Iran agreeing to the principle of compromise before the Tea Party did.

 

Why did the Tea Party decide to go all-out at this time in the first place?

They could have done this at the beginning of the summer, in mid-spring, at the beginning of the year. During the election season. Why now?

Who knows.

It seems Boehner was going to compromise a week ago, but Ted Cruz (a freshman Senator) decided to usurp power from him and is now running the House Republicans.




As Republican Senator Bob Corker said, Ted Cruz is shutting down government so he can get on TV:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/ted-cruz-bob-corker_n_3998502.html

 

This is all for show.

By agreeing to a shutdown now, Boehner is paradoxically giving himself the power to raise the debt ceiling later. It sounds convoluted, but it's true. A week or two of this nonsense, then there'll be an agreement on both. Remember, Wall Street will be putting tremendous pressure on the Republicans not to default. The power of withholding future campaign donations or-gasp!-supporting Democrats come 2014/16 will get their attention. Pressure is already beginning to mount behind the scenes; when the shutdown happens, there will likely be a large selloff in stocks with a concomitant rise in short-term interest rates. Credit-default swaps (insurance against a US default) have already spiked; the dollar also plunged to a multi-month low on Friday.

In terms of closing the government, it's simply to show the base how tough he is (Boehner). If the GOP breaks through the debt limit, they will likely lose the White House for a generation, maybe more. They're on thin ice with many groups as it is; the claim "I'm just doing what my constituents told me to do" is the perfect recipe for how to become a regional party. By acting extreme, they empower the dems, who will use any majority which results from a blowback to move hard left.

It's all going to come down to Boehner. The question will be: does he have the guts to marginalize the hard right and cut a deal with House Dems, or will he let the country go down?

Peace,

V-03

 

You can tell they've lost when Boehner & Co. is already in full blame mode. And has absolutely no plan to avoid the shutdown which is inevitable at this point.

This could all be over if, like the fiscal cliff deal, Boehner turned to Pelosi and allowed a Hastert Rule-free vote on the CR. But the Tea Party would revolt.

 

That's my point exactly. It's all going to come down to sacrificing his Speakership vs. letting the country default. I'm not sure which road he's going to take.

Then again, if Obama chooses to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, it could potentially be a game-changer, and put the ball back in his court in a more powerful way. At the very least, I believe there would be a move towards impeachment.

Peace,

V-03

 

If that's true, then why doesn't the establishment just pressure the Republicans into not shutting down the government in the first place? A shutdown would damage the economy as well as the Republican brand, neither of which businesses want. But if they had the power to stop the Tea Party, shouldn't they have used it by now?

 

Degrees. A default is unprecedented, a shutdown is not.