The American Spectator : Compromising to Win

Text Size

Compromising to Win

By Peter Hannaford on 4.12.11 @ 6:07AM

Perhaps Speaker Boehner had Reagan's example in mind when he negotiated with Senator Reid and President Obama.

Rush Limbaugh spent Monday morning carrying on about the heinous crime committed by House Republicans last Friday: settling for $38.56 billion in budget cuts with Obama and the Senate Democrats.

Once, when Ronald Reagan was running for president, he was asked by a journalist if he didn't think it was wrong to compromise. He said it was in terms of principles, not process. He made the point that when you have only some of the power, not all of it, you'll get less than everything you want. He did not add but could have that getting the most you can requires deft negotiating skills and very good timing. He had them and used an illustration of principle/process and compromise.

He recapped for that journalist his campaign to carry out a sweeping reform of California welfare law and regulations when he was governor. The state was on the road to bankruptcy because the welfare rolls were growing so fast. Eligibility rules were very loose. A team of welfare experts developed a reform plan for him. He wanted to present it to a joint session of the legislature. They turned him down. So he went up and down the state speaking to every group and microphone he could. Finally, one day the Democrat Speaker of the Assembly came into his office with his hands up in mock surrender. "Stop those cards and letters," he said. "Let's talk." They then spent several days negotiating.

The result was a welfare reform bill that greatly tightened eligibility, cut the rate of growth and actually shrunk the rolls. Meanwhile, the truly needy received an increase in grants. Of this Reagan said, "Any time I can get 70 percent of what I want from a legislature controlled by the opposition, I'll take it, figuring it will work and I can go back later for more."

Perhaps that tale was in the mind of Speaker John Boehner when he negotiated with Senate Leader Harry Reid and President Barack Obama. Going into the fray, the House Republicans called for $61 billion in cuts for the balance of the current fiscal year (through September 30). The Senate Democrats balked at any cuts, pooh-poohing the need. Next, they agreed to $4 billion, in exchange for a short Continuing Resolution to keep the government open. In the next round they added another $10 billion in cuts. In the final round they ended up at $38.5 billion, plus a commitment for funding the Department of Defense through September with very small cuts. Meanwhile, by keeping his own members informed every step of the way, Boehner managed to keep most of them with him.

Boehner is a good negotiator. This time, he got 60 percent of what he wanted. Considering that he has one-third of the power structure and the other two-thirds were anxious to cut nothing, it is no small accomplishment. His public statements and interviews show us a man who is confident of his ground, who speaks respectfully of his opposition without giving ground on his principles, and does not speak in hyperbolic terms.

Obama understands the importance of getting on the correct side of cost and deficit reduction. Tomorrow he will give a speech that will include much rhetoric about "getting our house in order" and "spending beyond our means." He will even talk about cost-saving reforms of Medicare and Medicaid. On analysis, the speech will prove to have been long on rhetoric aimed at centrist independent voters and very short on potential action except in one area: New taxes for the "very wealthy" (that is, anyone making $250,000 or more a year -- the people who already pay the lion's share of income taxes). What that will show us that he and Harry Reid's forces have a weak hand for the coming debate over the new fiscal year that begins October 1.

About the Author

Peter Hannaford was closely associated with the late President Ronald Reagan for a number of years. His latest book is Reagan's Roots: The People and Places That Shaped His Character.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (114) | Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.11 @ 6:26AM

There is good.

There is evil.

Everything else is hogwash.

One thing you neglect to mention is that when Reagan was President we didn't have the deficit we have now.

There was room to negotiate and all those negotiations have bought us to the brink of disaster.

The mind set of Washington, D.C. Incorporated is on display here. Let's go for the compromise.

Tell me one time the public benefited for the long run with these compromised. We have observed the U.S. Congress compromise use into Hell.

Look at McCain. He was the compromiser and he compromised himself right out of the Presidency and look what we ended up with as a result of the ill fated compromiser McCain.

Each time the Republicans have reached across the aisle the Democrats have never reached back.

I assume you're writing this article congratulating the cuts.

Maybe we should be overjoyed that during the one week negotiations the previous spending compromises rolled the national debt up over 50 billion in one week.

Where is leadership inside the beltway?

How about this concept?

We can't afford it, so let's SHUT the government down for two weeks and save 100 billion.

Let's shut the Department of Education, a totally useless agency. Ditto the Department of Energy, which actually stands in the way of energy production.

Where is the creativity? Where is the ingenuity? Where is the strength?

The Republican establishment got a middling to non-existent cut and the public is told this is the best we can do at this point.

So the dog ate their homework and you shouldn't worry is the thesis. You're in good hands, John Boehner did a good job.

So sing along:

Johnny Boehner, how I love him.
He's got something I can't resist,
but he doesn't even know that I exist.

Johnny Boehner, how I want him.
How I tingle when he passes by.
Every time he says "Hello" my heart begins to fly.

Impeach Don't Wait| 4.12.11 @ 4:29PM

Oh what tune shall we sing this to?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.11 @ 4:47PM

Johnny Angel, by Shelly Fabares

Dee See| 4.12.11 @ 6:40AM

---PLEASE, enough with the soft programming.

Reagan had a remnant of truth about him
BUT no one surveying the awesome destruction
wrought by the Globalist Bush RED China
economic sellout op. can possibly believe
'compromise' is the way to go with the TRAITORS
of our tax free 'benny violent' shadow gvernment
of Luciferian capstones.

----------------------------NOOOOOO ONE

Mark Shepler| 4.12.11 @ 7:30AM

I believe the whole charade was a sop and feint preparatory to the much larger battles to come. Of course the Dems fought tooth and nail over any cuts. It's part of the game. Besides, they are congenital thieves and spenders of other people's money. But they're also pretty clever knowing they "gave in" less than 1% of the budget. A budget that nearly doubled from '08 to '09 and of which every 43 cents or so is money we don't really have. Why not throw the Reps a bone? Especially if it lets them say they've "compromised" and made "responsible" cuts when insisting on tax increases. That's what the speech will be about, not more cutting.

You can read my full take at my new blog: www.rightwingmuse.com

Please forgive the plug. I've posted here for years but can get as longwinded as I want over there. :)

martin j smith| 4.12.11 @ 7:57AM

Hey Peter, look I am not bent out of shape about what happened I am just dismayed. Thats is all. In another post of a related article I essentially am saying WARN THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP that they better do better in the coming battles and if they do not !!!!!!!!!!!! THEN ASK FOR NEW LEADERSHIP AND THAT THIS BE DONE BY VOTERS SICK OF THE SAME OLD STUFF BY RINOS.

PCPSmoker| 4.12.11 @ 8:02AM

"Any time I can get 70 percent of what I want it from a legislature controlled by the opposition, I'll take it, figuring it will work and I can go back later for more."

Except we control the legislature. Without giving away the key negotiating item ( government shutdown) Reagan , as speaker of the house, would have force Obama to swallow defunding planned parenthood as well as striping the EPA of its recently gained powers.
Boehner made it clear he wasn't going to shutdown the government, allowing Obama to get 70percent of what he wanted. Once again, RR is right.

darcy| 4.12.11 @ 3:51PM

"Boehner made it clear he wasn't going to shutdown the government, . . . " In other words, the Communists now know that they can manipulate Boehner any which way they choose because he's motivated by fear; because he's either not fully on board with the Tea Party agenda, not conservative enough, and/or certainly not savvy enough (if he were conservative) to get the messaging right, even before the budget/spending battles are waged.

Boehner won't fight for us. That's the bottom line. And daily, people are learning that much of the so-called spending cuts of April 8 are in reality accounting jiggles here and there. Dems won this one big-time, just like they did the last CR several weeks ago when Mike Pence pronounced afterward that it's time to pick a fight. Was April 8 what he had in mind as a fight?

When do we see the fight? Is Donald Trump the only one out there calling out Obama?

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.12.11 @ 4:41PM

"Is Donald Trump the only one out there calling out Obama?"

Nope, but he's the only one the MSM can't completely ignore.

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.12.11 @ 5:43PM

Seriously though, the real reason is he has nothing to fear. Fear is what drives Boehner and the rest of the establishment.

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.12.11 @ 8:25AM

Peter,
thank you. A very balanced approach in my opinion.
Unless I'm mistaken, the Speaker himself spoke of these billions being quite a side-show to the trillions at stake coming up.
A lot of our posters here seem to forget that "compromise" is the bed-rock of our system of government.
On this historic day when Fort Sumpter was fired upon 150 years ago we see the results of a refusal to compromise.
You know, our Constitution's final form was a LOT of compromises.

darcy| 4.12.11 @ 3:55PM

Unhappily, the reality is that Republicans are lauded for compromise publicly while behind their backs the Democrats are congratulating themselves for maneuvering Republicans into CAPITULATION, once again. Republicans capitulate, Democrats fight "tooth and nail," or don't you remember the steamroller approach used by witch Pelosi?

simon templar| 4.12.11 @ 4:31PM

Darcy..you nailed it on the head. This little punch and judy show has been going on for nearly a century and you described it wonderfully and accurately. Their attitude is, if we don't get what we want we will go over the wall, under the fence, etc, etc. They had the same attitude when they were in the minority. Conservatives need to grow some balls, stop apologizing for being conservatives, clearly articulate the issues and solutions constantly, defend against criticism quickly and forcefully, and accept and admit mistakes and move on. Most of all stop leaving the 'vision' thing to progressives..start articulating positive definable visions for this nation.

Al Adab| 4.12.11 @ 6:39PM

Ken, Darcy:
Do either of you know whether the CR or the debt limit proposals included the banking surcharge provision? If not what is the current status of that execrable idea?

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.12.11 @ 6:18PM

You sound like the abortion crowd when they call it "choice". I have nothing against compromise. Compromise itself is a fine and wonderful thing. It's the result of the compromise I have a problem with. This great "compromise" has been touted as a "win-win" by both parties. I contend their definition of "winning" means doing nothing, kicking the can down the road, in other words, the usual. The R's had nothing to lose and settled for just that, nothing. What did the D's get? Every program they wanted is fully funded and operational, nothing changed.

The important question is, "What did the people get?" The answer is, more debt.

God Is Truth| 4.12.11 @ 7:20PM

Ken, I usually agree with you, but you DO NOT compromise on God's gift of life. Boehner & co. captitulated big time on defunding Planned Infanticide & there is no excuse for it. Do you really believe God will bless this nation if the Federal Gov't continues sending our tax dollars to providers of abortion on demand? Spare me the talk of the country being in the red & we need to concentrate on fiscal issues before all others. As long as the gov't continues funding Planned Infanticide this country can expect nothing from God who is our provider. I am sickened & enraged knowing my tax dollars help fund the senseless slaughter of God's children! That is one big thing that is always left out of the abortion debate too. They are His children BEFORE they are ours! Who are any of us to decide who lives & who dies? That is God's province, not ours! There is no victory until Boehner & co. defund Planned Infanticide & stick to it, period! If Democrats & the loony left want to play God & kill their children, let them fund it with their own money!

Dan Hirsch| 4.12.11 @ 8:33AM

One way to help everyone understand just how meaningful the budget negotiation was: Stop using the word "trillions" use instead 1,000 billions, or "million millions".

Like this, " Oh Lord happy day, we just shaved 38 billion dollars from this years 1,400 billion dollar budget overrun!"

Or "Hooray, we just saved 38 billion from our 14,300 billion dollar national debt!"

If you use the same units it conveys the reality far more clearly than if you mix the units billions of dollars and trillions of dollars.

Nolite conculcare me!

Todd - Not Boeckmann| 4.12.11 @ 8:45AM

PCP,

Obviously you've been smoking some. There are two houses to the legislature. The Rs only control the House. Yes it starts the budget process, but the Senate also votes. And there is no way the Rs were going to get alot of the stuff they wanted past the Necromancer, Harry Reid.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.12.11 @ 4:46PM

Somebody must have passed it to you.

They literally held the power to defund the entire government if no deal was reached. That was their only trump card and they didn't even consider playing it. Spineless and pathetic, sort of like a grown man crying.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.11 @ 9:12AM

Here are the actual cuts compromise bought you. A few are good. However, a little over 18 billion was not really a cut, simply accounting gimmicks or stopgap cuts in continuing resolutions. In reality it was about 20 billion in cuts and even some of those are questionable.

But it's a compromise. Smile, and forget that nothingness is the new standard of achievement.

The cuts:

The total cuts, which span nearly the entire federal government, include $12 billion in cuts through three stopgap continuing resolutions and $28 billion in new cuts.

Compared to 2010 levels, there are big cuts to cherished Democratic-backed programs. The Women, Infants and Children nutrition program is cut $504 million, foreign food assistance by $194 million and assistance to state and local law enforcement by $415 million.

The Environmental Protection Agency is cut by $1.6 billion, a 16 percent reduction, and lawmakers from Western states were able to include a rider allowing states to de-list wolves from the endangered species list.

The Homeland Security Department sees significant cuts as well: $226 million is cut from the southern border fence at the suggestion of the Obama administration, and the number of Transportation Security Administration workers is capped. FEMA first-responder grants are cut by $786 million.

Health funding also takes a serious hit. Community healthcare centers lose $600 million while HIV and other disease-prevention funds are cut by $1 billion. But Democrats noted that the health centers would not have to close altogether under a cut of this size.

On the other hand, Democrats were pleased that the Pell Grant award remains at $4,860 and there is a modest increase for Head Start. They also highlight that Race to the Top education awards continue.

The Food and Drug Administration will be able to implement last year's new food-safety bill, and the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission will be able to implement the Dodd-Frank financial reform under the levels spelled out in the bill, Democrats said.
The Clinton-era COPS program is cut by $296 million. Low-income heating assistance is cut $390 million, while Community Development Funds are cut $942 million.

Contributions to the U.N. and other international institutions are cut $377 million; federal highway investment is cut $650 million.

The largest cut in the bill is from the Commerce Department, but this is something of an accounting trick since it relates to unspent Census money totaling $6.2 billion.

Republicans claim victory in defunding two so-called “ObamaCare” programs: the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (Co-Op) and Free Choice Voucher programs.

Republicans point out that the bill defunds four administration “czars”: The healthcare, climate change, car and urban affairs “czars” are eliminated, though in practice the administration can carry out the same activities by changing the titles of the people involved.

The bill also contains two controversial D.C.-related riders: One prevents the District from using local funds to provide abortion services for low-income women, and another institutes the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program, a favored item of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

http://thehill.com/homenews/ho.....-whats-not

Ken in Tyler| 4.12.11 @ 9:24AM

Ok, so it's a process. And even the most principled conservatives can't expect to flip a switch and undo 100 years of progressive destruction. But here's the question:
Why is no one even mentioning the goal of restoring Constitutionally limited government? Is it necessary to mask the objective or is it really that the R's want nothing to do with truly limited government? I suspect the latter.
Returning the feds to the constraints of the Constitution may take generations to complete but getting the dependent citizens weaned from the government teat requires someone to carry the banner of self-reliance.
Debasement of the currency, invasion from the south, encroachment of Sharia...there simply isn't time to save the Republic in increments of 1%.

buckeyeman| 4.12.11 @ 9:34AM

Please, please, just give me one more drink. I need it right now. I really do. I promise I'll go cold turkey tomorrow and straighten out my life and then pay my bar tab. I promise. Really, I will.

WL| 4.12.11 @ 9:34AM

Remember the name HANNAFORD and the date 4-12-2011....

In several months when the Fantastic Republiars show back up after the debt ceiling debate and the 2012 budget debate with.....
you guessed it......

NOTHING. STILL CRAZY DEBT. SKY HIGH SPENDING. OBAMA LAUGHING AT US, because our "champions" are piddly little squirts....

YES....remember to look for Mr. Hannaford's column telling us the same thing he is today....

Compromise....

SEE, here's the little secret....

They know Average American citizens do not watch these events play out over the long term...
and that's why it is the same old story over and over again...

Those of us who have seen it play out time and time again just get branded as malcontents, extremists, and rubes....

THEN, MAGICALLY...it all starts over again...

If you doubt me...step back and think....

How many times have you been told that you have to "compromise" and "one step at a time" by the Repubs and their lackies....

Where did it get us then? and where are we now?....hint....THE SAME PLACE WE WILL BE TOMORROW...

NOWHERE WITH NOTHING BUT DEBT, DEMS, and THE GOOD COP ROLE FILLING REPUBLICANS.

Derek Leaberry| 4.12.11 @ 9:38AM

The last budget of George W. Bush, no piker, was $2.9 trillion. The current Obama-Reid-Boehner budget is $3.8 trillion. This "victory" is akin to the Washington Generals scoring the last basket in a game against the Globetrotters.

Ultimately, conservatives can not win in the current climate when tens of millions of "conservatives" want their program kept at the expense of frugal government. The system will collapse and there is no reason for conservatives to prevent that collapse.

Anthony| 4.12.11 @ 9:38AM

Really Mr. Hannaford? Is $ 39 B 60% of $100B? Is this the new RINO math? This deal stinks, but since it's only for 5 months I've given Boehner more credit than he deserves. Bachmann was absolutely right, he started from a position of weakness and doubled down on it.
Limbaugh and Levin are also absolutely correct, as well as many of us who have opined that Boehner couldn't negotiate candy from a 5 year old.
When Boehner caved on the "phony" government shut down, Boehner had Obozo just where Obozo wanted him. Boehner never explained to the American people that a government shutdown is a fiction of the Washington establishment, probably because Boehner is too much a creature of Washington. He learned the wrong lesson from 95, and listened to the insiders who have their heads you know where.
Boehner could not even counter the absurd and irresponsible rhetoric coming from the mouths of insane Ds. A high school debater could have done better.
No Mr. Hannaford, this does not bode well for the next crisis, namely the debt ceiling and the Ryan budget. The Ds have Boehner's number, and it is ZERO.
I'll tell you what Mr. Hannaford, I'll make a deal with you anytime, if Boehner is your negotiator, want to start with the Brooklyn Bridge?

BoomBoom| 4.13.11 @ 5:53PM

You got it ALL Right....Dead-on Balls Right. The Repubicrats think that we don't think. They have NO MORE chances. They gotta go.

erp| 4.12.11 @ 9:42AM

Nonsense. Craven Cowards Caved!

WL| 4.12.11 @ 9:44AM

Does anyone notice how even the so-called TRUE conservative writers on this site...have turned on all of us in the last few days????
There was a column yesterday about how we were whining and wanted "EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW"...

Just a thought....

This website and it's writers are starting to do a little "name calling" if you ask me.......

And we know....who does that....

Real conservative writers would make a case for the Boehner deal and express caution at trusting it while CONVINCING us readers that their is some real hope....while striking and understanding of the trevails we have been through with the republican party....

Real conservative writers would NOT:
Use Rush's rejection of this deal as an example of the whining right malcontents.
Set a tone that indicts the fighting spirit in all of us that lets us see this for what it is.
and....a real conservative writer wouldn't NAME CALL the way these writers appear to be doing...without doing...while doing...but not doing...

Starting to smell at the spectator.....
LIKE LIBERALISM

martin j smith| 4.12.11 @ 10:14AM

Compromise is fine except we are the COMPROMISOR AND THE SOCIALISTS THE COMPROMISEE. That is problematic. Its time for a more balanced approach. N'est pas ?

Andrew Keirns| 4.12.11 @ 10:18AM

I don't see JBoehner doing what Reagan did, going up and down the state to get the word out. I imagine politics if tough for those in it, but for those of us outside the beltway, we simplify things a bit: cut spending, now, not four years from now.

Michael L. Hauschild| 4.12.11 @ 10:42AM

70% of what you want when the opposition has control and 60% of what you want when you have the majority of the branch that decides the spending does not sound like much of a deal to me. Keep drinking the kool aid boys, the country is going bankrupt, the people you just elected are going to raise the debt ceiling on the promise of the progressive element, and you are praising the spineless fools that are facilitating this. The last eight days of negotiations (surrender) produced twenty billion more of national debt, despite your much heralted "cuts" (not cuts, promises of cuts).
Planned parenthood (not the good part in the chart, abortion) and NPR (their own personal propaganda wing) remain untouchable and all you do is pat each other on the back. You are collectively DDBS (deaf, dumb, blind, and stupid.)

Maddox| 4.12.11 @ 10:51AM

It doesn't matter which side of the debate your opinion falls, I believe we can all agree that we must continue making demands to get even small amounts cut from government spending. If we do not protest loudly, our greedy, self absorbed "leaders" will continue to use our earnings as their personal slush fund. We will not be satisfied with temporary appeasement and we will not be silenced in the fight to save America.

Truth is King| 4.12.11 @ 11:00AM

OK so the ones itching for a third party are still itching for it. Isn't this what it's really all about? All the bitching and moaning. If we have a third party the Left wins. If we bitch and moan about when there are small victories on our side (if indeed you consider yourselves part of the Republican side that is), then the Left wins.

It seems to me like the behavior of children. Stomp feet, bitch and moan, and run away. Oh, and disparage everyone who acknowledges the small victory on your way out the door.

What are our choices here? Run away, start a third party, or stand with the Republicans who are at least working to make a difference and continue to encourage them on old their feet to the fire? If they don't do the job we elected them to do? Our system of governance allows for voting them out next time around.

It's up to us~ WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT.

Joe Oliva| 4.12.11 @ 4:17PM

Listen up Truth,

If you are a Republican rep, the elites will come to you and tell you if you don't vote for this, you won't get a seat on a prestigious committe.

However, if the Tea Party was really a separate party, then the GOP elite leaders couldn't threaten you that way. The tables get turned and you could say to them, if I don't get the seat I want, me and my 86 other Tea Partiers will not support anything you want from us.

Therefore, the end result is that as a Third Party, we would actually have real power and we decide who we would caucus with. We also get to vote on who is speaker so Pelosi doesn't necessarily win. As a Third Party, we could have asked for a much stronger conservative to be leader instead of the spineless Boehner. He you see, is the typical "next in line" guy that the GOP always elects rather than principle leaders who will stand and fight.

Truth is King| 4.12.11 @ 5:04PM

Hiya Mr. O,

Well I get your point and if I could snap my fingers and create a solid third party and I knew that everyone would get behind it~ Repubs, Indies, Libertarians, et al I'd do it.

But what do you think would happen if we formed a third party? Think Ross Perot and the vote going to Clintoony. Or think party of Ron Paul. Ugh.

Nope, I want the Republican party to keep waking up because we're making them wake up, but it's gonna take us continuing to bop them on the head.. or vote them out.

Can't we just keep voting them out instead of that alternative?

I really do get what you're saying, but ya see what I'm saying? :^)~

Clint| 4.12.11 @ 5:33PM

The Republican Party RINO-CINO Apologists gave Us The Serial Traitor to Conservatism John McCain,who gave Us McCain-Lieberman, McCaib-Kennedy, McCain- Feingold, The Gang of 14, Opposing The Bush 2001 & 2003 Tax Cuts and Tarp.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

We Walk The Talk On Tax Day.

Truth is King| 4.12.11 @ 5:43PM

Wrong, Cinty-poo.
The Democrats who got to vote in our primaries got him to become the nominee.
Nice try.
You LIVE to try and paint others as something they're not, like me.
Especially whenever the truth is clearly spoken.

No conservative WANTED McCain to be the nominee, however once he became that we voted for him as opposed to Obama.

You on the other hand said you wrote in your brother-in-law.

Upstanding citizen or not, it helped elect Obama. You are part of the problem, not the solution, and your ilk will be helping to re elect the worst President in history.

Clint| 4.12.11 @ 6:29PM

Gee, Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie, I Didn't Vote With Any Democrats In My GOP Primary For The Serial Traitor To Conservatism John McCain, Nor Did I Vote For The Serial Peter Principle Asshat Obama.

Aaaand, Your New Jersey's primaries are "closed," meaning that only registered members of a political party may vote in its contest.

Now Apocalyptic Crank Lady,Tell All The American Spectator Readers Who You Voted For In New Jersey's Super Tuesday GOP Primary Election.

You're Up Israel Firster Truth Queen.

Truth is King| 4.12.11 @ 7:07PM

Why, I voted for your brother-in-law in the GOP primary, silly.

What a maroon.

Clint | 4.12.11 @ 7:16PM

Then Shut Your Criticizing Mouth About We Conservatives, Who Voted Write In "Protest Votes" for Our Brother-in-Laws, Liar is King McCain RINO-CINO Joisey Broad.

Truth is King| 4.12.11 @ 8:35PM

Listen, punk:
You and your ilk will never shut me up, no matter your filthy mouth filled with venom and lies.
Go right ahead and continue being part of the problem~ little man-child.
It suits you well.

Clint | 4.13.11 @ 7:42AM

Gee The Joisey Bigot Pig Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor- Margie is all PMS'y & Crazed, once again.

God Is Not Fooled By Apocalyptic Crank Job Victor-Margie.

Truth is King| 4.13.11 @ 5:01PM

You are a shining reflection of the Catholic "faith."
Very well done.

God Is Truth| 4.12.11 @ 7:31PM

"Can't we just keep voting them out instead of the alternative?"
Mr. Truth, does the name Lisa Murcowski mean anything to you? Think hard, it might come to you.

Clint | 4.12.11 @ 7:54PM

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha !
Unlike Murkowski, My Brother-In-Law Is A Real Conservative RINO-CINO Imbecile Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.

Think Hard, You Might Spell The Bitch's Name Right,The Next Time.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

We Walk Our Talk On Tax Day.

God Is Truth| 4.12.11 @ 8:46PM

Clint, this isn't Margie & the above post was directed to Truth Is King, not you. Also my spelling Murcowski's name was no mistake. It was intended.

Truth is King| 4.12.11 @ 8:40PM

God is Truth~

Clinty-pooh thinks you are me, he is out of his mind.
Do you wish to join him here?

If you are using God's Name to post, I would change it if I were you.

Remember the 10 Commandments, one of which is this one:

"Thou shalt not take the Name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His Name in vain." Ex. 20:7.

I Stand Corrected| 4.12.11 @ 8:56PM

Truth Is King, you are absolutely correct regarding the use of God's name in vain & I would like to thank you for pointing it out. My new screen name will remain to remind me of the foolish way I used God's name in vain. Take care & God bless!

Truth is King| 4.12.11 @ 9:01PM

ISC:

Cute. But my point was that if you choose to behave like Clinty-pooh, you would be disgracing God's Name.

Suit yourself.

I Stand Corrected| 4.12.11 @ 9:05PM

No cuteness. I was agreeing with you.

Truth is King| 4.12.11 @ 9:12PM

p.s.~ as to your above comment about my above comment:

Why the snarky attitude? Why did you ask me this question concerning Murkowski?

My point was that we vote out those who do not do their jobs, and you have a problem with that?

I Stand Corrected| 4.12.11 @ 9:23PM

My point was sometimes voting them out doesn't work if they want to remain in power the way Murkowski did. She lost & still didn't accept the will of the Alaskan voters. As for the snarky attitude, I was wrong & do not excuse it. I apologize.

Truth is King| 4.12.11 @ 9:35PM

ISC:
Thanks for the clarification on the matter~ and the apology, it's gladly accepted. When the nutjob above starts in with the vile name calling and accusations, it seemed like you were joining him.

I understand about Murkowski, and I understand about the stupid RINO's. I'm a Sarah Palin conservative, I'm for FREEDOM, a strong military defense, less taxes, and a limited fed. gov.

I vote Republican and have all my voting life, but only because it's the best we've got. I despise the so-called moderates, just like you do. I just refuse to give in and not vote Republican because that gives the election to Obama.

That's a point where some of us disagree. I say we can't allow the Dems to win any election. This only makes me a RINO in the eyes of some, but not in God's eyes, this I know!

Please~ change your name back to God is Truth again.. your attitude in your last post reflects one who belongs to Him. I only meant to say that if you were acting like Clint/Tim* that you should change it. But you are not like him.
God bless you.

I Stand Corrected| 4.12.11 @ 9:41PM

Truth Is King, you were correct, God's name should not be used lightly, including the way I was using it. The new name will remain to ensure I don't do it again. Take care & God bless you too.
p.s.: I don't take Clint seriously either. Ignore him.

Truth is King| 4.12.11 @ 10:49PM

If you will not take your name back, then take mine.
I can then go back to using my "real" name here. But only if you will take the name, Truth is King.

What do you say?

Truth Is King| 4.14.11 @ 6:26AM

Sorry for the delay, but my computer crashed. Had to fix it. You're on.

Clint| 4.13.11 @ 8:04AM

" Thou shalt not eatith the Margie -Poop". Ex, 20: 7 1/2.

Truth Is King| 4.14.11 @ 6:26AM

You're need help.

Truth Is King| 4.14.11 @ 6:27AM

Excuse me, you're in need of help Clint. God bless!

Doctor Right| 4.12.11 @ 11:35AM

Mr. Hannaford:

Do us all a favor, will you? Stop reciting the GOP-establishment talking-points, and STOP comparing John Boehner to Ronald Reagan!

What the hell has happened to the American Spectator??? If you represent the caliber of the columnists they're sourcing, then this is not the TAS I used to know.

This deal is a joke, and so is John Boehner. Rush Limbaugh (and Mark Levin) are 100% correct in their reaction to this "compromise".

Boehner pledged $100 billion in cuts; then he said $67 billion; then he "compromises" for $38 billion, $10 billion of which may have been nothing but carry-over from the Continuing Resolution.

We did NOT make the GOP the majority Party in Congress to dick-around like this! It's clear that Boehner and the establishment Repubiks in DC have no intention and no stomach for taking this fight DIRECTLY to Obama, and making it hurt.

What's the worst thing that could happen? He vetoes the bill? SO WHAT?!?!? That clearly and distinctly draws a battle-line in the sand for 2012, one that the GOP could win easily if our leaders had balls.

By taking a Government shut-down off the table, Boehner has shown his hand to his opponents. They know he's scared to death of a shut-down, and therefore, they have the leverage.

Mr. Boehner had better wake the hell up and realize that although he's "1/2 of 1/3 of the government", he controls the purse strings completely, NOT Obama!

THe GOP-establishment did NOT get the message last November; looks like the purge must continue. Here's hoping the good people of Ohio will dispatch Boehner back home in 2012, along with his cronies.

This is political war, Mr. Hannaford. You don't "compromise" with tyranny.

Grow a pair, please.

Oldefarte| 4.12.11 @ 11:37AM

Michael L.: Then only possible person fitting the STUPID label is yourself, so look in your constant KOOL-AID MIRROR, okay? When a male wants to have sex with a female companion and she replies that she has a headache, do you propose RAPE as his solution? Grow a brain, life is a constant compromise! Peter's etc point is that R's [ie Boehner etc] ONLY CONTROL THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE AND WHITE HOUSE ARE CONTROLLED BY THE DEMOCRATS [all of whom are government welfare providers] SO WHATEVER IS PASSED IN THE HOUSE WILL NOT PASS THE SENATE [AND IF SO WILL BE VETOED BY THE PRESIDENT]! We ALL WANT $500+ TRILLION IN BUDGET CUTS, okay [not just you NO COMPROMISE TYPES]; but you have to live with what POSSIBLE. Life doesn't strictly revolve around what you want exclusively, ie MICHAEL'S GOVERNMENT. The BIG FIGHT is now [most importantly] the upcoming 2012 budget and debt ceiling battles, and WE ALL SHOULD demand rightfully your desired BURN DOWN THE BARN TYPE cuts from same. This just completed partial-year budget fight was relatively unimportant in the overall scheme of the whole political picture. So, NOW THE REAL WAR BEGINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.12.11 @ 4:57PM

"...but you have to live with what POSSIBLE."

So you're saying they made the best deal possible? No deficit reduction, in fact they actually added to it. Not one costly government program ended. No stopping the public funding for Public (Democrat) Radio. No stopping public funding of abortion which is supposed to already be illegal.

What exactly did we get again? I'd like to say nothing but we actually got less than nothing. More debt.

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.12.11 @ 6:22PM

PS. In another thread you chastise people for shouting RINO, Kool Aid etc. Read the first line of your post. Hypocritical much?

Wayne | 4.12.11 @ 11:49AM

"... anyone making $250,000 or more a year -- the people who already pay the lion's share of income taxes" - I wish people would quit quoting this 250K figure. It is not. It is 125K for a married person and 200K for an unmarried person.

There seems to be a need for GOP establishment to claim some sort of victory in this. That concerns me, since it is a position of weakness. Worse, we have an article that calls on Reagan. It is a weak appeal. I would be happier with a "we failed, but we will do better next time."
Here is my take:
1. its not 38.5 out of 61 Billion, since the GOP started by negotiating with themselves and the Dems cagely just started at 0. At best it is 38.5 out of 100 Billion. But in my mind it is 38.5 out of 205.5 (adding in the 105.5 the Dems snuck into ObamaCare).
2. Now the GOP is on record as supporting Planned Parenthood.
3. Now the GOP is on record as support Cap and Trade or at least as the EPA implements it.
4. Now the GOP can not fight the debt limit, as the agreement on the budget requires the increase.
5. Now we know that the GOP will cave when the left calls them child killers and women killers, and we can not count on them to stand up to a verbal onslaught.
6. The GOP is leaving the door open for a Donald Trump, because they show so little courage and backbone.

Maybe we don't need political parties.

God Is Truth| 4.12.11 @ 7:35PM

Very well put Wayne. God bless!

MikeN| 4.12.11 @ 12:07PM

What a joke of an excuse. Nothing gets spent without House approval.

Joe Oliva| 4.12.11 @ 4:20PM

Exactly correct!!!

RJ| 4.12.11 @ 12:20PM

John Boehner is no Ronald Reagan. President Reagan was one of the rare elected officials who demonstrated political courage, such as the Air Traffic Controllers Strike and Reykjavík as prime examples.

John Boehner is does not come close to having such political courage. He makes it clear that he will throw in the towel before the fight starts. The GOP will never be serious about reforming the government as long as people like Boehner and Cantor are in leadership positions.

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.12.11 @ 12:27PM

Since when do all these conservatives get so excited over NOTHING? I expect the house we voted in to support limited government and less taxes. Now they've done nothing, called it wonderful and anyone who criticizes this is "drinking the kool aid?"

Rush is right, as usual. The writers at AS are ALL WET and making me want to puke with their conservative version of 'hope and change' articles.

Boehner and the rest were driven by FEAR! Afraid of Obama, afraid of the Dems, afraid of a shutdown and MOST OF ALL afraid of not being re-elected! That's not leadership, that's more of the same. COWARDS!

PCPSmoker| 4.12.11 @ 12:37PM

Todd
You missed the point. The house gas greater leverage as they allocate the resources. Harry Reid can be made to accept anything if placed in the right position. Giving away the only leverage the GOP had, left Bonehead with nothing more than a measly 38 billions. Also see the Washington times story on the deal. The shit has started to leak out of the diaper.

Who Knows?| 4.12.11 @ 12:44PM

Either you compromise, or you don’t.

There is either good or bad.

Is compromise bad?

What is a “price”?

The cost of any “good” is determined by---

COMPROMISE!

Just so, when it comes to the macro COSTS of government programs, the NEGOTIATION between the buyers and sellers MUST result in a settled “price”.

Perhaps that’s the PRICE a free people must pay.

So, we get to factor in all the foul winded nonsense about “What a bad negotiator Boehner is!”, etc, from cheer leaders like Limbaugh.

One of the best insights I’ve gotten from this website is---

“You can’t cure stupid.”

Remember, we all know a fool when we see one, but never when we are one.

Also, you may look like a stupid fool, but why open your mouth---or comment on a website---and remove all doubt?

Maybe I’m a fool to write all this.

God Is Truth| 4.12.11 @ 7:39PM

"Maybe I'm a fool to write all this." You nailed it yourself with that last sentence. God bless!

Anthony| 4.12.11 @ 2:04PM

Doctor Right and some other posters are on to something about the recent discourse at TAS, that is decidedly not very conservative.
Perhaps that explains why Wlady, Mr. Tyrrell, and the web editor, Mr. Antle have not responded to requests to bring back the reply response to posters.
Friends, if you don't hear from me again, it has been a pure pleasure to know you, and that you all are out there.

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.12.11 @ 3:54PM

Speaking of the reply to function...

They actually announced it was a technical problem at one point and the remarks about it being on purpose etc. are unfounded assumptions.

mames| 4.12.11 @ 2:12PM

This WAS compromising the principals. It was a cave in to the destruction of our Constitutionally Limited Republic. If Reagan agreed with you regarding today's situation I would call him stupid as well. He was a strong man but not by no means infallible. Let us not forget that Reagan voted with his emotions when he supported the Brady bill, a direct assault on the 2nd amendment. True CLR supporters follow principles and ideas as laid out and defined by the constitution, we do not follow men nor should we. IF we become concerned about the ideas and principals of the constitution then we try to amend it we don't use judicial fiat or majority politiking and abandonment of the LAW. I do believe however that is if alive he would see this situation for what it is LIFE OR DEATH, a pretty big principal. BOEHNER AND THE GOP WIMPED OUT AGAIN AND THEY NEED TO GO. What will they do to leverage against raising the credit cap or establishing spending cuts now that they have declared shutting down is something they will not do? IF they don't reverse course they have castrated themselves, assuming there was anything left to cut off in the first place.

Doctor Right| 4.12.11 @ 2:18PM

So now TASOnline is deleting posts??

Time to move on. Turn out the lights, please...

Pat| 4.12.11 @ 2:43PM

Amusing, rationalizing failure with an appeal to common sense and compromise – does anyone feel reassured? And, if we turn the clock back two years, we have a former community organizer crafting a one trillion dollar Stimulus Plan to dispense welfare dollars to every state along with a small army of “Friends of the Democrats”. A political rookie singlehandedly brings two major auto companies back from the dead and keeps deserving financial “playahs” on Wall St. from losing their Bentley and Mercedes leases due to non-payment. And he performs all these legislative miracles within a matter of a few short months.

The voting public then becomes alarmed at the vast sums being given away, money we Americans don’t even have but are required to borrow. And resentment mounts when our new President’s welfare payments can’t defeat the Great Recession and can’t lower the unemployment rate back to a number we can all live with. Last election, the voters spoke and the Republicans swept into power but a very limited power according to this author – in fact, a rather puny power compared to what Obama could and did accomplish a couple short years ago.

Somehow, finding consolation in $38 billion in budget cuts is difficult and not much reason to rejoice. The Democrats, while at bat, hit two bases loaded home runs, several triples, a couple singles and one of their guys stole home. When their turn at the plate came, the Republicans bloop a pitch into shallow center field and the fans are supposed to erupt in cheers because they managed to put a guy on base? The Republican strategy is to keep doing the same things over and over, all the while hoping for different outcomes. Albert Einstein, a very smart guy, had a favorite term for those simple souls harboring such naive expectations – he called them “Idiots”.

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.12.11 @ 5:07PM

I'd make one small change to your analogy, otherwise it's perfect. When the R's were up to bat they didn't get a hit, they got an intentional walk, agreed to in advance by both teams.

Impeach Don't Wait| 4.12.11 @ 7:26PM

Pat,

Your first two paragraphs say it all. How we let a political rookie (apt word), “community organizer” take FULL CONTROL of so much of the economy… as if the fact of his “office” qualifies him to do so … while those in Congress sit back and watch,… what a farce!

And now those with the common sense to see the DANGER IN ALL THIS have little power and have only the tool of “negotiation” to save the nation???...

Where are the grownups?!

e cowan| 4.12.11 @ 2:55PM

Reagan did a lot of good, but he was not GOD.
Boehner is weak loser.
To hell with him and his compromising US out of existence.

Anthony| 4.12.11 @ 3:00PM

P.S. Mr. Hannaford, if you think bankrupting this nation and causing a complete breakdown of our culture and society is just process, as opposed to principle, you need to find another site to peddle your nonsense.

simon templar| 4.12.11 @ 3:15PM

We had century of compromising...and we were compromised to the brink of disaster. There is a time for everything..this is not one of them. Its not about compromising at this point. It is about informing, educating, and convincing the majority of the public as to what is at stake here, the severity of this crisis and who and what has brought us to this crisis. Bohner failed on all accounts to do this. Now, we even have "conservative" news outlets like FoxNews presenting the Tea Party as extremist and the Washington crowd presented as centrist. AS writers are now calling us spoiled whiners. Yea, and we are suppose to trust Boehner and the establishment. I have no doubt that Boehner, Hannaford, Rove, or any of you have the balls, guts, or spine to do what is needed even if you had a majority of the government. I am taking bets that the Impostor out smarts all of you.

Rafael Rodriguez| 4.12.11 @ 10:24PM

well put simon. levin is spot on correct. our speaker is weak and feckless. I dont trust or have faith in our current house leadership. B blew it. 38 billion out of 1.65 trillion. what a joke! obama is laughing in the oval office saying what a light weight speaker B is.

simon templar| 4.12.11 @ 3:29PM

Hannaford...you failed to mention one of the most important points that Rush made regarding this whole fiasco...the real reason behind this compromise and the general behavior of RINO establishment Republicans....your deathly fear of the liberal press and your inability to stop apologizing for being conservatives.

Chef Schnauzer| 4.12.11 @ 3:45PM

Only losers like compromise. Boehner is a weak sniveling loser. Compromise got us State paid baby murder. Compromise got us more government parasites. Compromise is EVIL - Compromise is loved by douche bag lawyers and other moral cowards.

Truth is King| 4.12.11 @ 5:08PM

Then don't ever go into politics or you'll end up becoming a sniveling Schnauzer :^).

Oldefarte| 4.12.11 @ 4:22PM

OMG, apparently Forrest Gump was correct after all, STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES [or states]!!!!!!!

Joe D.| 4.12.11 @ 4:37PM

Once again Rush is right and this time, Peter Hannaford is wrong. We could have gotten much more if we had push. The people were on our side, Peter.

Impeach Don't Wait| 4.12.11 @ 7:42PM

The people have never been more on our side than now. There IS such a concept as political capital. Now is the time to push! Negotiation is another word for "waiting until later." The longer we put off the fight, the quicker the left advances to our further detriment. Besides, if the Democrats don't want it now, they won't want it later. Be ruthless. Now! There is no excuse for good, hard-working Americans of noble conviction to be forced by their government to hand over money to pay for abortions! This should not even be negotiable!! It is evil!

Derek Leaberry| 4.12.11 @ 4:44PM

John Podhoretz has come out with the information that the cuts are actually $ 8-14 billion range with a lot of shell game-hidden pea mirage tactics. So the deal is a failure and must be rejected. On top of that, dear old Alan Simpson of the Debt Commission has come out vilifying conservatives for our social views. It is high time to burn down the Republican house. Boehner, Simpson and Hannaford are our enemies and not our friends.

Anthony| 4.12.11 @ 5:54PM

Derek, you are so right. What is it with establishment Rs? That moron Simpson truly lives up to his namsake on T.V. It was sickening listening to that old fool, and have Matthews play him for the useful idiot that he is.
Avoid social issues, how is that accomplished Mr. Simpson, in a budget that funds every leftist social issue? How did you manage to do that during your illustrous career in Washington? Curious minds want to know.
The more the Boehner deal is exposed, the more of a fraud it is, including cuts from tzars that have vacated their posts.
It's almost impossible to keep up with the lies and budget gimmicks these liars concoct.
One thing we know for sure, if this keeps up, America will collapse, and then we will know who to look for.

darcy| 4.12.11 @ 8:47PM

Anthony: I also heard Alan Simpson talk about how "We're all God's children." What an absolute bunch of theological garbage. I guess he closed his ears during Sunday School when he learned of how Christ spoke of the pharisees who were of their father, the Devil (John 8:44). Alan Simpson is among the class of establishment Republicans who with their enablement of the Democrat agenda have brought us to the brink of the financial abyss. They (the Simpsonistas) use their ostensible religiosity to cloak their transnationalist schemes; their rallying cry is that since all are God's children, and within each breast beats a heart yearning for freedom, then we should open our borders to EVERYONE who wants to come in -- because all people are God's children.

And America has an obligation to eviscerate itself on the altar of the worship of multiculturalism, since all people are God's children.

And with this inane mantra, Alan Simpson would nullify the sanctity of marriage as between a man and a woman, because, after all, the Republican base is a bunch of HOMOPHOBES. In other words, who gives a bleeping crap about the FAMILY, the smallest intact social unit -- the core unit of civilization in which values and culture are transmitted -- as long as the 2% of radical homosexuals get their FALSE acceptance of their perverse lifestyle "normalized."

Alan Simpson is a whore for Communists.

Truth is King| 4.13.11 @ 3:06PM

Simpson is the lowest of the low. I heard the cut of him on the radio, what a disgusting human being.
That's all I got to say.
That and... we keep voting them out!!

The Duke| 4.13.11 @ 8:12PM

Didn`t Alan Simpson's fellow REPUBLICAN, ex-Senator Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, come from the same state?

Michael L. Hauschild| 4.12.11 @ 6:41PM

100 billion, 61 billion, 38.5 billion and since I posted this morning now 14.5 billion, hum, just what I said. So, ancient flatulance, that kool aid have a little bile taste? Please answer and include some rant about Natural Law and post most of the response in caps so we can all just glance, tell it is you, and scroll by.

Wayne | 4.12.11 @ 7:20PM

Maybe those drinking the Boehner Kool-Aid will regain their senses. This was an orchestrated Big Con.

Anthony| 4.12.11 @ 8:43PM

Exactly right Michael. So Mr. Hannaford, what do you have to say for yourself now? Is $ 8B-$12B 60% of $100B? Well?? Are the Boehner accounting tricks the best deal he could get for the American people?
It appears each time we try and give Boehner some credit, he and his pals let us down.
So it turns out Boehner, Cantor, and McCarthy are LIARS. They are no different from Obozo, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest of the D whores.
They have deliberately engaged in obfuscation,budget gimmicks and outright phantom cuts.
Bernie Maddoff when to prison for doing the exact same things to his investors. Will the Washington political be held to the same standard?
Washington is awash with professional liars who are engaged in a deliberate con game to fool the American people with their treachery.
Congrats Mr. Boehner, earlier I compared you to Nevill Chamberlain, I was wrong, you sir, might just have fired the first shot in the second American Revolution.
Well, it looks like you accomplished something big afterall.
Mr. Hannaford, can you say willing accomplice?

simon templar| 4.12.11 @ 7:00PM

The truth is they really do not give a frigin rats ass if the nation collaspes economically. The ruling elite and their little sycophants will be just fine as they always have...you my freinds will do the suffering. Our generation is too young to remember the last time it collasped but the Boehners, the Gates, the Buffetts, and the Clintons, and the Bushes will be just fine. In fact things will even be better as land, wages, labor, and resources will be even cheaper. It will be the middle classes who will be destroyed.

The Duke| 4.12.11 @ 8:07PM

Yep, Reagan spent more time compromising than his true believers will ever admit. He cut--and raised--taxes, appointed 3 Supreme Court Justices, including 2 who weren`t committed to overturning Roe v Wade. Ironically, the anti-abortion crowd thinks he was one of the them. He cut a deal on illegal immigrants and amnesty too. And he sat down to negotiate with the Soviets rather than fighting them.

PCP Smoker| 4.12.11 @ 10:28PM

O'Connor sided with the pro-life side when she got to the court. She later grew into an unpredictable lib. Kennedy was a reliable conservative in the district court. He also grew. Hard to blame RR for the liberal growth of his picks, don't you think?

The Duke| 4.13.11 @ 8:05AM

Fair point that judicial appointments have been historically unpredictable. Still though, there Reagan passed over other potential nominees who had hard-core objections to Roe v Wade.
And so, 30 years after Reagan took office, Roe v Wade has not been overturned, nor is it in danger of being overturned anytime soon. I wonder how many folks were suckered into voting for him in 1980 and 1984, think that would finish off abortion.

PCP Smoker| 4.12.11 @ 10:02PM

Lets not forget one thing, RR was going nose to nose against political giants like Jesse Unruh and Tip O'Neil, themselves leaders of large democratic majorities. That RR was able to get increase in defense spending and a 30% tax reduction, including bringing the top margin down to 15%, in a left wing liberal environment, with no Levin, Limbaugh or Fix News, proves exactly the OPPOSITE point Hannaford is trying to make.

Rafael Rodriguez| 4.12.11 @ 10:17PM

Shameful! the speaker asked for a pittance worth of deficit reduction. 38 billion in savings is used up in ten days of new debt. He should of asked for atleast 1.5 trillion in cuts and threatened to shut down the government or not said anything at all. Folks, we have a inside the belt way republican in our speaker and not a conservative. Weak and feckless. No strategy in place. Obama is laughing all the way to bankruptcy bank. Our current speaker is Weak!

PCP Smoker| 4.12.11 @ 10:30PM

excellent point about there being no strategy. Levin (TGO) mentioned that they are treating all of these resolution as individual events instead of pointing to the cancer causing the problem.

PolishKnight| 4.12.11 @ 11:13PM

Regarding welfare reform, I think RR got duped on that one although in the long run, he may have put a poison pill in the welfare state.

When he tightened welfare requirements AND expanded them for the "truly needy", it basically came down to him kicking out working class men and funding unwed motherhood. It permanently alienated working class men from the welfare state. The right has taken their votes for granted ever since while courting the left's special interest groups which creates the obvious question: If the party elites of the right don't respect their own electorate and respect the left's electorate and their benefits, what's the point?

As long as the government more or less functions, like post Soviet era Russia, and the party elites still drive their Mercedes and BMW's and have machine gun protected dachas, all's well in their world. It's an ugly, perpetual, 1984 style world (ironically, RR was president in 1984).

Thanks for welfare mothers, gipper. You criticized them, but you also created them.

Yosemeti Sam| 4.13.11 @ 12:20AM

" ...heinous crime committed by House Republicans last Friday: settling for $38.56 billion in budget cuts with Obama and the Senate Democrats...."

Here is HOW to SAVE a Trillion(s) - more or less:

Want to put BHO & Co. in a money pinch on prospective mega loans from CHINA?

Remind CHINA that money is FUNGIBLE - and our American military welcomes contributions.

And you won't get a dime back from them unless it's in the form of payback with some shiny objects.

LOL.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.13.11 @ 12:26AM

As witnessed by those who responded to this article most so-called "conservatives" know nothing about Ronald Reagan. This is not surprising considering the ignorance of self-described "Reagan conservatives" (misnomer Reagan would reject) like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc.. who through their antics and attacks on the GOP created the Reid/Pelosi Congress and Barack Obama in the White House.

Ronald Reagan was an extreme pragmatist who governed through compromise and wheeling and dealing. Whether it was tax increases, growing the bureaucracy, amnesty for millions of illegals, deficit spending or punishing the self-employed to enact a Democrat sham to "fix" Social Security" Reagan was always compromising with Democrats.

He was a great President, because unlike those who misuse his name to press their narrow agendas, he understood the importance of governing.

PolishKnight| 4.13.11 @ 9:28AM

Sadly, Michael, I do remember a lot about the Reagan era and I had, and have, a lot of beefs with him.

A true legacy is one that lives on and Reagan's starting dying the day he left office. His political compromise was to take on GHB as his VP and look at how that turned out. The Bushes openly started dismanting any achievements and now we're back at ground zero or even behind.

I suppose Reagan is worshiped because he was the first in a long time to be a strong, albeit flawed, conservative. The Bushes, Dole, McCain are open moderate Democrats. Even JFK is more conservative than them. We have yet to see a strong conservative get past the primaries and make a bid for the White House which begs the question: Do we need a third party? Have the Democrats largely won in that their big government philosophy makes it impossible for a conservative to run through either major parties to a presidential bid?

It's now clear that the Bush era set back conservativism and that the Obama administration has breathed fresh air into the movement. Perhaps it's time to pull a Clinton, but do it right. If (or perhaps when) another RINO is put up for the presidential bid for 2012, let him lose. Let the public eat Democrat for a while. Like $8 gas? Vote Democrat! Like rolling power outages? Vote Democrat! Let Joe and Jane Six Pack (or Wonk) eat darkness for a decade or so until they "get it."

Rev Trask| 4.20.11 @ 9:17PM

And he was very shrewd too--he had the Evangelicals eating out of his hand, and delivering their votes to him in 1980 and 1984, even though he never delivered anything to them except lip service. He didn`t give them a Supreme Court with a majority of anti-Roe v Wade justices; in fact, he never met with them publicly. He didn`t want to alienate the independent voters because (unlike the Tea Party hotheads) he knew their numbers were too large and critical to ignore. And so, during the 1980`s, the GOP racked up a ton of independent and swing voters in races across the country.

davod| 4.13.11 @ 4:32AM

Michael,
If Reagan were here to respond to the adoration flowing forth about his pragmatism and wheeling and dealing hewell might say that the Dems reneged on much of their parts of the deals.

davod| 4.13.11 @ 4:41AM

The Republican approach to reducing the massive increase in spending was wrong. They should have made the argument to the voters based upon the increase in government spending since the Dems took back the Congress. A simple campaign showig the dollars involved.

The increase is so great that the starting point should have been in the hundreds of billions.

simon templar| 4.13.11 @ 12:43PM

So, here we go again....now the debt limit..they (RINO ELITE) are CAPITULATING. Hannaford and sycophants..watcha got to say now....come on...pontificate..help us dumb fu8ck Tea Partiers and whiners to understand.....