The American Spectator : Get in Line

Text Size

Get in Line

By W. James Antle, III on 7.28.11 @ 6:09AM

Ahead of a debt ceiling vote, Republican leaders hope to corral conservative hardliners.

It’s getting ugly on Capitol Hill, folks. This week, congressional Republicans have gone from holding the president and their leadership’s feet to the fire to becoming a circular firing squad.

Conservatives were in full revolt against House Speaker John Boehner’s two-step plan to raise the debt ceiling by the August 2 deadline after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found his accompanying spending cuts wanting. Perhaps it was payback from the last crisis, when GOP congressmen were stampeded into voting for a deal that would avoid a government shutdown, only to learn that it cut just $352 million from the current year’s deficit.

Bamboozled time and again by Democratic presidents and their own leadership, many rank-and-file conservatives just don’t believe fiscal discipline that must be maintained by future Congresses will ever materialize. They are unwilling to raise either taxes or the federal debt limit in exchange for phantom spending cuts.

Staffers for the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) were caught aiding outside conservative activists who opposed the Boehner plan and wanted the GOP to stick to Cut, Cap and Balance. RSC aide Wesley Goodman fired off an email Tuesday saying “now is the time to kill the Boehner deal,” requesting “statements coming up to the Hill every hour of the day in mounting opposition to the plan.”

“Fire him, fire him!” GOP lawmakers chanted of Goodman and RSC executive director Paul Teller. Some lawmakers, including those listed as “Members to Target” in defeating the Boehner plan, are considering withholding dues or even pulling out of the RSC. Party elders like Sen. John McCain described the Tea Party freshmen as “foolish” in their demands.

Late Wednesday, there were signs that the speaker was quelling this conservative rebellion. Boehner revised the plan to include $22 billion in deficit reduction in the first year and to cut and cap spending by an amount that exceeds the debt ceiling increase by $17 billion, according to the updated CBO score circulated by the speaker’s press office. “Get your ass in line,” Boehner reportedly told wavering members.

They may be complying. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who has at times seemed to be positioning himself to Boehner’s right in the debt ceiling debate, pronounced himself “150 percent” in the speaker’s corner. According to press reports, Cantor exhorted members to quit their “whining” and vote for the Boehner plan. “The debt limit vote sucks,” Cantor is said to have admitted, but it was time to “call the president’s bluff” by passing spending cuts and a short-term debt ceiling hike.

If the House Republican leadership is presenting a united front, conservatives inside and outside Congress are doing anything but. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) joined stalwarts like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in opposing the deal. Rep. Allen West (R-FL) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) threw their support behind Boehner.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol declared that to vote against Boehner is to side with Obama. Talk radio is mostly sounding a skeptical note. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is apparently still negotiating with Vice President Joe Biden.

The debate is in many respects a replay of April’s government shutdown fracas, with potentially greater consequences. Republican leaders want to avoid a crisis for which they believe they will be blamed politically. While controlling just one half of one third of the federal government, they do not want to share “co-ownership of a bad economy,” in McConnell’s phrase, with President Obama. Let’s get some spending cuts, declare victory, and live to fight another day.

Yet their conservative critics, many of whom insist the deadline the president has imposed is overhyped at best, respond: The national debt now stands at $14.3 trillion. We are being asked to allow Washington to borrow even more. When does the day for fighting actually come?

The White House has done nothing but pour fuel on the fire. Press secretary Jay Carney on Wednesday likened what will happen if Republicans fail to act to the movie Sophie’s Choice, in which a mother had to choose which of her children to save in a Nazi death camp. Obama is still hinting he will veto a Boehner-like plan if it reaches his desk, but it is hard to imagine he will be willing to face those political consequences at this late date.

Meanwhile, conservatives seeking drastic cuts in federal spending sound like the Irish Americans this writer met in South Boston pubs years ago, downing their drinks while muttering a Gaelic phrase. The supposed English translation of their toast? “Our day will come.”

About the Author

W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (246) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

reads1| 7.28.11 @ 6:21AM

If the Repubs accomplish anything in the future, their greatest feat will be to get rid of McCain and his lap dog Graham.
McCain and others are going to discover there are FAR MORE 'Tea Party" advocates in the voter ranks than their limited imaginations discern!!

chuck| 7.28.11 @ 7:54AM

SHUT IT DOWN. OUR BATTLE CRY NEEDS TO BE "44% LESS GOVERNMENT = MORE FREEDOM!

chuck| 7.28.11 @ 7:58AM

They are terrified that shutting down big portions of the government will show the American people just how unnecessary this behemoth is!
SHUT IT DOWN! 44% LESS GOVERNMENT=MORE FREEDOM!

JimP| 7.28.11 @ 10:01AM

I agree, especially since 'default' is a lie, and SS checks etc will still be paid. No one will miss the EPA, ED, FTC, Agriculture,Energy, Commerce etc being closed until further notice.

Redstateboy| 7.28.11 @ 11:04AM

Very good point chuck! Let the STATES handle the roles Usurped(!) from them by the likes of: EPA, HUD, HEW - Get us the Hell out from under FreddieMac and FannieMae and Stop federal funding this nonsense of PBS/NPR.
The United States of America, from 1840 to 1900 grew to a Superpower in wealth and we didn't have Any of the Liber-ul crap we have today. How did we do that!?!? No nanny Liber-uls following us around - demanding we wear helmets while on a bicycle, no OSHA, SS, .. How did we survive?!

darcy| 7.28.11 @ 11:51AM

Veering off course here just a little, but can you imagine the reaction among Tea Partiers if the debt ceiling is raised without genuine structural reform and spending cuts and then the Feds decide they want to bail out the sinking state of California -- which can't print money to fund its liberal lunacy the way the U.S. can?

JimP| 7.28.11 @ 11:52AM

That sounds very prophetic, Darcy. I find the scenario too, too likely.

Peter McGrath| 7.28.11 @ 11:55AM

McCain's gratuitous attack on fellow Republicans will earn him a primary challenge and retirement - which I encourage him to consider - NOW - rather than later.

I will happily contribute to his challenger, should he decide to continue wasting his seat in the Senate.

He is no patriot. I hope he enjoys his twilight years knowing that he presided over a nation in decline, doing NOTHING while whistling past the graveyard.

RCV| 7.28.11 @ 3:29PM

He just easily survived a teaparty challenger and is firmly ensconsed for quite a while.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.28.11 @ 6:21AM

The Temple monkeys on the Potomac connive and scheme for what isn't theirs and often gang up to terrorize the American public to drop anything of value so the Temple monkeys can hold onto to their Temple.

The Temple monkeys on the Potomac mimic the actions of Temple monkeys found at the Temples of many decaying or failed civilizations.

The Temple monkeys on the Potomac have no real plans just the brute force of immediate survival with no long range plans, just grab everything you can put your hands on, with no thought of future consequences.

As the debt debate moves forward, the air is full of lies from both sides and very little will eventually
be done as both sides continue the inside the beltway practice of deception wrapped in a neat little bow
and presented to the public through the further deception of the Main Stream Media.

And what of the friends of the Temple monkeys on Capitol Hill? Remember those bankers and rating agencies who took a major hand in the financial debacle and who the public paid billions to bail out? They were too big to fail, but they are not to big to turn the screws on the public.

The same ratings agencies who should have probably been investigated by grand juries, can't wait to downgrade the USA's credit rating, meaning that the American public will have to cough up a 100 billion a year in additional interest on the national debt. This financial treachery goes beyond the concept that no good deed goes unpunished.

It shows that the American politicians of both parties are comprised of Temple monkeys, only capable of short term planning, grabbing the bananas and eating them with no thought that there may not be any more bananas.

The political leaders in our country have no intention of solving the problems that face us. This was a major opportunity to have a real discussion on the debt and spending. Like every other opportunity this year that could have had a real impact on our financial futures, our Temple monkeys took this opportunity and simply frittered it away.

darcy| 7.28.11 @ 12:20PM

With a handful of exceptions among the 535, I agree that Congress has "no intention of solving the problems that face us."

And how could they when their overriding concern is self-interest? The country's leaders are a pathetic lot and in no small part because the country herself has turned away from her Founding (and all that that word implies for Americans) and instead is living off her Founding capital, rapidly diminishing.

Antonio Gramsci was right: America, several generations back, was not susceptible to violent Marxist revolution. First, it had to have its "naive" belief in God undermined, using American institutions -- education, media, government. Then slowly, incrementally, after decades, America would wake one day and find itself shorn of its Founding and embracing socialism.

This current debt ceiling "crisis" is yet another test of America's soul. Is hers the soul of patriots or statists? Free-men or subjects? Statesmen or tyrants and bureaucrats?

How many times can Republicans bow to statists (McCain himself a statist) and claim strategy when the fight never comes? The cuts, phantom -- and they must know this -- are mere window dressing to save face and to keep constituents off their backs.

The 535 should know this: the natives are restless and angry and their numbers are growing.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.28.11 @ 2:11PM

Here's but another example of Republican statism. The Democrats proposed to allow the Interior Department to continue to place allegedly endangered species on the endangered species list.
All this in the midst of a failing economy and despite the fact that species have gone extinct for millions of years.

This is the same Interior Department who refuses to follow a federal judges order on a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf.
From the Examiner:
In a rare defeat for Republican leadership, the House has backed a Democratic proposal allowing the Interior Department to continue adding new species to the Endangered Species Act.

A spending bill backed by GOP leaders would have only allowed species to be removed from the endangered list, rather than added. Republicans said the current program encourages lawsuits from advocacy groups that seek to have species listed as threatened or endangered, costing the government tens of millions of dollars.

Thirty-seven Republicans joined 187 Democrats Wednesday to reject the GOP. Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington state, who sponsored the amendment, called the GOP bill an overreach motivated by ideology, not deficit reduction. He said the measure had little chance of approval in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/.....z1TQOkRuBN

Clint| 7.28.11 @ 6:43AM

There's No Reason For The GOP Ruling Elite Fops To Capitulate To The ObamaBoys.

"Major ratings firms -- namely Standard & Poor's and Moody's -- have said even if the country raises the debt ceiling and doesn't default, there's a strong likelihood that the triple-A bond rating will be cut to double-A unless a budget can be crafted that results in $4 trillion in savings, the result of the massive debt load the country has accumulated in recent years. The nation's outstanding debt is more than $14 trillion."

The Tea Party Is In Rebellion Here & Now.

Rise Up

Conservative View| 7.28.11 @ 7:28AM

CLINT, YOU ARE RIGHT

The real wild card in this whole debate are the ratings firms. If a senior member of one of the rating firms were to be interviewed on the news and he were to announce that Americas rating would drop if cut, cap and ballance or something much like did not get signed, then it's game over. It's point, set, match. The Democrats would have to take the bill off the table and vote on it. To vote against it would be a vote to downgrade America. If the President vetoed it, the President might as well find himself a nice doublewide in Nebraska to run to. He wouldn't be long in office.

This all rests on something like Fox News actually interviewing Standard and Poors or Moodys and having that person on record as saying the rating for America drops without such a bill.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could get something like that? Boehner might even find his gonads.

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 7:47AM

Conservative View,

I'm not sure the rating services can stand the light of day. Remember, they're the ones who told the world that mortgage-backed securities were as good as gold. They have a lot to answer for. In fact their executives should be doing hard time right now.

JimP| 7.28.11 @ 10:13AM

Which begs the question-so to speak- about why ARE the neo-cons, RINOs and Wall Street SO insistent on making a deal that will raise the debt ceiling to prevent some alleged financial disaster occuring. It appears that these groups have financial interests at stake that the rest of the country does not share, so they want the country as a whole to take a hit in order to protect the 'Wall Street interest groups' backsides. The petty attacks on Tea Partiers, the scare tactics about the country going down the tubes financially, the economy getting even worse, checks not being sent out etc all support this conclusion. Since when would getting your financial house in order by cutting, capping and balancing CAUSE a financial crisis? NOT in the real world. Default has been shown to be a lie, yet there are still Republicans pushing that meme and other memes that are just as specious.

JimP| 7.28.11 @ 10:19AM

I should clarify re default. Default will only occur if Obama refuses to make the minimum payments on the national debt. It has been shown repeatedly that the feds WILL have monthly tax revenues to make these payments, pay SS, etc. So if the U.S. defaulted it would ALL be on Obama. Yet did Boehner or any of the neo-cons or RINOs ever make this case publicly?

And they ask us why we are suspicious? LOL

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 12:12PM

As you say, we need to stop buying into this crisis psychology. When it comes to shaking down taxpayers, there is always some trumped-up crisis that must be avoided at all costs.

The real crisis occurs every day when these bastards get up and go to "work" in DC.

darcy| 7.28.11 @ 12:25PM

"Shaking down taxpayers." Great line and depressingly true; unhappily it reveals the stupidity of the taxpayer more than it does the perfidity of the pols.

JimP| 7.28.11 @ 12:55PM

LOL "work". So true.

Timothy L. Pennell| 7.28.11 @ 6:58AM

Send a PLAN over to the Senate. It DOESN'T MATTER if Hussein threatens to VETO it.
It DOESN'T MATTER if that THING in the Senate, doesn't give it a VOTE.
You've done your job. If they don't like it? DEMAND THEIR PLANS.
This is what I cannot get over. Why do you Republicans keep running around, banging in to one another?
Send your PLAN, and say: HEY! This is it. Take it or leave it.
We will no longer engage with people who DON'T bring anything to the table.
You've done your job.
WE HAVE YOUR BACK!
And, if I'm John McCain? I watch my back.
I'm just saying.

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 7:21AM

They already sent 2 plans - and were voted down in the Senate. But - your attitude is childish and is exactly what is exasperating to the American people. Sure, worry about the deficit and the national debt, great - but you do it in a gradual less hurtful way than these 2 plans or most others these days advocate.
What you don't seem to understand is that by blackmailing the President and holding America hostage to your demands you will be costing this country (and this EVERYONE) a hidden tax in the form of higher interest rates on mortgages, car loads, student loans, credit cards, business loans, and anything that is pegged to the Prime Rate.
It appears a lot of the damage is already done, with the stock market starting to plunge (401k and IRA follow suit), and the rating agencies planning to downgrade US credit rating, and the once rock-solid gold reputation of "full faith and credit in the United States" is being killed by your Kids in the House reckless behavior.
Even the Chamber of Commerce on their website advocates passing the debt ceiling now - and they paid for a lot of the Tea Party radicals to get elected. Buyer's remorse I would guess.
The disarray in the Republican Party is on full display and the Tea Party is getting the lion's share of the blame. While John McCain calls them "Hobbits", they really should be called "Orcs" for the evil they are doing to our country.
And, you thought Barack Obama was inexperienced? Good job Tea Party advocates - throw America over the cliff to prove your idiotic ideology instead of a careful, sensible plan to reduce the deficit (which would include tax increases btw, and 75% of Americans know it). Remember, Ronald Reagan, Papa Bush and Baby Bush added nearly 10 Trillion to the debt during their tenure - and NOW your worried about the deficits, and on top of it you don't take responsibility for paying off the debt that Republican Presidents incurred? 2012 can't come fast enough for me. You may not like Obama, but you don't have a snowball's chance in h* of winning 2012. Obama got Osama, and the Tea Party crashed the economy ... quite a choice.

Conservative View| 7.28.11 @ 7:43AM

PURPLEGUY

Actually I look forward to your comments. This blog does need to hear the heart felt replys from "the other side". Please, keep it up.

Having said that - - -

Some questions. First; the President has demanded more money in taxes. Well and good, part of his ballanced approach I suppose. But what are those new tax funds to be used for? Are they to be allocated entirely to reducing the debt? He hasn't said so. As far as I can tell, he just intends to make government even bigger.

Second, isn't it about time to stop with the history lessions? We all know, we have all be told ad nauseum about Bush, and Reagan. The problem isn't one of history, it is one of the present. And Obama didn't get Osama, Seal Team Six did that. The US military, the one place where Obama wants to make more cuts.

Third, what the hell is the Presidents plan? I have yet to see a single word on paper outlineing his plan. Nada, zip, zero, nothing. He has made grand speaches but offered nothing in writing.

Where the heck is the budget? Where have the Democrats said what they are willing to cut?

And finally, if not now, when? If we don't stop the spending in Congress now, just when do we do it? I don't know. I do know that the country is in a fiscal mess. I do know that if we don't fix this mess now, lots of bad things are going to happen. I know that the only way to fix this mess is to stop the spending. So what crushes the economy more, more spending more taxing, or saying stop, stop the spending and stop taxing America to death. And before you mention taxing only the rich, please, tell me what you want to do with the additional funds, pay down the debt, or keep the train wreck going.

Again, let me conclude with a note about my comments. They are NOT ment in any way as a personal attack against you. My questions are ones that many people are asking each other. I admire your guts in posting on this site, and dispare at some of the personal attacks you have received. Please, keep posting. We need it. We need at least that much ballance.

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:16PM

What's on paper is a talking point, I've read Ryan's plan, so what? - where are the hearings so we can all hear the entire process? Democrats did that for healthcare and got smacked, and Boehner will not do that on his watch. Another problem is you ignore history and 10 Trillion in debt as if it just became a problem when Obama was elected or this year for sure. For 6 full years 2001-2007, Republicans had all three branches of legislative government - and what did they do? Grew the government, added 5 Trillion to the National debt and cared little for the deficit. Housing bubble, financial bubble created jobs, but when they blew up - here we stand with not job plan in sight from House. Deficit reduction is fine - but you do realize that 15 years of a balanced budget and we would have basically no national debt ?... what's the crisis that requires going over the cliff? This is not about deficit reduction - it has always been about constraining government - a favorite Republican ideological point. Otherwise, some tax revenues, if you really believe we're in deep crap in 3:1 cuts to revenue which the President offered, including Medicare AND Social Security, would be very acceptable.
If you knew much about Third World countries you wouldn't be so concerned that we aren't free or don't have enough freedom or our government is so bad or so big.
You wanna reduce government - rescind the TSA and the Homeland Security Dept ... that's hundreds of thousands - 40-60 thousand in the TSA alone.
Trouble is we have the freedom to slice our own throats and that's what the Tea Party is advocating - wait until the default happens - Tea Party will be blamed and all your efforts will blow up in your face. Nobody gets all they want right now - that is NOT how the Founders setup our system of government. Slow and steady change, not instant change as in a dictatorship. Why do you not support the Founders reasonable system codified in the US Constitution?
And this is not an attack on you personally - the "you" I mean the righties that read this.

skip| 7.29.11 @ 12:45PM

An attempt at a semblance of sanity in a post? You feeling okay?

Your attempt, however valiant, is still an epic fail.

Slow and steady change, over the past 90 years or so, has resulted in our current situation. No additional spending throws the nation in crisis and off a cliff? That is insane. January 2009 to January 2011 the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office were democrat. Two years and no budget. Still no budget six months later, all time that was 'available' for 'compromise'. Even though the debt ceiling was exceeded in May. Taking half a trillion 'off the books' in May and putting it in a magical fairy dust 'account' that doesn't exist, until a 'deal' is made whereupon the half trillion is magically put back 'on the books', is stupid, even by your standards. Every democrat speaking on TV says the tea party 'extremists' are throwing us into 'default'. That is preposterous. There is no chance of conversing with such utter pathetic, despicable, stupid, lying idiots, much less negogiating with them. This debt ceiling debate does not even include trillions of dollars of spending by hundreds of new federal bureaucracies under Obamacare. Your statement the Oval Office has offered '3:1 cuts' is a bald-faced lie. Your statement 'including Medicare AND Social Security' is ridiculous. I have trouble acknowledging you don't spontaneously combust when you refer to the Constititution, which you have thoroughly documented you have absolutely no comprehension of whatsoever.

What you advocate, in maybe your most lucid post, for what that is worth, is tyranny.

We choose Liberty. Get on board or become dendrologic fertilizer.

TrueBlue| 7.29.11 @ 1:19PM

Except we won't default if the debt limit isn't raised. That's a falacy the Left is pushing, and the dummies in the House aren't clarifying for everyone. We make enough each quarter to cover our debts, the majority of spending after that is unnecessary, and has nothing to do with our "credit." As it stands right now we will hit the debt ceiling, the majority of government will shut down due to a lack of funding, but our debts will still get paid! SS is a debt that is owed, it will be paid, for the government to do otherwise is ILLEGAL. Medicare/Medicaid (with exception of claims already received) and unemployment funds promised to the states are NOT debt.

First thing that should happen after that? Everybody in Congress, and the President, should be forced to return their salaries for each year since the last budget was passed. They haven't been doing their job, they don't get paid. At least the House has been trying to do their job since the 2010 elections. The Senate has been tabling items (which means they aren't even DISCUSSED) and has not sent any counterproposals to the House. All they have sent, including that "Gang of Six" bull, has been vagueries and speeches, but nothing on paper. Currently the SENATE is solely responsible for the current deadlock. If a bill was to get passed both sections of Congress and Obama vetoed it because it wasn't long-term enough for him, then it'd be HIS responsibility.

Do not blame the Tea Party candidates for doing their job. If anyone else has an idea then they should be getting it on paper and submitting it, pointing fingers and screaming, "It's all your fault!" accomplishes nothing.

Clint| 7.28.11 @ 8:13AM

"Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17 "

The Tea Party Steps On Purple PropagandaGuy's Face.

Wipe Your Feet Again.

John II| 7.28.11 @ 12:20PM

Yes, that's one of the most hopeful polls I've seen. In other words, the Professor's approval ratings are fast approaching a number correctly representative of the portion of America that actually supports his kind of "vision."

The number of sure-enough lefty wack-jobs in America has never exceeded 20 percent of the population, and ordinarily falls between 15 and 18 percent. The sum of the nation's academic cranks, union bosses, Hollywood flakes, trial lawyers, media eunuchs, homosexual activists (the list is already getting redundant), environmental extremists, inner-city political thugs, and attendant opportunists is and always has been less than 20 percent of the general population.

Finally, the polls are reaching bedrock.

And now back to "The Searchers" (1956), a great John Wayne flick liked by the clueless left for all the wrong reasons.

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:18PM

over a year from election, polls mean nothing... enjoy your giggles.

John II| 7.29.11 @ 12:05AM

I wasn't giggling, Purp. I was breathing a sigh of relief. In fact, the Professor's poll numbers are tanking at a particularly dangerous time for his shallow ambitions and creepy agenda. One year from an election, polls THAT low mean plenty.

I shall attribute your silly response to the shortage of discernment characteristic of libertarian conspiracy buffs, laetrile enthusiasts, Ron Paul economic theorists, and suchlike loose nuts.

And now back to "The Mole People" (1956), one of the worst of the 50's creature features, which tells the astonishing tale of an albino plot to rule the world. And yet, one never knows.

Purpleguy| 7.29.11 @ 8:46AM

Naw ... don't worry the Obamster will be back...

RCV| 7.29.11 @ 2:00PM

John, I wouldn't breathe that sigh of relief too deeply. The President's poll numbers may be "tanking", but they way outperform any of his GOP opponents. Here's the very latest from Fox (you know, that old liberal bastion): Obama +6 over Romney; Obama +11 over Bachmann; Obama +10 over Perry; Obama +10 over Pawlenty; Obama +19 over Gingrich. They stopped polling Palin, but last month when they did, it was Obama +21 over Palin. They also didn't poll Ron Paul, but the RCP average for all recent polls is Obama +9.8 over Paul.

Yes, it's early, but the trends aren't going your way at all. I'd keep myself glued to that screen.

John II| 7.30.11 @ 1:37PM

Roberto, the only trend that I originally expressed relief over is the (to me) surprisingly early match-up of the Professor's approval ratings with the actual (and very small) portion of the general population whose degenerate and unreflective worldview matches the Professor's.

Most Americanos (between 60 and 70 percent, depending on the passing winds, but reliably in the 60 percent range--including you, Roberto, I dare say) are broadly speaking "conservative" in the bulk of their political instincts. Which is to say, they believe in a government of enumerated powers, a government whose principal functions are to enforce contracts, adjudicate disputes, provide for the common defense, and preserve national infrastructure--but a government that does NOT tinker with economic planning and impose oppressive redistributive schemes and busybody nanny intrusions the effect of which inevitably (INEVITABLY: just look at Britain for an example culturally close to home!) fosters personal dependency and moral vacuousness on a population finally drugged into an irresponsible Eloi-like acquiescence so that there is no possibility of reform: Britain and much of Western Europe are already one-policy states.

You don't want that for America any more than I do (well, you're apparently a little more tempted by it than I am, but you still don't want it), or else you wouldn't hang around this site engaging intermittently in debate.

The only trend I addressed is indeed "going [my] way." As to the rest of those figures, I can only echo Purp and say polls mean nothing this early in the election game--although the Professor's leads that you cite strike me as oddly slim against names that most Americans still know from little to nothing about.

And now back to "The Last Hurrah" (1958), a somewhat underrated Spencer Tracy vehicle in which an aging Irish-American crony-politician discovers that his lifelong battle against special interests has degenerated into a special interest of its own.

skip| 7.30.11 @ 3:25PM

The list of movies I crave a one sentence commentary on from one John II is growing to an unwieldy length as every additional cinematic reference inspires several to a half dozen more even as increasingly I'm undecided as to whether one John II has blessed or cursed this initially innocent lark of mine.

W| 7.28.11 @ 8:43AM

Purp, should we be spending money on an undeclared war in Libya now?

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:20PM

No, we shouldn't. Or Iraq or Afghanistan - both are undeclared war. the US Constitution clearly states Congress has the power to declare war, regardless of the gimmicks the Republicans pulled to let Bush do it. If we're broke, bring all the troops home from everywhere - what say you?

TrueBlue| 7.29.11 @ 1:21PM

Actually Bush DID get Congress to vote, and APPROVE, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan regardless of how much people say they were tricked, or how they are against them now. That said, I do agree we should gtfo of both already.

Michael Tomlinson| 7.28.11 @ 9:34AM

Actually Harry Reid was afraid to allow the Democrat Senate to vote on cut, cap and balance. That is just the first error in your screed.

No one is holding Obama hostage. He could have produced a plan, that would have been easily debated, but he has churlishly refused to produce a plan. Then he goes on TV and pouts and says he's ready to cut entitlements, but that's just a bald faced lie. Please, tell us what he was actually willing to do with entitlements. He and Jay Carney both stated he wasn't going to get into specifics, but you could trust them. Why should Americans trust a man who has mused that it would be easier and better to do things on his own . . . Maybe that works in a dictatorship, but not in the USA.

While you reference 3 Republicans adding $10 trillion to the debt you forget Bill Clinton contributed approximately $2 trillion to that amount. You should watch your spin and check your facts. In fact, it took 220 years in our country's history to reach the $10 trillion figure. Barack Obama added $4 trillion in 2 years and wants to add another $2.4 trillion to that number or nearly $7 trillion in 3 years. It is obvious Obama's irresponsible and failed policies that have brought on this debt crisis and the tens of millions of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed.

If anyone is trying to crash the economy it is Obama and the Democrat party that since 2007 has been spending insanely and wants to keep hammer down. If Obama/Biden were real patriots they'd resign and allow the Republicans to take the reins of government now to clean up the Obama/Democrat mess that has brought us to the edge of disaster.

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:22PM

After the 3 page TARP program, I don't believe any of them ... but "putting it on paper" is just a gimmick to say "see we're better than you are" ... Ryan put his plan on paper - with no hearings mind you - and the Senate voted it down ... but it was on paper - so what?

TrueBlue| 7.29.11 @ 1:24PM

They voted it down instead of bothering to discuss possible changes, because they don't have any ideas of their own on how to fix things! Mostly because they don't want to fix things, they think they're working fine, they just need more money to make it work!

jothepro| 7.28.11 @ 9:45AM

Hey Perp, You are a pimp for the left. Do you really believe the lies you write about the tea party, or do you hate Americans that want the SPENDING madness to STOP? You are a disgusting pleeb !!!!!!

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:23PM

Thank you for your kind words. It proves where your heads at ...

JR| 7.28.11 @ 10:06AM

Gee, I hate to break it to you Purple Guy, but your desire for a slow & sensible plan is a pipe dream given today's Democrat party ruled by unions and idealogues convinced that the only way to make America great is to pick somebody elses pocket!

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:23PM

Gee, I can say the same on your side ... so what? What now?

MikeBee| 7.28.11 @ 10:08AM

P.G.,
It is clearly NOT the Tea Party advocates who are bankrupting this country and causing the credit of the U.S. to drop. Very simply, it is the U.S. government (run by our elected representatives) which is continuing to spend into oblivion. This extreme deficit spending is what is causing the full faith and credit of the U.S. to deteriorate. In fact, even if the debt ceiling is raised, the credit of the U.S. will still be downgraded, causing everyone's credit card rates, mortgage rates, etc., to rise. The rating agencies have told us that there is only one thing which will keep from downgrading the credit of the U.S.: reducing spending by $4 billion immediately. The Tea Party advocates are simply trying to get this done, and are having to work against people in their own party to do so.

A lot of the debt in the U.S. is NOT based on the U.S. prime lending rate. For years, debt was based, instead, on the LIBOR rate (London International Banking Overseas Rate), which was lower than Prime for a long time. Debt based on LIBOR shouldn't move much if the Prime rate increases.

You are correct that there is a rift in the Republican party right now. This is due to the fact that, unlike the Democrat party, which tells its people how to vote, or else withholds reelection support, the Republican party allows for dissension on issues. This is also why the Republican party is often called the stupid party, because they often cannot pass legislation which they support, because of dissenting members. Right now, the Tea Party and conservative Republican members are trying to get something done to keep the credit of the U.S. from deteriorating, but are being foiled by entrenched Republican members, like John McCain, who are completely missing the issue at hand.

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:28PM

Correction - yes, LIBOR and moreover more important US Treasury Bonds are even more important with the world pegged to that. And, yes, US Treasury Bonds will move with a degrading of our credit rating.
No, the interesting part of all this is that the Republicans are usually very tight and fall in line and stay in line. Democrats not so much. If you think otherwise, you're listening to Rush too much. Also, Republicans were very disciplined under GW Bush with few if any defections on legislation.
If they really want to help the credit of the United States and they believe we are really in deep crap, then Spending cuts AND revenue increases would be together - there simply would be less deficit reduction otherwise. That is, unless the purpose of this fight is to "starve the beast" which it clearly looks like to all but you guys.

TrueBlue| 7.29.11 @ 1:26PM

The majority of those were not Republicans, Bush included, they were (some still are) RINOs.

W| 7.28.11 @ 11:37AM

Purp
We spend each month 100 billion that we do not have and have to borrow. Even you would agree you cannot do this indefinetely. How is it blackmail to demand O produce a written plan that can be verified to deal with the shortfall? His only plan is to tax hedge fund managers and stop the depreciation of corp jets, how much will that save?
So, tell us how you would get the 100 billion each month? what taxes do you increase, what rate do you increase it to, what specific cuts do you make?
be specific, and skip that lefty talking points, or else get lost.

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:30PM

Add 10 million people to the job roles and that 100 billion will disappear, based on taxes, less spending for the unemployed, etc.
But as of now, there has been absolutely no jobs plan from the House - something they actually did campaign on - not the debt ceiling. Where's the jobs, Mr Boehner?

TrueBlue| 7.29.11 @ 1:29PM

There should not be ANY job plans from the federal government. The fed should NEVER be involved in creating jobs, that is for the private sector. And the best way to grow private sector jobs is to lower taxes on companies so they can afford to high more. The rest of the world gets it, why can't people in this country?

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 7:10AM

"The national debt now stands at $14.3 trillion. We (the conservatives) are being asked to allow Washington to borrow even more. When does the day for fighting actually come?"

Answer: If you play by DC rules, never. If you play by Tea Party rules, now.

Boehner has ordered the conservatives to get in line. If I were one of them, we'd both have to the hospital... to get my foot out of his ass.

The best supporting tactic is Extreme Anger.

chuck| 7.28.11 @ 7:12AM

YO, BOEHNER, GROW SOME BALLS!
or at least, borrow Hillary's. Call the bluff, refuse to pass anything else until Obama and the Democrats put up their own plan. Stop negotiating with yourselves. Let the government run out of borrowed money, and force the executive branch to prioritize spending on a pay as you go basis. Let Obama and Little Timmy explain to seniors that the NEA,NEH,Dept. of Commerce,Dept, of Energy, and all the rest of this crap is more important than their Social Security.
They are like a bunch of damn college kids, running up the credit cards, and then whining and crying to Mommy and Daddy about borrowing money. Screw them, force them to live within their means, if only for a few weeks. HOLD OUT FOR A REAL DEAL!!!!!!!!!!

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 7:16AM

Exactly! Boehner is a DC club member. He's been part of the problem for a long time. He needs to sit his butt down and shut up.

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 7:32AM

You neglect to note that Reagan and the 2 Bushies are responsible for 10 Trillion of that debt ... and NOW you want to blame the Democrats and Obama for running up the debt? Sorry excuse for an American ... where were you when THEY were actually doing that? Riding Republican bubbles probably and couldn't care less ...

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 7:53AM

Actually, I'm blaming the Republicans because they're masters of the sellout. That is why I said previously they are the lowest form of life in DC. Obama? He's an avowed Marxist. He's easy to figure out.

Clint| 7.28.11 @ 8:07AM

"How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending . In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 , and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush."

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 8:36AM

Clint,

What you're saying is that they're differentiated mostly by a matter of degree. What I'm saying is that, until the Tea Party connected with decades of pent up anger among working Americans, everyone in DC was a member of shakedown-the-taxpayers club. Their rule was (and still is) talk a good game if you must, but just get the money. As this current mess illustrates, it's all about the money.

Clint| 7.28.11 @ 8:51AM

Nah, Gary.

That Was Just To Demonstrate That Purple PropagandaGuy's Mancrush Obama Was Is Even Worse Than Bush'43 In Deficit Spending.

I'm A Tea Party Patriot & We Are In Rebellion Against The Big Government Ruling Elite Fops, Including The RINO-CINO Faux Conservatives, In The GOP.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & Now.

Stand & Fight.

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 9:39AM

Hooorah...

Elron H.| 7.28.11 @ 11:29AM

Kind Of Like Your Mancrush On Ron Paul..?

Elron H.| 7.28.11 @ 7:42PM

I Got A Mancrush On My Favorite Nazi, Dr.Reich

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:33PM

Except that Bush's last budget was 1.4 Trillion - did you conveniently forget that little sugar plum? Get your facts straight, please. On top of that you throw 410 billion out there like it's chicken feed. No concern about that year after year? And, remember, Bush didn't include the war spending in his budgets - they were "Emergency Supplementals" - but Obama has put the war spending on his budgets....

Matthew Quigley| 7.28.11 @ 11:20AM

Hey, Jackass Guy, Reagan and Bush had 'rat controlled congresses...and CONGRESS spends the money! Or do you subscribe to "Time's" notion that the Constitution is irrelevant and that the president spends the money?

You, sir, are an idiot.

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:37PM

You don't understand what the Founders gave you ... do you know how spending occurs - sounds like you don't, you poor right-wing nub. Congress appropriates the money - the President does spend it. But - Congress can't appropriate a damn thing, UNLESS the President - Reagan, Papa and Baby signs it. Congress could override a Presidential veto- but that is a very rare event. Sooooo, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II happily signed the spending of Congresses, Democrat and Republican - sorry it is their Trillions around their neck. Perhaps you should read "How a bill becomes a bill" ... :)

Nick| 7.29.11 @ 1:06AM

PurpleJackass,

Don't act like you know how our government works.

Your the same guy who thought that John Marshall was the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. Remember that one, Jackass?

How about when you berated a guy for spelling hypocrisy wrong, and, in the same reply, spelled hypocrite wrong?

Oh, yeah, you also thought that President Bush had been in office for TEN MONTHS! when the attacks of September 11th occured.

Why do you still post here, PurpleJackass? You are an embarrassment.

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 7:35AM

Oh, and let the Republicans explain that the debt held by the Chinese, Saudis, Japanese and others is more important than seniors Social Security Checks and Medicare, Veterans, Hospitals, Doctors, Active Duty Military... and Good Luck if you fly anytime soon - the FAA is shutting down, thanks to the Kids in the House - idiots.

chuck| 7.28.11 @ 7:52AM

There is enough money coming in every month to service the debt, pay Social Security, Medicare, and pay the military. Plus some left over to fund some of the more important things.
44% LESS GOVERNMENT = MORE FREEDOM!

Sorry to confuse you with some facts, Purple.

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 9:44AM

Let's hope they start withholding funding to your state, city, community and the Congressman you voted for. 44% less government = less services.

big bob| 7.28.11 @ 10:30AM

Actually, I would suggest that someone remind this Marxist that of the $860 BILLION Obama got for his ARRA in 2009, only 6% went to projects designated as "shovel ready". Let me see, that leaves 94% that went to his cronies!! 94%!!! And where is the accounting for that? A big chunk of this is being held back for his reelection bid and most the rest went to shore up public unions in favored states. Now, the real kicker here is that all that money has gone into the budget for baseline purposes!! So it became part of a budget that has yet to be posted by the Senate or the Prez. How irresponsible does it get? As for Reagan, he was the first to trust a lying two faced Dem in the form of Tip O'neill who "promised" that for every dollar increase in taxes they would cut the budget spending 3. The taxing was done right away, and oh yeah, they never got around to THEIR part of the deal. And now we are supposed to take O'bama and Reid at the word. Sure. I say walk away and these Marxists stew. Let them show us who they REALLY are....un-American and Alinskyites...Duh.

DaveD| 7.28.11 @ 10:52AM

"44% less government = less services." Yeah, so what's your point?

Butch | 7.28.11 @ 3:11PM

Boy, I'd hate it those thousands of new agents of the Internal Revenue "Service" got their walking papers.

chuck| 7.28.11 @ 9:05PM

Sounds good to me! They can get the F#$% out of the State of Georgia! I'm pretty damned sure we can run the state just fine! We sure as hell can't screw things up like they do in Washington. And if the state representatives do, they are a hell of a lot easier to vote out of office! Just like the country was originally set up.

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:38PM

Please Congress, remove all federal spending from the State of Georgia so this airhead can see what would happen... please...

chuck| 7.28.11 @ 10:41PM

Deal, as long as they remove all the federal taxes too!

TrueBlue| 7.29.11 @ 1:35PM

Remove it from all of the states. It's nothing but wealth redistribution with the federal government at the reigns. Nothing in the Constitution says anything about the rights of an individual to somebody else's hard work.

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 8:03AM

Purpleguy,

I'm just taking a guess here, but I don't think too many of the people in this forum are idiots. We all have strong points of view because the stakes are so high.

Allow me to point out something that's obvious to everyone here. There is NO MORE MONEY. It's a simple concept than even idiots can grasp.

Truth to Power| 7.28.11 @ 9:01AM

That is a simple concept and one that purpleguy will never get. Purp has his eyes closed, his ear plugs firmly in place and not a single idea on where to go from here. He acts a lot like our current President.

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 11:41AM

So in your own life - when you get in trouble credit-wise what do you do? Stop buying food, medicine, clothes for the kids, stop working (no money for gas) ... ridiculous ... you plan how to get out of the mess gradually - NOT ALL IN ONE MONTH. That's why this denial of debt ceiling increase all sounds so idiotic to me ... let's throw the economy off a cliff because we have debt. It's just plain STUPID.

Truth to Power| 7.28.11 @ 3:29PM

It is more like you should give up the wide screen, cable, the expensive car and the game station. On the national level we need to reform medicare and social security. As designed and demagogued by progressives we have unsustainable ponzi schemes that are crashing down. Even the irresponsible President admits that. Don't be stupid.

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:41PM

If you threw in decreasing the size of the American Empire and our policing of the world, some tax reform so the rich cannot enjoy as much of the mansions and yachts and Riviera vacationing, along with people who have no source of income other than capital gains taxes and treat it as ordinary income, then I'm with you. But without adding these in, you're not really being serious - you're being ideological. Cut it all, raise some revenue - now your talking.

TrueBlue| 7.29.11 @ 1:44PM

Get rid of all the loopholes, and reduce the number of deductions. There's your tax "increases," and then reduce the actual percentage those "rich" people pay. You, nor anybody else, has yet told me WHY someone who makes more money because of their hard work (or even the work of their predecessors) should be taxed more than anyone else in this country. They ALREADY PAY MORE with the current percentages.

Maybe someone should explain why people in the lowest income bracket receive more money back at the end of the year than they paid in taxes? That's money the federal government could be saving right there. My issue with people at very low income rates paying no taxes is nonexistent, but I DO have a problem with them getting more back than they put in.

George S| 7.28.11 @ 4:19PM

The economy is already off the cliff because of the debt. You think borrowing more is going to save it? What if nobody loans the money? Then what? Seriously -- what happens if no one lends us the money? I will tell you...

... the government will act like a bank. The IRS will deduct $7,412.86 from your checking account (or give you a negative balance for whatever you cannot cover or add it to your 2012 tax liability). That is your share of only the one trillion dollar debt we are looking to raise right now.

Yes, YOUR SHARE. What exactly do you think the term "Full Faith and Credit of the United States" means? That we sell the Washington Monument? Wake up.

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:47PM

Naw - 15 years of a balanced budget and the debt is nearly gone .. you know why, right?
Actually, I think Republicans should pay for the debt run up under their Presidents that they signed into law, and I'll happily pay for the debt run up under Democratic Presidents. Deal?
Actually, Libertarians advocate selling all government land and buildings which 10 years ago had a price tag of over 12 Trillion dollars - result NO DEBT. it's not that hard kids. They just have the guts to do it. That's not what they are pushing for - it's to "starve the beast " and kill the government so their rich buddies will have free reign, no regulations, just like they did before 1929. But, they have you all hoodwinked. That's all. The strong beliefs on display here prove they have succeeded.
Read the book - "The Creature from Jekyll Island" if you really want to understand what's really going on.

chuck| 7.28.11 @ 9:09PM

In real life, they cut off your credit cards, and you have to buy things on a pay as you go basis. Wow, what a novelty! Why doesn't the government work like that?
44% LESS GOVERNMENT=MORE FREEDOM!

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:49PM

Because the National Debt is not a credit card - we have to pay the bills by LAW, not just because it's a responsibility. Now, short of lawbreaking we owe the payments that we need the money for. Remember, the US Constitution, 14th Amendment, section 4 says - ... " the debt of the United States shall not be questioned" .. Now, as lovers of the Constitution, why are you questioning the debt?

TrueBlue| 7.29.11 @ 1:47PM

Nobody here is questioning the debt, you seem to be missing that. What people are pointing out is that the vast majority of government spending is NOT debt. So the majority of that extra stuff needs to be cut.

Michael Tomlinson| 7.28.11 @ 9:44AM

Only Barack Obama and Democrats are threatening seniors, veterans and the active duty military. Why not demand Obama and Hillary Clinton quit spending US taxpayer's money to build mosques for Muslims in foreign countries? Why not stop funding the anti-American UN? We could stop wasting billions in Obama's personal war in Libya -- we're losing anyway.

I feel sorry for you Democrats trying to defend Obama's failed and incompetent policies. You're holding a losing hand.

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 11:53AM

That's hilarious after over a Trillion spent on Bush's wars ...

Michael Tomlinson| 7.28.11 @ 12:37PM

I know it is hard defending the Reid/Pelosi/Obama spending, but you really do need to get your facts right. Obama is the biggest spender in the history of America. In fact he wants to nearly double the debt in 3 years. It took 220 years of American history to reach $10 trillion and Obama wants to add roughly $7 trillion to it – that’s not hilarious it is disgusting.

How much are we spending on Obama's personal “kinetic action” in Libya? At least President Bush got a majority of Congress (Democrats and Republicans) to vote for America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to the LA Times we’re spending $9.5 million a day to support Muslims who may be al Qaeda allies. How about cutting that wasted spending?

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:50PM

Hmmm, and Bush added 5 Trillion himself - where were you then? Ahhh, but he was your boy, right? When you get real and not treat this like a football game of who wins, maybe we can talk.

skip| 7.28.11 @ 1:44PM

Pimplepus

With your genius economic views, you could have been conducting 'world trade' business, at the 'center', approximately 9.9 years ago.

Bush's response, providing for the common defense, is constitutional.

Entitlement spending, is unconstitutional.

You are pathetic.

You are despicable.

Don't ever quit posting here. You are much too valuable to lose.

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:52PM

Apparently, the Supreme Court over decades disagrees with your vast wisdom of the Constitution and entitlements. It's called Medicare TAX, and Social Security TAX - which you should be able to clearly read Congress has the sole power to levy. Period. Understand? And, thanks for the kind words - now get you head out of there.

skip| 7.29.11 @ 2:09PM

The Supreme Court that arbitrarily legislated the legality of abortion? That Court? That court has all too often demonstrated its comprehension of the Constitution is only marginally better than yours. That is all being corrected. Imminently dendrologic fertilizing idiot.

John Hinds | 7.28.11 @ 7:40AM

Right, Chuck, Does anyone remember a time when the statists/collectivists appeased conservatives? I sure don't. We ALWAYS make concessions. Enough already. Just this once we have to stand on principle. Personally, I've written my reps and told them if they raise the debt ceiling at all they have lost my vote but I'd settle for the CC&B. Here it is Senate, White House. Take it or leave it. The 2010 election where we saw over 700 seats go to republicans in the state legislatures was an historic mandate. The house needs to heed that mandate. It is a mandate to finally step up and use the constitutioal power of the purse.

Mimi| 7.28.11 @ 7:38AM

If Harry Reid's plan is not "GOOD TO GO" and the more responsible Republican plan is...for God 's Sake make some adjustments to gather CONSERVATIVE support...Include such as the ConnieMack budget plan that reduces automatic increases of 7.5 %.! Who gets that kind of raise these days? Commen sense boys....don't fight the hand that FEEDS you and be an INGRATE, The TEA Party and others who supports them....which by the way is EVERYBODY deserves that much!

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 7:59AM

I think what you're saying, Mimi, is that Boehner should make more of an effort to compromise with the conservatives than with the Democrats. If so, I agree. I mean, really, whose side is he on?

This let's-live-to-fight-another-day strategy is kick-the-can in disguise. It's the old DC deception game all over again. Raise you hand if you're sick of this BS.

Mimi| 7.28.11 @ 8:11AM

Gary...Why should the DEM'S take this one..."O" is dropping like a rock, his " ENEMY LIST" speech is doing him in. Tell me just WHO was NOT on the list...I made it in 4 places for crying out loud!!!

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 9:44AM

I'm a natural-born, American who pays taxes and is angry as hell. I know I'm on the list. But, here's the good part. Voters (who are also taxpayers) have lists, too.

Elgordo| 7.28.11 @ 7:59AM

EXPOSE THE RED STATES DEM SENATORS WHO SIGNED REID'S D.O.A. LETTER......
There are 11 vulnerable Dem Senate seats up for re-election in Red States or states that went Republican in 2010.......6 of these Senators are especially vulnerable: ; Ben Nelson of Nebr. Bill Nelson of FL, Claire McCaskill of MO., Jon Tester of Mont., and from the coal rich states of W.Va. and PA. respectively, Joe Manchin and Robt. Casey..... In other states such as Wisc., VA., No. Dak., New Mex., Hawaii., their Dem Senators, many sensing defeat, are retiring. Also NJ's Gov. Christie is making voting for Republicans more popular in the Garden State , so their Dem Senator in 2012, Robt. Menendez, may also be vulnerable. ......The names of these vulnerable Dem Senators should be revealed as having signed Sen. Reid's Dead on Arrival Letter.

tsd| 7.28.11 @ 8:14AM

The only real group that does represent the people is the new tea party group, they are the only ones holding the old boy's club (yes this is a figure of speech as many girls are a member of this club in Washington also) back from business as usual. Let's see if the leadership within the Republican party can work out a better deal with them to solve this and start some draw back on the "bring America down plans coming out of the White House". The Tea Party is a frame of mind, it is based on a collective mentality of honest freedom loving people who understand what our constitution means. If you point to it, you missed it, if you try to piss on it you will only hit your foot. It means many things to many people... in the end it is what will help to bring us back.

Pecos Pete| 7.28.11 @ 8:27AM

There is a time to fight and then there is a time to retreat.

George Washington held his fire until he was able to enter battle with strength.

In Texas, Sam Houston retreated until he controlled the field of battle at San Jacinto. There was a massacre at Goliad and then again at the Alamo. At San Jacinto it took less than 20 minutes to win the battle and the war.

Conservatives in Congress do not control the field and can not win the current battle. They can only do the best they can and then prepare for the next battle ... the fiscal 2012 budget which will probably be handled with a Continuing Resolution.

The real battle that Conservatives can win is the 2012 election. Until Conservatives control both houses of Congress and the presidency there can be no satisfactory solution to the spending and debt crises.

Let's win the war in 2012. Remember Goliad, remember the Alamo, and then we can dismember the federal Goliath.

AgentRose| 7.28.11 @ 9:29AM

Disagree with you and so would Winston Churchill

As Steve Hayward pointed out yesterday:
"When Lord Halifax and a handful of other influential members of the war cabinet were building support to seek peace terms with Hitler through the Italians, Churchill reminded them that “nations which went down fighting rose again, but those which surrendered tamely were finished.” The same may be said for the Republican Party today; if it surrenders to Obama, it may as well pack it in for good.

Churchill concluded his statement to the cabinet that day with these words: “If our long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.”

Are our circumstances so dire? In many ways more so! Hitler you could see. You could count his tanks and army. Our enemy from within in more malicious and conniving.

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 9:49AM

Right. Hitler was an easily-identifiable foreign enemy. Public Enemy Number One here resides inside the beltway and it's after everything you've got. Your money, your liberty and even your children.

So, when Rebublicans do their reach-across-the-aisle, song-and-dance, sellout routine the veins in my neck stick out.

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 11:55AM

Right - it's better to kill your opponents ... beat them to a pulp and then you'll show them... good job buckaroo. are you 12?

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 12:19PM

Purpleguy,

You're talking about household necessities. A ton of what DC spends can in no way be considered a necessity, nor can it be considered Constitutional.

darcy| 7.28.11 @ 4:52PM

Agent Rose: Excellent history lesson -- and words to live by from Winston Churchill.

Gary B: " . . . and even your children." In so many ways, yes, they are after our children: in public schools through "progressive" indoctrination AND directly, through taxpayer dollars funding the nefarious efforts -- through HHS's CPS arm -- to take children away from good and decent, exemplary, families by way of trumped up charges. An attorney related to a family member that CPS "is above the law," and you cannot fight them and win. If that doesn't send chills of horror up your spine, nothing will. These people have the authority to remove your children from your home on a whim and without proof of "wrong-doing."

The state is drunk with power and does not fear the people. It's time for the state to fear the people again. Past time.

Michael Tomlinson| 7.28.11 @ 10:02AM

Pecos you're being to rationale and realistic. Take Agent Rose she's willing to go down "choking . . ." and lose thinking that losing is winning. Political strategy is not the strong suit of those who think we can get it all while Democrats control the Senate and White House.

Much of the debate sounds like the "loose to win" philosophy being pushed by the alternative media and self-identified conservative pundits in 2006 against the "profligate Republican Congress" that gave us Reid/Pelosi and eventually Obama. How's that working out? I'd say those who thought we could "throw away an election or two" (as stated by a TAS contributor) were idiots.

What we need is to pull a Reagan (the Boehner plan) that forces Obama and Democrats to ask for another increase to the debt ceiling during an election year. Then every Republican should vote NO and quote Senator Obama and Democrats from 2006 when they do so.

If the Democrats refuse to vote on the Boehner plan then we tell Obama and Democrats time is running out and you've got a real plan you can vote on or let the nation go into default. Time to call Obama and Democrat's bluff.

The elections of 2006 and 2008 were our Goliad and Alamo. 2012 unless undermined againg from the right will be our San Jacinto.

simon templar| 7.28.11 @ 10:32AM

You really can not see how this was mishandled? You really think Boehner has the brains and spine to EVEN get the debt ceiling voted on in 2012 and resist their 2013 timeline? Undermined by the right gain? That right GAVE YOU the control of the House in 2010. The progressive Republican RINO's GAVE you 2006 and 2008.

Michael Tomlinson| 7.28.11 @ 10:47AM

Actually, the crack up of 2005 (it wasn't a crack down) and Chuck Schumer's brilliant strategy of getting so-called fiscal conservatives to attack "profligate Republicans" gave us 2006 and eventually 2008.

When you had self-identified conservatives writing in TAS that "we could throw away an election or two" or telling conservatives blue lap dog Democrats like Jim Webb were conservatives and people believed that lie we were screwed.

You can never afford to throw away any election as illustrated by 2006/2008 and anyone who believed the blue lapdogs were conservatives was a self-deluded moron drunk on Rahm Emmanuel's Kool-Aid.

darcy| 7.28.11 @ 4:54PM

You got that right, M.T.

simon templar| 7.28.11 @ 8:18PM

Just make it up as you go..get lost troll.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.28.11 @ 8:45AM

People will do what the election placed them in office to do, or they won't. Given the track record of our Republican contingent it is obvious that the Tea Party is the only hope to actually reign in spending.
Argue all you want, but these facts are hard to account for; if you have a bad credit rating, it is for a reason (14.5 trilling reasons); If legislators break their promises, they are turning into Republicans, Republicans are, after all, nearly half of what is wrong with Washington; there is a crisis coming, it is from the out of control spending, and all that has been done or said, all that has been proposed or tabled, all that has been promised has been for naught.
There is a Tea PARTY headline speech to occur soon; listen to it well, for it is the only honest assessment of Americas's future you will hear, or have heard for some time.

AgentRose| 7.28.11 @ 9:14AM

LOOK watch my lips:

RAISING THE DEBT LIMIT= TAXES

We now have 2 class in the U.S.:
1) those who elect, and
2) "the elect" --those who tax

D. A.R.
Daughter of the American Recession

AgentRose| 7.28.11 @ 9:23AM

As Mark Steyn pointed out about Boehner's original plan:
"The $7 billion that he calls “a real, enforceable cut for FY2012″ represents what the government of the United States currently borrows every 37 hours.

If the CBO’s scoring is correct — that it reduces the 2012 deficit by just $1 billion — then the ”cut” represents what the United States borrows every five hours and 20 minutes. In other words, in the time it takes to photocopy and distribute Boehner’s “plan,” the savings have all been borrowed back."

This is what the Americans do not understand and conservatives do.

D.A. R.
Daughter of the American Recession

Doctor Right| 7.28.11 @ 9:36AM

Maybe a better headline for this article on the homepage would be:

"Ahead of yet another meaningless debt ceiling vote, gutless RINOs in the House and Senate run for cover from the media as they betray conservative principles...again."

Looks like the Spectator has once thrown-in with the establishment...

Hey, Mr. Antle...here's a few clues:

1. Aug. 2nd is a meaningless date created by Obama to spread panic
2. The markets have already adjusted...what, you think they haven't been paying attention?
3. We will NOT default on Aug. 2nd; we have the money to pay the monthly interest on the debt W/O raising the debt ceiling.

So Conservatives who want to shrink Gov't and embrace Constitutional principles are like a bunch of wistful drunks?

You're an ass.

darcy| 7.28.11 @ 5:02PM

I love the clarity of your thought.

Notary Sojac| 7.28.11 @ 9:47AM

If the Democrats can live with a $1.4 trillion deficit, and the Republicans can live with a $1.39 trillion deficit, pray tell me why I shouldn't just vote Libertarian, or write in my Uncle Louie's name.

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 9:58AM

Interesting point. If Boehner and the Republican establishment keep this up, the temptation to form a third party will build.

It is totally within Sarah Palin's power to kill the Republicans over night if she does that. I have mixed emotions about that approach, but, God knows, the Republicans deserve that and much worse.

darcy| 7.28.11 @ 5:03PM

Amen.

JR| 7.28.11 @ 9:56AM

What constantly gets swept under the rug IS the $14 trillion in debt. If this ain't a crisis, I don't know what is. Kudos to all the House members seeing through the smoke and mirrors this time. And, the right question is being asked, "If now isn't the time to fight, when will it be?"

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 10:00AM

As I mentioned above, the answer to that important question is... If you play by DC rules, never. If you play by Tea Party rules, now.

Michael Tomlinson| 7.28.11 @ 10:34AM

When we can actually win -- when we control the White House, Senate and House or at least the White House and House and have whittled down the Democrat Senate majority.

simon templar| 7.28.11 @ 10:42AM

Do not bet on it. We had exactly that and nothing was done but government grew even larger. Stop with the denial and slinging this bullshit. As long as these corrupt progressive good old boys are in control we will continue to drive over the cliff.

Michael Tomlinson| 7.28.11 @ 12:27PM

You obviously have not faith in your Tea Party movement or what it claims for itself. While the Boehner plan is a third of a loaf and isn't cut, cap and balance it is on the right glide path of actually cutting Federal spending (unlike the faux Reid plan). Like Reagan I'll take a third rather than nothing, because we've moved the ball down field.

One there is a Republican in the White House and we have majorities in both Houses (or whittled down Democrats in the Senate) we can push for and pass cut, cap and balance just as we can repeal Obamacare.

Until we have success in 2012 and Obama is gone no positive change can be accomplished. He has the veto pen and just enough stooges in the Senate to back him up to keep us from real substanial reform.

Ultimately, you have decide if you prefer small, but attainable victories or defeat and 4 more years of Obama. Again I side with Reagan and incremental vicotry is better than no victory.

simon templar| 7.28.11 @ 8:28PM

I have faith in the Tea party just no faith in the republican establishment to do the right thing. I have a great faith in their ability to undermine conservatives and their agendas and be played by Dems. I have a full century of history to back up this viewpoint. So, do not hand me this crap. Reagan also said trust and verify. Your argument is so old, tiring, worn, and said a million times in the last century someone should punch you in the mouth to shut your trap. Direct this crap to the democrats.

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 12:24PM

With all due respect, that's the rolling DC sucker play.

Question: Exactly when is the best time to put your foot down about spending? Remember, we're dealing addicts whom we've been enabling for decades.

Michael Tomlinson| 7.28.11 @ 12:43PM

How are you going to force the Democrats to allow a vote on cut, cap and balance? How are you going to force Obama to accept it? Start acting like Democrats and riot in the street? The best way to end this addiction is to get rid of the worst addicts Obama and Democrats in 2012. Currently, the Republicans are on rehab and moving in the right direction that's better than what America got when it threw out the "profligate Republicans" in 2006. If we were still following their budgets we'd be on track to a balanced budget in 2015. Too bad the fiscal conservatives thought losing was winning, because in fact we/America is the big loser for their failed strategy of punishing Republicans.

Margie| 7.28.11 @ 1:20PM

Amen.

Margie| 7.28.11 @ 1:23PM

Michael,
I do believe most of these posters are not interested in electing Republicans anyway.
a lot of them are 3rd party and Paul-bots.
They want the Republican party destroyed.
They despise it more than they despise Obama and the Left.
I said most of them, but not all.
The whole castigating of anyone who simply wants to see our side win~ in order to defeat Obama, just proves it.

Michael Tomlinson| 7.28.11 @ 1:45PM

Margie you may be right. But even loony Ron Paul would be better than Obama. I'll vote for any Republican to get rid of Obama and if folks posting here want they are then squarely Obama voters no matter who they vote for or if they stay home.

Margie| 7.28.11 @ 6:33PM

Michael,

I will vote for whomever the Republican nominee turns out to be as well. Since the day I began voting, I have voted STRAIGHT Republican, and always will.

Even Ron Paul would give us at least a Republican admin.~ and that's the reason I would vote for him.

The problem is, the Ron Paul voters are the ones that would sit home unless their man is the nominee!!
And then they castigate us as RINOS all the live long day, when by definition a RINO is someone who DOESN'T vote Republican even though they are Republican.
I wish they wouldn't, (sit home, or not vote), but from the posts here it looks like we're in for more of Obama.

Perhaps there are more Independents AND even Democrats this time around that have learned their lessons. They have found out what voting Democrat truly means, and are sick of what they get from them.
And they will make it a landslide for Republicans in 2012.
We can only hope and pray this is the case.

"Principle" is doing the best with what we've got as far as I'm concerned. No one's perfect, certainly not me, and certainly not politicians.

Keep up the great work, I always like your posts~ they bring us back down to earth IMHO.

darcy| 7.28.11 @ 5:20PM

As long as the prevailing direction of Republican "leadership" is towards statism, yes, I want them destroyed.

Unhappily, it's a historical fact that we would not be witnessing our nation on the brink of default had not the Republican Party been comprised of more Chamberlains than Churchills, more Rockefellars than Reagans -- if the mid-century analogy seems too militaristic to the squeamish.

Margie| 7.28.11 @ 6:36PM

I'm not squeamish, just realistic.

"Awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death, for I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God." Rev. 3:2.

I'm full of courage and a willingness to strengthen my party~ not abandon it.
I say cowards flee~ and that will never be me!

Elron H.| 7.28.11 @ 7:45PM

Bores stay forever.

Margie| 7.28.11 @ 11:36PM

So, I guess then that you're ready for more of Obama then?
Do me a favor~ don't complain about how freaking "boring" it is going to be with more of Him.
Ready for another 4 years?
Yet you can't stand what you've got now, can you?
You're a lot of puffery but no substance, dude.
Talk about spineless and unwilling to face reality.
It's your stupid ilk that helped give us Obama, yet you blame those of us who wanted and voted for a Republican administration.
But oh, I forgot~ YOU don't care about that!
The only thing you care about is hiding behind a phony name to take potshots at Republicans.
BIIIIIIIG MAAAN!
LOL.
You're beyond boring. You're a joke.

simon templar| 7.28.11 @ 8:32PM

Yeah, MT, how you gonna force the Dems to accept Beohners latest load or anything else? Hmmm. You can thank the crazy Tea party and the extreme fiscal conservatives for 2010. You make no sense.

Margie| 7.28.11 @ 11:38PM

simon,

The TEA party will elect a Republican President.
With no help from the third partiers and complainers who will refuse to vote.

Mark Jeffery Koch| 7.28.11 @ 10:14AM

According to the most recent government data, today some 50.5 million Americans are on Medicaid, 46.5 million are on Medicare, 52 million on Social Security, and 44.6 million on food stamps and other nutrition programs.

In a country with a population of 310 million people, if we subtract the people that are retired, children, and the disabled the fact remains that 121 million people are employed and are supporting almost the same number who are not. This is unsustainable, and whether you are a Democrat or a Republican you realize that tax increases and ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will not help long term as more baby boomers retire and add to the number on Social Security.

Like it or not, we should be actively doing everything we can to increase immigration to our country for the simple fact that we must have more people paying taxes in order for those who are on Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare to survive, or we will not as a country.

buckeyeman| 7.28.11 @ 10:40AM

Idiocy. Recruit more entrants to the bottom rung of the Ponzi scheme?? What are you using for brains? What are you going to do when the "immigrants" retire? Oh yeah, you'll be dead by then so you don't care. All you want is YOUR benefits NOW, paid for by someone else.

simon templar| 7.28.11 @ 10:45AM

You mean illegal immigration or the continued illegal invasion and amnesty to those who have broken our laws and do not want integration. Yeah, we need to stop this cancer by cutting our own throats. Yeah, that will work.

Wayne | 7.28.11 @ 10:57AM

And what jobs do you supply them with?

Doctor Right| 7.28.11 @ 10:14AM

Does anyone else have the feeling that Boehner's plan IS Obama's bluff, and that Boehner is unwittingly (surprise!) playing into the Democrat's hands??

Think about it:

1. Obama has NEVER offered the specifics of ANY plan.

2. Obama NEVER says "No"; he just sends his minions out to do it for him. That gives him plausible deniability.

3. Harry Reid is 100% full-of-crap when he says that NO Democrat in the Senate would support Boehner's plan, and he knows it. There are a ton of Dems up for re-election in the Senate next year from Red or Redder states who can read the tea leaves. What Reid doesn't want the Lib-base to see is his lack of control over their votes.

4. But...neither Reid nor Obama want Ryan's plan OR "Cut, Cap, and Balance". That's obvious.

I think that Obama and Reid want Boehner's plan to come-up for a vote, and that Obama WILL sign it, because he knows it's mostly typical, beltway bullcrap that doesn't really do anything about our debt problem.

One further note:

If Boehner tries to force this vote through with Democrat support in the House, he needs to be removed from his position as Speaker.

simon templar| 7.28.11 @ 10:26AM

Doctor Sir, yes. And they will also cave to the time frame he tells them to have..the 2013 timeline that will keep this out of the election.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.28.11 @ 10:21AM

Agent Rose has a very accurate assessment of both the issue at hand, and the ominous implications to our Republic and its survival. What few realize with the phony caricatures of fiscal restraint is that their diminutive and patently false accounting gimmicks are a “measure,” that they are providing benchmarks for the other side. These “levels of responsibility” are self depreciating as they flounder with the economic reality of spending restraint. Obama will not only graphically illustrate their cowardice, he will be able to “compromise” with their own self imposed retreats and justify his increased spending as meeting them “halfway.”
We need to draw the line; those that do not will have proven again that they are not fit to lead, much less represent what we sent them to do in 2010. Boehner is his, and our own, worst enemy; what is incomprehensible is that he unabashedly, without any cognitive memory of his dismal record, plays the patsy to Reid, Pelosi, and Obama.

simon templar| 7.28.11 @ 10:22AM

Yeah, that is what you need to be doing now. Keep the focus on the conservatives and how THEY need to be coralled and present them like they are the obstructionist to the public. Keep the focus OFF of this president and the democrats and pretend that you are winning some argument and doing just well negotiating with yourself. Oh, don't forget to attack the base that gave you the House and call them Hobbitts. Yeah. Offer some more proposals and cement in the mind that it is your total responsibility for there not being a bill and nothing being done despite the reality that your opposition is offering NOTHING but NO! Of course do nothing to educate the public about what really is happenning. Yeah. Keep having half a dozen people on your side creating new proposals and working with a myriad of opponents form the VP down to a few blue dogs in the senate. You do not want a unified approach and a clear message but a shattered approach. Yeah. That will work.
Elmer Fudd Boehner of the GOP...That cwazy wabbit Reidddd!
I wish this was just incompetence and stupidity. You know in your heart and in your gut that this is not incompetence but willful manipulation to keep business as usual and discredit the Hobbits and get them back into their huts. There are a few out here in TAS that know this.

Controse| 7.28.11 @ 10:27AM

No it is not "Our day will come" it is "Our day has come" if we have the spine to cease it. Possible calamity now beats certain annihilation later.

Joe D.| 7.28.11 @ 10:30AM

Boehner needs to go. He is not the leader we need. I knew this from the first. He is a deal maker not a strong conservative. He is weak kneed. The best way to cut spending would be to let the Debt Ceiling stay until the ridged other side (obama and Reid) bow to us the people.

As Reagan proved in 1987, the markets will come back and with a flurry if the right deal (Cut, Cap and Balance) is struck. So don't worry about Wall Street for a few days. They did not worry about us with the current mess they, along with the government, help put us in.

BE PATIENCE!!!

simon templar| 7.28.11 @ 10:37AM

He is not even a deal maker, he a caver and a dope. I am sick of this bullshit we only have the House. which is actually not true. The dems are barely holding unto the Senate majority. The democrats had neither in the past and were VERY successful in destroying a Republican president, his goals, and his efforts without blinking!

Michael Tomlinson| 7.28.11 @ 10:39AM

If the true pragmatic Reagan model is going to be followed, get the best conservative deal you can, then you'd support Boehner's plan. Reagan was not only the Great Communicator, but Great Compromiser.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.28.11 @ 10:43AM

Sorry Mike,
You have chosen poorly. The Reagan scenario you need to invoke is how Ronald delt with the other Marxists, the non-domestic variety.

Michael Tomlinson| 7.28.11 @ 12:45PM

No I'm just following what Reagan actually did on the domestic level. There he was Mr. Compromise, because his conservativism was pragmatic and successful not dogmatic and failed.

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 12:56PM

Yes, I agree with this . Reagan stuck to his guns on those issues. Remember his formula for dealing with the Soviet Union? It was, "We win and they lose." Those are, by far, my favorite words of his.

Michael Tomlinson| 7.28.11 @ 1:47PM

That's foreign policy and he was absolutely right. On domestic politics it was more "let's make a deal" not "we win they lose." That explains his 7 tax increase, blanket amnesty and citizenship for illegals, the growth of the Federal bureaucracy, massive deficits and spending per capita only second to Obama.

simon templar| 7.28.11 @ 4:15PM

Yeah, you forgot just a few details. The tax increase was made with the Dems to garner a real reduction in spending that they agreed to and the renaged immediately after breaking their promise. The amnesty was another deal with the corrupt sack of shit Democrats that they would build the fence and revamp and fix the immigration laws and service. The growth and spending was created by the full control of the congress by Dems and the RINO's.
This was his greatest regret not being able to reduce it.

Margie| 7.28.11 @ 6:45PM

This is true, simon. Good point.
I think what all of this points to though, is that that's what we have elections for.
And that's what excellent about our country. If we don't like the job our elected officials are doing~ we get to send them packing!
To me, it's really encouraging to see the involvement of conservatives that's taking place~ and in this I am greatly encouraged. Not kidding.
I just think that the bashing and trashing by some here is so unnecessary~ the lambasting and calling RINO to folks like me and some others~ when we're not the RINO'S.
And what is a RINO? It's someone who actually is a Republican, claim to be a Republican and then act like someone else.
As Bob Dylan says, "That ain't me, babe."
The Libertarians here are the nasties doing this, when they aren't really Republican~ they are In Name Only!!
Utter hypocrisy, but I'm repeating myself, aren't I?
LOL.

simon templar| 7.28.11 @ 8:37PM

I have called no one hear a Rino...I just think that their ideas are way off the mark and they are confused. It is always nice to read your comments. - A fellow Hobbit. :)

Margie| 7.28.11 @ 11:40PM

Didn't mean you personally, simon. I know you haven't.
I thought you could tell who my beef was with.

somnolence| 7.28.11 @ 10:35AM

Hope springs eternal. Lindsay Grahamnesty appears to have grown a temporary spine!

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.28.11 @ 10:41PM

If you place even the miniscule amount of trust in what Grahamnesty says, you must be one of those "real" Republicans. Why don't you join a "real" PARTY, we Tea PARTY patriots could use some insurgant conspiritors.

somnolence| 7.28.11 @ 10:40AM

Palin heading a third party doesn't scare me, even if Obama was reelectd. Folks, we are fast approaching the crossroads, and it isn't a joke. Once again, it is up to the people to deal with oppression when cornered. And you deal with it with the most persuasive means necessary at hand. There, now I don't think that was a violent statement.

Wayne | 7.28.11 @ 10:54AM

It could be an interesting election.

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 1:01PM

If she even threatens to form a third party, the Republicans will have to change their pants. I believe this is her ultimate weapon - her nuclear option. And, like somnolence, I'm halfway comfortable with it, because if that's what it takes, so be it.

She has said several times that she's watching to see who emerges as the frontrunner. If that person is a true conservative, she may pull the trigger.

Wayne | 7.28.11 @ 10:52AM

Lets talk about why this is a sham.
1. The Boehner bill does not lead over time to a balanced budget thus undoing Ryan's plan.
2. It uses the Obama assumption of 6 percent growth every year, thus the "cut" is a cut from the 6 percent growth.
3. It includes the ObamaCare taxes increases.
4. It includes a panel of 12, thus able to exclude Tea Party Congressman from the process.
5. It is an example of negotiating with oneself, since it just allows Obama to stand back like Caesar with a thumbs down.
6. It has become an excuse for the GOP establishment to attack the Tea Party Congressman as hobbits, lightweights and radical right wingers.

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 1:05PM

It's the typical beltway shuffle to trick the peasants into going back to sleep.

Here's the good news: They (and the enemedia) fear the peasants, as currently represented by the Tea Party. The louder they screech, the greater their fear.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.28.11 @ 11:57AM

Christi was just taken to the hospital with breathing difficulties.

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 1:05PM

This is not good...

Michael Tomlinson| 7.28.11 @ 12:56PM

Since there is a lot of misinformation out there from Democrats, their stooges in the MSM and their uniformed base the following is a comparison of previous increases in the nation's legal ability to borrow money, known as the debt ceiling:

Total increase in debt ceiling under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton: $3.15 trillion (12 years).

Total increase in debt ceiling during President Obama's 28 months in office when it hit May 16th: $3.144 trillion.

Under President Ronald Reagan: 17 debt ceiling hikes from $935 billion to $2.8 trillion. Debt ceiling increased $1.865 trillion -- an average of $109.7 billion each hike.

Under the first Bush administration: six debt ceiling hikes from $2.8 trillion to $4.145 trillion. Debt ceiling increased $1.345 trillion -- an average of $224.1 billion each hike.

Under Clinton: four debt ceiling hikes from $4.145 trillion to $5.95 trillion. Debt ceiling increased $1.805 trillion -- an average of $451.25 billion each hike.

Under the second Bush administration: seven debt ceiling hikes from $5.95 trillion to $11.315 trillion. Debt ceiling increased $5.365 trillion -- an average of $766.4 billion each hike.

Under Obama: three debt ceiling hikes from $11.315 trillion to $14.294 trillion. Debt ceiling increased $3.144 trillion -- $1.048 trillion each hike.

MikeBee| 7.28.11 @ 1:03PM

Cutting future spending is further encumbered by the way that Washington looks at cuts. If the Democrats want a department budget to increase by, say, 10%, year over year, and the Repubs allow for an increase of 5%, then the Democrats think that they just had a budget cut of 5%. No budget cutting happened at all; an increase of 5% happened. But, Washington calls it a CUT of 5%.

So, all they have to do in future years in Washington is to propose a 100% increase in the budget, year over year; then, when the increase is only 10%, they can claim that they cut 90% of the budget next year.

Why don't I trust future budget cuts?

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 1:07PM

Because you've learned from experience.

crookedwren| 7.28.11 @ 1:15PM

I'm no prophet, but here's what I think has a good chance of happening:

Obama raises debt ceiling by himself, using the 14th Amendment & Lincoln to do so (thanks, Mitch M., for bringing that one up).

Obama gets praise from MSM for "saving the day." Too many people "buy" that scenario.

Republicans get tarnished by MSM for standing in the way.

Dems. get the glory.

It ALWAYS works this way.

Republicans, I think, have to keep uttering the truth. Every time they possibly can.

Wayne | 7.28.11 @ 6:16PM

The GOP will blame the Tea Party and scramble to praise the new Dictator.

Margie| 7.28.11 @ 6:47PM

Correction:
The Establishment Repubies will blame the TEA party.
Not the good Repubies.

carol| 7.28.11 @ 2:14PM

let's face it 2012.....no other way to solve it

Kingofthenet| 7.28.11 @ 2:25PM

'Tea Party' Republicants are 'Enemy's of the State' and should be treated as such. The President took an oath to protect the United States from ALL Enemy's Foreign and DOMESTIC, they are trying to bring down the US govt, they should be shot for treason!

tsd| 7.28.11 @ 4:10PM

Nice try goof ball, if you are being funny, it is not working... if you are serious, you are to dumb to respond too.

Margie| 7.28.11 @ 7:00PM

That is laughable, but truly pitiful if that's what you honestly believe.
I've got news for you, KOTN~ The TEA party is not only the Ron Paul Libertarian faction~ but it is made up of regular conservatives, Republican conservatives, disgruntled Democrats, and Independents.

I think you need to wake up and smell the truthful roses (credit to my pal, Oldefarte), because your party is being left in the dust~ they have smelled the roses and are coming over to our side, and are into voting for conservatives en masse.

you also need to get your oaths right, sir.

Presidential Oath of Office:

"I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

p.s. The TEA party Republicans ARE protecting, preserving and defending the Constitution of the United States. Which is what the President should also be doing, but HE IS NOT!

fmm| 7.28.11 @ 2:40PM

This whole debate is nothing more than a pitiful ruse. Default is not an option and will not happen. Increasing the debt limit simply amounts to the status quo of rampant over spending since it takes place right away. The "cuts" are fictitious since they are vanishingly small this year and the supposed future cuts will never happen based on the past performance of such proposals. The Repubs are ineffectual at best and complicit in the thievery at worst. Their previous bills such as the Ryan budget and Cut, Cap, and Balance had some meat to them but even those grew the debt by another 10 trillion dollars. Our country has completed its trek down joke lane. Go lay in the sun.

Michael Tomlinson| 7.28.11 @ 2:45PM

“The U.S. economic picture for the first half of (Obama's) 2011 will not be a pretty one,” Gregory Daco, principal U.S. economist for IHS Global Insight, said in a report. “One will remember the slowdown in the manufacturing sector, a bounce back in the unemployment rate, weak housing, poor confidence, and the debt-ceiling debacle.”

Storage Steve| 7.28.11 @ 2:51PM

I personally would like to thank purpleguy for keeping people focused on the problems. The more angry people get the more willing they are to act to change the situation. If we just comment on the problems but don't act we will never get anything changed.

Pecos Pete| 7.28.11 @ 3:23PM

Good point. Thanks.

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 7:30PM

That's right. At this stage, vein-popping anger works best.

RCV| 7.28.11 @ 3:35PM

This is all Kabuki Theater being staged for the benefit of tea party voters. By the end of the week, a "compromise" will be reached, taking the basic terms of the Boehner short-term bill, with its modest cuts, and extending its term to January 2013, after the Presidential election. You can take that prediction to the bank.

simon templar| 7.28.11 @ 4:05PM

I will invest in that prediction and just add one change, This is all Kabuki Theater being staged for the detriment of tea party voters and utimately the public at large will suffer. There will be a downgrade..they are not fooling anyone. Business as usual.

RCV| 7.28.11 @ 5:54PM

You may well be right on that codicil as well, Simon. From the late news today, it appears that the Speaker can't get enough of the freshmen together to pass the bill. Which may mean that he will reach the "compromise" without them aboard.

somnolence| 7.28.11 @ 4:10PM

As far as I'm concerned, Michele Bachmann fortified her position as the most deserving presidential candidate by standing pat on her principles once again today by voting "No". I may very well support her all the way, even if Palin gets in, just because she has proven herself through this whole fiasco.

Wayne | 7.28.11 @ 6:14PM

She is the only one with a spine.

George S| 7.28.11 @ 4:34PM

This nonsense about Reagan-Bush-Bush-Wars-Republicans adding to the debt is a convenient cover over the real problem: the Great Society's War on Poverty spent over 5 trillion dollars (non-inflation adjusted!) of actual hard earned money. Money transferred from the pockets of working people directly to other people via the myriad of government programs. The cumulative debt of 50 trillion plus is what we are obligated to pay for the Great Society Medicare/Medicaid program and the New Deal's Social Security Act.

All this is money that was used to buy votes. Most of this money was borrowed (by printing) so as not to raise taxes. Was it a coincidence that the gold standard was abolished in the early 70's, just when Congress realized that the Medicare projections of the mid 60's was a pipe dream?

So when you blame the Republicans... just remember they were running up the debt in the name of FDR and LBJ. They had no choice in the matter. Well, they did, but chose not to take the political poison associated with cost controlling entitlement programs.

Now we have run out of money. So lets borrow more.

If borrowing money will save the economy, then why do we still pay taxes? Can't we just borrow or print it, thus saving the economy while we get more money in our pockets. Do you Liberal see why your 'analysis' of the debt and its solutions is the thinking of mental patients?

George True| 7.28.11 @ 4:57PM

So...let's think it through. Debt ceiling gets raised. No actual meaningful cuts in spending take place this year...or any year. No reforms enacted to put Medicare/Medicaid or Social Security on a sustainable path. In short, the government continues to spend 120 billion dollars more every month than it actually has, comprising about 45 cents of every dollar spent. So far, so good, right RCV? You do realize, of course, that without spending cuts or entitlement reform, 45% of all the money the government continues to spend this year, next year, and beyond, will have to be borrowed or printed.

So where does that leave us? That leaves us with QE3, or in other words, the government continuing to buy its own debt, because there are no more buyers on the open market. Where does the government get the money to buy back its own existing debt, and to buy the new treasury bonds when nobody out there will buy them? With more printed money, of course. Or in other words, Monopoly Money. You still following this, RCV? Good.

So then what happens? Well, as our government continues to print massive amounts of new money to fund the spending of 120 billion dollars more than it takes in every month, the value, or purchasing power of all other dollars in circulation must necessarily decrease. And at some point in the near future, probably in the next 18 to 36 months, we will all wake up one morning and discover that all of our money that we have in the checking and savings account, plus whatever money we have in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, IRA's, 401k's, etc has now been devalued by at least one third to one half of its face amount.

Furthermore, whatever money you, me, and everybody else has coming in every month, whether income from a job, or social security, or pension, now has lost half of its purchasing power. So seniors and "working families" who are just barely getting by as it is will discover at some point that they cannot pay even basic bills anymore.

In other words, each and every one of us will have been hit with a secret tax of at least 30% and maybe 50% on any money we have, plus on any money we have coming in every month. And this very real tax of 30-50% is on top of whatever other tax we are already paying.

This absolutely WILL happen if we continue down this road of massive and unprecedented over spending. There is absolutely no way that this will NOT happen. The only question is whether it happens a year, two years, or three years from now, and whether the devaluation of the dollar will be only thirty percent (the absolute best case scenario) or whether the devaluation will be more like 50% or more.

So let's just be very clear about what we are really talking about here. If yo agree with Obama and Reid on this, you are unequivocally saying that you are absolutely just fine with requiring every American, including YOU, to incur a 50% loss in what your money will purchase. And you also are okay with that permanently impoverishing grandma and grandpa, and also condemning most other Americans, especially the working poor, to a life of permanent poverty and never ending struggle just to physically survive.

And you are willing to do this to everyone, including seniors on fixed incomes, including the poorest among us, and including YOU, just to ensure that Barack, and Harry, and Nancy can continue to spend trillions of dollars more money every year than we actually have.

You don't believe this is where things are headed? Well, reality has a way of catching up with even the most delusional among us. And when this actually comes to pass, think back and remember the day that you read it here, and dismissed it out of hand.

Everything comes at a cost. Nothing is free.

JimP| 7.28.11 @ 5:22PM

Excellent post , George! I doubt RCV will understand, though that's not your fault. I think he's just not bright enough to grasp the common sense facts you presented.

RCV| 7.28.11 @ 5:58PM

You're right, JimP. I'm just not as smart as you. That Stanford post-graduate education just never took, I guess. Oh well.

Truth to Power| 7.28.11 @ 7:32PM

That is a good argument for your lefty friends but when you say stupid things around conservatives they just think you're stupid no matter where you went to school, stupid. A lot of money was wasted on your education, pity that.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 7.28.11 @ 7:36PM

I don't bother with:

silly genius Carter, when he is specifically referred to as a nuclear physicist, based on one introductory course taken on the subject, as a reflection of the United States Naval Academy, generally;

silly genius Clinton, when he is specifically referred to as a Rhodes Scholar, depending upon what the definition of 'is' is, and depending on catching a buzz without actually inhaling, as a reflection on Georgetown, and Oxford, generally, although, in fairness, Rhodes Scholar peers of the era, include geniuses Bill Bradley, Wesley Clark, Robert Reich, Franklin Raines, Michael Kinsley, and E.J. Dionne;

silly genius Obama, when he is specifically referred to as a professor and constitutional scholar, based on some lecturing on the subject, as a reflection on Chicago, and Harvard, generally, although, in fairness, highly ridiculed, and heavily criticized, specific geniuses, such as affirmative action community organizers, are suspect, generally;

silly genius RCV, when he is assuming any intelligence, whatsoever, or any honesty, whatsoever, in any of his posts, whatsoever, when he sanctimonoiusly boasts of post-graduate education, as a reflection of Stanford, generally, although, in fairness, Stanford did host, specifically, the highly ridiculed, and heavily criticized, conclusions of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, on the causes of the housing bubble burst, generally;

on the reputations of specific educational institutions automatic transferral to students, generally;

especially, when those students are renowned for specific liberal stupidity, and specific liberal dishonesty, not to mention general liberal idiocy, matters.

RCV| 7.28.11 @ 11:48PM

Zzzzzzzzzzz.........

Nick| 7.28.11 @ 7:37PM

RCV,

Stanford? Are we supposed to be impressed?

After all this time, have you not learned that conservatives are not impressed with Ivy League (or not Ivy League, in your case) credentials?

Personally, I'm more impressed with someone who has a degree from the Fransican University of Steubenville or Ave Maria School of Law. Where I know they got a real education.

RCV| 7.28.11 @ 11:46PM

I wouldn't expect TAS readers to be impressed. Anti-intellectualism is a religion in these parts, Nick. And it shows, every day, in oh so many ways.

Nick| 7.29.11 @ 1:32AM

RCV,

"An intellectual is somebody who thinks ideas are more important than people." - Paul Johnson, Eminent British Historian, in the Wall Street Journal, March 5th, 2011.

http://online.wsj.com/article/.....68272.html

So, yes, I am anti-intellectual. But, not in a religious way. And, that does not mean that I am anti-education, if you read what I wrote carefully.

Since the '60s and '70s, you can't just name drop institutions like Stanford and expect people to ooooo and ahhhh over you. After all, O'Bama 'the incompetent' went to Harvard, didn't he not?

RCV| 7.29.11 @ 11:02AM

Paul Johnson is an intellectual, and one I and so many others respect highly. Bill Buckley was an intellectual. As for people who "think ideas are more important than people," that would be a perfect description of Ron Paul and orthodox Libertarians: those who hold to a highly constructed ideological framework regardless of its practical consequences or effects on actual human beings.

The current fashion among tea party adherents to disdain educational and intellectual accomplishment has nothing in common with conservative intellectuals (including I might add, those at Stanford's respected Hoover Institution). Instead, they have more in common with Father Coughlin and Joe McCarthy and Huey Long: they are emotional poulists: xenophobic, anti-intellectual, pitchfork at the ready.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 7.29.11 @ 1:56PM

I don't bother with silly exposing what a prattling Marxist I am: oikophobic, anti-liberty, pitchfork at the ready, no doubt to be used for the abortion of the next disdained partially born innocent American, number 54,014,550, compassionately, in devout churchgoing real Christian love current fashion, while not understanding why anyone would refer to me with articulate descriptions of dead-on accuracy, on unemotional nonpoulist adhering to all things commonly unconstitutional and tyrannical matters.

RCV| 7.29.11 @ 3:48PM

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......................

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 7.29.11 @ 9:41PM

I don't bother with silly televised panel of talking heads on July 29, 2011 discussing the petulant dithering idiot liar in chief where one panelist stated the petulant dithering idiot liar in chief is an 'intellectual' and another panelist responded 'then why doesn't he ever show any smarts' on no matter what nobody who has read his posts will ever consider RZV intelligent matterz.

"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them." (George Orwell)

"All the evidence that I see is that academics and intellectuals have messed up the world. I challenge anyone to show me a major calamity that was engineered by a stupid, inarticulate person, but those caused by intelligent, articulate persons are too numerous to count, from the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao to Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Obama." (Walter Williams)

skip| 7.29.11 @ 9:47PM

I think I'm going to challenge Walter Williams.

Obama is stupid, is an inarticulate person, has created a major calamity in the U.S., and has messed up the world.

Nick| 7.29.11 @ 8:21PM

RCV,

"Paul Johnson is an intellectual [...]."

Mr. Johnson would disagree. Again, from the Wall Street Journal article:

"Mr. Johnson says. 'People say, "Oh, you're an intellectual," and I say, "No!" What is an intellectual? An intellectual is somebody who thinks ideas are more important than people.'"

Mr. Johnson also invokes Socrates' view that ideas should serve man, man should not be subservient to ideas. I concur.

I am not anti-learning, as previously stated. I just don't put much stock in such vaunted institutions. I try to look at individual attributes and achievements.

It's like when I was a kid and was bombarded by T.V. and radio that Bob Dylan and Janis Joplin where soooo awesome. And, I dutifully would say the same, if the subject ever came up. It was the conventional wisdom, after all. But, when I left my teens, and was honest with myself, I realized I only liked a couple of their songs. So, what made them so great? Because others said so?

So, when you hear T.E.A. Party disdain for educational institutions and intellectuals, realize that the attitude is probably more nuanced than a cardboard sign can impart.

By the way, Joe McCarthy was a great American, who was afflicted with big head syndrome. He was right about the communist infiltration of our government. Joe Kennedy wanted him to marry one of his daughters! It would've been kind of hard for the left to demonize him if that had happened, huh?

Father Coughlin and Huey Long were both liberal populists. Father did build a beautiful parish church, here, in the Detroit suburb of Royal Oak, with the money his radio audience sent him. It's called Shrine of the Little Flower. Look it up, it is truly a magnificent little church.

skip| 7.30.11 @ 9:28PM

Speaking of intellectuals Nick...the latest leaves even more vulnerable exposure than usual.

I'm giddy in anticipation....

Margie| 7.29.11 @ 11:46PM

speaking for myself, which I know you really really want to hear, RCV~

I really love people who are smart. That's what I call intellectual, because to me, they're people who want to learn.

There's one big BUT though.
They have to be intellectually HONEST.
Otherwise it's quite boring.
Right, Nick?
Yeah, I'd consider myself intellectual and Nick too, because we want to learn love learning and speaking for myself I drink information like water.
My interest is the Bible and history, though I'm slack in the history dept~ still learning.

God bless.

skip| 7.28.11 @ 8:01PM

Douchebag Asswipe

For once, at least, you're not guessing.

Idiot.

RCV| 7.28.11 @ 11:47PM

You're so articulate, Skippy. I've always admired that about you.

skip| 7.29.11 @ 12:56PM

You got me. I'm so inarticulate I don't even know what a 'poulist' is. Imagine my chagrin.

Idiot.

skip| 7.28.11 @ 5:45PM

Ding ding ding ding ding ding.

And the winner is George True.

The only thing I might add is a more accurate devaluation is 67%. Everyone's worth becomes one third what it was.

Oldefarte| 7.28.11 @ 5:23PM

If any of you tea partiers hell-bent on NO COMPROMISE, NO CEILING RAISE have any money in stocks, I'd seriously advise getting out the the stock market NOW [maybe put it back into the mattress or in ma-ma's cookie jar]. Also, pay off your credit cards, since interest rates will no doubt spike!!!!!!!

darcy| 7.28.11 @ 6:02PM

That's cold comfort coming from someone who has put his trust in the Republican Party as the savior of our nation!

The dems cannot move an inch toward socialism and default without their accomplices in the "other" party.

Margie| 7.28.11 @ 7:03PM

that's a pretty nasty and unfair statement, darcy. You sound like a Paul-bot.

Clint| 7.28.11 @ 7:48PM

You sound like The RINO-CINO Israel Firster You Are, Margie.

Margie| 7.29.11 @ 11:38PM

Be quiet, turd.

darcy| 7.28.11 @ 9:30PM

Oldefarte reveals his disdain for Tea Partiers, ridiculing their efforts to hold elected Republican leaders accountable; to my mind that is unacceptable. No compromise is what the dems have been doing these past 70-odd years; when the Republican conservatives try it, they're labeled as obstructionist and quickly brought in line by the establishment wing of the party. If you can't acknowledge that, if OF can't see that, then you all are among the voting population that believe if we keep on doing the same thing -- voting Republican -- that someday we're going to get a different outcome. Truth of the matter is, IMHO, Democrats are at the top of the nation destroyer ladder, libertarians next because they fail to uphold traditional (Founding) values, and Republicans last because they enable Democrats in their America-destroying enterprise.

There you have it. Republicans are least bad. But as long as the party is led by progressives -- which it is now and has been for a long while -- then they can go pound sand for all I care. It amazes me that the Republican Party has lasted so long, given their "cooperation" with the Democrat statists. They've simply been very adept at fooling their constituents to get elected, and shafting them once in office; the voters, unhappily, don't seem to understand that a statist sporting the Republican tag is not so different from its Democrat counterpart.

The debt-ceiling, default debacle is all the proof anyone needs to test the truth of what I say.

I have no answers, no silver-tipped arrow. But I will say this: if the Republican Party imagines that without internal structural reform that purges the party of progressives, that conservatives will keep handing the keys of power to them, then they are sorely mistaken.

Margie| 7.28.11 @ 11:48PM

No, his disdain is toward the punks who claim to be TEA partiers and continually falsely accuse.

It looks like you're ready for another four years of Obama?

Are you really not going to vote for a Republican for President?

And if you answer that you will vote Republican, then all your and the others who constantly harp about RINO-ism will be proven the biggest hypocrites her, no??

And if you stick to your character here, and say you refuse to vote for a Republican for President~ then you are truly daft, IMHO.

Nice chatting with you, sis. :^).

darcy| 7.29.11 @ 3:43AM

Are you really going to vote for a progressive in Republican garb? Is that what it has come to? That from here on out we have no more real choice in our leaders, only a false choice between the statist with an R after his name, or the statist with the D after his?

Because that's what your rah-rahhing for Republicans suggests. Are you sure you want to signal to the Republican leadership that voters like you don't need to have a conservative on the national ticket because, by God, you will support the Republican Party no matter what -- because you just know that any Democrat is by degrees many times worse? Especially this Obama person.

I believe that what the Rep. Party needs to hear is that the base will not support Democrats just because they claim to be Republicans. The only power we have is our vote. Why -- if you're a conservative, and I think you are -- would you want to let the strategizers (sp?) in the Republican Party know that they don't have to field the most conservative nominee because there are plenty of Republican conservatives who will vote for the McCain's of the party if he's nominated? The party has, then, NO incentive to court, nurture, and support conservatives, who, at any rate, just won't buy into what the establishment wants to do, which is stick with the damn status quo that is leading our country down the toilet. The establishment protects its power base, and it has no intention of rolling back socialism.

Someday I want you to finally see that.

Margie| 7.29.11 @ 11:24PM

Nah, I want to vote in conservatives to the Republican party, and I don't see that as wrong.
That's why I've been saying here for a couple of years that we need to find conservative candidates before the primaries, and then have them run in the primaries against the weak and moderate Republicans.

We need to show support now, so that when they do run, they know there'll be people that'll vote for them.

Ya know darcy~ you third party types are so insulting. Why?
Why do you accuse others like me of being for the status quo?
I'm not, and NEVER have been.
You guys just seem to knock us down in order to look better, but you're not.
You KNOW I'm no squish.
Now give me a break, sister!!
:^)..

p.s. I'm not rah-rahing. I just don't want Obama to be re elected.

Margie| 7.29.11 @ 11:36PM

p.s. Hmm. Interesting point you made there about my signaling the Repub strategery, etc.

I never of that, and it's a most excellent point to heed.
Thanks!

darcy| 7.30.11 @ 2:22AM

I greatly appreciate your reply and giving attention to my comments.

Best regards, always. darcy

Margie| 7.31.11 @ 12:02AM

Likewise, I'm sure.

RCV| 7.28.11 @ 11:49PM

Music to my ears, Darcy!

darcy| 7.29.11 @ 3:44AM

I don't think we're listening to the same music, RCV, are we?

RCV| 7.29.11 @ 11:04AM

No, but I hear the music you're listening to Darcy, and it's just what I like to hear from your side.

darcy| 7.29.11 @ 1:57PM

Understood.

RCV| 7.29.11 @ 3:50PM

My favorite news of the day is that some Tea Party groups have announced they will field a primary challenger to ..... Allen West, because he had the audacity to back the Boehner bill. It's like watching the French Revolutionaries guillotine their own.

darcy| 7.29.11 @ 5:47PM

A pruned tree produces better and more abundant fruit, regardless of the merits or demerits of the action taken by "some" Tea Party groups regarding Allen West.

Margie| 7.29.11 @ 11:29PM

Mark Levin said this one vote doesn't change his opinion of Allen West.

And, RCV~ that was one dumb guy that said that about him.
So, don't get your hopes up!!

Besides,
My sister darcy is a firebrand and I happen to love firebrands!!
And... not only that, but we DO want the same results, just how to go about it is the thing.
Right, darc?
God bless!

darcy| 7.30.11 @ 2:23AM

Amen to that, Margie.
;-)

RCV| 7.31.11 @ 6:43PM

Margie - It was a dumb thing, which is why I was tickled when I read it. How anyone could accuse Allen West of not being truly conservative or abandoning the tea party is beyond me. It does remind me of the French Revolution. LOL

Margie| 7.31.11 @ 8:28PM

And it isn't so funny.
The Paul-bots are gonna give us your guy again in 2012.
BOO.

Wayne | 7.28.11 @ 6:12PM

Actually, the compromise approach only hasten's that day. We are broke. There is no money. The problem isn't the crises Obama has ginned up, but it is the reality of what this massive debt means. You are starting to sound more like Obama.

fmm| 7.28.11 @ 7:37PM

Please outline the compromises made by the dems. The meaning of compromise here is to force the repubs to do exactly what the dems want, as always.

Better to crash the system now than to let it go, at least those responsible for the mess will suffer some of the consequences. Just wait for the hue and cry from the 47% of the population who don't pay taxes when their EIC does not arrive.

Kingofthenet| 7.28.11 @ 5:34PM

You don't see MASSIVE protests in Europe, over 'Capital Gain Rates' being too High, or Taxes in General. You see protests, when Government's cut services. They seem to be OK with the High taxes, as long as they get the Social Programs. I don't think we spend too much on Social Programs at least(Dept.of Defense is another story) but we tax too little. I like a Basic Govt. Safety Net, makes me feel I will always have someone who cares.

George True| 7.28.11 @ 6:46PM

So, you like the government safety net, eh? It comforts you to know that Uncle Sugar will take care of you if all else fails? Well, there's an old saying: Take what you want...and pay for it.

You can raise taxes on everyone, and I do mean absolutely everyone, you can tax "the rich" at 100% of their earnings, and also confiscate all the assets and holdings of the richest individuals and corporations. And it might be just enough to fund the government at the current rate of spending...for one year.

But then what do you do on January 1st of Year Two? You have already confiscated, liquidated, and spend all the assets of all the richest individuals and corporations. (They are the ones who provide jobs.) You are already bleeding dry the middle class, and requiring even the poor to pony up at least 10% or more. But it's not enough to even get three months through Year Two. There is no more money. And those who could provide jobs are out of business.

You can tax, and tax, and tax till the cows come home, and it will not begin to sustain the current status quo. In fact, raising taxes more will actually cause a net decrease in revenue (See: Laffer Curve).

In addition, the above will trigger massive devaluation of the dollar, causing whatever money anybody has saved and whatever money anyone still has coming in to lose half or more of its purchasing power. This financial catastrophe will be visited upon everybody, including YOU.

Everything comes at a cost, my friend. Nothing is free. Take what you want...and pay for it.

skip| 7.28.11 @ 7:52PM

You are contemptuous of those with faith in God, the so-called 'sky daddy'.

Yet you feel blind faith in liberals in Washington D.C., the caring 'compassionate protective daddys'?

Idiot.

jgo| 7.28.11 @ 6:02PM

Cut federal government spending.
Lower the debt ceiling.
Pay off the debt.
Reduce extortion.

60% LESS GOVERNMENT = MORE FREEDOM!

"should we be spending money on an undeclared war in Libya now?" No. Nor, as others have pointed out should we be spending money on CPB/NPR, the national endowment for arts and humanities, HUD, Fannie or Freddie or the Fed, Obummercare, Socialist Insecurity (let everyone opt out, regardless of age), Medicare, Medicaid, and agricultural subsidies. DoE (both of them) should be decimated.

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 7:42PM

As I listen to the news early this evening, it seems the most importing goal for conservatives is to not allow Boehner to give in on the term of any deal that's made. Everything else being equal, the deal that's made must expire well before election time. Obama desperately needs it to expire after that. DO NOT give that bastard what he most covets.

irish19| 7.28.11 @ 10:09PM

Amen to that!

JOHNSPEAKS| 7.28.11 @ 9:27PM

-Who Cares-???

PCP Smoker| 7.28.11 @ 9:45PM

Thank you for repeating what is widely known, GOP weak kneed assholes, including DC conservatives are not wanting a fight. Tea Partiers want a fight.
Tomorrow, hopefully we can get something better. Fuck you.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.28.11 @ 10:31PM

No vote tonight

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.28.11 @ 10:46PM

You want to see foresight? Go over on Fox and read Palin’s letter to the Tea PARTY freshman.

D Roamer | 7.29.11 @ 12:48AM

Right at this time the Republican are not in control, so what the Speaker has hammered out is the best for the moment. I trust those that view all this as their full time work and I am going with the good Dr. Thomas Sowell who says go with it and we can really clean up in 2013.

patroness| 7.29.11 @ 2:20AM

Godspeed freshmen.

POST American| 7.30.11 @ 1:01AM

---A little RED China TREASON op '70's Show'
BLAST from the PAST.

NOW declassified. State Department memo 200:

There's then US Ambassador to RED China'
Bush Sr.. laying oout the 'key agenda' to the
RED Chinese.

---RESOLVED---

RED China to be massively funded, 'brought
in and brought up' to be the world industrial
center, and eventual top of the NWO pyramid.

The US to be sold out and taken down
to third world status via 'deindustrialization'
and a 'service' economy (ie franchise slums).

ALL this contingent on RED China, already
history's undisputed leaders in genocide,
embrace aggressive EUGENICS programs,
and the selective extermination of elements
of their own people.

"Understand, 'Free Trade' (ie monopoly
trade), Globalism and EUGENICS (---and,
of course, TREASON) are always intertwined.
ALWAYS."
-ALAN WATT
(essential online coverage)

------------------ALWAYS.

------------------------ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS.

And NOW what are we going to do about it?

Janet| 7.31.11 @ 8:11PM

Here's a tidbit to chew on.......Saturdays' REDSTATE.COM reported that the 2nd Boehner bill was written the previous weekend by, wait for it.....Reid's aids with some imput from McConnells' aids. Isn't that precious?? Just who does Boehner represent anyhow? This whole thing has been theater for our benefit. There was not 2 Boehner bills......just one, the other was Reid's and the democrats bill. :How many GOP reps knew this and simply went along to get along? God Bless the 22 who didn't cave and held their ground.

Latest Headlines

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|83 comments

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens|16 comments

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow|114 comments

When Did Matty Tell Hatty?

Frank Schell|18 comments

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan|50 comments

Shah Na Na

Mark Tooley|22 comments

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman|31 comments

Jeff Sessions’ Conservative Populism

Matthew Walther|68 comments

The Spectacle Blog

High Court Strikes Down Arizona Voter Law

Jordan Gonzalez | 6.17.13

Waiting for the Middle East to Combust over Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 6.17.13

Snowden’s Online Q&A Leaves Many un-Aed Qs

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 6.17.13

Hannity: Secure the Border First

Jeffrey Lord | 6.17.13

A Grave New World: The Political Price of Overpopulation

Anne Hobson | 6.17.13

Serious Welfare Reform…in Massachusetts

Claire Healey | 6.17.13

Pelosi Misuses the Word “Sacred”

Rich Lizardo | 6.17.13

Keep the IRS Scandal Alive

Matt Purple | 6.17.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Political Hay

Get in Line

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (246) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

reads1| 7.28.11 @ 6:21AM

chuck| 7.28.11 @ 7:54AM

chuck| 7.28.11 @ 7:58AM

JimP| 7.28.11 @ 10:01AM

Redstateboy| 7.28.11 @ 11:04AM

darcy| 7.28.11 @ 11:51AM

JimP| 7.28.11 @ 11:52AM

Peter McGrath| 7.28.11 @ 11:55AM

RCV| 7.28.11 @ 3:29PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.28.11 @ 6:21AM

darcy| 7.28.11 @ 12:20PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.28.11 @ 2:11PM

Clint| 7.28.11 @ 6:43AM

Conservative View| 7.28.11 @ 7:28AM

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 7:47AM

JimP| 7.28.11 @ 10:13AM

JimP| 7.28.11 @ 10:19AM

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 12:12PM

darcy| 7.28.11 @ 12:25PM

JimP| 7.28.11 @ 12:55PM

Timothy L. Pennell| 7.28.11 @ 6:58AM

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 7:21AM

Conservative View| 7.28.11 @ 7:43AM

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:16PM

skip| 7.29.11 @ 12:45PM

TrueBlue| 7.29.11 @ 1:19PM

Clint| 7.28.11 @ 8:13AM

John II| 7.28.11 @ 12:20PM

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:18PM

John II| 7.29.11 @ 12:05AM

Purpleguy| 7.29.11 @ 8:46AM

RCV| 7.29.11 @ 2:00PM

John II| 7.30.11 @ 1:37PM

skip| 7.30.11 @ 3:25PM

W| 7.28.11 @ 8:43AM

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:20PM

TrueBlue| 7.29.11 @ 1:21PM

Michael Tomlinson| 7.28.11 @ 9:34AM

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:22PM

TrueBlue| 7.29.11 @ 1:24PM

jothepro| 7.28.11 @ 9:45AM

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:23PM

JR| 7.28.11 @ 10:06AM

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:23PM

MikeBee| 7.28.11 @ 10:08AM

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:28PM

TrueBlue| 7.29.11 @ 1:26PM

W| 7.28.11 @ 11:37AM

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:30PM

TrueBlue| 7.29.11 @ 1:29PM

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 7:10AM

chuck| 7.28.11 @ 7:12AM

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 7:16AM

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 7:32AM

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 7:53AM

Clint| 7.28.11 @ 8:07AM

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 8:36AM

Clint| 7.28.11 @ 8:51AM

Gary B| 7.28.11 @ 9:39AM

Elron H.| 7.28.11 @ 11:29AM

Elron H.| 7.28.11 @ 7:42PM

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:33PM

Matthew Quigley| 7.28.11 @ 11:20AM

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:37PM

Nick| 7.29.11 @ 1:06AM

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 7:35AM

chuck| 7.28.11 @ 7:52AM

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 9:44AM

big bob| 7.28.11 @ 10:30AM

DaveD| 7.28.11 @ 10:52AM

Butch | 7.28.11 @ 3:11PM

chuck| 7.28.11 @ 9:05PM

Purpleguy| 7.28.11 @ 10:38PM

chuck| 7.28.11 @ 10:41PM

TrueBlue| 7.29.11 @ 1:35PM