Skip to content

The Song Remains The Same…

09 April 2011 @ 16:08

…at least on No-Capital Hill.

I had a dream – oh-oh / Crazy dream…

The compromise reached by the GOP Establishment with the Socialist Democrats has unleashed a tsunami of commentary across The Rightosphere.

-First out of the box was Stacy McCain who, in a much updated posting, used phrases like ’30 Pieces of Silver’ and ‘those knives in our back’.  But this response to one of the conservatives who praised the deal is classic RSM:

Philip Klein declares this The Best Doggone Compromise in the Entire History of Compromises. Why, it’s even better than the Three-Fifths Compromise, which is to this day beloved by connoisseurs of compromise everywhere.

Don’t forget The Missouri Compromise.  Or, to get a bit more modern, Munich [‘Herr Hitler, I believe, will now be satisfied with what he has obatined’].

-From Stacy’s posting late this morning over at AmSpecBlog:

Basic rule of thumb: It’s not a conservative victory if Chuck Schumer has any reason to smile.

Beyond the GOP’s disappointing (but by no means unprecedented) abandonment of social conservatives, the amount that Boehner’s bargain would cut from the 2011 budget, about $39 billion, represents something less than 1/30th of this year’s deficit. So if this “historic” reduction of federal spending (to borrow Harry Reid’s expression) charts our future course, the United States might achieve a balanced budget by 2042.

This sober fiscal reality makes GOP triumphalists look a lot like Charlie Sheen boasting that his drug-fueled career meltdown was “winning.” But so long as Speaker Boehner is not claiming to be a “total frickin’ rock star from Mars,” at least there is hope that this might be the first step toward budget sobriety. However, my grassroots Tea Party friends, who are screaming “betrayal” and vowing to support primary challengers against every congressional Republican incumbent next year, are certainly justified in their dissatisfaction with what Boehner called “the best deal we could get.”

From Tiger Blood to Weasel Piss.

-One of those voting against the compromise was Thaddeus McCotter, and I ‘m not surprised after this speech he made on the House Floor yesterday morning [tip of the fedora to Doug Powers]:

Indeed, with this new deal [pun intended], the song does remain the same.  It would seem the GOP Leadership is dazed and confused about what the TEA Partiers want.  I think it’s safe to say, many of the TEA folks are telling Boehener and company today ‘You’re time is gonna come’.

-SIDENOTE: A couple of hours ago, Mrs. B. came down dressed for the day in this teeshirt [for the record,  in a much smaller size than the one depicted]:

I asked her if she has chosen that one, even though she was going to be working out in the yard and the black would attract the sun, because of the events of last night and she replied ‘Of course’.  I’ll state it again: I am one lucky SOB.

-To all of the House members who are opposed to the compromise, I say: STAGE THE COUP!

-Friend In The Ether Dandapani gets it:

This cut isn’t even a half glass full vs half glass empty argument. We are talking drops in a bucket. All they did was get the vector pointing in the right direction, but they only achieved a snails velocity, all-the-while the avalanche of debt is barreling down the mountain side toward us. Yes, this was a gleam, a glint, but no light as of yet.

Yup, drops of weasel piss [see above].

Sing out Hare Hare / Dance the Hoochie Koo

-On of the commentators over at Stacy’s joint makes this point which I’m seeing a lot [not to target this fellow, but he makes the point very well, so that’s why I’m quoting him]:

Obama is still president, and the Democrats still control the Senate. Nothing can pass the Senate without at least minimal support from Democrats (5 willing to vote for a bill, and another 9 willing not to filibuster), and even in the House the GOP has nowhere near enough votes to pass anything over Obama’s veto. In that context, even tiny spending cuts are victory.

In politics, sometimes the symbolism is more important.    Sometimes you have to stand your ground, be in the dissent, in order to make a longer-lasting point [see Scalia, Justice Antonin].

The view most people see in this situation is The Stupid Party’s cave-in…again.  They perceive that the Democrats have pulled another fast-on the hapless GOP, and such people like to be associated with people who are ‘Winning’.

-Mike, proprietor of That Mr. G Guy’s Blog, is at the target range and he’s dead-on,. balls-accurate today:

Let’s face it, the Republican leadership saw the whites of their eyes and retreated in disarray. I know, you’ll say you’ve got to pick your battles, but when you run from the first skirmish, what’s going to happen when the fight is really on.

‘Damn the Teapedos!  Full steam retreat!’

John ‘The Cheap Suit’ Boehner, 08 April 2011

-As you can read above, the-woman-who-should-stage-a-coup-and-become-Speaker Michele Bachmann voted against ‘The Greatest Compromise In The History Of The American Republic!!!’ [emphasis not mine].  Cubachi has the 411 on her reasoning.  A highlight:

…Sadly, we’re missing the mandate given us by voters last November, and for that reason I voted against the Continuing Resolution.

They forget that mandate at their peril.

Please, Mrs. Bachmann: forget running for the Presidency and lead the charge to overthrow the House Leadership.  Channel your inner Boudica.

-Over at WyBlog, Chris gets Shakespearian:

I guess to a socialist spendthrift even the elimination of one single dollar in spending is “historic.” To anyone with a brain though, $38 billion is a pin prick, a wart on the butt of progress, and certainly nothing to crow about.

He also enlists Twisted Sister to rally the Wolverines so that we can lance the damn thing.

-Speaking of old Billy Shakes: ‘Had all his hairs been lives, my great revenge had stomach for them all’ [Othello].

The song remains the same

The Classic Liberal:

Even more pathetic is the fact that these so-called budget “cuts” aren’t even legitimate cuts. All they are is reductions in projected spending. In other words, a promise based on funny numbers. And we all know how well political promises go, don’t we?

This latest budget deal represents nothing more than the continued plunder and pillage of the American taxpayer….

A is A, you can call it B [ie: ‘budget cuts’], but it will always, first and foremost, be A.

-Sharing some of TheCL’s righteous anger, Adobe Walls let’s loose with his most potent weapon, his magnum-sized reasoning:

But perhaps the most crushing defeat for Conservatives and our Republic is that the government wasn’t shutdown. Shutting down the government is an important goal in and of itself. It is the only weapon we had, now the Bolsheviks know we are afraid to wield it. As soon as possible the Republican needed to engineer a shutdown over something trivial, like naming a mailbox just to prove they were willing to be that petty merely to prove a point. That’s how you fight and win when the odds are completely against you. When your weapons are limited but powerful there is no substitute for a ruthless, brutal if necessary, dedication to the task at hand.

The Republicans have established beyond dispute that they are spineless cretins, cowardly poltroons, sheep in wolf’s clothing, scrofulous dilettantes effecting the attributes of leadership with none of the qualities.

Spoken like a true, pure-bred Wolverine.

-Andrew McCarthy is on fire and a lot of his colleagues at NRO who are praising this new deal are going to get the burning they deserve:

With due respect, I think those who are praising the budget deal are deluding themselves. Under circumstances where we are trillions of dollars in debt, the GOP just caved on its promise to cut the relative pittance of $61 billion in spending because it’s just not worth fighting for more than the half-pittance of $40 billion Democrats claimed was their drop-dead number. “Drop dead” meant daring Republicans to shut the government down (which, as we know, doesn’t actually shut the government down). The Republicans blinked.

For me, this is no surprise — as I’ve said several times…I don’t think they’re serious. But I want to make a point about how strange this praise of Boehner & Co. is. A mere four months ago, the big controversy in conservative and Republican circles was whether the GOP had reneged on their vaunted pledge to cut $100B in spending in the current fiscal year because they had seemingly come down to $61B. As I noted at the time, there was no question that, if you looked at the fine print of the pledge, the commitment was $61B — but that if you looked at reality, both $61B and $100B were laughably unserious. No matter. Folks around here [at NRO] pooh-poohed my criticism and insisted that a $61B pledge was a sober first step, showing real fortitude about getting our fiscal house in order.

So now they’ve stopped short, significantly short, of that purportedly serious step, and the reaction is, “We won!” You’ve got to be kidding me. The only thing Boehner won is future assurance that GOP leadership can safely promise the moon but then settle for crumbs because their rah-rah corner will spin any paltry accomplishment, no matter how empty it shows the promise to have been, as a tremendous victory.

And what’s the rationale for settling? Why, that these numbers are so piddling — that the $21 billion difference is so meaningless in the context of $14 trillion — that it’s best just to settle, make believe the promise was never made, make believe we didn’t flinch, and put this episode behind us so we can begin the “real work” of the next promise, the Ryan Plan.

Regarding that plan, you’re to believe that the captains courageous who caved on $21 billion — and who got elected because of Obamacare but don’t even want to discuss holding out for a cancellation of $105 billion in Obamacare funding — are somehow going to fight to the death for $6 trillion in cuts. Right.

I look forward to next year, though, when the commentariat will no doubt be swooning over the just announced Ryan Plan 2.0. That will be an even more fantabulous, intellectually serious proposal to cut, oh, say $12 trillion (of course, if promises don’t mean anything, why stop at 12?). By then, the same pundits will be warning that the Republicans must not shut down the government to hold out for Ryan 1.0′s trifling $6 trillion. After all, we’ll have the real serious business of Ryan 2.0 to attend to….

Dead solid perfect — I can’t add anything to that and I wouldn’t even try.

-Keeping with the atmosphere generated by Thaddeus McCotter, I think it appropriate to complement the mood of we Wolverines with…

Aww, screw it – I’m in the mood…

11 Comments
  1. 09 April 2011 @ 16:55 16:55

    Thanks for the link. Aint it amazing all the pundits who are going gaga over this temporary spending bill, not realizing what they really got was a “shit sandwich.”

    Mike

  2. 09 April 2011 @ 17:19 17:19

    It gets worse. If Dan Riehl is correct, Boehner and the Old Dogs actively prevented protecting the military from the shutdown so they could use them as a bargaining chip… against their own party holding out.

  3. Adobe Walls permalink
    09 April 2011 @ 17:32 17:32

    @ richard mcenroe;
    If that’s true that would definitely warrant firing squads.

    • bobbelvedere permalink*
      10 April 2011 @ 16:33 16:33

      Adobe: Giving someone a firing squad is an honor; this story, if true, demands hangings.

  4. 09 April 2011 @ 20:41 20:41

    This sucks. There should have been more. Too bad we didn’t have the Senate, or we would have had more of a chance. I don’t think there’s going to be much cut until we get the Senate and the POTUS. It’s probably not a popular idea, but I don’t see there being much being accomplished until then.

  5. 10 April 2011 @ 21:21 21:21

    You’ve heard, um, read me say this a thousand times a thousand different ways. But I’m gonna keep preachin’ until more Americans come to grips with the facts.

    This is nothing new. Phyllis Schlafly tried to teach this to Americans 50 years ago, and countless others tried before her. There was a time, believe it or not, that what I’m about to say was considered common sense in America. Thinking like we do today is what they thought was on the “fringe” and “crazy.”

    Political parties, just like government, work on a completely different set of incentives than do the rest of us. The Republican Establishment has no interest in conservative values or principles of any kind. They seek power. Period. At our expense.

    So, in this latest Epic Budget Battle, The Stupid Party didn’t “cave-in,” “retreat,” or none of that jazz. They accomplished exactly what they wanted, by their own means, and for their own purposes.

    There is no “we.” There is only “us” and “them.”

    Thanks for the link!

  6. Adobe Walls permalink
    10 April 2011 @ 22:26 22:26

    @ theCL:
    They’re not even any good at grabbing power. I submit that even they or at least some of them in both parties have got to be able to see that collapse, economic, political and social collapse is coming, probably sooner rather than later. Even Hitler knew he had to do something to attain and then keep power. The Social Democrats have no real interest cutting spending because they actually believe that just in time they can increase the pace of looting the rich and stave off collapse. Surely some of the less Socialist Democrats realize that “the economy” is not, in fact, a fat man chewing on a cigar that will continue spitting out taxes with enough percussive attention.

  7. 12 April 2011 @ 12:48 12:48

    @Adobe: I hope I’m not responding too late and that you check back in.

    Yes, the power struggle between the parties is real, and yes, Republicans seem to struggle with this in Congress. They always have. But my point is that their goals and incentives are completely different than yours or mine.

    The desire for limited government based on conservative principles is anathema to those who seek power. They may talk the rhetoric, but enacting the principles defeats their purpose, which is power. To govern means to rule. With self-government, there are no rulers. Do you see how yours and Boehner’s goals conflict?

    Furthermore, in government, money is power. Reduce the budget and you reduce government power. Again, not what 99% of politicians are after.

    I agree that they have to see the collapse staring them in the face, but inside their Washington, DC bubble, they believe a lot of false things about how an economy works. In other words, they believe their own BS.

  8. Adobe Walls permalink
    13 April 2011 @ 18:53 18:53

    If the solution is that someone has to have power fine power can be had without endorsing a Nanny State.

  9. 14 April 2011 @ 23:46 23:46

    “Houses of The Holy”! Awright!

    • bobbelvedere permalink*
      15 April 2011 @ 16:10 16:10

      Mmmm…looking at my comment list from the last 24 hours, I’d say someone clicked-on Red [Caught Him With A Corndog] in my Blogroll.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: