Skip to main content

View Diary: Dems prepared to meet GOP halfway, but Republicans still predict shutdown (144 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Republicans WANT to shutdown (17+ / 0-)

    The government.  It should be more and more obvious to everybody.

    Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

    by yet another liberal on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 08:35:51 AM PDT

    •  The Right Wing does (9+ / 0-)

      But many GOPers think that a shutdown would be a PR disaster for the GOP at  a time when they are winning the debate.  If there's one thing we can count on, it's that the GOP will overreach.

      The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

      by Mimikatz on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 08:42:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Newt was just as sure of himself.. (8+ / 0-)

        In 1995...but it backfired on him, and on the Repubs. And it will backfire on them this time, too. They will NOT look "strong" or "effective' on this, jsut as they didn't look that way to the public then. Whether they have FOX News or not.

        "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."--George Santayana

        by GainesT1958 on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 08:45:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I want that proven to me. (6+ / 0-)

          As for the results from 1995, while (nearly) everyone says they lost, they pushed through many pro-business and anti-regulation measures, impeached Bill Clinton and got George W. Bush elected with Republican majorities in Congress and the Supreme Court.  They got to break the laws with impunity, start two wars, crash the economy and help the rich while saddling the middle and lower classes with debt to infinity.

          The Republicans lost in 1995 how?  The Republicans will lose in 2011 how?

          Yah, right.

          •  The Republicans lost in 1995 (4+ / 0-)

            because Clinton rode the wave of Republican unpopularity right to reelection in 1996. We couldn't get Al Gore elected because there were too many "progressives" running around the country telling everyone there was no difference between Republicans and Democrats.
            As for 2011, Republicans all over the US are tanking in the polls, because of their extreme policy positions.
            Republicans know it would be a disaster, they're just pandering to the tea partiers.

            How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the pillow? It has more feathers than the dove and doesn't have that dangerous beak. Jack Handey

            by skohayes on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 09:23:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So, one Presidential loss = Republican loss? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ColoTim

              So, the above-mentioned policy shifts, the subsequent Republican Senatorial and House wins, W's selection, more R Senate and House wins, and on and on for the following 11 years (or more, considering the weak tea those of us to the left of Obama and the Dems in power from '06-10 have been served) are less important a measuring stick than Clinton's re-election?
              I think you need a new definition of "lost."

        •  They are trying to put a Black face on (3+ / 0-)

          it with the Tea Party fav Allen West leading the way because they know that the most reliable GOP voters think that POC are taking all of the "entitlements"

          We'll see how that works when the majority of people dependent on the federal govt (White people) wake up and notice that what they thought was there, isn't.

          - the habit of ignoring race is understood to be a graceful, even generous, liberal gesture - Toni Morrison

          by blindyone on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 08:59:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The GOP is planting the seeds of its own demise. (4+ / 0-)

        When the GOP can't help itself, we should not be helping it either.

        Congressional Dems seem ready to put forth a credible set of specific proposals which implement greater budget cuts for a fiscal year that's already half over.

        Trusting - yes, we should trust but verify; where have we heard that before? - that the cuts do not gut Democratic priorities, this is the time to get our message very public ... and let the Republicans do what they will.

        We need not save them from themselves, even if it means a tough time for the Federal government for a while.

        God gave Noah the rainbow sign. No more water. Fire next time.

        by TRPChicago on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 08:56:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Except that they've been doing this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          StrayCat

          for 30+ years. How long does it take the seeds of demise to bear real world fruit?

          •  Demise, for this purpose, means minority. (0+ / 0-)

            Then, we work on steady, inexorable attrition.

            Then, in desperation, the GOP realizes the Tea Partyists are toxic, and it moves moderate. More attrition, but slower ... and we do fine. Totally annihilating one party probably would be more than we want.

            On the other hand ...

            God gave Noah the rainbow sign. No more water. Fire next time.

            by TRPChicago on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 11:02:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We already had them in the minority (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              StrayCat

              everywhere except the SC from 2008-10, and because our Dem pols didn't do enough lost the House despite their having completely screwed up the nation (and nearly the world's economy) over the previous 7 years. I ask again, how long will it take for us to convince people, despite our slow walking the ball sometimes, that Republicans have no interest in helping them?
              (I worded it much more elegantly the first time I wrote this, but somehow it didn't get posted . . .)

      •  You Are Discounting GOP Belief in 2010 Mandate (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Criticalfrimmel, 3goldens

        The GOP largely believes in the media-perpetuated myth that extremism, refusal to compromise, and radical restructuring of the entire American system  is what won them the 2010 election.

        The radical restructuring may be characterized in the current budget debate by massive cuts to spending and additional cuts to taxes, but it is defined by more fundamental attack on the legitimacy of principles such as

        *the intrinsic value of public education and collective bargaining for the middle class;  

        *the moral imperative of a decent safety net for the old, poor and disadvantaged;  

        *a general concern for the public good and common interests of the vast majority of our citizens and an understanding of government's essential role in serving these interests;

        *a belief that extreme disparities of wealth and income are neither unavoidable nor healthy for our economy or our democracy;

        * a reliance on scientific methods to establish commonly accepted facts and a decision-making process that relies on those methods and those facts; and

        *a belief that preservation of the founding principles of our nation relies on their continued application, even in difficult circumstances, and cannot be achieved by their merely ceremonial invocation.

        Their embrace of extremism and their disdain for "moderation" ("social" or otherwise) becomes more clear every day.

        Their legislative positioning on both a Congressional level and state level since Nov 2010 makes that clear.  

        What makes it even more clear is their obvious embrace of those 3 principles (extremism, no compromise, fundamental restructuring of society) as the foundation for their 2012 campaign messaging.  

        Anyone who assumes this is just tactical "positioning" and that wiser heads will prevail, underestimates the strength of the delusion and the GOP's embrace of that myth concerning the underlying reasons for the results  of the 2010 election.  

        No amount of compromise can be effective or will  be sufficient given the unlimited nature of the true objectives that the Republicans seek.  

        I think this excerpt captures the situation rather well:

        ..The defenders of the status quo therefore tend to begin by treating the revolutionary power as if its protestations were merely tactical; as if it really accepted the existing legitimacy but overstated its case for bargaining purposes; as if it were motivated by specific grievances to be assuaged by limited concessions. Those who warn against the danger in time are considered alarmists; those who counsel adaptation to circumstance are considered balanced and sane, for they have all the good “reasons” on their side: the arguments accepted as valid in the existing framework. “Appeasement”, where it is not a device to gain time, is the result of an inability to come to grips with a policy of unlimited objectives.

        But it is the essence of a revolutionary power that it possesses the courage of its convictions, that it is willing, indeed eager, to push its principles to their ultimate conclusion. Whatever else a revolutionary power may achieve therefore, it tends to erode, if not the legitimacy of the international order, at least the restraint with which such an order operates. The characteristic of a stable order is its spontaneity; the essence of a revolutionary situation is its self-consciousness. Principles of obligation in a period of legitimacy are taken so much for granted that they are never talked about, and such periods therefore appear to posterity as shallow and self-righteous. Principles in a revolutionary situation are so central that they are constantly talked about. The very sterility of the effort soon drains them of all meaning, and it is not unusual to find both sides invoking their version of the “true” nature of legitimacy in identical terms. And because in revolutionary situations the contending systems are less concerned with the adjustment of differences than with the subversion of loyalties, diplomacy is replaced either by war or by an armaments race.
        ...


        A World Restored, by Henry A. Kissinger, subtitled Europe after Napoleon: The Politics of Conservatism in a Revolutionary Age
        http://www.killian.com/...

        Sometimes when life hands you lemons, you should throw them back.

        by Into The Woods on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 11:30:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site