Does anyone remember JFK and the Steel Crisis?
[ http://www.networker.www3.50megs.com/... ]
I'll get back to that in a moment, but let's start w/ the present budget issues.
Oh wait. Remember those "bipartisan" health care negotiations? Ah yes, the Esteemed Sen. Grassley of IA, was part of those. Does anyone think he was genuinely serious ... or was it a delaying tactic, designed to run out the clock?
Whoops. Pres. Obama spent so much time on the Affordable Care Act, that he didn't have time to work on jobs (allegedly). But Mr. Grassley is a well-respected member of the World's Most Exclusive Club. Naturally, if he's willing to spend time negotiating - even if it's just to dilly and dally - a newly-elected President has to take him seriously.
Hey, every Republican Sen. has to "take one for the team," in order to bring a Democratic President down. Mr. Charles G.'s reputation for candor might've suffered a tad. But not his record of party loyalty. Now that's bipartisanship ... GOP style! :)
Fast forward to today. Sen. Coburn - another allegedly-earnest "centerist" - was here (and there) part of the gang of however many. Oh, well. He used to be. Let's see if the slack can be taken up by some other sweet, lovely, innocent and genuinely-concerned GOP Sen.s from "swing states" such as GA's Saxby Chambliss (do you recall how he clobbered triple-amputee war hero Max Cleland on national security? here's another interesting view: http://www.youtube.com/... ).
Or perhaps yet another respected swing-state Senator, such as the unfortunately-surnamed Mr. Crapo can assist. (It seems that exactly two Democrats have served in congress from Idaho, since 1958. Two decades have passed since Idaho last elected its iconic Democratic Gov. Cecil Andrus. The GOP's control of the legislature has been solid as a garnet in the Gemstone State for almost seventy years.) Mike and Saxby, the Dynamically-Bipartisan Duo ... to the rescue!
Okie dokie. So now we're going to hear that Pres. Obama and/or VP Biden were just messing around, while the nation defaulted. Either that, or the GOP will get everything that the tea party desires.
Have you seen Pat Buchanan's rant on the Yacht-building jobs?
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...
Let's see if we can get the GOP to pass a special tax rebate for caviar importation.
Then, a few decades from now ... some hapless Democratic President (if anyone still dares to admit to being a Democrat by then), will suggest that a few bucks be saved by abolishing the "caviar tax rebate." Mr. Buchanan's successors will then scream on cue to high heaven that a few low-paid caviar canning workers will lose their jobs.
There's nothing even remotely bipartisan about the GOP. As Rachael Maddow has repeatedly and eloquently explained with her "Charlie Brown and Lucy" metaphor, the Republicans continue to shift the debate to the right.
If Democrats embrace the GOP's notion of an individual mandate to purchase health care insurance - as an alternative to "single payer" - then the Repubs will eschew the notion of an individual mandate as unacceptable, not to mention downright unconstitutional. If we back off the idea of greenhouse gas limits in favor of "cap and trade," then that will also become an anathema for the GOP. No matter what the Democratic Party does, in an attempt to compromise, or regardless of any Republican policy that a Democratic President embraces, the GOP will reject all such olive branches in favor of an even more hard-line position. And while the "tea partiers" have exacerbated this trend, it's not new: Republicans have been doing it for at least a decade now.
(Rachael Maddow compiled a long list of these examples, culminating with the shift from demanding 80+% spending cuts in exchange for tax increases, to a non-negotiable requirement of 100% spending cuts. I'm not sure if she also mentioned that the GOP wants to limit revenues to 18% of GDP, even though they are now at 15%. But further tax cuts are clearly required.)
You'd have to be brain-dead to not realize that the GOP's ultimate goal is to eliminate all governmental functions besides local policing and national security.
The key is taxes. If the economy is good, then taxes should be lowered, in order to return money to the "people" (i.e. those making the most, who will presumably do the needful for the Republicans at election time). If the economy is bad, then we supposedly need to cut taxes even further, in order to encourage "job creation" (whether here or in some other nation :). If the economy is neither good, nor bad, then tax cuts are even more essential to build factories in China and Mexico, in order to enrich the hedge-fund investors.
But no matter what happens, we just need to keep on reducing revenues, so additional spending cuts will be required. An unnecessary war or two here and there, plus massive superfluous national security spending might help as well, just for good measure.
(Sorry, Pat B.: We should keep building those yachts. And when we adopt the "caviar tax rebate" in the future, we'll be sure to keep those caviar canning factories running full tilt. By the way, have you talked to Newt lately? Maybe you can put together a plan to increase the number of Tiffany's jewlers. Rolls-Royce mechanics? Now that's what I call healthy economic growth!!)
All sneering aside, I confess to having a few second thoughts about my decison to support Barack over Hillary. It was a hard choice, because I thought the world of both of them. Sadly, I now fear that President Obama cannot "give 'em Hell" in the way either Harry or Hillary could've ... if only because of his ethnic background, and the sad reality that many folks in this country would be threatened by the prospect of an "angry Black man." (Even if he's right, and even if he's our President.)
It seems that an angry White man who lacked nary a second letter to his middle name like Truman, as well as an irate White woman such as Phyllis Schlafly (c.f. her modern-day equivalent - Ann Coulter) and even supercilious subhumans like Glenn Beck can get away with so much more rage.
This is why I support the Constitutional option ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/... )
It's time for Obama to pull a JFK. Please Mr. President: Show some steel, sieze the mills, and call the GOP's "bipartisan" bluff. As long as you wave nicely to the Yachtsmen, all will be well.