deja vu', all over again
Nearly four years ago, I posted a short opinion that the party on the left should consider someone besides Nancy Pelosi as the next Speaker of the House.
To anyone who may have read and remembers that missive, I told you so.
Today, three years and eleven months later, the party out-of-power is on the verge of an orgasm of self-adoration and a potentially hazardous exercise in patting themselves on the back for exactly the same reasons that party soon (very possibly) to be relieved-of-power did four years ago.
For the same reasons, they are mistaken.
The GOP appears to be about to anoint Rep. John Boehner of Ohio as Speaker, (assuming enough of a turnover in seats in the midterm elections). From what I have read in the news, he has already begun his victory strut, and has even outlined his legislative agenda, (which has no goals save to obstruct the other party). In other words, the same shit we have now, with a baritone voice. If the party on the right assumes power in the House, it will not be a statement of confidence in them, per se, it will be vote for the lesser of several lousy choices.
And so, I respectfully offer this advice to the GOP:
We need leaders, even if they are not 100% right, more than we need another damned ideologue.
posted by eccentric recluse at 1:26 PM
13 Comments:
Interesting take on it all (as usual).. And as usual, we'll disagree on the core stuff.
Nancy is the worst type of ideologue. She's a mega-wealthy elitist who will never suffer under the insane agenda foist upon the commoners. And if you string together a video of all her infamous speaches (CIA lied to her / HCR will allow artistic types to quit their jobs / unemployment compensation is the best stimulus / gotta pass a societal-changing bill to "find out what's in it").. you find out that she's either utterly clue-less, or as Denis Miller said.. "stop an electric fan with your tongue, stupid". Her brand of elitist, socialism is a far cry from mainstream America.
Boehner is of course a radical idealogue to progressives, and an ideologue to a degree in general.. but he's a lot closer to mainstream. Don't get me wrong.. I agree with you that he's gonna be problematic due to his hard, ideology, and a preset hatred from the left.. and I'd prefer he not be Speaker.. but he's not an arrogant loon (like Nancy). He's much more pragmatic.
For the same reasons that the Democrats "let" Nancy into power, the Repubs will have to do the same. In a room full of 435 crooks, liars and con-artists, he's the best choice.
I'd much prefer a different scenario.. ala we get to change the DC culture in general.. starting with term limitations so that ideologues can't build a power-base that "entitles" them to Speakerhood... but until then, we've got a root-system of genuinely destructive "State-ism" planted by the progressives. Uprooting it and eliminating it will take someone who knows the system. This is a crucial time where we either head back toward a Constitutionally restricted government ABRUPTLY and get a real, balanced budget, or let the progressive cancer take hold, long term.
Just out of curiosity.. who do you think should be the Rebublican Speaker ?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Not that it would ever happen, but the three senior Repubs on the Ways & Means committee, (from VA, CA, & TX-the names escape me right now), know their way around the House and the party, and they have little of the baggage that the heir apparent has. They march in step with the necessary tunes, but are able to play with others, and might, do something to move the country someplace besides the usual circle-jerk.
I could be wrong about these people, but I don't think I am about the gentleman from Ohio.
ER
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Here's the problem:
Nancy took the, "gloves are off.. ends-justify-the-means", approach and laid into place a horrid network of laws/rules/regs (most of which he doesn't even understand)..
We need someone to take the gloves off, and lay the same sort of waste in their wake, going BACKwards. Now's not the time for a "Conservative Lite" .. with a dash of politeness and political correctness. Neither of those traits were employed while ramming this stuff down our objecting throats.. and we don't have time to play nice.
The stage was set when the progressively-highjacked, Democrat party, thumbed their nose at the constituents.. the HCR bill alone made a mockery of the legislative process (surprising that was possible).. and the TRULY devesting thing, was that what little trust the people at large had in their government (ala CBO), got trashed, too.
We can all play nice, when this progressive mess is unwound and burried..
I disagree with the notion that we need a bigger jackhammer. That will do the trick, but in a few years, (if we are still around, if the cancer that we are bitching about is not addressed and this is not addressing it), then the pendulum will swing back and we will get an even bigger fubar that cannot be torn down by the jackhammer employed last time. and the escalation continues.
the party that will have a permanent effect will be a game changer, not simply a bigger son-of-a-bitch.
want a couple of examples? I hate to give them credit, but here goes.
1) Richard Nixon. he was a progressive in the best sense of the word, knew when to compromise and how to compromise, with the left and the right. his game changer is well-known, and had his men not overreached, he would have gotten away with it. in any event, like Capone, he went down for a petty technicality, as they really couldn't get him on anything else, save public opinion, which is the currency of leadership.
2) Osama bin Laden. We can defend against lots of things, most of which were purchased from us to begin with, and we really defended our face and flaf to the world, but left our asses hanging bare in the wind. That was his game changer, and look where he is, and we are, now. All the talk and rationalization in the world won't change that.
If the Congress changes hands, and we go with the Boehner contingency, then he will not simply be slapping Pelosi and company, he will be slapping the will of the people who knowingly gave his philosophy the boot. Pelosi is no prize, and may have done what they have done badly, very badly, but they were going in a direction a majority wanted. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that, and trying to find some common ground. For John Boehner, common ground means right where he is, and everybody else can go to hell.
It might fly for a while, but he had better deliver prosperity quick, or his ass will be on the line, and it won't take any four years to get there.
You're correct, with the pendulum comparison.. the further you push it one-way, the further it will swing back, and it doesn't take much additional energy added, to escalate it. Maybe it's just me, but the pendulum apexes always seemed to stay within the bounds of reason; until the late 70s, give-or-take a presidency.
I've oft' mentioned my hyper-liberal bro... After a Bush Presidency teamed with the Republican Congress; he used to go off on vein-bulging rants about their antics. I'd answer that it was just how it goes.. when a party gets all the power, they take advantage of it. He'd say, "but this us UNPRECEDENTED.. they're even letting special-interest groups WRITE legislation !"
Wellll .. he were are... and his ideology is sobered when I use those same phrases.
Sure it's MY ideology that sees where we are now, as past where any reason applies. It seems every day a little line-item is discovered that does something insane, like granting the SEC immunity to freedom of information.. or the overt stuff like government taking over student loans IN A HCR BILL !? There are so many little granting of regulatory authority in these THOUSANDS of pages of rammed through legislation, it might take decades to unravel it all. From my perspective, the Democrats pushed the pendulum over the top, and it will take drastic, fast-moving efforts to "catch it".
In other words.. it's all or nothing now. .. no prisoners. Whatever happens is better than letting this stuff take institutionalized root.
As for Nancy doing what the majority wanted ? Surely you don't mean the majority of the population ? They opposed this stuff in every possible way.. polls, town-meetings, major elections, protests, and she just kept plugging away.
If you meant "we:" wanted some reform around health-care.. absolutely.. but not a multi-trillion dollar takeover of it all. Heck, the money spent on HCR would have bought private insurance outright, for tens of millions. And on that note.. a trillion dollars of "stimulation" could equate to a million dollar line of credit to help businesses get through this.. A million dollars for a MILLION companies.. and in the form of a no-interst line of credit, we'd have gotten some of it back. How many jobs would THAT have saved or created ?
My point is... it's all BS, and a progressive power-play. It wasn't about fixing our health system; it was about using a crisis to ram pure Marxism through. Same for "stimulus".. just using a crisis to plant the power roots deeply, and cripple our free-market future.
ANYway.. we're in deep doo-doo regardless of who gets blamed for making that last push-to-far.. It's as much all-or-nothing, as it is, "nothing to lose". It's a matter of what 'ideology' is in place to pick up the pieces, and rebuild. America Or Amerika ?
Update:
Guess who says he OK with letting the tax cuts expire on the "rich" ?
I give up, who?
You mentioned n the comment before last about special interests writing legislation, yes, it is true, and any adjective I use to modify that wold not seem adequate, but do you think that is new? The practice peaked under Reagan and reached a relative low under Clinton, (you know, with that "far reaching liberal" stuff), and then regained some momentum, albeit under wraps under Bush II. It is nothing new, but ought to be addressed.
And on the issue of what the majority wanted, what the majority of those who voted wanted was something besides the direction we were going. I am not uncomfortable in betting that, though dissatisfied today, those same folks, (and others who may actually vote), would not, and will not choose to back up and go down the path that we were on.
There are lots of reasons for the situation that we are in today, many of the root causes predate Obama, and a good percentage of those predate the Democratic majority. The rest can be seen in the Keystone Cops reaction to the situation and the Snidely Whiplash efforts to impede those reactions in the Congress. Blame is being assigned in the minds of the voters, we will see how it falls in another month or so. We will both probably be surprised.
You think I am hyper-liberal? Damn, have you had a sheltered life. As for myself, I think that process matters It is why we have a Constitution. I think dignity and deportment matter, it is wy I will take an unpopular stand, eve though I will vote the other way, just 'cause...
No no.. I don't think you a hyper-liberal. I wouldn't bother with dialogue, if that were the case. I'd bet that our personal ideologies overlap, more than they conflict. I think it's just that the topics that warrant discussion these days; tend to to come from the parts of our ideologies that do not overlap.
You're right of course, that the roots to complex problems are decades old, and onmi-partisan. However, the cumulative consequences from these problems are becoming something we must remedy, here and today, as in, now.
I like the blunt, brute force cure, 'cause the longer we try to drag this out, the more, total pain it will cause.
I'm not worried about HCR repeal, because it's self-repealing. We simpl,y cannot afford it, and on top of that, there's nowhere near the goodwill needed from all parties, to give it a chance..... which segues into my big point. I've mentioned it here before.. "No matter how liberal you might be.. no matter how much you expect from government; it cannot be more than the private sector is willing to support".. period!
Considering my other, oft' mentioned point.. "A 3.8 trillion dollar anual budget translates into $38,000 per household, when an average household income is ~$60,000" (and that's just for the feds.. doesn't include the costs of state/county/local) government.. "we're well past the point where the private sector can afford the government"..
Yeah.. we needed to change direction, but not THIS direction !
Oh, and it was Mr. Boehner himself (willing to compromise on the tax stuff)
Gentlemen PLEASE; you can't fight in here, this is the WAR Room.
Boehner's a dick.
Marra'S Drugs http://rkberane.com/ - duloxetine no prescription Cymbalta is an anti-depressant that is used to treat severe depression as well as anxiety. [url=http://rkberane.com/]cymbalta cost[/url]
Post a Comment
<< Home