Jump to content


Open rebellion against Norquist?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,682 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 01:59 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2

(CNN) -- This is what happens when politics starts looking like a cult: Jeb Bush gets attacked for being a traitor to the conservative cause.

The former Florida governor has been speaking with the freedom of someone not running for office, saying that both his father and Ronald Reagan would have had a hard time in today's hard-right GOP and questioning the wisdom of Grover Norquist's absolutist anti-tax pledge.

That set off a fascinating public fight between Bush and Norquist, two faces of competing factions within Republican Party. It is the latest evidence of a growing GOP backlash against the ideological straitjacket Norquist has attempted to impose on governing in the United States.


Snip.....

Here was his response to Jeb Bush on this front: "There's a guy who watched his father throw away his presidency on a 2:1 (ratio of spending cuts to tax increases) promise. ... And he thinks he's sophisticated by saying that he'd take a 10:1 promise. He doesn't understand -- he's just agreed to walk down the same alley his dad did with the same gang. And he thinks he's smart. You walk down that alley, you don't come out."

The angry defensiveness of the statement, the thinly veiled threats and thuggish imagery, has all the signs of someone who worries that he might be losing a rational argument.

As it turns out, Norquist has reason to be concerned. It's not just Jeb Bush. A growing number of Republicans are rejecting his pledge. Oklahoma conservative Sen. Tom Coburn called the pledge's effective veto of deficit reduction plans "ridiculous" when talking with Erin Burnett on "OutFront."

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina on Tuesday declared his independence from the pledge, saying, "We're so far in debt, that if you don't give up some ideological ground, the country sinks."

Add to those voices seven other Republican U.S. senators -- from Maine's Susan Collins to Iowa's Chuck Grassley to Wyoming's John Barrasso -- and 11 Republican House members, ranging from centrist New Yorker Richard Hanna to tea party Floridian Allen West.

The bottom line is that a growing number of Republicans are deciding to throw off the ideological straitjacket to get serious about actually reducing the deficit and the debt. It is a courageous move at a time when cultlike group-think dictates that the pledge must be signed or your political career is dead in the water.

The choice between Bush's and Norquist's vision of the Republican Party is ultimately no contest at all. It's the difference between responsible governance and agitated activism, a growing party or a shrinking one. And of course in the end the only pledge that really matters is the Pledge of Allegiance.

This inconvenient fact is often denied by Norquist and other activists because it is their prime objection to attempts to find a "grand bargain" on deficits and debt, along the lines of the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson commission.



Worth reading in full. Norquist might be losing his grip on the GOP. I thought the Tea Party freshmen would begin to make sense once they had to get their heads wrapped around practical solutions. These guys are not Teahadists, but that they feel safe enough to speak open heresy such as this indicates the pitchforks may be shouldered...or maybe even at parade rest.

#2 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,464 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 14 June 2012 - 02:53 AM

Its tough when you paint yourself into a hopeless corner like a pledge to never raise taxes.
Sucks to be republican. Grover will take the GOP down. I like him.

#3 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,914 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 14 June 2012 - 06:03 AM

what they say in opposition and what they do in government dont always match.........

#4 kent_island_sailor

kent_island_sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,539 posts
  • Location:Kent Island!

Posted 14 June 2012 - 11:07 AM

What they say in opposition and what they do in government hardly ever match.........

FTFY ;)

what they say in opposition and what they do in government dont always match.........



#5 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,837 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 14 June 2012 - 12:32 PM

The fact is that Norquist and Gang's notions about shrinking the size of government through "starving the beast" on the revenue side, has ONLY resulted in the utter fiscal mis-management of a system that has high-enough fixed costs to make that indirect approach as ridiculous in actuality as it appeared in principle two decades ago when it started getting serious play by the 'thugs.

They should have been more straight-forward, saying: we want to dismantle all aspects of the social safety net including all of the obligations undertaken with every living American, take the US off the world's stage as the pre-eminent military power, let the transportation and regulatory infrastructure go to hell, and oh, by the way, the heck with education too. That is the only way they *could* accomplish their *stated* objective. Of course, most conservative supporters of this half-baked fart of an idea couldn't be bothered to try figure that out ... they heard 'lower taxes' and thought 'fine'.

#6 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,837 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 14 June 2012 - 04:13 PM

Please note: when right-wingers dance, there is no touching.



#7 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,719 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 04:55 PM

The fact is that Norquist and Gang's notions about shrinking the size of government through "starving the beast" on the revenue side, has ONLY resulted in the utter fiscal mis-management of a system that has high-enough fixed costs to make that indirect approach as ridiculous in actuality as it appeared in principle two decades ago when it started getting serious play by the 'thugs.

They should have been more straight-forward, saying: we want to dismantle all aspects of the social safety net including all of the obligations undertaken with every living American, take the US off the world's stage as the pre-eminent military power, let the transportation and regulatory infrastructure go to hell, and oh, by the way, the heck with education too. That is the only way they *could* accomplish their *stated* objective. Of course, most conservative supporters of this half-baked fart of an idea couldn't be bothered to try figure that out ... they heard 'lower taxes' and thought 'fine'.

Agreed, “starve the beast” indeed, it’s so naïve… imagine this government curtailing spending just because it doesn’t have the money.

#8 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,595 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 05:12 PM

I'm a registered republican, consider myself conservative and I can assure you Grover Norquist does not speak for me. I look to Lincoln and TR for leadership.

I will not be voting for Mitt Romney. I may sit home on election day but Romney is out of the question.

#9 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,837 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 14 June 2012 - 05:14 PM


The fact is that Norquist and Gang's notions about shrinking the size of government through "starving the beast" on the revenue side, has ONLY resulted in the utter fiscal mis-management of a system that has high-enough fixed costs to make that indirect approach as ridiculous in actuality as it appeared in principle two decades ago when it started getting serious play by the 'thugs.

They should have been more straight-forward, saying: we want to dismantle all aspects of the social safety net including all of the obligations undertaken with every living American, take the US off the world's stage as the pre-eminent military power, let the transportation and regulatory infrastructure go to hell, and oh, by the way, the heck with education too. That is the only way they *could* accomplish their *stated* objective. Of course, most conservative supporters of this half-baked fart of an idea couldn't be bothered to try figure that out ... they heard 'lower taxes' and thought 'fine'.

Agreed, “starve the beast” indeed, it’s so naïve… imagine this government curtailing spending just because it doesn’t have the money.


Especially when there's money to be made for your friends.

#10 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,682 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 05:16 PM


The fact is that Norquist and Gang's notions about shrinking the size of government through "starving the beast" on the revenue side, has ONLY resulted in the utter fiscal mis-management of a system that has high-enough fixed costs to make that indirect approach as ridiculous in actuality as it appeared in principle two decades ago when it started getting serious play by the 'thugs.

They should have been more straight-forward, saying: we want to dismantle all aspects of the social safety net including all of the obligations undertaken with every living American, take the US off the world's stage as the pre-eminent military power, let the transportation and regulatory infrastructure go to hell, and oh, by the way, the heck with education too. That is the only way they *could* accomplish their *stated* objective. Of course, most conservative supporters of this half-baked fart of an idea couldn't be bothered to try figure that out ... they heard 'lower taxes' and thought 'fine'.

Agreed, “starve the beast” indeed, it’s so naïve… imagine this government curtailing spending just because it doesn’t have the money.


It fed the politicians natural inclination to offer tax cuts yet say the benefits wouldn't be cut. Given that ours is the worlds reserve currency, indeed, that could result in a lot of printed money.

If you want people to give up their bene's, bill them for them. Norquist arc may resemble that of many a dictator, the fall can be quite sudden.

#11 Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,329 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 14 June 2012 - 05:17 PM

I prefer candidates whose pledge is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I do not wish to have their official duties constrained by any other pledges.

#12 kent_island_sailor

kent_island_sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,539 posts
  • Location:Kent Island!

Posted 14 June 2012 - 05:28 PM

You aren't quite getting the long game.
It isn't that programs would be cut TODAY. The idea is to run up so much debt that eventually you CAN'T fund all the various government agencies no matter how much you want to. Of course the assumption is the Rs will be in power at that point and cut everything they don't like. Risky assumption IMHO.


The fact is that Norquist and Gang's notions about shrinking the size of government through "starving the beast" on the revenue side, has ONLY resulted in the utter fiscal mis-management of a system that has high-enough fixed costs to make that indirect approach as ridiculous in actuality as it appeared in principle two decades ago when it started getting serious play by the 'thugs.

They should have been more straight-forward, saying: we want to dismantle all aspects of the social safety net including all of the obligations undertaken with every living American, take the US off the world's stage as the pre-eminent military power, let the transportation and regulatory infrastructure go to hell, and oh, by the way, the heck with education too. That is the only way they *could* accomplish their *stated* objective. Of course, most conservative supporters of this half-baked fart of an idea couldn't be bothered to try figure that out ... they heard 'lower taxes' and thought 'fine'.

Agreed, “starve the beast” indeed, it’s so naïve… imagine this government curtailing spending just because it doesn’t have the money.



#13 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,595 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 05:29 PM

I prefer candidates whose pledge is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I do not wish to have their official duties constrained by any other pledges.


+1

#14 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,710 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 14 June 2012 - 06:15 PM

I'm a registered republican, consider myself conservative and I can assure you Grover Norquist does not speak for me. I look to Lincoln and TR for leadership.

I will not be voting for Mitt Romney. I may sit home on election day but Romney is out of the question.


Sorry, your silly notions about economics (greenbacks, disbanding lending, etc) disqualifies you as a conservative. You and Grover can go eat ice cream together because your about as relevant to real economics as the ice cream is.

#15 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,710 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 14 June 2012 - 06:17 PM

By the way, who is Grover Norquist and why do I care. More importantly, why does he have any power to make people take a pledge to his ideas? I agree with Sol, my only pledge is to the constitution.

#16 Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,329 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 14 June 2012 - 06:20 PM

By the way, who is Grover Norquist and why do I care. More importantly, why does he have any power to make people take a pledge to his ideas? I agree with Sol, my only pledge is to the constitution.

Let Me Google That For You

#17 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,710 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 14 June 2012 - 06:26 PM


By the way, who is Grover Norquist and why do I care. More importantly, why does he have any power to make people take a pledge to his ideas? I agree with Sol, my only pledge is to the constitution.

Let Me Google That For You


Can you google rhetorical question too?

Speaking of google:
Posted Image


Well played gentlemen, well played.

#18 Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,329 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 14 June 2012 - 06:32 PM



By the way, who is Grover Norquist and why do I care. More importantly, why does he have any power to make people take a pledge to his ideas? I agree with Sol, my only pledge is to the constitution.

Let Me Google That For You


Can you google rhetorical question too?

Speaking of google:
Posted Image


Well played gentlemen, well played.

Outstanding.

Romney could get my attention by declaring that the oath of office would be the only pledge constraining his decisions in office. He could also get my attention by talking this guy into being his running mate.


Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users