|
Post by Supertramp78 on May 9, 2012 15:09:07 GMT -5
I see Mathews didn't ask,"what legislation that the Tea Party opposed did they succeed in stopping?"
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on May 9, 2012 15:11:36 GMT -5
I see Mathews didn't ask,"what legislation that the Tea Party opposed did they succeed in stopping?" ;D That'd be like pundit suicide.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on May 9, 2012 15:15:57 GMT -5
I was watching Chris Matthews a couple weeks ago. He was talking about the Tea Party and asked what they've accomplished. He asked his guests to name a single piece of legislation that they've successfully pushed through Congress. Well, if you want to frame it that way, you've pre-destined the answer. Hugh Hewitt said it pretty well in today's column: "Whatever its name, there remains a potent anti-Beltway, anti-old-school energy in the grassroots that is looking for candidates who will go to D.C. to fight D.C., not join in its merry ways." Formally, there are 62 members of the Tea Party Caucus in the House and five in the Senate. That, in and of itself, is an accomplishment. Do you think you'd feel the same if 62 members of the Occupy Wall Street movement made it to Congress with 5 more in the Senate? As much as we might like watching these guys and as effective as they are in voicing some of our concerns, they don't belong in Congress. They should be out shooting Ted Nugent or whatever it is they during their down time.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on May 9, 2012 15:26:08 GMT -5
. . . , Maybe the left is correct. Maybe the right is correct. But the mushy middle, as personified by Lugar, is what has gotten us to where we are. Does anyone think more of that is what we need? I do. I prefer the mushy middle much more than either polarity. Let me qualify that. The reason the middle is mushy, is because the filabuster won't allow anybody to get anything done. Which forces everybody to the extremes because everybody is pissed off about nothing ever getting done. Which, in turn, insures that nothing will ever get done. But some people like it like that
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on May 9, 2012 15:29:42 GMT -5
I do. I prefer the mushy middle much more than either polarity. Let me qualify that. The reason the middle is mushy, is because the filabuster won't allow anybody to get anything done. Which forces everybody to the extremes because everybody is pissed off about nothing ever getting done. Which, in turn, insures that nothing will ever get done. But some people like it like that Yup. I like it that way if what they were trying to get done is a really bad thing like usual.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on May 9, 2012 15:35:52 GMT -5
Yeah. I know Bruce. That's why you have such a wicked slice on the golf course. You're always looking way right of center. Come join us in the sand trap.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on May 9, 2012 15:58:12 GMT -5
Maybe we need to start a Mushy Middle Party. I like to party and I'm mushy in the middle. I'm so there.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on May 9, 2012 15:58:36 GMT -5
Yeah. I know Bruce. That's why you have such a wicked slice on the golf course. You're always looking way right of center. Come join us in the sand trap. We're currently built on sand. That and promises we know we can't keep.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on May 9, 2012 16:12:38 GMT -5
Well, if you want to frame it that way, you've pre-destined the answer. Hugh Hewitt said it pretty well in today's column: "Whatever its name, there remains a potent anti-Beltway, anti-old-school energy in the grassroots that is looking for candidates who will go to D.C. to fight D.C., not join in its merry ways." Formally, there are 62 members of the Tea Party Caucus in the House and five in the Senate. That, in and of itself, is an accomplishment. Do you think you'd feel the same if 62 members of the Occupy Wall Street movement made it to Congress with 5 more in the Senate? Of course. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems obvious that if there were an "Occupy Wall Street Caucus", and it had 67 members in the congress, that would be an accomplishment, right?
|
|
|
Post by omaha on May 9, 2012 16:47:56 GMT -5
As for the desirability of the mushy middle, that's what's gotten us to where we are...which is to say, that's what's gotten us to the brink of financial insolvency.
We have the left that won't cut spending and the right that won't raise taxes, so we compromise and increase spending and cut taxes.
How is that mushy middle working?
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on May 9, 2012 17:04:18 GMT -5
Do you think you'd feel the same if 62 members of the Occupy Wall Street movement made it to Congress with 5 more in the Senate? Of course. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems obvious that if there were an "Occupy Wall Street Caucus", and it had 67 members in the congress, that would be an accomplishment, right? For them personally? Sure it is. It's the kind of thing that would make their mothers proud. And it's a well established fact that Congressmen get laid more than the rest of us. And then there's all the money flowing in from the corporate interests. For them personally, it is a big accomplishment. For the rest of us, it means nothing, other than wasted votes and at least another two years of dysfunction.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on May 9, 2012 17:13:42 GMT -5
Its possible to admire something as being a difficult achievement, without endorsing the achievement.
I read a definitive example the other day: If someone shoots his grandmother in the face at a range of 250 yards, I might call him a good shot, but not a good man.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on May 9, 2012 17:16:23 GMT -5
As for the desirability of the mushy middle, that's what's gotten us to where we are...which is to say, that's what's gotten us to the brink of financial insolvency. We have the left that won't cut spending and the right that won't raise taxes, so we compromise and increase spending and cut taxes. How is that mushy middle working? What we've been getting is the worst from both parties. You seem to think that spending is a thing from the left, ignoring the cold facts: most of the big spending over the last 30 years came from the right, and the right has both cut taxes (Bush) and raised taxes (Reagan). You seem to be accepting campaign promises as reality. I want a mushy middle. I want some of the good ideas from the right like fiscal responsibility and the goal of lower taxes hashed out with the left who are the only ones accepting the current reality of a need for stimulative spending (or at least the realization that spending cuts will cost jobs and deflate the economy), and that tax increases will be necessary if we are ever going to try to balance our budget and start paying down our debt. Chest thumpers on the right and left are a dangerous distraction considering the situation we're in with a sluggish economy dependent on an even more sluggish Europe and with an all-time high national debt.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on May 9, 2012 17:17:37 GMT -5
Its possible to admire something as being a difficult achievement, without endorsing the achievement. I read a definitive example the other day: If someone shoots his grandmother in the face at a range of 250 yards, I might call him a good shot, but not a good man. No, but you're wandering off subject. I think we can both call him an accomplished shot.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on May 9, 2012 17:18:30 GMT -5
Its possible to admire something as being a difficult achievement, without endorsing the achievement. I read a definitive example the other day: If someone shoots his grandmother in the face at a range of 250 yards, I might call him a good shot, but not a good man. How can you know he is not a good man without knowing the grandmother?
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on May 9, 2012 17:19:37 GMT -5
;D
|
|
|
Post by omaha on May 9, 2012 17:20:24 GMT -5
What we've been getting is the worst from both parties. You seem to think that spending is a thing from the left, ignoring the cold facts: most of the big spending over the last 30 years came from the right, and the right has both cut taxes (Bush) and raised taxes (Reagan). You seem to be accepting campaign promises as reality. I hope you realize how funny (as in ironic funny, not ha ha funny) that paragraph is.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on May 9, 2012 17:21:13 GMT -5
Its possible to admire something as being a difficult achievement, without endorsing the achievement. I read a definitive example the other day: If someone shoots his grandmother in the face at a range of 250 yards, I might call him a good shot, but not a good man. How can you know he is not a good man without knowing the grandmother? I'm comfortable with the formulation that if the grandmother truly needed killing, it should be done at close range.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on May 9, 2012 17:22:57 GMT -5
What we've been getting is the worst from both parties. You seem to think that spending is a thing from the left, ignoring the cold facts: most of the big spending over the last 30 years came from the right, and the right has both cut taxes (Bush) and raised taxes (Reagan). You seem to be accepting campaign promises as reality. I hope you realize how funny (as in ironic funny, not ha ha funny) that paragraph is. Not really, no.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on May 9, 2012 17:23:17 GMT -5
I see Mathews didn't ask,"what legislation that the Tea Party opposed did they succeed in stopping?" Exactly right. Matthews' question presupposes the logic trap that John is always talking about: The assumption that every problem implies the need for pro-active government action. The Tea Party (along with other, of course) succeeded in slowing Obama's growth of government. That is an accomplishment.
|
|