Apparently, this Redstater has a redline.
But John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, and John Cornyn will ensure that Obamacare is fully funded and give the American public no delay like businesses have.
In doing so, they will sow the seeds of a real third party movement that will fully divide the Republican Party.
So, because Erick & The Tea Party won't get what they want, then a third-party will splinter off from the GOP. Fine. Maybe it should happen. After all, the current tactics being pushed by the Tea Party faction are so obviously short-sighted.
If small-government Republicans, however many of them there are, are undercutting the chances of getting a president who could actually achieve their major goals by today fighting unpopular battles over continuing resolutions and the debt ceiling, are they really serious small-government politicians after all? At the very least, they would be short-sighted and ineffective small-government politicians; at worst, they would be mere actors, mouthing the lines and even performing small-government actions, but actions of no long-term substance.
Reducing and restructuring government is going to take time and careful planning, but what we see from the Republicans—abetted by certain activist groups and entertainers who feed off over-emotional listeners, viewers, and donors—is a party whose leadership and record in power is big government and whose committed small-government faction is crippling rather than augmenting its appeal to the country as a whole. This is a recipe for defeat of the small-government faction in future presidential nominating contests—where the Republican Party has shown a longstanding preference for candidates who seem like they can win over centrist voters—and that means even if a Republican can win the White House again in the near future, he’s more likely to be a Republican in the Bush mold.
The challenge for small-government Republicans today—the principled, consistent, and serious ones—is to win over the center of the country and a national electorate. Does the shutdown, let alone a threat of default, really help with that?
The short answer is that a partial shutdown and threatening a default on our debt does not help the GOP at all. Larison adds on.
It would be bad enough if small-government Republicans were merely being short-sighted and committed to a losing strategy, but what makes these tactics more harmful to the cause of small-government conservatism is that they reflect no sense of prudence or consideration of unintended consequences. This is not just a question of making the right political calculation. It is also a question of matching means to ends, and making a correct assessment of the risks and costs involved. If this is how they approach the most basic responsibilities of governing, why are voters going to trust them to implement their larger policy agenda?
Take the recent claims from many conservatives in Congress that there won’t be a default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. Even if it were technically possible to prioritize payments in the way that they claim, it would still raise borrowing costs, undermine the dollar, and probably induce a recession, and all the while the size and cost of the government would not have been permanently reduced one bit. Toying around with default threatens to impose greater costs on American taxpayers rather than reduce them. It is the perfect example of striking a symbolic blow against fiscal irresponsibility while adding to the country’s fiscal problems. If one seriously wants to control and reduce government debt, raising the debt ceiling ought to be the last thing that one worries about, since refusing to raise it simply makes paying off the debt that has already been incurred more expensive. Making useless “stands” of this kind not only make small-government conservative ideas unappealing to many other Americans and provoke backlashes against them, but they make even those that agree with many of those ideas conclude that their representatives are ill-suited to governing.
Friedersdorf adds on.
Like the GOP presidential candidates last cycle who stood on a stage and said they'd reject a deficit reduction deal that cut $10 in spending for every $1 in tax increases, House Republicans have given every indication that they're unwilling to make even those deals that advance their ends more than they could reasonably hope, as if doing so would be a failure of principle rather than a victory. If you're a small-government conservative, the sad result is there's no coalition you can back that's likely to succeed in advancing the agenda in which you believe. There are Republicans ostensibly working for a smaller federal government, but it isn't clear how the fights they choose would lead to that outcome, even if they manage to stop neoconservatives from plunging the country into more trillion-dollar military conflicts of choice.
The GOP amassed such a poor record while governing that voters ousted it. Finding itself in a much weakened position, the party tried to substitute intransigence for the long, hard work of clawing its way back into power. The strategy has brought them to a moment where its negotiating ploy may well end up hurting the country far more than it would be helped even if Republicans won.
Hardline conservatives may not like him, but Frum accurately describes GOP counterproductivity.
- By refusing to negotiate Obamacare, radical Republicans ensured that the new program's costs would be financed by taxes on upper incomes and investments.
- By nominating extremist Tea Party candidates in 2010 and 2012, radical Republicans threw away six Senate seats, and with them, control of that body.
- The debt ceiling crisis of 2011 cost the US its triple-A bond rating and dealt a shock to economic growth. According to the International Monetary Fund, the ensuing sequester— "excessively rapid and ill-designed"—will reduce US growth in 2014 by as much as 1.75 points below potential.
- A platform of radical spending cuts for everybody under 55 in order to finance a big upper income tax cut threw away a winnable presidential victory in 2012.
- Defeat in 2012 meant that the fiscal cliff negotiations of that year went all the Democrats' way: the Bush tax cuts lapsed for upper-income taxpayers even as the very costly but less economically useful child tax credits were renewed. Back in 2001, Bush had proposed the credits as necessary to obtain the cuts. A decade later, we have the worst possible outcome: the credits preserved, the cuts gone.
- Polls indicate that the government shutdown is eroding support for Republican congressional candidates nationwide. A second threat of forced default is roiling debt markets and shadowing growth prospects.
And I guess George Will must be a RINO.
INSKEEP: You have written, though, that you seem to think that it's unwise strategy for the House Republicans to go after Obamacare in this particular way. What did you mean by that?
WILL: I mean it wouldn't work. A tactic is supposed to have at least an articulable path to victory and success. And I don't see it.
INSKEEP: And you still don't see it.
Earlier in the interview, he had this to say.
WILL: This is the Madisonian scheme. Each institution shall be the jealous asserter of its prerogatives and try to maximize its power. I sometimes think that when he was at Harvard Law School, Mr. Obama cut class the day they got to the separation of powers, 'cause he seems to consider it not just an inconvenience but an indignity that although he got 270 electoral votes and therefore gets to be president, he didn't get everything. The Madisonian scheme is for the government to be hard to move. It's supposed to be. People look at Washington and say, oh gosh, this is so difficult. It's supposed to be difficult.
INSKEEP: We had the president on the other day and I think he would agree with you that it's supposed to be difficult but would argue that it's Republicans in the House who are trying to short-circuit the system. Rather than getting a repeal law through the House, getting it through the Senate, getting a president who will sign it, they want to use the debt ceiling or they want to use the continuing resolution to impose changes they could not get in other ways.
WILL: How does this short-circuit the system? I mean I hear Democrats say the Affordable Care Act is the law, as though we're supposed to genuflect at that sunburst of insight and move on. Well, the Fugitive Slave Act was the law, separate but equal was the law - lots of things were the law and then we changed them. And this is a part of the bruising, untidy, utterly democratic technique for changing laws.
And I guess Scarborough must be a RINO, too, as if no one remembered his six years as a Congressman in the 1990s.
Unlike D.C. Republicans who reside in the 28 percent club, conservative leaders like Walker, Christie and Kasich have succeeded because they have chosen to pass budgets, work with Democrats, and avoid credit defaults. Maybe, that’s why they are the future leaders of the Republican Party instead of those D.C. creatures who are leading Washington Republicans down a political rathole.
It’s time for the Party of Reagan to redefine the debate, stop engaging in stupid fights they cannot win, and focus on creating jobs and tackling the debt.
And that's just it. The Party of Reagan is not the Party of Tea. Reagan was a moderate conservative and former Democrat who worked with Democrats and compromised with Democrats. This is why I'll stay an independent for the time being, at least until hardliners and fools like Erickson lose or leave.