The Suicide Wing of the GOP vs The Realists

GOPHere’s the problem for Republicans as we move toward the elections in 2014 and 2016:  The majority – sometimes known as the establishment — can’t trust the populist wing of the party – sometimes known as the suicide wing – to do what’s best for the GOP’s prospects … and they can’t nuke them either.  It’s never smart to go to war with your base.

According to two new polls, Republicans are taking most of the blame for the partial government shutdown. A Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 70 percent of American adults disapprove of the way congressional Republicans are handling budget negotiations.  Sixty-one percent disapprove of Democrats. As for President Obama, his approval rating actually went up, to 45 percent, from 41 percent at the end of September.

And in a Pew survey, by a margin of 38 percent to 30 percent respondents said Republicans are more to blame for the shutdown than President Obama.

Yet the suicide wing of the party says “We did the right thing.  We stood up for our principles.”  That’s usually a good thing.  But in politics you have to have a plan.  And Senator Ted Cruz and the House populists didn’t.  They’re a minority in the GOP, but a loud and at times menacing minority.  And so the more moderate (read that “reasonable”) Republicans went along with their silly scheme first to repeal ObamaCare  and when that didn’t work, to defund it.  Memo to the suicide wing:  Don’t go to war without a plan.  Don’t enter a conflict without an endgame.  Don’t pick a fight you can’t win.

In his New York Times column, Ross Douthat, a thoughtful conservative, acknowledges that politics is a tough business and failure “is normal enough” before launching into a broadside against the populists.

“But there is still something well-nigh unprecedented about how Republicans have conducted themselves of late,” he writes.  “It’s not the scale of their mistake, or the kind of damage that it’s caused, but the fact that their strategy was such self-evident folly, so transparently devoid of any method whatsoever.

“Every sensible person, most Republican politicians included, could recognize that the shutdown fever would blow up in the party’s face.  Even the shutdown’s ardent champions never advanced a remotely compelling story for how it would deliver its objectives.  And everything that’s transpired since, form the party’s polling nose dive to the frantic efforts to save face, was entirely predictable in advance.”

He’s right, of course, but true believers don’t think that way.  All they know is that they’re right.  And that’s enough for them, even if a majority of American voters don’t quite see it that way.

Still, nobody right now knows how all this will turn out.

The good news scenario for Republicans is that the American people may yet turn on the president. They may at some point see him as uncompromising and obstinate and start to shift blame over to him for the mess in Washington.

The bad news scenario is that this won’t happen, that the GOP brand is so tarnished that the party will continue to take the lion share of the blame and that they’ll stand no chance of taking over the Senate next year.  It’s not likely they would lose the House, but if you offend enough voters, anything is possible.

But it could be even worse.  If the GOP puts up another moderate like McCain or Romney in 2016, millions of hardline conservatives may very well sit out the election.  But if they put up a take-no-prisoners hardliner, millions of more moderate Republicans may stay home.

As I’ve said before:  The Republicans need a charismatic conservative who can bring the factions together.  They need a conservative with the skills of Barack Obama – yes Barack Obama, my hard right friends — who brought both regular liberals and far lefties together to win two elections.

One more piece of bad news:  I don’t see anyone like that on the horizon.  Not at the moment anyway.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • jam24u

    Just like the rest of those in DC, Bernie has become compromised. He has in fact got a couple of facts wrong in his article. 1. He says the minority (suicide) wing of the GOP. He is WRONG. He is referring to the Tea Party type conservatives, WHICH are in reality the MAJORITY of the Republican Party across the entire nation. The majority of the Republicans in Congress are the moderates and liberals who do not represent the people the way the people want them to be represented.
    Bernie… you have transformed into that sphere that is so prevalent in DC. You have indeed sold out to be more acceptable. Ted Cruz did what he was supposed to do…represent his constituents. Unlike what the moderates in Congress are doing…. and are supposed to do.
    Bernie… I love you… but you have become what we have hated in the GOP. You are now the most hated of the Republican Party. Save yourself.

  • Swampfox1965

    What Bernie seems to be suggesting is that we continue to “kick the can down the road.” What the “populists” seem to be saying is, “It’s time to stop ‘kicking the can down the road.’” To follow Bernie’s advice is to further burden our kids and grand-kids (and great-grand-kids) with more debt than they can possibly pay off in their lifetimes.
    The populists understand who and what Barack Obama is, and they know that to bow to his unreasonable demands is a fatal mistake for our country.
    I know from my experience as a labor negotiator (not for labor, mind you) that “the establishment” loses a little each time the two sides sit down at the bargaining table. Sometimes the establishment gains a little in one place, but it must give up much more someplace else to get it. In the end the establishment loses it all — as with Government Motors and its hometown, Detroit.
    With Obama and the Obamanables it’s far worse since, to Barry, “negotiation” can be summed up as “My way or the highway.” The populists understand that, whereas the establishment Republicans do not.
    Ted Cruz is right.
    The can stops HERE!

  • AufWiedersehnUSA

    a world of hurt ‘without’ BHO!

  • AufWiedersehnUSA

    It’s too late for the ‘American people to turn on the President’. What I saw was a tiger in Cruz, now, this may be like a Hollywood celebrity getting busted to become more famous – time will tell. However, AFTER the debt limit was raised and the government was reopened Obama immediately pivoted to push Immigration Reform, a clear attempt at heading off Cruz’s popularity among latinos. I think Cruz can win 50% of the latino vote and I’ll tell you why – hispanics would rather have a REAL latino President, than a DREAM of amnesty for their compatriots. It is that simple, again this is why the Democrat Party will do nothing BUT push for Immigration Reform until 2016. The GOP can have the ‘first latino president’. Of course, the wildcard will be B-Hillary – then, it would be up to the women who the next president will be, and we all know who they’d predominately vote for. I agree with A.1969 – the Tea Party is who got the GOP back in control of the house, that’s a fact, and they’re not going anywhere. Obama was only elected ‘because he was black’, for both terms – do not try to tell me if he’d been white he’d ever won in ’08, and after his disastrous first term would have never been re-elected. That’s what everyone fails to admit. Democrats are going to be in a world of hurt with BHO.tick.tick..Tick

  • American1969

    I love you Bernie, but I have to disagree. It’s because of the Tea Party that the Republicans took the House in 2010. They were put in there to put a stop to Obama’s agenda, not help speed it along by making back room deals for themselves! Now the GOP Establishment throws the Tea Party under the bus because they’re afraid of some bad press and getting re-elected.
    All of a sudden, the Tea Party is a bunch of “radicals” and “extremists” because they expect the Establishment to have some integrity and stand up for their constituents, which is what they were put in office to do.
    These fools in DC (both parties) severely underestimate the public’s disgust.

    • luvcats13

      Got news for you – Democrats won’t stay home in 2014 like they did in 2010 and Chamber of Commerce and some other business groups are running candidates in some of the GOP races to primary Tea Party candidates. So we’re either gonna end up with more of the “reasonable” moderate Republicans or more of the centrist Democrats. Either way – less RWNJs, which is fine by me. The Tea Party’s heyday is over, THANK THE GOOD LORD!

  • Wil

    Bernie,The tea party republicans are like the old Whig party – they stand for nothing, the are strictly an “anti” party – the Whigs were anti-Jackson, the tea party anti-Obama…the tea party stands for nothing positive – it’s all negative – obstruction, disruption, destruction – they want America to fail, they want Americans to suffer. Their platform is pure hatred and negativism. they have nothing to offer Americans.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      Some might consider economic solvency to be positive. Some might consider debt reduction to be positive. Some might think its a good thing to have a balanced budget, and a healthcare system that doesn’t kill jobs and break family budgets.

      Destruction is precisely what the Tea Party is trying to save this country from. They don’t always go about it in the wisest of ways (as we saw with the government shutdown), but they’re not the ones mortgaging our future and driving us write off the economic cliff. Your guys are.

      • luvcats13

        Tea Party lost credibility when they threw in with the social conservatives who want a theocracy, complete with forbidding of birth control and demands that MY government be run according to THEIR religious beliefs. NO FRIGGIN WAY. The identity is now more right wing nutjobs than right wing fiscally conservative. Sorry – y’all did that to yourselves.

        • Sheila Warner

          You’ve hit on an important issue here: social conservatism. It’s absolutely true that the Tea Party started out as proclaiming less taxation and fiscal constraint. But by joining forces with the very conservative wing of the GOP, they are now forever wedded to the messages you point to, so they really caused themselves harm.

  • Wil

    Bernie, The Tea Party want to do away with Social Security. They want to eliminate most forms of public assistance. They want to shut down regulatory agencies, bust unions, do away with most public education, install a theocratic political system, and they want to do all this right now. If you ask them about corporate welfare or reductions in the military budgets, they look at you like you’re speaking a foreign language. That’s why everybody is down on the Tea Party.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      From what I understand, the Tea Party also wants to eat puppies, kidnap children to sell to carnies, and bomb the American Red Cross. So there’s that.

      • KStrett

        Don’t tell them about the plan to eat puppies and bomb the red cross………… The Dark Lords of the tea party are not going to be happy with you for exposing their evil plans.

        At least you didn’t tell them about the plan to grind up human remains with road kill and give them to welfare recipients as food. CRAP! I am in big trouble!

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          At least their plan to kill all three-legged raccoons is still safe. Doh!

          • KStrett

            At least you didn’t tell them about the plan to launch an attack of millions of rabid winged squirrel monkeys on all the blue states. I did again didn’t I?

            The dark ones are coming for me…….

            Go dark my friend……… go dark!

          • luvcats13

            Just remember the last time the red states really acted up, the blue states stomped the snot out of ‘em. It’s the quiet ones you always need to fear – not the rabble rousers.

      • legal eagle

        The Tea Party doesn’t give a damn about puppies, any children other their own and they would like to do away with the Red Cross which is partially government funded….They want to fund the war machine, big Ag and stadiums to benefit billionaire sports team owners..

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Thanks for helping me parody you, legal. lol.

          • legal eagle

            Good..mention me in one of your columns….The only parody you are familiar with is your parody of Fox News talking points…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Clearly you haven’t been reading my columns, because I write about lefty hacks all the time.

          • Wil

            Do you ever write about right-wing hacks?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I do. And you’ll find such columns if you look for them.

      • luvcats13

        Nah – Tea Party’s base are just dumba&$ rednecks lead by theocrats with an attempt by libertarians to tack on fiscal conservatism. When ya mix together, you’ve got foaming RWNJs that reasonable Republicans have no idea what to do with. What they need to do is start acting like reasonable Republicans and allow the rabble rousers to GTHO of the GOP.

    • legal eagle

      The Tea Party wants to do away with all social programs and have a third world country of very rich and very poor with little, if any middle class…This would serve their right wing masters the Koch’s, the Walton’s and many other 1%ers…

      • Wil

        I haven’t yet met one, that wasn’t a wackadoo!

    • Wil

      I haven’t yet met one, that wasn’t a wackadoo!

    • luvcats13

      And they want to do it WITHOUT winning the elections that the US Constitution requires if they want to enact a conservative agenda. They must win House AND Senate AND Presidency in order to pass conservative legislation OR they must govern by compromising with Democrats. They don’t want to compromise and winning elections requires the hard work they are not willing or able to do of articulating their positions and persuading Americans these positions will lead to a government that is best for the country. This is becoming more impossible by the day as they turn off more voters and demographics shift against them. So if winning elections is too hard, what choice do they have but to act like terrorists and take the entire governance process hostage?

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Bold and brave some few are holding the line,
    but alas their comrades lacked any spine,
    they’re back to pretend,
    there’s money to spend,
    and like pigs at a trough, belly up and let’s dine.

    • luvcats13

      There once was a drug called Tea,
      Tried it, wasn’t for me.
      Others drank it right down,
      There goes the clowns.
      Cure is simple, go pee.

  • lindzen4pm

    The premise of your argument is based on popularity polls from The Washington Post and ABC News. You might as well ask Democrats. Sorry Bernie, you generally talk a lot of common sense, but in this instance you are way off beam.

  • forrest

    Eventually the states will have to defund it before it wrecks the republic. There is no way this will work in the USA. We are not France.

    • legal eagle

      Spoken like a angry old man on Medicare….You’ve got your so screw everyone else?

    • luvcats13

      Yeah – we’re richer than France, so it will work, after some improvements.

      • Sheila Warner

        We are also much larger than France. But, I agree with you, time will tell. The law needs some tweaking.

  • TheOriginalDonald

    Sixteen trillion
    What did we get
    Another day older and deeper in debt
    St. Peter don’t you call me cuz I can’t go
    I OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWE MY SOUL………………to the government store.

  • http://theromancatholicvote.com/ catholicvoter

    Well, I suppose we hard righters could try to find someone who can bring everyone out to vote for him (or her for you politically correct weirdos) like Obama did. But hard righters are generally against people who lie their asses off, race bait, promise to “fundamentally change” something they claim to love and have had past “occupations” as paid trouble makers (i.e. community organizers). And let’s be honest, Obama wouldn’t have had a chance had it not been for the media worshipping the ground he walks on. Charisma will not matter to the media if the candidate is a Republican. Those in the media will do everything they can to bring any promising Republican down, and that includes if the Republican candidate is their mother or someone who saved their children from burning to death in a fire.
    Love ya, Bernie, but please stick to bias in the media.

    • luvcats13

      Well one thing’s for sure, the media didn’t love Hillary Clinton while they were fawning all over Barack Obama. But she’s still gonna beat the snot out of any Republican nominee (only Chris Christie could even make it a contest, but the RWNJs are too dumb to nominate somebody who works with both a Democratic President and his own Democratic state legislature.)

      • Sheila Warner

        I live in NJ. Have lived here my whole life. Christie has been a breath of fresh air for most of us. However, if he doesn’t tone down his swagger, he may not even have a small chance against Hillary. What we admire in NJ might not be so admirable across the nation.

        • luvcats13

          Great point. I’m from Alabama and the first time I took notice of Governor Chris Christie was when he was horrendously rude to that lady – Gayle and I actually was offended for her. My husband and I both said his rudeness was uncalled for and he didn’t have any business being an elected leader. We just don’t expect that kind of behavior from our elected leaders. My governor and state legislature and Congressional Reps & Senators might be running hard right and doing a horrible job in government, but if we had a face-to-face discussion, they’d deliver their message with a honey coated voice. And I’d reply “well bless your heart, I just do not agree with y’all”. So Governor Christie’s manner makes Southerners feel like a cat with his fur rubbed backwards. But as I’ve followed politics these last couple of years, I now kinda like Gov Christie, for a Republican. I’ll definitely vote for Hillary Clinton but Christie is the only Republican who could make it a contest. IF, as you suggested, those of us who don’t appreciate a Jersey attitude – are able to see past that swagger to what he actually does when running a government.

  • Sheila Warner

    Watching Ted Cruz is on the tv right now. He is encouraging the House to reject the just reached compromise bill in the Senate. I want to jump through the tv, smack him in the head and ask him “What is wrong with you?”

    • legal eagle

      Still blaming the Democrats for this nonsense?

      • sjangers

        There’s plenty of blame to go around, Eagle. Ted Cruz doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The Democratic Party helped create this environment.

        • legal eagle

          Ted Cruz is a creation of the Koch Brothers/Fox News political machine not the Democrats…..Guys like Cruz are a symptom…John Boehner is the problem..

          • sjangers

            And organizations like the Koch Brothers/Fox News political machine, or whatever paranoid fantasy is pushing your buttons this week, usually have a root cause. The Koch brothers wouldn’t be motivated to spend so much of their time and money on political causes if it weren’t for the leftward drift of the country, much of it a result of leftist indoctrination funded by substantial injections of money from liberal interest groups and individuals. Fox News probably never gets started without the escalating left-wing bias of the establishment news outlets of the Seventies and Eighties. The tactics that Ted Cruz is using now are a reflection of tactics used by Democrats during the Reagan and Bush eras. Trying to place all the blame in one place for the hyper-partisanship in Washington today isn’t reasonable. It isn’t even rational.

          • legal eagle

            The Koch Brothers are looking out for their financial interests and choose to spend massive amounts of money to influence elections…..This is a new phenomenon in American politics. We can thank Justice Roberts for this perversion of democracy..

          • sjangers

            This has been going on forever, Eagle. On both sides. Both left and right are dirty. They both spend lots of money to influence the American political process and protect their interests. Whether you’re talking about the Kennedy money buying elections, mob money, union leaders using their members’ dues to influence elections, Norman Lear and his buddies putting millions into influencing political issues starting in the Seventies, left-leaning PACs of the Nineties, or George Soros and his ilk today, both sides have been spending massive amounts of money to influence American politics as long as I’ve been alive. Trying to pin this on one side or the other is either ill-informed or dishonest. Take your pick.

          • legal eagle

            The amount of money spent by the Kochs is unheard of in American history….That’s my point….The Supreme Court’s rulings will result in another Nixon era scandal…

          • sjangers

            I hear screams of outrage from the left about the Kochs, Eagle, the same way I hear screams of outrage from the right about Soros and the coordinated network of liberal money that’s distorting public perceptions. In fact, my friends on the right insist that the left is now outspending the right. What I haven’t yet heard is anyone who can really quantify what’s going on and why any one outrage is unique. Maybe you can do that for us.

            How much are the Kochs spending and how does that compare to what big spending groups on the left are doing today? How do the Kochs’ expenditures compare to other eras and the money that was spent then, after adjusting for inflation and the increased size of the political money pie (i.e., government spending) that these dollars are fighting to control? I’m sure you can find at least some way to make the Kochs’ number appear unusual, but are they really once you put them into context?

          • luvcats13

            Well I agree with you on this one. We need the effects of Citizens United reversed. Probably would require a constitutional amendment since the Roberts court ruled it constitutional for our elections to be bought. I say get ALL outside money out of elections except the small limited contributions that individual Americans can make as well as providing a reasonable amount of public finance $$ for presidential elections since they are nationwide. All media outlets should be required to provide equal air time to all candidates where the candidate only gets to speak directly into the camera and cannot lie about facts. I like debates.

          • sjangers

            We may agree about the problem but probably not about the solution. Partisan individuals are always going to find ways to create unfair advantages for themselves and their allies. Money is only one tool toward that end. Even if it were possible to find some way to keep money from having unfair influence in the political process, and I rather doubt that it is, there will be other factors that power-seekers will use to create unfair advantages for themselves and to corrupt the political process.

            The solution, difficult as it would be, is to motivate the American public to take enough interest in the public arena to actually understand what’s going on, instead of just getting in line behind one candidate or party because they like them and they seem to want what’s best for the country. Really understanding what’s in our best interest, both individually and collectively, and knowing how to collect and process information about public issues in order to determine what actually serves that interest, is the only true and effective way to eliminate unfair influences from the political process.

            As long as American voters are ignorant and apathetic, eliminating one corrupting influence from the political scene will only serve to open the door wider for other corrupting influences.

          • Tim Ned

            Well we have fox, you have MSNBC. We have Cruz, you have Bill Ayers.

            Ours stands up for what he believes in, your guy blows people up.

            What’s your point?

          • JMax

            We have Bill Ayers? Bill Ayers? Has anybody seen Bill Ayers caucusing with the Democrats lately?

            Bill Ayers. omg.

          • legal eagle

            When did Bill Ayers become a Senator? Amazing what these right wingers will come up with…

          • American1969

            But it’s fine for your president to associate himself with radical, domestic terrorists that want America to be a socialist state, and that’s okay.
            The Koch Brothers? Really?
            How about George Soros? How about the fact that he routinely pumps money into anti-American groups and causes? That’s okay, right?

          • legal eagle

            Tell me what George Soros has to do with Obama? Stop making up BS and using it as false equivalency….

          • legal eagle

            My point is that you are making nonsensically false equivalents..

          • luvcats13

            When was Bill Ayers elected to the United States Senate?

        • legal eagle

          Nothing happens in a vacuum…Was Bin Laden’s mother responsible for 9/11?

          • sjangers

            Fair enough, Eagle. Although I suspect there might have been more direct causality between the way conservative political tactics are mirroring liberal tactics than there is between Osama’s mother giving birth to him and the sort of person he turned out to be and the things he did.

          • legal eagle

            Political tactics are analogous to football strategies…One can always see some similarity to something 20-30 years before but …It’s usually a sign that we are just getting old and we are thankful we can still remember things for 20-30 years ago…LOL

          • sjangers

            Are you claiming that, were I a little less lazy, I couldn’t have come up with dozens of examples of questionable and more current liberal political tactics that have directly influenced the recent conservative tactics? Put that out there if you really believe it. I’m lazy, but I really don’t mind taking swings at the occasional softball.

          • luvcats13

            I musta missed history. Did liberals shut down the government to demand Bush reverse his tax cuts, or get out of Iraq? Which year did the Democrats hold Reagonomics hostage? I believe the Dems reversed some of that mess by electing Obama and Clinton, not shutting down the government and threatening default.

          • sjangers

            I’m sorry you missed history, luvcats. It might have done you a world of good.

            In the summer of 1990, Democratic legislators became increasingly obstinate in their budget negotiations with then-President George H. W. Bush’s administration. President Bush, in order to avoid a Democrat threat to pass an unacceptable budget and force an unpalatable decision on Bush to either accept the Democrat budget of swallow steep, across-the-board spending cuts mandated by Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, capitulated to Democrat demands for tax increases to offset some spending cuts. This, you would recall if you hadn’t missed history, put Bush in the difficult position of having violated his 1988 campaign pledge that he would raise “no new taxes”. The Democrats, who had been pretending that their insistence on new revenues had been about avoiding spending cuts, immediately went public with claims that Bush had lied in 1988- a claim that certainly had a major impact when he unsuccessfully sought re-election in 1992. The Democrats played hardball politics with the functioning of the U.S. government, held a gun to Bush’s head in order to get him to do something he didn’t want to do, and then quickly turned their tactics to partisan advantage, which was certainly their principal objective in initiating the confrontation.

            The Democrats certainly made an effort to hold Reaganomics hostage. Reagan just wouldn’t let them. He was able to play his popularity with the American people to his advantage and keep the Congressional Democrats at bay, but it wasn’t for want of effort on their part.

            I lived though the Eighties and Nineties. I came of age in the Seventies. I’ve seen how the political climate has degenerated after the Democrat political successes against the Nixon Administration. Instead of turning that success into a mandate for better governance, the Democrat Party took it as license to play the game even harder for partisan advantage. The lesson they learned from Watergate was no good governance, with more openness and honesty, but that the way to avoid being held accountable for their own failures was to control information and use every means at their disposal to prevent that information from falling into the hands of political opponents and being used against them. President Clinton and his administration were very effective in this regard, and the Obama administration has learned from the Clintons to be even less cooperative and more obstructionist in order to avoid being held accountable for their failings.

            Ted Cruz and his tactics are merely an outgrowth of a divisive political climate that has been corrupted by the Democratic Party for the past forty years.

          • luvcats13

            Your point about nasty political tactics is well taken. But all those previous battles were not the result of Democrats demanding their way or government would shut down or debt ceiling not be raised. With Daddy Bush – the spending cuts were hitting hard and if I remember, they were across-the-board, so good, efficient and needed programs were getting hit as badly as wasteful ones. Pres Bush wanted those kind of cuts ended nearly as much as Dems. Dems bargained this way – if you want to reduce the spending cuts, we’ll go along if you raise revenue to offset some of them. They didn’t say – we’ll keep government running UNLESS . . . The fighting was over budget, where it should be not over whether or not to shut down the government and default on the debt. There is a HUGE difference. Hitting him with it in campaign was dirty politics, kinda like Republicans hitting Obama for cutting Medicare. But, as they say, politics ain’t beanbag and voters should educate themselves to be familiar with issue. I admire Daddy Bush for doing what was best for country which was against his own political best interests and voted for him in 1992.

          • sjangers

            Unfortunately the nastiness and bitterness in politics seems to get a little worse with every passing year. The Democrats do something a little underhanded and unprincipled so the Republicans return the favor, perhaps with a little additional spite. The next time around the Democrats feel completely justified in turning the flames up just a bit higher. Then the Republicans do the same. Threats to shut down government, and even occasional government shutdowns, have been one of many tools used for partisan advantage by both Republicans and Democrats over the past three or four decades. I’ll grant you that I can’t ever recall Democrats threatening to not raise the debt ceiling, but I also can’t recall a time when Democrats ever seriously considered cutting spending anyway.

            In my lifetime, Watergate seems to be the watershed from which most political divisiveness flows. I’m sure many Democrats then felt fully justified in their actions due to the nature of the Nixon Administration’s offenses, but perhaps also because Nixon was involved in the Red-baiting and demonization of liberal Democrats that went on during the McCarthy era. Offended Republicans gleefully returned the favor and held some of Jimmy Carter’s more ethically-challenged appointees up to increased scrutiny and attendant political embarrassment for their President and party. Democrats retaliated against the Reagan administration. Republicans probably felt fully justified in going after Bill Clinton for his offenses, but also on the grounds that Democrats had been doing that sort of stuff to Republicans for years.

            But for me personally, the example I offered in my last post was the worst kind of reckless abuse of power. The actual situation that the Democrats in Congress had forced on President Bush in the summer of 1990 was a three-part choice of either: signing the unpalatable budget that the Democrats were threatening to pass; refusing to sign their budget, in which case Gramm-Rudman-Hollings would kick in and apply across-the-board spending cuts to all departments; or go back and negotiate a budget with the Democrats that everybody could live with including, at their insistence, tax increases. Bush, who also didn’t want across-the-board spending cuts during a recession, accepted the latter choice and the Democrats immediately took him to task for breaking his “no new taxes” campaign promise. It was one of the more ruthless and cynical political acts I’ve witnessed in my lifetime. Democrats were apparently willing to accept the crude budget cuts of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings during recessionary times if Bust senior hadn’t blinked, and all because they wanted to gain political leverage against a then-popular Republican President.

            The ongoing impact of this kind of ruthless and reckless political maneuvering doesn’t dissipate easily. Most of the time I try to encourage reasonable attitudes about political issues when addressing public forums. Conservative Republicans usually dismiss my calls for moderation, citing the numerous times they think the Democrats have done the Republicans wrong. Perhaps moderate Democrats have similar experiences when dealing with their liberal brethren. I don’t know where it stops. Perhaps not until one side or the other completely dominates their opposition. In the meanwhile, we’re all going to suffer for the unreasonable political ambitions of our so-called leaders.

        • luvcats13

          You WILL NOT blame Ted Cruz on the Democrats! You can blame the Cubans, the Canadians, Sarah Palin or even Rush Limbaugh, but Democrats will not take blame for Cruz (though I can see why you’d think he is a plant by the Democrats to destroy the GOP from the inside out.)

          • sjangers

            I WILL TOO blame the Democrats for Ted Cruz! And now that we have our kindergarten moment out of the way, I’ll explain why in my response to your post two or three items below.

          • luvcats13

            Kindergarten moment – I love it! You actually got the tone I was going for. LOL. I’ll keep an eye out for your later posts.

      • TheOriginalDonald

        No republican voted for ObamaCare

        • legal eagle

          And you point is?

          • TheOriginalDonald

            ObamaCare isn’t bi-partisan. Try and keep up, Skippy

          • legal eagle

            It’s the law….What does bi-partisan have to with anything?

          • TheOriginalDonald

            No republican voted for it, you moron.

          • legal eagle

            I believe majority rules….I don’t believe a bipartisan majority is necessary? Who care if it’s bi-partisan?

          • NORM

            Strange , no one seems to know who the tea party is.

            Every one remembers hearing people saying things like ” It don’t matter their all the same”, “What’s the difference who you vote for?” Politicians only do whats good for them, not the country”

            THE TEA PARTY IS THE PEOPLE TRYING TO CHANGE THAT.

            THE DEMS HATE THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE ANTI SOCIALIST.

            THE ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS HATE THEM BECAUSE THEY WON’T ENDORSE THEM.

            BERNIE IS RIGHT AGAIN, AS HE POINTED OUT EARLIER. AT LEAST HALF THE ELECTORATE ARE BRAIN DEAD.

          • legal eagle

            The Tea Party consists of old white haters… a wing of the Republican Party that has existed since 1964….mostly Southern, uneducated and easily manipulated…

          • luvcats13

            What part of the Constitution says a bill has to be passed with bipartisan votes? Try and remember civics class Donald.

          • TheOriginalDonald

            Try and remember-when ObamaCare crashes into the ground like Manfred Mann’s Earth Band’s calliope, don’t blame Republicans

            (Although We The People KNOW you will, skippy)

          • luvcats13

            Oh I’m blaming Republicans – I’m so down on that party, (& I used to proudly vote for both Republican & Democrats, based on the person) – anyway – I’ve about had it with all the RWNJs who have NO interest in government working AT ALL that I will be blaming everything on them for the time being, up to and including my next stubbed toe. Maybe one day, they’ll get back in my good graces, but they gotta actually do something good for the country first.

          • TheOriginalDonald

            None voted for it, so none deserve the blame. It’ll be YOU and your fellow Democrats.

    • sjangers

      Save yourself the effort, Sheila. I doubt he knows.

  • jerry curran

    mr. Goldberg(and I do usually love him) doesn’t have a clue how the silent majority feel about ted cruze or the tea party.they are heros to the people who are fed up with career politicians.those are the people who got us 17 trillion in debt and want to raise the ceiling so that they can keep up the out of control spending.enough already.at this point these guys were elected to take a stand ;so don’t criticize them for it .the founding fathers probably seemed crazy at the time too but look at the great constitution they came up with.our country is on the brink of collapse just like all the others that tried socialism;it doesn’t work.lets get back to good old capitalism ;if iots not broke don’t try to change it.sitting at home on the couch waiting for the gov. to take care of you is a very bad idea.

    • Darren

      Holy cow you are proving him right. Taking a stand is all well and good, but it doesn’t mean squat compared to ACCOMPLISHING YOUR GOALS! I don’t want symbolic stands that actually accomplish NOTHING; I want effective action that will reduce the size of government and restore constitutional checks on government power. Symbolic stands don’t protect me from government intrusion into my life, restore my freedom, or reduce my tax burden. And when they take such stands, and offend a majority of the public, and thereby cost themselves seats in the next election, they actually put themselves — and the rest of us — farther from achieving their goals.

      • jerry curran

        Darren just a thought.there are people who are not aware things are happening;there are people who see things happening;and then there are those who make things happen.would you like your reps to just sit there and watch bho latterly transform America to the socialist state he would like it to be?the tea party candidates were elected to try and stop the madness and act like adults..the career pols. are offended as you are because they want to keep on spending this great to oblivion.so its a start its gotten a lot of attention.and that’s a good thing.and they got the respect of a lot of the silent majority.and more teaparty candidates will be elected in 2014.and a lot of bums will be thrown out of office.so I think we are on the rright track.my money is on people who see that it is time to make things happen.maybe like Patrick henry or do you think he was a fool too? jerry curran

        • Darren

          I know that’s what they were elected to do. Where is your evidence that this recent show will gain them seats? Because history suggests otherwise. When republicans shut down the government in ’94, it did not, repeat, did NOT result in lots of people being motivated to vote republican. And given that the polls show most people blaming republicans more than Obama and the democrats for this recent mess, I am hard pressed, I mean really scratching my head to figure out where you are getting that this is going to increase the number of republicans in congress. History doesn’t support your conclusion, nor do current opinion polls. I think you demonstrating the power of wishful thinking.

          As I said, I understand why people elected Tea Party candidates, and what they were meant to do. The problem is, there aren’t enough of them to do it. Yet. That leaves them two options: play a smart game, so as to increase their numbers in congress, and actually accomplish the things they were elected to do, or engage in acts of symbolism that accomplish nothing, except to enable them to say “well, we stood on principle.” Conservatives rightly attack liberals for constantly doing things with good intentions, that actually only serve to make problems worse (e.g. welfare meant to help the poor, but which actually fosters dependence and keeps them in poverty). Now you see conservatives doing THE SAME THING! I don’t care if they meant well. I don’t care if they stood on principle. I don’t care if they’re keeping their promises. I only care about results. Show me results. You can keep your symbolism and your principle. I want results.

          • jerry curran

            ican see you’re a don’t rock the boat kind of guy.you are standing there with an acorn in your hand and you’re saying screw this I want an oak tree right now.have vision Darren fight for what should be don’t accept what dems tell you is crazy.they only say that about the people they fear.you never heard them call mc cain crazy or Romney. they knew they could beat them because thy weren’t conservative enough.just like you Darren.go along to get along.sort of sounds like Neville chamberlain not Churchill..reply or not I know where you stand.watching things happening and hoping for a different result. jerry curran

          • Darren

            Wrong, wrong, wrong. Rock the hell out of the boat, if you can accomplish something by it. But if ALL you’re going to accomplish is to sink the boat…

            And no, I don’t demand results now. Absolute false dilemma fallacy. I don’t accept what dems tell me, I accept what I SEE, and what I see is more people blaming the GOP than blaming the democrats. That’s not going to help us. And again, I cannot help but note that you have no answer to the points I raised: last time the GOP tried this, it didn’t yield the results you say we will get, and public opinion is more anti republican than anti democrat at this point. All you can do is repeat that you’re right, and accuse people who don’t agree with you of being defeatist. I don’t sound like Neville Chamberlain, but you DO sound like Hitler, ordering Paulus to fight to the last man and the last round at Stalingrad because to do otherwise is defeatist. And telling the chief of the general staff “what we now need is national socialist ardor rather than professional ability.” You sound EXACTLY like that. Never mind having a plan. Never mind playing politics intelligently. Never mind getting your message out to the public and winning them over. What we need now is conservative ardor. Take a stand. No retreat! No surrender!

            Yeah, that was a real winning strategy.

          • jerry curran

            well i see it as a great beginning;you see it as a failure.its more important to fight for what is right than to worry about how you look to the mainstream media.nobody in England thought the revolutionary army had a chance.but they had a goal liberty and they didn’t giver up until they won.just sit by and lose your freedom Darren and then blame it on someone else or get in the fight run for office or back a good teaparty candidate they are the patriots that will win this fight for our country. jerry

          • legal eagle

            Sounds like the justification for every losing battle….Yes , we lost..but we stood on our principles…What a bunch of nonsense…

    • legal eagle

      The old Nixon “silent majority”…..Amazing how this group only is concerned about “the debt’ when a Democrat is in office…

      • American1969

        stfu! We were concerned when Bush was still president, you troll! Obama has outspent EVERY PRESIDENT COMBINED SINCE GEORGE WASHINGTON.
        He criticizes Bush for getting us here, so what does your genius Dear Leader do? He ADDS MORE onto the debt rather than cutting spending!
        Yeah. He’s done nothing but put us further into the hole, and wants to continue until we are completely buried. Go ahead and embrace your Utopia. You have no idea what you’re in for…

    • luvcats13

      The constitution requires compromise. Heck – it WAS a great big o compromise itself. You cannot enact a conservative agenda when neither the majority of Americans nor the majority of Congress nor the President are conservatives. The US Constitution requires both sides to compromise. As much as you want to stamp your feet and demand the opposite, the fact is, EVERY SINGLE action taken by Congress must be acceptable to a Democratic Senate and a President who is also a Democrat. It IS NOT acceptable to try and blackmail for a conservative outcome by taking the government hostage and threatening to not meet commitments ALREADY MADE by the federal government. If you want a conservative dictatorship, you’re gonna have to go somewhere other than the USA.

  • http://solo4357.blogspot.com/ Solo4357
    • KStrett

      You wrote a good article, solo.

      A few weeks ago Bernie Goldberg wrote an article about conservative “purists” who wrote to him and said they were not going to watch him any more because they disagree with him.

      He accused the conservative purist of being closed minded and only listening to people they agree with. It seems to me Bernie is guilty of the exact same thing.

      He isn’t interacting with conservative purists who respectfully disagree with him and articulate why. He isn’t writing an article as a rebuttal to something like you wrote. He is painting conservationists as crazy, suicidal, ideologs who don’t listen to anyone.

      The GOP needs to be more moderate argument is a circular argument.

      The GOP needs to be more moderate………

      Rebuttal: But the GOP loses when they run moderate candidates……

      That is because the crazy conservatives purists stayed home

      Rebuttal: You just said if the GOP runs moderate candidates they would win.

      They would if the crazy conservatives purists didn’t stay home.

  • Scott

    Why can’t anyone see past 1 or 2 years is beyond me. The Republican establishment, Bernie included, seems to believe that the Republican brand is so toxic now that nobody is going to consider any of their candidates in 2014 and 2016. Nobody seems to look at the big picture.
    I believe that we’ve been witnessing a dramatic turn of events these last few weeks. Finally we have elected representatives who were voted into office to attempt to restrain a runaway Federal government who, for at least the last 10 years, has way overstepped its bounds spelled out by the Constitution.
    If it takes a partial shutdown of the Federal government, I think it should continue indefinitely. If it takes not raising the debt limit, so be it. So far, the sequester and partial shutdown haven’t brought about the “dooms day” scenarios. Something has to give here and the American people need to wake up to realize the direction that our country has been headed.

    • Wheels55

      I couldn’t agree more. Logic points that way.
      The problem is with most voters who do not pay attention to details and just focus on headlines. “it’s the GOP’s fault”. I have a hard time finding liberals and even moderates that think it is mostly the head guy’s fault – Obama. If he was a CEO he would have been fired by now.

    • jerry curran

      very well said.i agree and admire those reps and sens who will do the hard things required to get this country back towards the middle.we are really out on the edge right now and could easily transform into a socialist country .lets hope more patriots step up and risk everything so that our grandchildren don’t have to live in a country that made a huge mistake jerry

  • kentrk

    While history doesn’t quite repeat itself its lessons are timeless. I’ve always wondered how Churchill must have viewed the British political landscape in May/June 1940. With 70,000 troops lost defending France and Belgium and the total collapse of the French army, the British army and shards of the French in ignominious retreat off the beaches of Dunkirk leaving behind all their artillery and armor; there was little to defend the home island beyond an outnumbered air force and the Royal Navy. The smart money was with Lord Argyle – sue for peace with Hitler. The alternative, to fight on, was a fool’s errand as any practical person at the time could see.

    Bernie you seem to have taken the short view on the side of the practical but this is a political war of monumental consequence that can only be won through a series of battles of which Cruz and Lee have just rallied the troops around the first. Obamacare isn’t about healthcare. It is about fundamentally changing the relationship of the citizen to the state. It will wring individual liberty out of the fabric of this nation the very foundation on which it was built. You could have said that Churchill in June 1940 was suicidal in daring the Nazis to attack with his defiant speech – “. . .we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender,” I prefer to think him courageous in never losing sight of the goal of the war for the sake of the battles lost.

    The current administration may or may not believe in a God; but the first requirement of politics is to be able to recognize the devil.

    “In dictatorships, you need courage to fight evil; in the free world, you need courage to see the evil.” – Natan Sharansky

    —Natan Sharansky

    • Drew Page

      Natan — Excellent response. I agree wholeheartedly.

    • legal eagle

      Hell of an analogy….Talk about a stretch…LOL

    • BobOlden

      The American attention span has become so short, if you ask the man on the street about the government shutdown a few months from now, the likely response will be “Huh?” I think the talk about political suicide is grossly overstated, and the talk about taking a stand like Churchill is right on the money, but our inpgnorant voters won’t remember that either!

  • FloridaJim

    Suicide wing is pejorative title put on a group fed up with the status quo and failures of the past several years under Bush McCain, Boehner, Romney, McConnell and the group over 50 in all parts, of government that has brought Conservatives into being mocked. Small government, low taxes, wise defense spending, term limits, fiscal responsibility and holding people to their words seem like a great plan to me. We need someone with an articulate message and charisma or passion to lead us.

    • Marty Roewer

      Agree! and like I said, lets learn more about Ben Carson.

    • legal eagle

      “suicide wing” refers to people who run for office, not to govern, but to obfuscate….The Tea Partiers have only one agenda and that is to cut the deficit by only cutting social programs and keeping wages from increasing so as to have a government run on behalf of corporate interests…
      Politically speaking this is suicide but the billionaires who fund the tea party don’t care…they want what they want and they will spend to get it…

  • Marty Roewer

    Perhaps we need to learn more about Dr. Ben Carson. Initial looks says, “Wow!” this guy makes a lot of sense

  • George Williams

    “And in a Pew survey, by a margin of 38 percent to 30 percent respondents said Republicans are more to blame for the shutdown than President Obama.”

    Doesn’t matter. If Obamacare is as bad as it appears to be, with a web page that will not work without a year of further work, and premiums beyond the means of millions and deductibles that assure large out of pocket expenses of the people, the problems that Bernie fears with the shutdown and Cruz et al will be forgotten long before the next election. Obamacare will be the GOP gift that will just keep on giving.

    • Wheels55

      True, but should the GOP just rely on the failure of Obamacare? They still have a lot of work to do with things like immigration reform (Latino votes).
      The GOP needs to leave Obamacare alone for now and clearly propose a budget that the public would see Democrats as the bad ones if rejected by the Senate. Make believers out of Joe Q. Public.

  • Rustyrambler

    Folly: “The pursuit of a policy contrary to the self-interests of the constituency or state involved.” Barbara Tuchman, The March of Folly.
    At least Obama and the liberals/progressives try to confront key issues & problems,(read misguided); the republican-conservatives just talk about Obama. It’s become a noxious, nauseous soap opera. Ross is right, it’s “self-evident folly”. They’ve bungled their own suicide.

    • George Williams

      Really? Synonymous with folly: “Obamacare” A suicide pact the Democrats made with the devil. The shutdown will be long forgotten when Obamacare’s premiums and high deductibles remind everyone every month when the bills come due.

    • Drew Page

      There is more than one constituency involved. Cruz and Lee represent the other constituency and their interests. I just love it when ‘progressives’ like Ms. Tuchman show their concern over how Republicans are “committing suicide”. Thanks for your concern, but we don’t need it.

  • Sargeant Joe Tuesday

    You sir are part of the problem. Another hack making money on the circus under the pretense of being “reasonable”. You only fear losing power just like your RINO buddies. Who is gonna listen to you when all of your buddies are gone? At least the progressives stick together.

    • Drew Page

      Socialists are still calling themselves ‘progressives’. What are they progressing toward? Cancer progresses and when it does, it kills you.

  • Nicholas344

    Bernie, you just don’t believe in American principles and values enough to defend them. This is why you cannot inspire passion.

    You would rather “Win” something meaningless than defend what is vital in the cause of freedom.

    Ted Cruz understands the value of a free America because he came from a country where it was denied. That is why he projects what you cannot understand and inspires what you cannot understand..

    • Indi4ever

      What is meaningless about winning the next election–or even the debt limit debate? These were well within reach. It was the fighting over the CR that was dumb–which was already a win since it had the sequester in it.

    • smorkingapple

      He came from Canada. Spare me the routine about how he knows oppression. He’s pimping you for money and fame and you’re blindly following him, singing his praises. He pulled the male version of Sarah Palin on you and you completely missed it.

      Joke’s on you jack…

      • Drew Page

        I don’t care if he came from Timbuktu, what he says makes sense. When it comes to pimping for money and fame, no body does it better than BHO.

        • smorkingapple

          Difference? One’s a 2 term President who pimped his way to two landslide victories over the epitome of what a Republican is supposed to be(military hero, rich successful businessman).

          The other? He’ll be shucking and jiving like Palin and riling you guys up soon. He’s the male Palin and Bachmann with a touch of Herman Cain.

    • legal eagle

      Ted Cruz comes from Canada…Do they deny citizens their rights in Canada? What are you talking about?

  • Cosette

    The “Realists”? You mean the sour faced politicos that always look like they’re constipated? I’m grateful that the brave men who had the courage in 1776 to “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor” were not “Realists.”

  • Just thinkin’ … out loud

    I’m proud of those who fought for what they were elected to do. I believe most of us are tired of the Quizzlings who promise one thing in their campaigns and vote the opposite when elected. The Dems have been the “party of no” during this whole time and refuse to compromise. Better to fight for your principles and lose, than to give the opposition everything they demand. It doesn’t matter what the Republicans do, they always are blamed for anything that goes wrong. If you have the name, you may as well have the game. It is better to stand for something, rather than nothing.

  • gerry T

    I see two potential candidates: Ben Carson and believe it or not Donald Trump.
    Carson is brilliant, charismatic, non-confrontational and articulate. Trump could crush Hillary (whom I believe will not run) Kerry or who else in the Democrat party?

    • Indi4ever

      Trump is a fool. There would be 12 Rick Perry moments in the first debate.

      • rider237

        rick perry is a good leader. he would have been my choice in the last election. i have no idea what your problem with perry is, but he’s one of the few proven leaders and administrators we have. both those things are pretty important.

    • legal eagle

      Calling Trump a fool is an insult to all Republican fools and there are plenty of them….Ben Carson would be a great candidate for POTUS…Never held office, makes nonsensical public statements to get attention and you know little about his stand on most issues….Who’s his constituency other than right wing nut jobs?

      • Drew Page

        We can see how far we have come with politicians that have held office. I’m not impressed with them or you, legal eagle.
        The “little we know” about Ben Carson and Donald Trump is a hell of a lot more than we know about BHO, who has shelled out big bucks to seal his college and passport applications. At least these men held real jobs and became successful without feeding at the public trough.
        It’s obvious from your continual string of insulting posts that you can’t stand Republicans or conservatives so your advice can be shoved in the Pay No Mind file. You belong on MoveOn.org with the rest of your troll friends.

      • TarHeel456

        I thought you were describing Obama, just replace “right” with “left”.

        • legal eagle

          Obama is not running again…He’s won twice…The losers you are referring to Trump and Ben Carson haven’t won once…What’s your point?

  • michael persky md

    What about Dr. Ben Carson?

    • brickman

      That liar?

      • George Williams

        Of course when Obama wrote two books, all lies about himself, the truth is still hidden by the mainstream media that the cater to the mainstream voter’s ignorance.

        • brickman

          George, I never read self serving campaign propaganda by any candidate because I know what the books are about. You may be making a good point. I don’t know and when I don’t know enough to talk intelligently and truthfully about something I find it best to remain silent. I went after Carson because he should have known the quote was fabricated. I found it was after only 2-3 hours of research and I would think a genius doctor could have found it more swiftly than I, a low information voter.

      • Drew Page

        Where is your proof that Ben Carson lied about anything. Either put up or shut up.

  • digitalPimple

    I vote GOP and if someone called me I would say I disapprove of their handling of the shutdown too… Not for the reasons you state or assume Bernie. Get on some meds please. You’re become a complete loon and venturing into hack status my friend.

  • Sheila Warner

    There are some people who are so narrow and rigid in their worldview that there is no reasoning with them. Right now we are seeing such a mindset on both sides of the aisle. Compromise is considered a dirty word. Reaching across the aisle to work with your opponent is considered selling out. Until and unless the shrill voices at the far Left and the far Right are drowned out by sensible adults, we will continue to lurch from crisis to crisis. The whole situation is so disgusting for those of us who are moderate. We do indeed feel as if we are being held hostage, but certainly not only by the GOP. The President and the Democrats have also done damage to our government.

    • legal eagle

      Who on the “far left” is acting in a manner you find disturbing? What “damage” has the President and the Democrats done to the government?

      • tool4rage

        Hi troll

        • Sheila Warner

          legal eagle is not a troll. He has his point of view, and it differs from mine. Disagreement does not a troll make.

          • Drew Page

            Sheila — legal eagle’s ‘point of view’ is a continual string of insults directed against Republicans and conservatives. He offers nothing constructive and engages in nothing but name calling.

          • Sheila Warner

            Not true. He offers comments explaining his point of view. Not every thing he says is insulting. You should visit his profile on discus where you can see all of his comments.

          • legal eagle

            It’s unfortunate that you feel anyone who disagrees with you is a “troll”….I try to deal in facts and logic not political spin or Fox News talking points….

        • legal eagle

          hey..

      • Sheila Warner

        I think I answered these questions put forth by you in a forum on a different matter. The far left are those Democrats who won’t even consider making Obamacare better by tweaking it. The damage done by the President and the Democrats begins with no budget proposal by the Democrats for years. The first budget put forth in the President’s first term was voted down by the Senate, and no budget was put forth since then until this year. I believe the first stimulus was poorly executed. I don’t like the QE measures by the Federal Reserve because the interest rates for those who save are ridiculously low. I don’t like cap and trade, and I disagree with the latest round of restrictions on coal fired electric plants. The President had a Democratic majority for his first two years in office, and we didn’t get immigration reform. I’d like specifics on how to address our educational system. I disagreed with getting involved in Libya, and I certainly am against military intervention in Syria. I could go on, but this is getting long.

        • legal eagle

          Shelia…I don’t know anyone who believes that a new health insurance system will not have to be tweaked…..
          Don’t you think you have to identify problems before you can tweak them? That’s been my experience during my business career…
          The Administration does not set policy for the Federal Reserve so I’m not sure why you blame the Administration or why low interest rates are problematical…It was necessary to restore the housing market and it’s worked.
          The President had a filibuster proof congress for , I believe, three months, not two years….Majority means nothing in the Senate…60 votes is what counts…
          I do appreciate your thoughtful and fact based comments.

  • BARBBF

    Nothing ventured..nothing gained. At least one wing of the party didn’t sit back like a bunch of sheep and not fight against what everyone with the minimum amount of integrity and intelligence knows it is a lousy law.

    • legal eagle

      So if you don’t like a particular law you close down the government? When did the USA adopt this new policy?

  • Drew Page

    Well Bernie, now that all is lost, what do you think we should do, disband the Republican party? Maybe that is best. You are not alone in thinking that we should just go along with everything the Democrats want. That way there wouldn’t be any government shutdowns and no partisan arguments to trouble the folks. It would be one big love-in.
    You have mentioned more than once that Republicans shouldn’t pick a fight they can’t win. Can you give me an example of a fight they could win? Is there such a thing? Perhaps a fight they could win would be on how much more to give Democrats than they actually want.

  • brickman

    I would take 2 issues with your post. First, the defund Obamacare crowd did have a plan. It was to make Ted Cruz the undisputed champion of that wing of the party. They succeeded. Rand Paul looks confused and is in retreat. Second, it may be true that if the GOP nominates a moderate in 2016, conservatives may stay home. Where you are wrong is when you say that if they nominate a hardliner, moderates will stay home. We won’t. We’ll vote for Hillary.

    • rider237

      the same way you voted for obama. if you guys would do your homework……

      one thing Hillary is not, and that’s a moderate.

      • brickman

        I did vote for Obama. Twice. In fact , since I started voting in 1972, I voted for the winner of the popular vote in every presidential election. Hillary is moderate enough for me. If the GOP were to nominate Chris Christie , I’d follow the campaign and make a choice between them. Anyone else Hillary wins. There are a lot of people like me in the US, we’re the people who determines who wins. We voted for Reagan. Twice. We voted for Obama. Twice. We want the country to be run well. We don’t care which party. We REALLY resent the side that says we have no principles.

        • rider237

          so you are old enough to remember “Hillary Care”. it was even worse, as far as the future of care goes, than Obama care. you are not a moderate. you are a liberal. that’s ok. just know who you are.

          so…do you think Obama is running the country well?

          • Jack

            I’m sure there are others like Brickman who like to vote for the winner. Those people are too easily swayed as they have no core values. Watching sports with them must be interesting… they always root for the team with the lead, but are confused when the score is tied…

          • brickman

            You have the order backwards, I don’t vote for who I think is going to win. They win because people like me vote for them. You think the vast majority of the American People are like you. They’re like me. Take your contempt for them elsewhere.

          • Indi4ever

            Ok, that one is pretty good! :)

          • brickman

            And I’m low info?

          • brickman

            I voted for Nixon, Reagan(twice), Bush ’41, and Bush ’43. You can’t win without me. I guess I’ll have to listen to your whining about how Clinton is destroying the republic in January 2017. I think Obama’s doing a better job than Romney would have. I’m not a big fan but they gave me only 2 choices.

          • rider237

            i’m curious, and i’m not trying to put you on the spot, but what do you think obama is doing well and what do you think he’s doing better than romney would have done?

            it seem odd to me that you’d vote for the two bush’s but not romney. there’s not much difference between them in policy. there’s a huge difference between the three and obama. seems you would have to take a hard left to make that change? or, you’d have to not realize how very far left obama is….in that case, you would not realize either how very far left hillary is.

          • brickman

            You’re not putting me on the spot. Isn’t the purpose of these conversations to exchange views? I’m curious why you didn’t ask about Reagan since he’s the most conservative. The reason I voted for Bush ’41 was I thought Dukakis was unqualified.I would have been happy to vote for Mario Cuomo but he didn’t run. I didn’t agree with Bush on everything but I felt there was a real person there. I didn’t vote for Bush ’43 the first time round. Now you know why I use the winner of the popular vote line. I thought Gore would continue Clinton’s years of peace(relative) and prosperity. Bush ’43 didn’t have the mean and cruel temperment I see in some on the right. Romney would say anything to get elected. He played a moderate in MA and although you think he ran as a moderate for president, there was no difference between him and any other candidate on the right. When Jon Huntsman’s hand is the only one to go up on the question of evolution among a group of educated people, I know they’re captives of people not in the mainstream of America. A little long-winded but there you are.

          • George Williams

            Maybe we should just let you vote and all those other mainstream voter can just stay home. It would be wonderful that the most ignorant part of the country would do so.

        • Sargeant Joe Tuesday

          You vote the way you do because you are a low information kind of person. The problem is that there are to many like yourself who vote with your eyes closed.

          • brickman

            Read my post history and tell me I’m low information. I’m the guy who found out that Dr.Ben Carson lied at the Value Voters Summit about a quote he fabricated. It’s now on bigger media. They’re were plenty of you guys praising him for his analysis, but when I challenged 2 dozen of you to find the original source you all scattered to the winds The only one to answer me thought that the quotation marks around the statement was proof. Really.I did not predict the election of Romney in a landslide like other people who use the low info term.I also know what the spelling mistake is in your last sentence.

          • Sargeant Joe Tuesday

            Pointing out bad grammar or bad spelling tells me all I need to know. Just another so smart poser.

          • brickman

            The fact that you think you’re smarter than everyone else, and that people you disagree with are low info, tells me all I needed to know. You’re going to go back and edit your mistake, aren’t you?

          • Sargeant Joe Tuesday

            Not smarter. Just not so blind. Keep going with the flow.

          • rider237

            it’s actually a grammar mistake and only if you are in most of the US. in other places, it would be perfectly acceptable.
            speaking of hills not to choose do die on…..

            i have to agree, looking at your choices, that you are low info to have bought into the obama as a moderate. that is, unless you have made a change in your own political views to the fairly radical left. if you’d spent as much time researching obama as you spent trying to go after carson……

          • brickman

            The usage of the word to as opposed to the word too is the same in all parts of the US . What are you speaking of? I did not call Obama a moderate. Show me where I did. You guys see what you want to see.Obama was more acceptable to me than McCain or Romney. I went after Carson because that level of lying about fact is unacceptable to me. I’m amazed that NOT ONE person on your side sees his actions as a problem This from the people who think they have the monopoly on principles. Just because you don’t understand my choices doesn’t make me the low info person. I ask you to heed the thoughts of Ronald Reagan concerning leaving a political party.

          • George Williams

            ” I’m the guy who found out that Dr.Ben Carson lied at the Value Voters Summit about a quote he fabricated.”
            Of course that balances out the fact that both of Obama’s autobiographies were pure fabrications. The people elected a president that lied about himself on day one.

          • brickman

            So if Carson runs you won’t vote for him because he lied?

          • George Williams

            Just what was the nature of his lie. Frankly, I don’t trust the reasoning of the sheep in the middle of Obama’s herd, so you’ll have to present your proof. What level of education do you have, brickman? A degree of some kind? High school? A dropout perhaps?

          • brickman

            I have a BA in history from St.John’s University in NYC. I consider that an irrelevant point-either I’m right or wrong on the facts. If I’m the uneducated person why are you asking me about the nature of his lie? Why don’t you know? See, I can play juvenile games as well as you. If I tell you the facts, it will not change your mind but here goes. Carson used a fictitious quote that he further altered to inflame his audience. He attributed the quote falsely to Lenin. The quote was written by 2 ad execs the AMA hired to oppose Harry Truman’s health care plan. They attributed it to Lenin in a pamphlet they wrote. The Library of Congress was asked to verify the quote in the works of Lenin but couldn’t find it. It does not exist. Someone with your intellect should search for its original source. Carson used an altered version of the fabricated quote at the Value Voters Summit to try to link Obama and Lenin. I’ve been on websites challenging the people who think Carson should be president to find the original source. Why don’t you bail out poor Ben’s reputation? You must admit it exists. BAAAAA.

          • George Williams

            That condemns him for all eternity, and therefore nothing the man has ever said makes sense or is true. I find you to be childish if you are arguing that the man’s credibility is so tarnished that we should ignore him. Like Diogenes, take your candle to the halls of Congress and I’d argue that you’d be at a loss to find one honest man. Sorry, but you’ve failed to make your case. I’ll be damned if I’m going to abandon a like-minded conservative just because you’re disappointed over a miss-statement. What a laugh, Obama habitually lies over substantive issues and you quibble over a speech criticized in of all places, the pathetic mouth piece of the Obama administration, the HuffPo.

          • brickman

            Don’t change the subject by talking about Congress. It’s like trying to argue a speeding ticket by saying everyone speeds. I told you I wouldn’t change your mind. It would be nice if he or ANYONE on your side would admit he lied.Not that he used poetic license, not that he paraphrased, not that Obama lied too. That he lied.

          • George Williams

            Unlike you, I will not take the HuffPo’s fellow traveler’s expose without checking it out myself.

          • George Williams

            You ought to be ashamed of yourself to try to put Carson at the same level of credibility as Obama. Obama, the man in the highest position in the land tells bold faced lies to the people virtually every day of the week, and you think that a fib by a private citizen is somehow equivalent? You’re argument is ridiculous and just shows us how desperate you are to discredit the Republican Party.

          • Drew Page

            Obama is doing just fine linking himself to Lenin. He doesn’t need any help from Carson.
            Did it ever cross your mind that Carson made a mistake by using the quote attributed to Lenin? No, it didn’t. You immediately make the assumption that Carson deliberately lied.
            Obama is perhaps the most prolific and prodigious liar in American history and yet you seem quite content to defend him.

          • George Williams

            He votes that way because he is a follower, one of the vast herd of sheep that feel safe in the mainstream. If you stay in the center of the herd, you are never subject to the scrutiny of your reasoning because you are just one among many bobbleheads who don’t think for themselves.

          • legal eagle

            He is a follower as opposed to George Williams, an intellectual giant of such immense stature and reasoning that he knows what is best for you…Wonder why the Republican Party is the party of cranky old white guys? Ask George…

          • Drew Page

            “Cranky old white guys”? I seem to remember hearing that said about the Founding Fathers that put together the Constitution, mostly from people who always seem to have their hand out, wanting something they didn’t work for, like the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
            The other side also has its share of cranky old white guys, like Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Steny Hoyer and you. They also have their share of “cranky old white broads” like Pelosi, Boxer and Feinstein.

          • legal eagle

            Who exactly are “these people” who have their hand out?
            Do you realize that America’s largest employer Wal-Mart pays wages so low that it entitles most of their employees to receive food stamps?

        • wally12

          I can not believe what you are saying. You vote for the person that you think can win? Do you root for the ball team that is the favorite? Do you cheer for the winner at all costs? What about the principles that the candidate stands for? Doesn’t that matter to you? I like some of Bernie’s comments but not this one. He sounds just like you. Go for the one who you think can win. Bernie quotes pols and apparently believes in them. Many pols in the last election indicated that Romney would win. It didn’t happen. Also pols change frequently for a number of reasons so hanging your hat too early may not be valid. Bernie usually doesn’t like the MSM. In fact, his book about a love affair with Obama indicates that he has strong feeling about what Obama’s policies have done to the US and the economy. Yet he says that the republicans shouldn’t fight for what they believe. How is the public going to learn and understand what is at stake with the enormous debt the country has and that Obamcare only increases that debt exponentially? I approve of the effort that T. Cruz and other republicans have attempted and I will remember them when the next election rolls around. I believe many others will do the same.

          • brickman

            Can’t you read? Show me where I said that I vote for the person I think is going to win. The person I vote for wins because I’m in the mainstream. All the rest of your screed is pointless. You guys see what you want to see. Not what’s there.

          • George Williams

            Mainstream means average and shallow, like one sheep in a herd.

          • brickman

            Not mainstream means your ideas never get to govern, and your side gets to be the majority of whiners on sites like this.

          • wally12

            I know what I read. You voted for a republican and then you voted for a democrat. Tell me on what basis did Obama convince you to vote for him? Was it his promises? Was it is resume? We all know he didn’t have a resume and refused to reveal even his school records. The only promise Obama has kept is that he said he would transform the country. The problem is that no one knew what he really meant by that statement.

          • brickman

            If you know what you read why did you ask the next seven questions you asked? I was waiting for you reveal that you’re really Emily Latella?

          • brickman

            If you know what you read why did you ask the next seven questions you asked? I was waiting for you reveal that you’re really Emily Latella. I notice you didn’t point out where I said that I vote for the person I think is going to win. Because I didn’t. You ask a lot of questions. How about answering just that one?

          • wally12

            I asked only three questions. I answered two of them myself and was looking for your input to my answers . I didn’t receive any. I can understand why someone would vote for Obama the first time and I thought that maybe he was truthful in some one his promises. However, after seeing his real nature, I concluded that he could not be trusted. So we come to the question I really was interested in. What made you vote for Obama the second time after seeing what he really meant when he said he would transform America.

          • brickman

            You had a declarative sentence to start. It was a false characterization of my point. Followed by 5 sentences ending in question marks. They weren’t questions? McCain may have done better in 2012 than he did in 2008. Romney was possibly the worst candidate for president I’ve seen. Worse than Dukakis. He had a career as a moderate in MA but he decided he could not get the nomination that way. He would say anything to get elected. I got the impression the only issue he cared about was the proposition that Mitt Romney should be president. While not a fan of Obama, I saw my 401 k recover as the stock market doubled. I saw the unemployment rate drop. Not enough but when I saw the figures drop the republicans didn’t seem happy. When bin laden was killed the country was delirious. Republicans just made comments taking ANY credit away from the president. They even questioned whether he is American. I listened to people like Rush Limbaugh say over and over that Obama hated America. Sorry, I’m not putting people like that in charge of MY country.

          • wally12

            Obama is really good at saying the words that indicate he is for budget control and a host of other policy items. The problem is that he doesn’t walk the walk. His words are empty and without any real meaning. Romney has always been a republican but as governor of Mass. his only choice was to compromise with a democrat legislature. Yes, he agreed to a health care plan for the state and may have compromised with other legislation. So you are not a fan of Obama and yet you think he has done an acceptable job since your 401 k plan recover. My IRA also recovered. In addition, I experienced the recovery of my 401k plan back in the previous down turn. In both downturns the value of my plans were reduced by approximately 50%. They both came back. However, It wasn’t because of who was president. The market in a free enterprise system comes back whenever the investors start to feel more comfortable. In fact, the markets should come back more readily now than when IRA’s and 401k’s didn’t exist simply because the savers have very little options so they continue to deposit money into their plans knowing that someday the market will return. As to your happiness that the unemployment has improved under Obama is not real. The real number that you should be looking at is the total of people who are employed and how many are employed as full time employees. I think you may find a new way to look at the figures.

          • Drew Page

            Are you saying that you voted for Obama twice because you thought he was going to lose? If you believe that you are “mainstream”, I’ve got news for you, you’re not. You seem to be in with the “gimme my free stuff” crowd.

        • George Williams

          “We want the country to be run well.” Really? Just how do you define well, running up a deficit, a National Debt quickly approaching 20 trillion dollars and threatening to consume the entire discretionary budget by paying to service its interest. Fools like you are apparently aware that we’re a hair’s breadth away from bankruptcy. All it would take is a few points on the interest that we currently pay on the Debt to raise the payments to an unsustainable level. The interest could double, even triple in time. And that concerns people like you is whether the parties are in conflict or not. It doesn’t seem to matter that this current fight is not some child’s game, but a war of ideologies between the progressives who would have no end to the pursuit of the artificial perfection of humankind at the expense of freedom and fiscal sanity, and the Republicans who can see the coming looming disaster. Yes, I suspect that you like to see the country run well, and you will do it blissfully without the need for reforms that would have real meaning towards that end.

          • brickman

            I remember balanced budgets. They were called the Clinton Administration. Yes, I know there was a Republican Congress. I voted for Chris Smith to be there.

    • Drew Page

      You would vote for Hillary or whomever the Democrats choose. Don’t pretend to be a ‘moderate’ Republican.

  • D Parri

    Bernie,
    You are absolutely correct in one respect, at least. The thing needed most in the GOP is the ability to speak with a unified voice. A ‘charismatic’ leader capable of doing that, though, must be able to gender trust which is based upon their honesty in character and principle.

    The lone voice crying in the dark, or the “suicide” faction as sometimes referred to, will never be able to claim a unity of purpose and goal if it allows the opposition forces to define the tactics they choose or in anywise alter their purpose, goals, and principles. This is not to mean that compromise negotiations are beyond the grasp of a worthy strategy, but it does mean that there will be even greater numbers of supporters who will likely be disheartened by the appearance of a leadership who is unwilling to stand up and fight for them. The Dems certainly are taking pride these days in their leadership because of the commitment shown towards their stated goals. The GOP need to learn this vital lesson from them.
    So, what am I calling for? Strength and unity within the GOP is critical, and the ability to speak with one voice would eliminate the constant buffeting taken from the media, the Whitehouse, and the Dems–and delivered so effectively. A tactical path forward whereby history can be called upon next year which shows that the GOP did everything possible and within its powers to reach a compromise that might soften the blow to average taxpayers with the implementation of ACA–this is a part of the ‘big picture’ strategy that is currently in the making. Finally, an all-out, no-holds-barred campaign to motivate republican voters to get the vote out, and coupled with as many stories and real-life examples of the horrific failure of Obamacare is needed to send out the message that the individuals who will be experiencing the worst turn of events in American healthcare–they are not alone. It is time to send the Democrat non-partisan healthcare program back to where it belongs–the trash.
    When you say that there is no strategy and it is a no-win situation for the GOP, then I respectfully disagree. The current events which are unfolding by the hour are simply skirmishes and battles, but they are not the end of the war.

  • floridahank

    The comment, “And in a Pew survey, by a margin of 38 percent to 30 percent respondents said Republicans are more to blame for the shutdown than President Obama.”
    In order for this to meaningful one must know how the respondents were selected, and are most of them actual voters or just people commenting on their opinion. Polls can be a form of propaganda more than factual and cause an unrealistic picture. That’ my first problem with this article.

    • D Parri

      And I submit this for consideration, so what if the greater percentage of people hold the GOP as responsible for the government shutdown. To some this more a badge of honor than a sign of pettiness. At the very least, it is illustrative of the willingness of the GOP leadership to do everything in their power to correct a wrong that was handed out by the Dems by passing a bill without any bipartisan participation and was passed on a strictly party-line vote. This is a sign that the GOP is not ready to be put to rest.

      • Indi4ever

        That is seriously reaching for something positive from such a poorly planned move. You don’t think 40 votes to repeal wouldn’t have signaled that anyway?

      • floridahank

        I see far more sinister implications in this type of questionable findings. The majority of uninformed, not too bright masses will see this label stamped on the GOP as gospel truth, and not possibly propaganda — which will create even more of a negative backlash towards the GOP. You have to understand that the unintelligent masses move by emotion not by logic or reason.. So my question of the Pew survey is that it might have been skewed towards the trend they might have created unintentionally by selecting an invalid group and thereby coming out with a totally incorrect result if it would have been created by a correct model that is used in statistics for valid findings.
        Too many uneducated voters are ignorant of the true meaning of certain issues –either they can’t read, comprehend or just don’t care and will vote like their fathers did. So we might have a serious problem compounded by Pew’s methodolgy

        • D Parri

          A very valid point, indeed. We can only hope that with the sticker shock of Obamacare premiums the uneducated will literally be separated from their ‘skins’, i.e., the skin, or veil of ignorance that comes with party-line voting. This is the biggest obstacle to be overcome, and sometimes it takes a trauma similar to seeing one’s cost of healthcare coverage–not benefits–rise by 50-100-300% at the beginning of a government-imposed mandate to BUY the products offered by private insurers, i.e., for-profit corporations.

          Hopefully, Hank, the emotions of this sticker shock will register and the blame for their dilemma will not be placed on George Bush. It is hard to predict, though.

  • Cecilio Mendez

    As far as I know more than 60% (conservatively, no pun intended) of Americans did not want Obamacare… and 100% still do not know what it is really about (“Pass it in order to know what is in it”- Pelosi.) Yet the democrats pushed and pushed ’till it went through. All they needed was the un-abided, unflinching, “balls to the wall” help from the MSM. Since the Republicans (mainstream or otherwise) are NOT going to get that kind of help from the MSM – they are still protecting “Democrats” – the “news” are lopsided against everything “Republican”. Fat chance to see the other side of this coin on this issue.

    • D Parri

      Yes, I don’t understand why Pelosi didn’t win the award for “Stupidest things Ever Said!” She made her brand with that one. The disgusting truth is, though, that she was correct! They still don’t know what it contains.

  • Dennis

    The word ‘principle’ is an emotional word and not one adults should use. It never fails that when someone says he or she is going to do something for the ‘principle of it’ what they are really saying is: “I am going to do something stubborn, petulant and stupid that is going to do more harm to me than anyone else. I am going to hold my breath until I get my way and I’ll show you!” This is precisely what the ‘true conservatives’ have done.

    Obamacare is going to be the anvil upon which the Republicans can pound Democrats in 2014. This Mount Everest size cluster blank is not going to work and the more people find out about it the worse it gets. Dems are doing their very best to try to commit suicide over the worst piece of legislation ever promulgated and this recent temper tantrum by the ‘true conservatives’ is little more than non-thinkers trying their best to throw these suicidal Dems a lifeline. PLEASE STOP!! Let them drown!!

    Let it go into effect. You think this ‘glitch’ they are having with the roll out is bad? Just wait until all the low information Obama supporters find out what this really is. Millions of his voters believe they are getting free health care. That they are going to get a little card they can take to any doctor, hospital or clinic and get free service.The question the Dems will have to answer is: What do you mean it’s not free?

    The good news is two to three weeks after the shutdown is over, no one will care much about it at all. But, Dems are going to have to deal with Obamacare (poorly named. it should be Pelosicare and before it’s done Obama will be pointing this out) until it is replaced.

    • Drew Page

      Dennis — While I disagree with your definition of “principal” and your disparaging remark about “true conservatives” I do agree with the rest of your post.
      Once the shutdown is past and the Democrats get what they want, people will mostly forget about it. But as more and more people try and access the insurance exchanges and see what the four Obama Care options are, what the deductibles, out-of-pocket limits and the single and family rates are they are going to raise hell. This is something with Obama’s name on it. He and the Democrats own it, lock, stock and barrel. The Republicans will be remembered for trying to repeal and defund it — just in time for the 2014 November elections.

  • rider237

    why is the republican congress getting such low marks? because when they call people like me, i tel them i am not happy with the republican congress. rarely is there a follow up question as to why i am not happy.
    you folks outside Washington need to talk to real people. we are conservatives. we are not happy with our own. they are not representing us. they do not poll well with US.

    where is the poll that asks “are you happy that some republicans are standing up to the liberals in government?”. if that question were asked, you might have a different view.

    is the republican party hurting itself? part of it is. the part the keeps listening to the McCains, Grahams, Kings, and Co.

    • brickman

      The same thing happens when they call asking “Do you approve of Obamacare?”. People who wanted a single payer plan say no.

      • rider237

        sure. and we know that. it’s to be expected from leftists. i’m just trying to clarify the polling record for the panicked right of center who think the republicans are doomed.
        they may be, but it won’t be because of this.

  • rider237

    I tend to be a pragmatist. there are battles you can win, battles you can lose, battles you can avoid. in “The Art of War” there are a gazillion ways to avoid battle….but there are all kinds of ways to win the war also. it’s been awhile since i read it, but i don’t remember compromise in the favor of the enemy being one of the ways to win.

    all compromises with the left, lead left. there are plenty of times when we can compromise and there’s no real harm done. with this president, there is no way to compromise without damage.

    BUT WAIT, what about sequester!! we won that one!! what did we win? yes, there has been a very small drop in spending, but what was accomplished? food stamps go up. welfare goes up. obama care spending goes up. EPA and assorted alphabet agencies continue to churn out damaging regulations. IRS, NSA, and Co. keep spying on us. where were the cuts? well, they were in the things that the left hates anyway….things like the military. so…who really won that fight? and what do they want now as a condition of ending the “shutdown”? end the sequester cuts.

    there are battles that can’t be won. sometimes there are whole wars that can’t be won…..but like the 300, we throw ourselves into the fight in the hope that we buy time for those who come after us.
    if we compromise and will elections, what have WE really won? more of the same….lite…..

  • joepotato

    The Carl Rove Repelicans should be allowed to go the way of the dinosaur… The USA cannot survive by compromising with tyranny and an illegal regime doing illegal things…

    • Dennis

      keep up this attitude and you should start practicing saying this: President Hillary Clinton. You will help get her elected just as you helped get King Barack elected. You should be proud.

      • BARBBF

        I was going to post that the US voters are not stupid enough to vote in Hillary as president..and then I remembered..they voted in Obama twice. AAAAGGGhhhh!!!

        • brickman

          Please take your contempt for the American People elsewhere.

      • Drew Page

        I remember well Karl Rove’s predictions on the eve of the last presidential election. Neither he, nor his predictions impress me.
        I get the impression that you think resistance is futile. What’s your strategy for keeping her out of the White House?

  • John H

    Hey, Bernie, have you looked at Ted Cruz? Oh, yeah, he’s in that “suicide wing.” What a stupid comment about the conservatives. You are just making yourself more and more irrelevant.

    • legal eagle

      He’s not the suicide wing he’s the anti-government wing…He runs for the Senate but doesn’t want the Senate to function…If that’s not stupidity I don’t know what is…

      • John H

        You again? And you still haven’t learned a thing, I see. Try reading Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny. You’ll learn a thing or two. Or maybe not. You sound like a total 0bama drone!

        • legal eagle

          Did you actually spend money on Levin’s crap book? If so, I have a bridge to sell you..

          • John H

            He can write better than you could ever hope to, dummy! What a fool!

        • legal eagle

          By the way…Levin is like a theatre or movie critic….they have no talent but they can sit back and criticize those who have to perform…….No answers just criticize…

  • graphitejim

    Read the book “Pure Goldwater” – the founder of the conservative wing of the GOP. Then go out and find a similar candidate/thinker and you will win the next election by a landslide.

    • brickman

      I remember President Goldwater!

    • Drew Page

      “Extremism in the pursuit of virtue is no vice.” is pure Goldwater. I don’t believe that statement would serve the Republicans well. We are already being called right-wing fanatics, terrorists, arsonists, hostage takers and ‘wacko birds’, and then there are the names that the Democrats are calling us.

    • legal eagle

      Find another genius like Goldwater and he’ll lose every purple state just like Romney and McCain….

  • medfed1

    Harry Reid just rejected another proposal from the House. He is not going to accept any proposal from the GOP. He won’t accept the next on either. So enough already blaming the Republicans. Time to impeach Obama, Biden, and anyone who took the Oath to protect the Constitution. Impeachment is initiated by the Judiciary Committee.

  • graphitejim

    The end game is the House GOP makes the statement that they like Obama will not negotiate until January 2014. The USA will go into default only because Obama chooses to allow it. The Federal Reserve induced Industrial Average plummets 4000 points. Thanksgiving comes and goes and so does Christmas and New Years. This will all fall on Obama who has repeatedly said he will not negotiate until he gets everything he wants. 95% of Congressman get reelected as incumbents. This will not change and the blame will be on Obama and Reid. This is a Agenda 21/United Nations push to “Transform America” and using the debt ceiling is just another crisis tactic to move that agenda forward. I have often valued your opinions but this one misses the bigger picture…Perhaps not as surprised however since I attempted to contact you about a Jacksonville company that has discovered a patented solution to TBI and Concussion http://www.sportstechnologiesllc.com and I have heard crickets and been given no response. No negotiations until 2014 is the end game. Only problem is RINO’s are cowards and they don’t want to mess up their holiday party plans.

    • legal eagle

      RINO’s are cowards are a tough guy?…..LOL

  • lemonfemale

    Obama has no skills beyond being black. Oh, and reading a speech well. He basically told Pelosi et al to write his signature health care law. He campaigned for it a bit but they did the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase that got it passed. He does not do any of the actual negotiating you need to do in DC. Clinton would be on the phone for hours; Obama is having dinner with his family. He refuses to do the work. He is Sancho from the movie Orgazmo.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMwPrdILEJ4

  • Paul Borden

    OK, Bernie, you’re right. Let’s not fight for anything we believe in but just try to live with whatever the Democrats want.

    • medfed1

      Thank you Paul. I

    • Indi4ever

      Dunce, Dunce, Dunce! Complete strawman argument if there ever was one. Bernie has never made that case. You are just angry because he has pointed out the flaw in your stance.

      • Paul Borden

        Very good. I applaud you for starting out your reply by calling people names. It’s much more effective than arguing the issue. But who says I’m angry? I just think there is a difference between compromise and capitulation. You can certainly make the point that Cruz, et. al. had no end-game plan, as Bernie and others have done quite well, but that doesn’t invalidate the point they were trying to make or their reason for taking their stance. Their constituents voted for them because they said they would fight Obamacare. What exactly are they suppose to dow now, just say “only kidding”?

        • Indi4ever

          Your right. I should have said stupid, stupid, stupid. For that is the essence of the argument–if not the person. Fighting for the sake of fighting does no constituent any good.
          I apologize for thinking you were a Pelosi/Reid plant. I can’t think of a better way to pile drive her opposition into the ground than what Cruz and Co. have done. Supporting them furthers her agenda.

          • Paul Borden

            It was lose-lose pretty much either way. If they didn’t stand up for what they have run, they would have lost their constituents. Since they did, they may lose in other ways. BTW, it’s “you’re right,” not “your right.” Thanks again for taking the high ground.

          • Indi4ever

            You’re welcome. So nice that Cruz and Co. and take all of us down with him.

          • Drew Page

            You are already conceding the 2014 elections. Why don’t you just call yourself a Democrat and put an end to your angst? That way you could be on the “winning” side.

          • Indi4ever

            I wasn’t until Cruz & co. (along with his first grade followers) decided to beat his chest and stomp on the floor like a fool to fight for… a LOSS!
            Brilliant! just Brilliant! When you guys pass something other than grammar school, learn some math (so you can count votes) and logic (so you can know the difference between effectiveness and ineffectiveness), you can join those who actually carry the water.
            Asking for an intelligible strategy does not mean someone supports McCain. Or that they support the Dems.

        • Drew Page

          Cruz did have a game plan. He wanted to defund Obama Care and eventually repeal it. He made no bones about it. He didn’t say he was for it before he was against it. Ok he doesn’t have the votes in the senate and even if he did Obama would veto it. At least he got the national conversation back on Obama Care and off of Syria, Putin, Iran and Israel. Cruz, like any negotiator, started off asking for more than he knew he could get, but was willing to back off to making federal employees (including elected officials) subject to the same terms of Obama Care as the rest of the public and giving individuals the same one year extension Obama gave businesses.
          When Obama felt the need or the pressure to make more than a dozen changes to the law that was passed by Congress he wasn’t saying “there can be no changes, this is the law of the land”, but when Republicans pushed for equal treatment under this law it suddenly became sacrosanct; no further changes could be made to “the law of the land”.
          Obama like to say that “the people” want Obama Care because he won the last election. On the other hand the Republicans say that they were elected by “the people” to repeal Obama Care. 2014 may tell us what the people really think once they have a taste of Obama Care.

          • Sheila Warner

            “Cruz did have a game plan. He wanted to defund Obama Care and eventually repeal it.” That was Cruz’s goal, not his game plan. “Cruz, like any negotiator, started off asking for more than he knew he could get,..” That was the game plan. Knowing there weren’t enough votes in the Senate to defund made his game plan a losing strategy. Now we are in a shutdown, with our debt ceiling limit mere hours away. Had the GOP gone for making tweaks to the law instead of defunding it, Cruz could have obtained the changes you claim he wanted in the first place, without the shutdown. Just really dumb all the way around.

  • jamesben

    Bernie, DUNCE – you have it “BASS ACKWARDS” – AGAIN – the “populist wing” of the G.O.P. is the TEA PARTY/CONSTITUTIONALISTS wing – the CRUZ/LEE/RAND wing.

    You’re a vestige of the past – to quote the dunce from the Zimmerman trial – “You ol’ school, we NEW SCHOOL.”

    Epically FAILED analysis.

  • David E La Faber

    Agree>well done!although you have more chance for a moderate(not much) than a hardliner,most any conservative would vote to go against a liberal/democrat?=just don’t have the numbers>PERIOD(either way u probably lose)-most voters are sensible”CENTRIST”not extreme lunatics!-unless the party revises it’s principles,adjusts/adapts in a very attractive/alluring way(tone down the verbal rhetoric)>they could possibly beat H Clinton,but even with a democrat in the White House for the last 8-years it’s most unlikely,this could be unusual for a democrat to win,following an 8-year run in the White House!

    • Drew Page

      Why do you think that “moderate” Republicans are going to fare any better with Democrats? With Obama and his crew there is no compromise, only capitulation. Do you consider McCain and Lindsey Graham “moderates”? With Republicans like these the Democrats don’t even have to show up to get what they want, people like these two guys will just ask what they want and say OK.
      I believe it was during the confirmation hearings on Sotomayor’s appointment to the SCOTUS that Lindsey Graham spent an hour explaining why he didn’t think she was qualified and after all that said he reluctantly was going to vote to confirm her. Another masterful and courageous stand taken by the Great Pretender. Graham prides himself on being a “moderate”.
      McCain was once a great hero and his sacrifices for our country can never be denied. When he was a prisoner of war for five years and was being beaten and tortured by the Viet Cong, holding out could have been considered a “losing battle”. Giving the enemy what they wanted would have been “the smart play” and maybe made life easier for him and his fellow prisoners, maybe. The Viet Cong held all the cards, they had “all the votes”. But McCain didn’t surrender; he didn’t ‘compromise’; he stood for what he believed to be right. What happened?

  • SkyCitizen

    In any other world spending someone into unrecoverable debt would be credit card fraud, but then this is politics and after all we gave permission by our votes. Every few decades we Americans get a long overdue and rightly earned lesson in basic economics. Politicians flourish in those decades of ignorance and will do anything to forestall a balancing of the books. Liberals thank conservatives for not going along with the program and conservatives could give Obama a big smooch for being so obstinate. Anything to push the problem into that obscure, dark and lonely place called the future.

  • frank_farmer

    Bernie, this was Woodrow Wilson’s master plan come true – that with the States’ voice now removed from congress per the 17th amendment — that the only pattern that congress would follow thereafter would be “compromise” = gradual left-shift.

    100 years later the inches are miles and there is no way out of this downward spiral. Just more “compromise” tomorrow. In 1914 the USA traded liberty for democracy as its highest ideal and majoritarianism the goal. Going forward, what the Tea Party wants people to see is that the middle-ground between 2 rival camps no longer tempered by the will of the States is not in itself hallowed ground where “compromise” is a virtue. A $20 T debt and no owner is the consequence of this CULT of compromise. The armistice with the Germans after WW-1 is another prime example of this erroneous view.

    But wiping out the opposition in a quest for the utopia of majoritarianism is not the solution either. Repeal the 17th, restore federalism, fix the levee and keep the flood water (populists) out of the Senate because we will never change the nature of water with yet another election or party. The States in the Senate need to own the debt – and have the ultimate power of “no” in whatever populist nonsense spills from the House over time.

  • Paul Vasek

    Everything you stated is wrong, wrong, wrong. Obama is a fraud and has zero “charisma”. Until we elect a core, articulate conservative we will NEVER win another election. Ted Cruz has the left in a frenzy because they fear him and his message…wake up.

    • Indi4ever

      The only frenzy the left is in is a gleeful one. I am just dumbfounded at the astonishing idiocy of the conservative wing–which has completely hijacked the original intent of the tea-party.

    • brickman

      EVERY liberal I know hopes Cruz is the nominee in 2016. If it can’t be Bachmann, that is.

    • Drew Page

      They fear anyone who stands up to them with reasonable arguments.

      • Indi4ever

        The Key word there is ‘reasonable.’ When Cruz demonstrates that, maybe the rest of us will join.

    • legal eagle

      Another cult member paying tribute to his leader…Ted Cruz is the reincarnation of Jim Jones….soon you’ll all be drinking the Kool Aid..

  • 4Deuce

    Bernie: Lately your name calling directed against actual conservatives sounds like the terms (terrorists, jihadists, arsonists etc) coming out of Dem Party talking points parroted incessantly by Reid, Pelosi and the most vitriolic mouths of the Lib Dem Party. Why do you try to make your points only after insulting those you supposedly are trying to influence and moderate? I am beginning to feel as welcome to your political commentaries as you must have felt during your later years with CBS. Sure, if we all become the moderate GOPers you want us to be, we will all just be the voters who kid themselves like McCain did in 2008. When McCain began turning on and criticizing those in his own party during his 2008 Primary run, he got the nickname “maverick” and he became the media’s most darling Republican.. He showed up on every MSM news program and talk show and he fooled himself into believing that he had friends in the media. Sure, they were his friends when he was criticizing political rivals in his own Party. But they immediately turned against him once Obama received the Dem nomination and they waited until they believed it would do the most damage to “maverick” McCain and then circulated their bogus claim that McCain was having a sexual affair with a female lobbysist – all based on a single, unnamed source. I do appreciate you trying to give us the benefit of your political opinion. But first you insult me because I am an actual conservative and then try to convince me to embrace RINOs who are destined to lose – because voters looking for handouts far outnumber moderate Republicans who think guys like McCain can win against a bleeding heart liberal fully embraced and promoted by a leftist news media.

    • KStrett

      That is what I find so laughable about the embrace the moderate argument. How many times does it need to fail before the proponents of this argument concede it doesn’t work?

      Romney lost his presidential race. McCain lost too. These two guys are the apotheosis of moderates. When did Republicans win? In 2010 and the majority of them ran on a tea party platform.

      When you point out Republicans won when they ran on a tea party platform, the embrace the moderate proponents pick out the one or two bad candidates that didn’t win and ignore the rest. Heads you lose…… tails I win….

      Why would you keep arguing for a strategy they doesn’t work?

      • Indi4ever

        These are Apple to Oranges Comparisons! Congressional races are won because the districts are carved up in their favor.
        You can’t carve up the whole country in your favor. You can’t even get Cruz types to out of the presidential primary. So you will see more and more of these ‘moderates’ to your chagrin.
        The one hope is that Rand Paul can give himself a broader appeal.

        • KStrett

          If the hypothesis is correct that the Republican party needs to be more moderate to win, why does it fail to work every single time?

          If the thery is correct John McCain is essentially a democrat with an (R) at the end of his name, he should have won. Why didn’t he?

          • Indi4ever

            Cruz & Co. (and the lemming followers) all seem to think that we are arguing in favor of moderates. We are NOT.
            The Republican wins in the congressional elections of 2010 mostly came from redrawn districts. The moderate/blue-dog democratic districts flipped over to Republican, and other Republican districts became MORE conservative.
            Republicans win in off Presidential elections because the most of the low information voters don’t realize there is actually an election unless the President is running. 2012 was not nearly as impressive as 2010 in these carved out districts precisely for that reason.
            2014 could have been (maybe it isn’t all lost yet–we can only hope) a repeat of 2010, but with Cruz & Co. unwilling to work toward THAT goal, I’m not holding my breath.

          • KStrett

            You are arguing in circles and contradicting yourself. If you agree with Bernie Goldberg and believe conservative purists are bad and they are the suicide wing of the GOP, you are in favor of moderates…..

            The republican wins were a result of Obama-care being shoved down the American people’s throats. The majority of them ran as tea party candidates.

            The Republicans lost because there is an increasing number of low information voters but the GOP put up another moderate.

            Notice you don’t believe the problem isn’t the GOP keeps putting up moderates and offers no choice between the two candidates. The problem is with the suicide purist conservative wing.

            How can the GOP win in 2014? According to you they apparently should not run Cruz like candidates. This dictates they run Rove approved moderates.

            The Rove approved moderates are not changing the direction the country is headed in. The government keeps getting bigger and bigger and keeps spending more and more money.

            We had the Rove model when Bush was president. Republican controlled the senate, house, and presidency. How did that work out? The Government got bigger and spending went up.

          • Indi4ever

            It only appears contradictory to you because you assume anyone not Cruz and Co. is moderate.
            I’m looking for fiscally conservative smart people. Cruz and Lee are not. Palin, O’Donell, and Bachmann are not either. It takes more than desire.
            Rand Paul is smart–so far. Ryan looks to be as well.
            If I have to take some moderates in places, like Brown in Mass., I’ll take them, but I prefer SMART fiscal conservatives.

          • KStrett

            You are arguing for moderates! You just don’t want to admit it. Your definition of smart is a moderate who capitulates to the democrats.The only person you mentioned who isn’t a moderate is Rand Paul.

            Scott Brown gave the illusion he was a tea party candidate the first time he ran for office and turned into a democrat. Where is Scott brown now? He was beaten by a fake Indian! A FAKE INDIAN!

            Ryan looked good initially and was swallowed up by the establishment GOP.

            You are arguing for the Rove model. First, this model does not work any more. Secondly, Where does this model lead?

            You had the perfect Rove model with the GOP controlling the house, senate, and Presidency. Did they change the direction of the country?

            Did the government get smaller?

            Did they cut spending? NO!

            The Rove model goes in the exact same direction that democrats are taking the country, it just takes a little longer to get there.

            We are 17 trillion dollars in debt and we keep adding to it. If you factor in unfunded liabilities, we are looking at about 90-120 trillion dollars of debt.

            We are headed in the wrong direction. If we don’t change the direction, we are going to hit a wall. If we hit that economic wall, America as we know it is over and will never come back.

            The suicide wing of the GOP is the moderates. They are taking the country in the exact same direction as the democrats but at a slower rate.

          • legal eagle

            So does that make you a high information voter?

  • Chuck

    Bernie’s take is exactly right. I’m Tea Party in my orientation, but saw the folly of the defund effort. The Senate would never allow it, and even if a miracle occurred and it got through, Obama would veto. I felt it was okay for Cruz-Lee to take a brief stand, but then I wanted them to get out of the way and allow Obamacare to hit. If they had allowed America to experience it for a year, the voters would be primed to vote out all Obamacare-supporting Democrats in 2014. Now, because Cruz-Lee fought too long, all bets are off for 2014.

    • KStrett

      Do you think Obama-care is bad now but will get better as time goes on or is it bad now and it will get worse?

      Are people going to remember the computer system didn’t work or will they pay more attention when they lose their insurance coverage a year from now?

      If they pay more attention when they lose their insurance coverage, maybe a light will go off in their head and they will think ……… didn’t the Democrats tell me I could keep my insurance and I wouldn’t lose my doctor? Who was it that stood up against this law?

      I am not saying that is going to happen but some times you need to take a step back to make forward progress. The currant crop of GOP pundits only think in terms of short term progress. They never think of the long term and winning the war.

      • Chuck

        It’s bad now and will get worse. Yes, you’re right: It’s a step back to make forward progress because you have to focus on winning the overall war, not the momentary battle. My heart is with Cruz-Lee, but I saw it couldn’t work. Their argument is that repeal is what they were elected to do, but as Bernie said, it’s a suicide mission. To your point: The low-info voter of today is dimly aware that Obamacare was to represent coverage at a savings. When they see elements of the program run contrary, they will realize they’ve been had and take it out on the Democrats next year. It’s a shame that though the GOP has the facts on its side, it’s so terrible in terms of strategy, PR, messaging, and so forth.

        • KStrett

          Chuck,
          If both sides are for big government, how can you win the war?

          Even if the GOP has a great strategy, the media is the propaganda arm for the democratic party. It doesn’t matter what they do because the media will run interference and free campaign advertisements packaged as news for the democrats.

          • Chuck

            In the case of Obamacare, it’s not that the GOP is for big government. It’s coming to the recognition that they don’t hold the cards. If Cruz-Lee had gotten out of the way sooner and let America experience Obamacare for a year, then after the voters rise up in 2014 and sweep out the Democrats, then the GOP will hold the cards. Then they can put through a repeal bill that passes both the House and Senate. The question, then, is whether they’d have the two-thirds vote to override Obama’s veto. That’s winning the war–not pushing through 40+ repeal votes now that are merely symbolic.

          • KStrett

            Have you listened to what the moderate GOP politicians say about Obama-care?

            They like parts of the law and think they can run the big government program more effectively than the democrats or they want to repeal Obama-care and write a better version of it.

            They like big government that just think their version is better.

          • Chuck

            I’d have to see the context in which such comments were made. My feeling is it’s not that they like big government; they recognize they’re stuck with lemons, so they’re trying to find a way to make lemonade. If they want to repeal and establish their own version, it’s probably to insulate themselves from criticism that it’s further evidence they don’t care about the downtrodden and never had an alternative plan. Your point is well taken, though, that it would just be more big government.

          • KStrett

            I watched Lindsey Graham state that the GOP can do things to run the Obama-care program better than the democrats or repeal it and replace it with a better law.

            There are a myriad of other GOP guys who said there are things they like about Obama-care. They like big government they just like a different version of it than the democrats offer.

            Obama-care is designed to ruin the current healthcare system so the democrats can come back and push for a socialized medicine model.

            How do explain the GOP pushing for the immigration bill?

            If you want to talk about poor strategy, what happened to Benghazi, the IRS scandal, or fast and furious?

          • Chuck

            It’s all politics because the GOP is on defense. They have to sound sympathetic to the need for health care; otherwise, the Democrats paint them as heartless. They have to do something with immigration to have any hope for the Hispanic vote in 2016. Then, Benghazi, IRS and F&F have fallen victim to other news events and the compliant left-wing media you described earlier. Meanwhile, I can’t imagine GOP folks saying they “like big government.” They just don’t hold the cards right now; thus, they’re forced to stake out such positions.

          • KStrett

            Chuck, you are buying all the arguments coming from the establishment GOP.

            ” They have to do something with immigration to have any hope for the Hispanic vote in 2016.”

            If they grant illegals amnesty, they have committed suicide. Amnesty gives the democrats 20-30 million new democrat voters. That is all amnesty is about.

            The establishment GOP believes granting amnesty to illegals will give them more votes are at best the democrats will like them a little better. Let’s test that hypothesis.

            Reagan gave illegals amnesty, did the Republicans pick up more votes? No, they received less votes.

            “They just don’t hold the cards right now; thus, they’re forced to stake out such positions.”

            The GOP did hold the cards under the Bush presidency. Did they cut the size of government and cut spending? No!

            “the Democrats paint them as heartless”

            In other words, the GOP has to act more like democrats to win but they don’t win when they do this which is all the conservative purists suicide wing of the Republican party. This is a circular argument.

          • Chuck

            When I said they have to do something with immigration, I meant a plan that makes sense–certainly not amnesty and certainly nothing that fails to first secure the border. The bipartisan plan that Rubio was spearheading certainly was not the answer. As far as what Bush did, I’ve long complained that Bush often governed as a Democrat. I’m for the most conservative position that will fly. As Reagan said, he’d rather take half a loaf than none at all.

          • KStrett

            You are right! We do need to do something about immigration. We need to shut down the border and kick out the people who came here illegally.

            Wait….. the democrats and the media won’t like this and will attack anyone who attempts to implement an immigration policy like that. We better run away and act more like the democrats.

            It is impossible to win anything thinking like that. You are buying into the establishment GOP argument. We had a stacked deck with the establishment GOP with the Bush administration. What did they do?

            They increased the size of government and increased spending. If that is the best case scenario we can get, what is the point?

            “As Reagan said, he’d rather take half a loaf than none at all.”

            Reagan articulated conservationism and fought for it. He was not a surrender monkey like the Rove wing of the GOP.

          • Sheila Warner

            Excellent point.

          • KStrett

            Thanks, Shelia.

          • legal eagle

            The Republicans would repeal Obamacare and replace it with what?

          • Chuck

            Haven’t heard of any well thought out alternative. If repeal were to eventually become a viable possibility, it would behoove the GOP to advance a plan. Meanwhile, after America experiences Obamacare for a year, it will be so anxious to throw off the yoke, it probably won’t care much if an alternative is articulated. It would fall to the liberals and MSM to exert that pressure, painting the GOP as heartless, cruel lovers of the fat cat insurance companies. Ironically, the companies will make out like bandits through Obamacare anyway.

          • Sheila Warner

            Bingo! The health insurers will and still do make money under Obamacare. I’d love to see the insurers ended, and a single payer program like Medicare put into place. It’s interesting that none of those who denounce Obamacare don’t point to issues in Medicare as proof that government can’t be in the business of delivering health care. I’d like to see Medicare coverage for all U.S. citizens. The government can fund such a health program, as it does now with Medicare. Expensive? You bet. But it’s damn better than the patchwork of coverage that exists today.

          • legal eagle

            At one time,the Republican talking point about Obamacare was “Repeal and Replace”….What happened to the “replace”?
            There are millions of Americans who do care whether their families have access to health insurance. I have many friends without insurance because they are deemed by the insurance industry as having a “pre-existing condition”.

          • Chuck

            Just Google to see what the GOP has proposed. Here’s a good overview: http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/republican-alternative-to-obamacare-relies-on-repeal-20130922. Meanwhile, I haven’t had insurance in maybe 15 years and plan to pay the penalty next year. Have needed one operation–removal of a benign neck tumor–so just arranged an outpatient procedure and paid out of pocket with liberal repayment terms I negotiated.

          • legal eagle

            “The media is the propaganda arm for the Democratic Party”? So Fox News, Conservative talk radio, Drudge etc. are not part of the media?

          • KStrett

            There is a difference between being a political commentator and a news reporter. A political commentator gives their opinion. A news reporters is supposed to just give the facts without an opinion.

            The majority of news reports are mascaraing as reporters while in reality they have an agenda and are at best slanting the news to support the democrats.

          • legal eagle

            If you read a newspaper occasionally you’d know the difference between reporting and opinion….According to Conservatives all New York Times reporters are left wing hacks….

  • Patrick

    This reads like a British newspaper piece regarding the American colonies circa 1776.

  • Brent Childers

    The story today regarding Fox News programming identifying the American Family Association as a “well-respected Christian ministry” speaks to another suicide wing of the party. As we Christians allowed our God to be peddled as a partisan entity, we created an environment in which a younger generation doesn’t put much stock in our God. Or we could say Republicans allowed God to be peddled as a political entity and we created an environment in which the younger generation doesn’t want to have much to do with such politics. For either scenario, the chickens may be coming home to roost.

    The implication that the Christian faith perspective sanctions the harm these organizations cause to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals, especially LBGT youth and their families, renders Christ as a non-credible source for the Christian faith perspective. Through its portrayal of these anti-gay organizations as respected Christian ministries, the GOP (like some at Fox News are doing) are making a mockery of the Christian faith.

    Christians are coming to understand the harm caused by the anti-gay religious industry’s alignment with the GOP to not only gay and lesbian individuals but to the Christian faith itself. As this understanding fully matures, the GOP can begin rebuilding its brand as a set of political ideals and the Christian faith can begin rebuilding its brand as a set of spiritual ideals.

    • legal eagle

      The AFA is a right wing hate group parading as a religious organization…

  • Dck in Gig Harbor

    The last charismatic conservative I can think of was Adolf Hitler.–
    Dick in Gig Harbor

    • Swamp Critter

      How on earth was Hitler a conservative? He belonged to a socialist party that believed in totalitarian government, guns banned, people subjugated to the will of the state, hand out programs, they were an example of what happens when the left is without control!

      • JMax

        Hitler didn’t ban or take away guns. He actually relaxed the gun laws imposed by the Treaty of Versailles by granting gun ownership to citizens. Except that Jews weren’t considered citizens. Most (recent) history is written down, you know.

        • KStrett

          Were Jewish people allowed to own guns?

          • JMax

            Please reread my post. The answer to your question is clear.

          • KStrett

            In other words, the people they wanted to murder were not allowed own guns….

          • JMax

            Well yeah, but if you think that Jews with guns would have delayed their extermination, you really have to think about how well they would have done against the SS and the Wehrmacht.

          • KStrett

            I would think an armed populace of 6 million who didn’t want to be sent to death camps would have given the SS quite a hard time. Have you ever read the book Defiance?

          • JMax

            Sure because long guns and pistols would really be effective against panzers, heavy artillery, and the Luftwaffe. And six million men, women, and children spread all over Europe doesn’t seem like the kind of fighting force that would do the trick.

            There is a reason why nobody has ever heard of Bielski.

          • KStrett

            Were they using panzers and heavy artillery on the Night of Broken glass? The Nazis didn’t attack the Jewish people when the War began. They weren’t using panzers or heavy artillery against the Jews. There is a reason Hitler didn’t allow them to own guns…

          • JMax

            Well sure, it saved him a few hundred soldiers. Armed resistance by the Jews would only have killed them off that much sooner. The Jews were doomed with or without guns.

          • KStrett

            They didn’t use Panzers and heavy artillery in the night of broken glass. If Jewish people started shooting at Nazis when they were burning down synagogs and destroying Jewish owned business and started shooting at them when the attempted to round them all up the next day, it could have caused the Nazis to think twice.

            The Nazis incrementally attacked the Jewish people. They didn’t start out with an all out assault on the Jewish people.

            However, once Hitler obtained a dictatorship there isn’t much anyone could do. The key is to stop him and he Nazis before they take complete control.

            “There is a reason why nobody has ever heard of Bielski.”

            The brothers saved about 1000 Jewish people. What there were about 100 more?

            The reason no one heard of the Bielski brothers is because of the way history is taught in schools.

          • JMax

            I’m sure Hitler would have thought twice, reread Mein Kampf and then totally rethought the Final Solution. Not.

            Hitler would have had a hard time making an all out assault on the Jewish people seeing as how they were spread out all over Germany, France, Poland, Holland, Belgium, and Austria.

            Six million Jews weren’t killed because they didn’t have guns.

          • KStrett

            My all out assault comment was referring to Germany before the war started. You are ignoring my point on the Nazi incremental approach to the final solution.

            A large armed populace of Jewish people pushing back on the Nazi regime before Hitler had complete control, would have caused him to stop.

            If they understood what they were dealing with prior to the war, an assassination could have been possible.

            After the war started, large pockets of Bielski like resistance would have caused Hitler to ostensibly fight two wars as well. For whatever reason, the Jews didn’t fight back very much.

          • JMax

            “A large armed populace of Jewish people pushing back on the Nazi regime
            before Hitler had complete control, would have caused him to stop.”

            Caused him to stop? Not a chance.

            Hitler did not take “complete control” through force of arms. He did it mostly politically. Hitler had complete control by at least 1933 but didn’t even publicly mention elimination of the Jews any earlier than 1939. And didn’t actually put the final solution into action until 1941.

            Many assassination attempts were made over the years. None succeeded.

          • KStrett

            You are missing my point. I did not say Hitler took complete control by force. My point was that once he had complete control, he can get away with whatever he wanted.

            Hitler didn’t became the Führer until after President Hindenburg’s death in 1934. After that, he still had to worry about public sentiments.

            He incrementally went after the Jews. He didn’t just leave them alone until the final solution. The night of broken glass happened in 1938.

            The German people were shocked by the event but by that time they were afraid.If Hitler attempted the same thing in 1934, the public sentiment probably would have turned against him.

            They slowly started rounding up Jewish people. They did not start by putting large amounts of Jewish people in boxcars.

            They started rounding up small amounts of Jewish people under the guise of protecting them. This policy incrementally increased to the final solution.

            “Many assassination attempts were made”

            Many were not made as well. Before the war started, General Beck contacted Britain/ France with a plan to assassinate Hitler and get rid of the Nazi regime. Unfortunately, this was during Neville Chamberlain era of Nazi appeasement.

            William Shirer, author of many books about Nazi Germany, got close enough to Hitler to look him directly in the eyes. If people understood what they were dealing with things could have been different.

          • JMax

            We’re sort of getting lost here in this history lesson, but you are missing MY point. There is nothing a Jew with a gun could have done against the SS besides hasten his own demise. And what would it matter what Chamberlain did when it came to Germans plotting the assassination of Hitler? A lot of things “could have been different”. Imagine what might have happened if Hitler had had two testicles.

          • KStrett

            I am not missing your point, I just disagree with you. The Bielski brothers shows your contention to be untrue. They saved over one thousand people from the Nazis. If there was more “Jews with guns”, more people would have been saved. There is a reason that every tyrannical regime banned guns.

            You are restating your argument and ignoring my points. If Hitler attempted the night of Broken glass in 1934 or 35, the public reaction would have been much different. He incrementally gained control and incrementally increased the oppression.

            “A lot of things “could have been different”. Imagine what might have happened if Hitler had had two testicles.”

            This was the topic we were discussing……

        • Ted Crawford

          Might want to take another look there JMax
          “Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SA or SS. Ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State ” Heinrich Himmler

          • JMax

            Himmler may have said that. But the fact is that citizens were not banned from possessing guns. You may want to take another look.

    • KStrett

      How is National socialism remotely conservative? Conservationism is an ideology that is predicated on the notion of a small and limited government. Please explain how Hitler stood for a small and limited government.

    • legal eagle

      Don’t forget Sarah Palin. and Ronnie Reagan…both charismatic and both clueless….

  • Mainline Fl

    It’s been official for some time the the GOP’s intellect is questionable at best. When your platform is to return to the “good old days” and your base is often pictured shopping in Walmart for the amusement of others, or if you still look up the likes of Palin, Bachmann or Santorum it’s time to step back and think. While the far-left is NEVER right and equally detestable the middle of their party is far more successful/educated/progressive than what the loudest mouths of the GOP want as their base. There are millions of silent conservatives out there who, rather than toe the party line on every issue for the sake of [what exactly?], would rather base each decision on what is just, right and for the betterment of the entire country. The last ting this country needs is to be ruled by some hypocritical bible-thumpers who are against evolution but support automatic weapons. The GOP needs to re-boot a vision for the future.

  • Sambo Caesar

    …as far as conservatives getting the blame in polls? You’d expect that considering that obama was re-elected. Half our populace are dumber than dog turds.

  • Seattle Sam

    So as I understand it, if Republicans roll over, they lose. If they fight back, they “offend voters” and lose. That may be an accurate assessment, but, then, why be so critical of those who prefer the second way of losing.

  • Stoneyjack

    Uh, wrong, Bernie. RINOs ;like you, Bildo, Rove, & McCain are the suicide wing of the Redudlican party. You are going down.

  • Sambo Caesar

    The establishment has had their plans for years, decades, and look at where we’re at. Time for a new approach. Nice guys finish last. Just ask McCain and Romney.

  • Roger

    Strategically, the Democrats have wiped their feet on the Republicans. Democrats commit nefarious deeds then bleat unrelentingly about how the Republicans are doing those very deeds. They’re masters of deceit and delivering messages shifting the blame to the other side.
    Now, you’ve hit on some important points, but you’ve allowed the horrific strategic blunders to subsume some of the conservative messaging…or more to the point, the Republicans have done so and you’re echoing it. There is a place for strong conservative messaging. We must have it to counterbalance the Democrats who, for all intents and purposes, now almost uniformly embrace a far left positioning.
    We’re in the mess we’re in because, for the most part, conservatives have compromised and compromised until the continuum barely has anything resembling a far right side anymore–what’s left of it is merely fodder for Saturday Night Live and other comics. The fact is, compromises invariably skew further and further left so that the so-called moderates are the liberals of 30 years ago and the Democrats have at least one and a half feet in the Socialist camp. Further compromises invariably will put us squarely within socialist rules. I’m not sure we’ll even make it that far before we collapse.
    Meanwhile, the conservative wing of the Republican party has finally recognized the hole we’ve put ourselves in. I believe they’ve decided that the message is at least as important as — if not more than — the short-term outcome. I think they believe America needs re-education and I can’t fault them for that. The problem is, they even suck at messaging. You are absolutely right that they need a charismatic leader. It has to be someone who can call Americans to action to take America back to the true middle–not the middle that’s actually skewed so far to the left that most don’t even know there used to be a lot more length of continuum at the other end.

  • Guest from CA

    Voting in the next election! Someone said ” everyone will be voting in the next election.” I suggest the poster who said hat ..take a poll. Our country is one that
    has the freedom to vote and many do not.
    Voting for the lesser of two evils is hardly a motive to vote. Unleas, of course, you are dying to get more free food stamps…That crowd, you bet will vote. They vote for their stomachs not for principles or the Constitution. The Gimme Party!
    There are leaders in the GOP who may pull off a Presidency. But the GOP establishment will not choose them. The GOP is too busy in- fighting right now.
    Another poster mentioned Demovrts have unity. Indeed, they do. Pelosi could
    behead anyone on the steps of the Capital and all Dems would cheer her! Such is their loyalty.
    The GOP is trying to win while beating up the best on the party or shoving them into the background. A true Constitutionalist and one for a limited government willI get silenced or laughed at. That is what happened in the last election! if you remember the debates!
    Bernie tells the truth as he sees it. That is all any of us can do. neither Bernie nor us need to be called names for expressing our truth. We are all limited in what we see. We are not God who knows everything. But we act as if we knew all the answers!
    Best to all…

  • theFantom

    As a libertarian who caucuses (as of 2008) with Republicans, I am always amused at the purity test so often taken of candidates and elected officials. I do not trust any politician so I am not devastated when they make purely survival or self-serving votes. Let us remember that we arrived at a $17T debt because of establishment figures from both parties. Perhaps I missed it when Republicans criticized Bush during that 8-year spending spree. (Granted some of that was a legitimate reaction to 9/11.) (Some.) My reality is that both parties love power and will spend the coffers to keep it. Is one party worse in that regard than the other? Yes. Is one party different enough to keep us from insolvency? No.

    Perhaps someone can answer the question that haunts me from 2012: Where did the 4 million McCain voters go? In 2008 people were voting for an illusion of hope-and-change or the first Black president. 2012, with its horrible economy, with Benghazi, and so many other things is puzzling. I suppose it would be reasonable to blame the media for some of those defections or stay-at-homes, but the media was against McCain as well. Dare I say it: I wonder if Romney’s Mormonism might not have been another factor?

    No solutions here. The only positive from Cruz and his supporters is that Obamacare is now on the top of the agenda and has national attention. Too bad that is 11 months too late.

    Libertarians don’t win big elections because they are structurally handicapped: they will not offer bribes to the electorate. Freedom and responsibility are tough sells. In this day and age is it possible to win without offering voters a sweetener? I’m cynical enough to say that can no longer happen after 75 years of Social Security and 50 years of Medicare.

  • sandbeachprofessor

    If we cant have mature dialogue between those on the right and those on the right, how can we ever have dialogue on divergent opinions. Too bad there are so many on both sides who stoop to name calling and insults. I disagree with Bernie but many have that opinion and use logic and reason to present it.

  • cantonst

    You want to win an election; we want to win a country…

    • Indi4ever

      What? Slogans? Tell us how committing political suicide does that!? You guys are all mouth and no IQ.

  • medfed1

    I am not a hard right anything. What some people don’t get is the Republicans have nothing to lose. They are getting blamed for everything anyway and the Dems are winning in the poles. The Dems will continue to move the goal post and really don’t care if we go over the cliff. They will put us over the cliff that is what they are telling us. Republican put your neck in the noose because you can’t win. So because we can’t win, if that is the fact, then we can at least lose with honor. They should not cave. either way they should not cave.

  • cantonst

    I guess it’s true, Mr. Goldberg, that opinions are like assholes, everybody’s got one.

  • Rick

    Mr. Goldberg – I have deleted your emails and blocked any future ones. Thank you for supporting tyranny.

    • Brian Fr Langley

      Ok Bernie may not, this one have right,
      On the other hand, maybe he might,
      his fight with the left,
      so far has been deft,
      so always keep that in our sight.

  • Rick

    Mr. Goldberg – Shame on you. Why do we need Republican’s who just go along with the socialist policies of Obama? People like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee at least have the courage to stand against tyranny. I’m sorry, but after reading this column I will read you no more. I will mute O’Reilly when you’re on. Yes, what about Ben Carson? I guess he makes too much common-sense for you as well! I guess you prefer John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Chris Christie and the like; so sad.

    • Indi4ever

      Ahh come on. You are going to run away and hide now? Why don’t you stand up and fight for your principles?
      Because it is as useless as suicide Cruz & Co. That’s why. You don’t have an argument, you have a behavior–one that leads to political suicide.
      Do you think Rand Paul is a sellout? He’s the sharp one here. He KNEW this would not work and therefore did not support it. Do you think he’s empty on principles?
      Go learn some math and logic. If you don’t have the votes, you work to get those first.
      As General Patton once said (paraphrase). “You don’t want to die for your country, you want to make the other guy die for his country.”
      You, Cruz, and others prefer the former to the later.

      • Rick

        Ahh you come on. Me not wanting to listen to Goldberg talk the same trash as the lame-stream media is not running away. I get enough of that from many other outlets. I don’t need to waste my time with Mr. Goldberg when I can hear the same on MSNBC. I don’t follow the talking points of others. I have my own thoughts and opinions. You should try it sometime troll. There are too many whack-a-moles like you for me to waste my precious time debating all of you. You will not understand until it’s too late. Go on and spout your John McCain, Chris Christie rhetoric. I will not waste any more time on you.

        • Indi4ever

          Seems you are still blind listening to your own self talk. I don’t like
          McCain or Christie either. I just know bad strategy when I see it. You
          have it in spades!

          • Rick

            You know what you think you know and nothing more.

    • Sheesh

      Wow, so if you disagree with someone’s point, you put your hands over your ears and sing “la, la, la, la …” whenever that person speaks? That’s an open-minded approach.

      • Rick

        Just because you’re so open-minded that you’ve let all of your brains fall-out doesn’t mean we all have. I have my opinion and you have yours. Mr. Goldberg would be a RINO if he were serving. Go troll somewhere else Sheesh!

  • Seattle Sam

    Here’s the plan (hopefully). By escalating the level of battle on Obamacare and spending, the GOP is making it more likely that they could win seats in the Senate. I would not want to to be an incumbent Democrat who has supported Obamacare and unlimited government spending. The 2014 elections actually should be fought over ONE issue — Obamacare. That’s pretty much what happened in 2010. Of course, you also have to run electable candidates for the Senate. That hasn’t always happened. The people don;t have to “turn on Obama”. They just have to turn on the policies he espouses. And according to the polls, they already have.

    • medfed1

      I wish that was true.

    • JMax

      Democrats support unlimited spending? Then why have they agreed to over a trillion dollars in budget cuts? Why have they agreed to the Ryan budget previously passed by the House?

      • Seattle Sam

        You’re right. It’s not “unlimited”. Neither were there any actual cuts in spending, since government is spending more year over year. It’s also not a “diet” if you planned to consume five cheeseburgers, but agreed to eat only four.

  • Chet Przygoda

    I just love to read about the “right” way to be “right” from those whose last exposure to “right” was when they turned right in their auto to get to the store. Sorry Bernie but you are not addressing a solution you are advocating a continuation of what has not worked for the party for many years. Perhaps it would be better to elect a conservative with all of the party supporting him/her just to see what would happen – maybe just this once. And then, if things don’t work out and the conservative wing (us crazies as you put it) is proven wrong you and your middle ground quasi liberal (you say that you’re moderate but we know better from voting records) group will always be able to say, “I told you so.” At the same time you would be shuck of us because we would then migrate to Libertarian candidates and we all know that they can’t get elected dog catcher.

    • Indi4ever

      Why does everything you disagree with look ‘moderate’? Good strategy is completely distinct from moderation. Is Rand Paul moderate? He didn’t like this strategy from the getgo.

      • Chet Przygoda

        I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. Rand and others were right and their evaluation here only because the need for a clearer game plan should have been considered. However, when you have those who offer to go to war and they supply the troops to do war only to have half of the generals not support or at least try to support those troops you have a problem. Like Lincoln when he made the change to Grant I believe that we need for the party to either move and support the right or just throw us all out and we can do our own thing and the GOP will make a very nice minority group incapable of doing anything.

  • delble

    The first term vote for Obama was the American Idol vote. Ignorant, willfully uninformed people elected him the second time. He is gradually being exposed for what he is. Only people addicted to MSNBC who protect themselves from the truth can possibly continue to support this un-American president. He undermines our military and insults our veterans and blames the other party! But, then, he is true to form. He is constantly blaming everyone but himself and always will. An opposition leader will emerge. Give it time.

  • Ron Pramschufer

    Bernie,

    At the end of the day, the country is going the way Greece, or worse. It’s not a matter of “if” but “when”. Just look at the government sponsored looting at that Walmart in New Orleans, the other day. Back in the old days, you needed a valid reason “like too much rain” as an excuse to loot and destroy private property. Don’t kid yourself… that EBT “glitch” was no glitch.. it was a test. Wait until you see the full “roll out”

    If the so called Republicans are just going to roll over and give the President everything he wants, they might as well just change parties and call themselves Democrats. Cruz, and others like him are 100% correct in standing up for their principles. I don’t care what the “polls” say, the taxpayers support him. Unfortunately, the “Taxpayer” is on the endangered species list along with the spotted owl. As a country, we had a chance to nip this whole mess in the bud back in the 80′s. (A La “Public Assistance- Why Bother Working for a Living” Game) Unfortunately, it never happened.

    I guess that only time will tell

    • tb thomas

      Ron, I’ve been hearing rumblings of sanity from the 40-and-under crowd lately. I think they’re starting to figure out that it isn’t the 1% the Democrats are trying to screw, it’s them. All one has to do is look at the “seven most affluent counties in the nation” — neatly lined up at the public trough surrounding Washington D.C. — to understand what’s really ‘going down’.

    • Indi4ever

      No one is rolling over and giving the president what he wants! Do you realize that if the clean CR passed it would have sealed in the sequestration cuts? Now, they have to fight just to keep them in.
      The deal we are getting now is far worse than what we could have gotten had this been played correctly.

  • Ed in CA

    Republicans need to stop the “My way or the highway” mentality. It is a suicide pact, reminding me of Jim Jones, serving up the KoolAid.

    • Jen

      What offers have the Democrats made? Name one. Senate Republicans put up offer today of clean CR to end the shut down, and raise the debt ceiling until the middle of January 2014 and end a Obama care tax that both parties hate. Obama refused. He does not want to sign anything put up by the Republicans even though it was exactly what he was asking for a couple of weeks ago. He has said numerous times he will NOT negotiate. Have you ever read his books? He mentioned in one of them that the Great Depression was the great leveler. Hang on. This is all by design.

      • medfed1

        I warned about that in 2009. There were whispers in the White House at time. It’s called “The Printing Press Cure”

        ABOUT THOSE WHISPERS IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2009

        I stumbled upon a story while browsing the Internet and this quote from Michael Kinsey who wrote in the Washington Post 2/20/2009 titled “Upside Down Economy”,

        “There is another way. If it’s not the actual, secret plan, it will be an overwhelming temptation: Don’t pay the money back. So far, even as one piggy bank after another astounds us with its emptiness, there have been only the faintest whispers about the possibility of an actual default by the U.S. government. Somewhat louder whispers can be heard, though, about the gradual default known as Anyone who regards the prospect of double-digit inflation with insouciance is either too young to have lived through it the last time (the late 1970s) or too old to remember. Among other problems, inflation works only as a surprise or betrayal. It can never be part of any public, official plan. Plan for 10 percent inflation, and you’ll get 20. Plan for 20 and you’ll need a wheelbarrow to pay for your morning Starbucks. But if that’s not the plan, what is?”
        And another Article written by Joseph C. Battaglia who wrote in Forbes Magazine 12/12/208 the following:
        ““Currency devaluation proved effective in ending the Great Depression. In 1930 Australia was the first to leave the gold standard, immediately devaluing the Aussie by more than 40%. New Zealand and Japan followed suit in 1931, each with the same result. By 1933, at least nine major economies had enacted a devolution of their currency by removing it from the Gold Standard, all of whom emerged from the Depression “

        The President had a plan and it has been out there all this time. He told us “In five days we will transform America.” . It seems for the most part,

        WE THE PEOPLE, are just not interested in Politics.

        No one wants to talk about it. ” It is too depressing”. ” They are all a bunch of crooks” . “The Republicans are evil people who only care about themselves and the rich anyway” . “They are all a bunch of Liars ” . “There is nothing I can do about it anyway”. “I don’t care. I’m not going to vote anyway”. “The Tea Party people are evil and ignorant”. This is a sampling of what I hear from friends and family. From my Granddaughter: “Gramma you need to get a hobby.” From a Friend: “You just hate Oboma because he’s Black.” From a Neighbor: “I haven’t got time for that. It’s all BS anyway”.

        ObamaCare is the last piece of the puzzle to transform America. You are right. It is all part of the plan.

    • tb thomas

      Article 1, Section 7:

      “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
      Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

      This was not included in the Constitution lightly, or by accident. The framers understood that the power of the purse is the most important federal authority, and therefore the body which is most immediately accountable to the people should both draft and craft the federal budget. The House Republicans are doing exactly what the framers of the Constitution intended they do: scrutinize, debate and ultimately authorize each and every detail of government spending — or not, as they see fit. It is the President and the Senate Democrats who are attempting to turn Constitutional due-process upside down.

      • Indi4ever

        Ever hear the term ‘co-equal branches of government’? Yeah the House can do just as it did, but guess what, the Senate can do what it did.
        Result? Stalemate. Public opinion? House loses.
        Cry all you want, didn’t take a genius to see it coming.

        • medfed1

          Ever hear the slogan “Money talks and BS walks.” That is why the House has the power of the purse To keep the BS in check and to keep a check on the purse.

          • Indi4ever

            Power comes from ACTUALLY having it. The house is being held in check–by the other two branches of government.
            Fighting it amounts to just that “fighting.” No one here seems to care about a victory.

        • tb thomas

          “House loses”? Not really. In the end, not only the “low-information voters” who have no concept of what the Constitution means, but every one of us loses.

      • medfed1

        Thank you. I have an idea. Maybe we could put together a series about the Constitution and How we got it and Why and How it works and why. We could make it required learning before we issue any license or permit. We could cover what was missed or ignored in Jr. High and High School. I was required to take a Civics Class in High School. All About the institutions and making laws.

        • tb thomas

          I agree with your specific suggestion, but I would broaden it some. The fact is, the single most important “subject” which should be the primary focus of secondary education (during all four years) is the meaning of and exercise of “critical thinking skills”.

          To put that another way, students should understand the difference between absorbing the content of a lesson, and thinking about the origin of the content itself, and learning to ask questions as to the veracity of the content. Students today have the most miraculous learning tool ever conceived by human civilization at their finger tips (the one you and I are using right now). And the mastery of critical thinking skills is the key that unlocks that massive storehouse of information, and enables them to turn it into knowledge.

          Instead, in most schools and all public schools, critical thinking skills isn’t even identified as a formal discipline. Hence the disastrous incompetence of the American electorate.

          • medfed1

            I agree whole heartedly agree with “thinking about the origin of the content itself, and learning to ask questions as to the veracity of the content”however, we need teachers qualified to teach that concept. Probably more appropriate in an English Class. I’m thinking more of a

            Civics Class.

    • medfed1

      All we had to know is you are from Ca. The land of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Sen. Diane Fiensteine, and Gov. Moonbeam Gerry Brown, The State that passed a Bill to allow transgender people to use any bathroom even in Elementary, Jr. High and High Schools. What a great playground for perverts.

  • rgcomega

    All well said Bernie and pretty factual in point. I’m one of those confounded independents but I have to vote Republican because my only other option is a Dem platform that proposes abortion as a “right,” big government and all their other crap (sorry). In all the years since Reagan, Republicans have been a joke, spewing platitudes but standing for nothing, fighting for nothing, offering nothing because they have been too intent on morphing into your “moderate” “reasonable” servants purely as a way to survive reelection; they have proven they no will, no spine, nor any ability to sell an idea that there is a way, a bigger calling other than socialism (oops, Progressivism). So after 30 years of BLAH, for me, as a veteran, I now face the proverbial Hobson’s choice, and of the two options I have neither is palatable. This much I can say….my life has taught me that principle, integrity, honor and love of country are much more important than just surviving, and if I must I’d much prefer to go down on principle (for which all of our veterans and current military carried the flag for nearly 250 years) than become nothing more than a marionette for morons. Absent those values, surviving isn’t surviving-it’s just a slower way to die. So, how about a 3rd party? The “Peoples Party? I’m ready to reclaim my country!!!

  • Gradivus

    The Washington Post/ABC poll did not show that Republicans are taking most of the blame for the partial government shutdown, because that’s not the question that was asked. The question asked was whether the respondent approved or disapproved of the way congressional Republicans are handling budget negotiations. A “Disapprove” response will include all those who know damn well that Democrats are to blame for the shutdown, but disapprove of the lousy way the Republicans are handling the negotiations, and/or disapprove of the pathetic lack of Republican ability to combat the propaganda that they are to blame.

    Likewise, the Pew Survey did not include “Democrats are more to blame” as an option, allowing the respondent only to choose between Republicans and Obama. Those who mostly blame the Democrats were counted under “Neither/Don’t Know.” So that’s a flawed poll as well. Or rather, the media analysis of those two polls is (as usual when reporting poll results) deeply flawed.

  • Tim in California

    Bernie – You are so right…. Far too many of my Conservative colleagues live in the same world as brain dead liberals…. that’s the world of “I WANT it to be this way, so it IS this WAY!”….. logic, common sense, practicality, compromise are tossed out the window in favor of dogma. We may has well save tax payers dollars in the next election and hand the prize right to Hilary…

  • Jim ciaravino

    I feel as if it’s “if not now, when, if not this fight, which one”. We can’t just keep kicking these issues down the rode, we are moderating ourselves into oblivion. America is becoming a nation of dependency, i’m looking for the politician who starts talking about personal responsibility and taking care of oneself, not to hurt others but to advance your own life for the greater good. The moderate way of looking at things is just not working and we all know that socialism will not work. Socialism puts your faith entirely in man, and we understand where that leads, putting one’s faith in man never has worked. You can call us the “suicide wing” if you want but I would rather kill the current party trying to save this country than live with what’s coming if we continue to go down the current path.

  • 633

    GOTTA HAVE A PLAN. Cruz didn’t. Visceral futility is still futility. Let’s go down with our guns blazing isn’t a strategy. Taking an economic hostage you can’t afford to shoot isn’t sensible and defines poor leadership.

  • tb thomas

    According to the conventional wisdom Bernie, you’re right. However, I think this will turn out to be a Pyrrhic Victory for the Bolsheviks. Obama’s inner-reptile was exposed (and has remained exposed) for a period of weeks, and that is not a good thing for him, his apparatchiks, and useful idiots. We now know that this guy is literally willing to destroy our economy in order to effect the transformation of this country into a socialist police state — and while a few of us knew that already, the circle has widened considerably due to the shut-down.

    It also made real the possibility that the Republican party will go the way of the Whig party in 1856-1860, making way for a new leaner and more pragmatic replacement, an amalgam of fiscal conservatives, civil-libertarians, and the most powerful incipient voting block in recent memory, the 40-and-under voters, the ones who are going to be expected to pay the tab on 4 decades of Democrat party entitlement fascism.

    Frankly, I don’t believe the established leadership of the Republican party has the skill (or the inclination) to connect with and engage those younger voters. Hence, if they won’t get out of the way, we’ll have to push them out by creating a new party, and making them the “third party”. If that sounds suicidal to you (and I’m not saying it does), imagine you are 30 years old, just beginning to enjoy your peak earning years, and the bill arrives for your first $250 monthly payment for Obamacare, and you realize there’s a $5000 deductible attached to that. Throw in all the other authoritarian intrusions into your personal and professional life spinning your way from Washington D.C., and I think we have a prospective voter for a new majority party.

    I speak with a little experience behind me. As a former state-chairperson for the Perot ballot initiative in 1992, I know that had Mr. Perot not turned out to be temperamentally incompatible with politics (not to mention the presidency), he might well have won that election. We created a new party back then over the space of about six-months, and even though my state is decidedly liberal (The Peoples Republic of Oregon), we delivered the highest percentage vote for Mr. Perot of any state other than his home state of Texas. (And BTW, I voted for George H. W. Bush that year, even though I was one of Perot’s electors.)

    Given the clear and present danger posed by our megalomaniac dictator wannabe President, I’m seriously considering the possibility of joining with others of like mind and doing it again. In my view, sitting on the sidelines and playing it safe could turn out to be worse than suicide.

  • Joh

    Ted Cruz is one of the rarest of politicians, one who does EXACTLY what he promised he would do. And now we have pundits and “establishment” republicans wringing their hands about this not being “the way Washington” works. I think the polls show how the average American feels about “the way Washington works”.

  • John Lee

    Thank goodness Bernie wasn’t speaker of the house in the 90′s when they were just as ‘suicidal’….we wouldn’t have accomplished anything.

  • Ted Crawford

    Perhaps Bernie, that’s why you’ve never been elected! Many of us prefer a Leader who actually leads, and isn’t a subserviant slave to “Polls”! It seems even you have fallen prey to the Progressive ideology that “principles have no place in Politics” ! How very Alinsky of you!
    The problem we are now faced with isn’t because Ted Cruz stood on principles.It’s a factor of the lack of leadership qualities of the Crying Ohioian! Ted Cruz knew, full well that he could not and would not prevail, yet believing as many of us do, that PPACA was just too egregious to simply ignore, did what he could to force it onto the front pages of the quisling Media, and IT WORKED!
    Mr. Boehner knew, or he darn well should have, that the CR was coming back to his Chamber, and he should have, as any real leader would have, had a prepared substantive, passable proposal ready to bring to the floor. HE DIDN’T !
    Establishment Republicans have LOST the last two Presidential Election! The last one in spite of the abject failures of Obama’s first Presidency! As Obama said, perhaps you guys can come along, but given your recent performances, you might need to sit in the back this time!

    • brickman

      You’re not perfect, but you’re getting better. Calm down a little more.

      • Ted Crawford

        Even as you continue to give support for Mr. Russell’s belief.
        “We are faced with the paradoxical fact that education has become one of the chief obstacles to intelligence and freedom of thought” Bertrand Russell

        • brickman

          It’s funny, one of your comrades in mouth said I was a low info h.s. dropout yesterday. Can I use you as a reference to change his mind?

  • medfed1

    Give me liberty or give me death. If what the Republicans are doing is suicide that give me death. Harry Reid is the most dangerous man in the world today and he is supported by Obama who is a dictator. Accept the fact they will not accept ANY proposal offered by the HOUSE. Instead of sending a spotlight on the Republicans with your questionable advise you could support the efforts they are making to save us from the tyrannical White House.

    • JMax

      If Obama is a “dictator”, then why are we going though all these motions? A dictator simply imposes his will and doesn’t need to negotiate with opponents.

      The House originally offered a “clean” CR. That was accepted by the Senate and acceptable to the White House. It was only after the Cruz Crazies tried to kill Obamacare in the process that things went awry.

      • medfed1

        JMAX When you wake up from your coma someone close to you will explain what happened. In the meantime sleep well my friend.

        • JMax

          I know exactly what happened. I keep myself quite well-informed from both right and left sources. You might try that yourself sometime.

    • legal eagle

      Thank you for your craziness….I hope you get over your Obama Derangement Syndrome after Hillary is elected…

  • Jen

    You think letting Obamacare happen is going to convince Liberals that the law is a disaster? Sorry, I disagree. If the Democrats and their media tell the ignorant how wonderful it is they will believe it. Or, if the stupid Obama voters hear that Obamacare isn’t rolling out like planned and isn’t working so well, and it is the Republican’s fault they will believe it.

    • Kathie Ampela

      Jen,
      Liberals will never be convinced no matter what that the law is a disaster, it’s the sleeping middle that will have the final say. 2014 is the 20th anniversary of the republican revolution of 94, brought on by HillaryCare. While I agree the electorate has changed since then, it defies every law of nature for the country to continue to tilt left at that point, that’s my opinion. I live on Staten Island and today there is a special election in NJ. While it looks like Booker will win, it’s astonishing that a tea party guy came within striking distance in a state like NJ. I believe if that election were held a year from now, he (Lonegan) would win. I overheard a liberal at work who lives in NJ today say he didn’t like Booker but the tea party guy was too right wing for him. That tells me the rightward shift is starting we’re just not completely there yet. My opinion.

      ,

  • savage24

    The establishment Republicans are in reality are the ones committing suicide. They are being consumed by the liberal/progressive movement, and soon will be like the Democrats, just the another wing of the Socialist Party. The MSM is the driving source for the hatred of the TEA Party and the Conservative Republicans, and they have also forfeited their 1st Amendment rights of “Freedom of the Press” when they became the lapdog for the government that they were suppose to be the watchdog of.

  • metheoldsarge

    I have said this before and I say it again. With new issues on Obamacare surfacing every day, and the games the Democrats and RINOs are playing with the shutdown, I hope this all backfires in the faces of both parties. All of this is getting very old very fast. Makes me wonder what these politicians want to be when they grow up. Everyone is pointing the finger of blame everywhere but where the real problem is. People are getting fed up with the blame game. If the politicians and the President keep playing these games the people are going to get tired of taking it in the shorts while the politicians, from both parties, laugh all the way to the bank with their fat donation checks from the special interest lobbies. It wouldn’t surprise me if the people get so outraged at the politicians in both parties and the President, that they just may take their anger out at the polls next year. We need to send those old career politicians from both parties into forced retirement. There are people who are not happy with the people they sent to Washington or State and Local office. They will vote to re-elect them anyway because they cannot bring themselves to vote for anyone in the other party. There are a lot more people that think that way than many realize. There are voting alternatives without breaking party loyalty. It is called Primaries. Join political groups or organizations that can work to seek out and encourage new people to run against the incumbents in the primaries. Then you can vote to help get that incumbent out of the general election. That way you can vote against the incumbent without having to sacrifice party loyalty. If you remember, Senator Arlin Specter had changed from Democrat to Republican. Then he thought he would have a better chance of re-election in 2010, if he changed back to Democrat. That didn’t work. Senator Specter lost in the 2010 Primaries. RINO Pat Toomey then went to win that Senate seat in the General Election. This can work against everyone in public office from the President right on down to the local office holders. I say re-elect no one. Fire them all.

  • Ed

    Cruz IS RIGHT; Bernard & the Disgusting RINOs are WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RINOs, Marxist Media, & Marxist Saul Alinsky Dems are DESTROYING this ONCE Great Country.

  • amkitkat

    Dr.Ben Carson would be reasonable opponent…

    • pdxracefan

      I’ve thought that since he appeared on the scene.

    • legal eagle

      Great idea…..lets hope Dr. Carson runs for something so he can make a bigger fool of himself than he already has..

    • D Parri

      I think that Dr. Carson is one of the most intelligent people out there. I see only one problem, though. He has spent a career in helping others rather than destroying their lives and reputations. He might not be well-suited for dealing with the current cult of attack politics. However, the change he could bring would be very refreshing.

      • brickman

        I see another problem with Dr. Carson, his lie at the Value Voters Summit attributing a quote to Lenin that Lenin never said. Not only that he ratcheted it up a couple of notches to try to inflame his audience. He would be destroyed in a campaign where not every one he talks to already agrees with him.

        • Jeff Webb

          It’s not possible that he was merely mistaken?

  • Realist With Principles

    The real problem with the Republicans, both establishment and what I’d prefer to call the Tea Party wing is that they let the Democrats play by Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and subject the country to a barrage of oft repeated propaganda, and out-of-context “facts.” It’s time for the GOP to take the gloves off and give the Democrats a good dose of their own medicine. It’s time to get the true facts out in a way that can even catch the attention of the low-information populace and mainstream ministry of disinformation.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    I’m quite surprised that a website supposedly known for media criticism first criticises each other, then the liberals and nary a word about the media??? The only split here is the giant wedge continually pounded by the mainstream media. I mean is it really hyper partisan and hyper conservative to want to get a hold of debts and deficits? Defund Obama care? Stop wasteful spending? There are only two types of Republican’s that get major mainstream media play today. Real nut bar bozo’s, who are used as proof, Republicans are real nut bar bozo’s, and the so called “reasonable Republican’s” who are in all likelihood “real liberals”. The real enemy to conservatism is NOT the liberals, it’s the mainstream media. They are lying to you, and you’re still not getting it????

    • Peep

      We need to label everything that comes out of Obama and his “progressives” as extremist or radical or call them left wing nutjobs. If they say anything negative about Dr Carson or Ted Cruz, call them racist like they did when we just disagreed with Obama. It started with Nancy Pelosi calling us “astroturf” and has only gone down since then as being acceptable by the media. I really don’t care what the NY/DC Republican urban news media corridor thinks about the rest of us. They’re dead to me.

    • tb thomas

      The hegemony of the mainstream media is eroding (albeit slowly). The Internet will eventually make make anachronisms of the monolithic news outlets, as it will the established public education system. We just need to work at making that transformation move a little faster. (IMHO)

  • Wheels55

    Whoever advises the GOP on what battles to choose and how to go about them – should be fired. Going after Obamacare now was just plain dumb.

  • americalsgt

    I’m sure a lot of Whigs said the same thing in 1853. Sorry Bernie but everything that ever was eventually was no longer, and that is what is going to become of the Republican party. If you, Rove, O’reilly et al don’t want to join with us in dismantling an out of control big government, don’t let the door hit you in the butt on your way out, .

  • cmacrider

    Kathie A.
    Well Said. If the GOP Establishment which includes Bernie were as adept at critisizing The Dems as their are their own party collegues … we wouldn’t be in this mess.

    • cmacrider

      sorry for typos

    • Bernie

      Kathie

      Really? I’ve written 5 books criticizing the other side. Not fair.

      Bernie

      • Ted Crawford

        As was true of Chris Christie’s debacle in October, “Timing is Everything” – “Location, Lociation, Location”

      • Kathie Ampela

        Bernie,

        You completely misunderstood my post, I think you were looking at another comment on this thread. It has nothing to with criticizing either side, that’s the point. I jumped into this world 5 years ago simply as a concerned citizen. I’m not a TV pundit, strategist, grand conservative thinker or politician, I only want what’s best and what can conceivably be done. The country wasn’t founded by TV pundits or grand conservative philosophers nor do they have exclusive ownership. I’m no expert on any of this, but I do know how the disengaged electorate thinks, that’s the point. They barely know any of this is going on around them, let alone consequences and they greatly outnumber those of us who are aware. The only thing they know is what personally affects them.. Government shutdowns don’t matter, principles don’t matter and the debt ceiling doesn’t matter. All are vague ideas twisting in the wind around them. I shouldn’t give them such a bad rap, the rich are job creators, but the middle class drive the economy, ultimately. So you have to stop fussing over which party is going to be blamed for the gov’t shutdown, we are heading for the holidays and no one will remember 2 months from now. They WILL be mad as hell over Obamacare, I can see where this is all going. Obamacare is this year’s hurricane Sandy event only much more personal and far reaching. So please stop with the pessimistic attitude, we can never get anywhere that way. America will find it’s way back, they need a wake up call and a strong message, that’s all.

      • D Parri

        And you’ve been an important voice of support for the GOP for many years. Don’t lose heart. Hey, if you weren’t doing something that the opposition party should worry about, then you wouldn’t even be getting their attention. Right?

  • cmacrider

    Bernie: It’s great for you to criticize conservatives as the “suicide wing of the party” but your side of the party with your “astounding strategies” can’t win elections. Anybody can come in second in a two party system …. but that gives them no cause to consider themselves political tactical geniuses.

  • Ron F

    If the Affordable Care Act does not authorize the President to grant waivers or suspend a potion of the Act for one year, and Section 3 of Article II of the Constitution provides that the President “take care to that the laws be faithfully executed”, what is there to compromise about. If the President will not execute the Affordable Care Act as written, it should not be funded. If he does execute the Act as written, it should be funded and the Republicans should try to change it through the normal legislative process.

    • Wheels55

      Great point. However, the general public does not seem to view the Constitution as rule of law and, therefore, the public does not lash out at politicians who defy it. Public opinion rules and the GOP had better get on board with that.

      • tb thomas

        The vast majority of voters have no idea what the Constitution is, much less little details like Article 1, Section 7. They figure as long as people like George Stephanopolous and Diane Sawyer think Obama is our political messiah, he must be.

        But you’re point is spot-on regardless, we have to play the cards we’re dealt.

  • EddieD_Boston

    Give the Democrats credit. They’ve completely eliminated any alternate perspective in their left-wing dominated party.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Limerick?
    .
    Me a man once, did really despise,
    so much, he offered, my choice of demise,
    with gun, knife, or rope,
    then called me a dope,
    when I rejected this fair compromise.

  • Phil

    Bernie: Part of me would like to see the hard right get the candidate they want in 2016 – someone like Cruz who was willing to go down with the ship and “stand for his principles” – and then, when that candidate gets only 40 percent of the popular vote in the election and loses 48 of the 50 states in the electoral college, the angry talk radio types will realize that hard, angry right won’t win them squat on a national level. Then maybe they’ll get it.

    • Roxiebell

      What did we get with Romney, a fine man & its a shame that 11 MILLION or so Republicans “didn’t” vote for him and McCain whose votes he got were because of Sarah Palin, NEITHER won the Presidency btw, so how much more “moderate” do you think we can get?
      Democrats are disgustingly incestuous in their unity while conservatives are struggling to get the Republican Party “back on track” and all the in fighting makes it extremely hard if not impossible.
      We’ve got to have WARRIOR’s on our side willing to take the chance to actually OPPOSE the socialist Democrats to get the interest of those MILLIONS of Republican “NON-VOTERS”.

    • Bernie

      Great point, Phil.

      Bernie

    • Jen

      Funny. “Great Point” by Bernie – laughable. Cruz is the only one out here that is representing the people and is only considered “hard, angry right” by Liberals and your media, oh and Bernie. I sure hope he does get the nomination. I will stay home for more nominees like Christie and Jeb Bush. Both will be losers like McCain and Romney.

      • ginger

        Hard angry Americans is what is the point…and we are tired of being called names….time to point out that we are Constitution loving Americans and want our country back…tell the truth and call out the name callers..call the Dems what they are, communists and dictators.

        • Jen

          Isn’t it funny that not one Liberal is ever called hard or angry? Obama uses all the names “terrorists, ransom, ” to his associates in government and American people. Same with Reid and Pelosi, Hillary…..take your pick. But they are happy go lucky Liberals.

    • Erzsi

      You don’t get it! The “reasonable” and softer side lost. Twice! The angry, going down with the ship, and principled won back the congress. Remember?

    • Tim

      Can anybody tell me why adhering to the constitution, applying the rule of law equally to all, having a limited government, being financially responsible and encouraging the American spirit of independence and self sufficiency makes you a Hard Right anarchist, a bomb thrower, an extremist? It seems the center should be the constitution and the bill of rights, and you would plot a course left or right from there depending on your political leanings.. The current state in America is way left of the constitution, yet people say it’s middle of the road. What road would they be talking about? The road to socialism. Where the poor are perpetually poor, but at government approved levels, and the rich, well they don’t live in America anymore. They’re taking their ideas, their money, their entrepreneurial spirit, and developing them somewhere else. A place with the rule of law, low taxes, and reasonable regulations.

    • medfed1

      Then the Country will get the government it wants. We cannot go down without even trying. Like Hillary and company did in Benghazi. At least Steve Cruz and company is willing to put everything on the line. If the old guard is unwilling to do the same the Dems win. What you and others like you don’t understand is Our Country is worth the fight. If you are willing to accept the lies and corruption of this Administration just know we are not.

    • Ted Crawford

      2016?! 2016, really?! If you are focused on 2016, the Progressives have already won! Anything, beyond a cursory thought that’s spent on 2016, is totally wasted! if Conservative’s, and Independents don’t get deadly serious about November 4, 2014, any election that might take place in 2016 will be no more meaningful than those in Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, etc.!
      If Harry Reid, or for that matter any Progressive, still retains the gavel in the Senate in January of 2015, it’s all over but the clean-up! Even an Economy as robust as ours could never survive three more years of this committed assault by Obama and the Progressive Party!

  • Douglas Mortimer

    Bernie, the truth is that things have become so hyper-partisan and too many people are demanding ideological purity that the building of a coalition is next to impossible. I would also contend that Obama did not unify the Democrat moderates and left-wingers around a set of ideas…he unified them around being the party that elected the first African-American president and now maintains that support primarily through fear and intimidation. To question anything Obama does is not met with rational, factual arguments…it is met with name-calling, vilification, and charges of racism. In such a climate, you are either supportive of the president and all he wants or you are a lunatic, dangerous to the welfare of the republic. It is sickening.

  • gold7406

    Everyone will be voting in the next elections. The country has paid a dear price for lack of participation at the voting booth in the last two elections.

    • JMax

      The eligible voter participation rates in 2008 and 2012 were the highest since the 1960s. http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm

      • gold7406

        and so was the ineligible participation rate

        • JMax

          Well only if you consider that .000000000001% is higher than .0000000000005%. There is scant evidence that any ineligible voters other than convicted felons voted in 2008 or 2012.

  • sjangers

    The bigger concern for 2016 Presidential ambitions is not that moderate Republicans might stay home if the party nominates a take-no-prisoners hardliner, it’s that millions of independent voters who might support a moderate Republican candidate would then vote Democrat. When a conservative stays home rather than vote for a moderate candidate we lose one vote. When an independent votes Democrat instead of voting for a conservative Republican we lose two net votes.

    • Brian Fr Langley

      You’ve just described the collectivist two step. For the progressives they always take two steps forward and one step backward. Traditionalist on the other hand, take one step forward then two steps backward. Progressives and their mainstream media allies get it. Hell, they designed this dance. Yet, for so called “high information voters” (conservative types) not so much?

  • Brian Fr Langley

    .
    Principle over power is quite a rare gem,
    But “power over principle” speaketh the Dem,
    so under attack,
    a spine we now lack,
    so now both of us look just like them.

  • Wil

    Bernie, The only way the republicans can win elections is with gerrymandering and voter suppression.

    • gold7406

      and the dems win via information and intelligence suppression

      • Wil

        A regular Fox viewer, I see.

    • Douglas Mortimer

      This is pure paranoia. Just because you cannot fathom any group of voters not seeing things your way does not mean that when your guy loses, it was stolen from you. That is the height of delusion, and it is all too characteristic of hyper-partisan Democrats AND Republicans.

    • EddieD_Boston

      Another week another foolish post.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        It really is like an MSNBC ticker, isn’t it? lol

        • Wil

          What is untrue about my post?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            The part about Republicans winning elections through gerrymandering and voter suppression.

          • Wil

            John, You seem to not pay attention, what is going on in America. Get out of the bubble, you are trapped in.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Wil, MSNBC and America are two very different things. Please separate Ed Schultz’s cheeks and remove your head. Things will then start to become a little clearer for you.

            Just some friendly advice from your favorite columnist.

          • Wil

            You are one classy guy…NOT!

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            If you like, I could just call a bunch of people racists and terrorists while spit flies out of my mouth… you know, to more resemble the people who feed you your opinions. Would that help?

          • Wil

            You are one classy guy… NOT!

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Did you delete this post, then re-post it so my reply would be lost? lol.

          • Wil

            I don’t know what you are talking about.

          • Wil

            Which is why the DOJ is all over the many redistricting plans and revamps of voting registration requirements all designed to frustrate certain voters.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Ah yes, that beacon of trust, integrity, and non-partisanship known as Eric Holder. He couldn’t possibly be doing any political posturing, could he?

            Next, you’ll be telling me that something is legitimate because Anthony Weiner says it is.

          • Wil

            Anthony Weiner?? Is he a fan of yours. I personally cannot stand the guy.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            lol. You’d vote for him in a heartbeat, Wil.

      • Wil

        How would you know?

        • EddieD_Boston

          Simple. I read them.

          • Wil

            Amazing!

      • Wil

        What is foolish about the post? Haven’t you been aware of what the red states are doing? Watch MSNBC news, Fox News keeps you people in the dark!

        • EddieD_Boston

          You’re right Wil. MSNBC is an unbiased presentation of news stories. Only a complete looney tune would believe that. Gawd there’s something wrong with you.

          • Wil

            Subject: FOX can Legally Lie

            FOX News has legally argued in court that
            they have the right to LIE and OBFUSCATE and won!

            NEW WORLD
            COMMUNICATIONS OF
            TAMPA, INC., versus JANE AKRE Case No. 2D01-529.
            ’nuff said!

  • GlenFS

    Sometimes when you’re trying to be strategic you simply come across as unprincipled and uninspiring. Sometimes when you’re willing to fight to the last man, you show the world your cause is worth fighting for and you inspire others. The GOP may as well use “Pablum” as their brand, as leadership has strategically folded from fear of confrontation for years. Ted Cruz did not do that. He is a leader. Obamacare is going to be painful very soon, and when it does folks will need a champion like Cruz and they’ll even tolerate the GOP.

  • CNS74

    Bernie writes:
    “If he GOP puts up another moderate like McCain or Romney in 2016,
    millions of hardline conservatives may very well sit out the election.
    But if they put up a take-no-prisoners hardliner, millions of more
    moderate Republicans may stay home.”

    How about for once the GOP LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE and put up a candidate that they want – NOT what the strategists want. If that happened charisma is not the most important factor, but someone who truly represents conservative principles and is able to explain them is.

  • Ben

    I don’t think the issue is poor positioning. It’s poor negotiating skill that is holding up progress. We can’t run this country by reacting to polls. Furthermore Obama may be president, but this country is not improving.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Obama ran on yes we can, Perhaps Republicans (tea party types) can run on just say “NO”. “NO, NO, NO”. No to liberal media, no to big Government, no to dismantling America piece by piece. No to compromise, No to endless (and useless, and wasteful Government spending programs. No to endless media scenario’s of mayhem and destruction just because conservatives finally say “NO”.

    • Justin Hornburg

      Believe me, I scream “NO” all the time, but I don’t think that’s a winning platform or slogan. I don’t agree with everything in this article, but I do agree with the idea that we need a charismatic and optimistic conservative. Like Reagan.

      • Brian Fr Langley

        True, but, perhaps a quick painless death is better than the death of a thousand cuts. As to where are all the optimistic charismatic Reagan types??? The media incinerates them in their infancy.

  • Bootsctr

    The President is the Commander-in-Chief. He’s responsible for this fiasco because he does not know what he is doing. He’s a stubborn ass – just like his entire Party of Democrats. I stand with Ted Cruz! He’s doing what people elected him to do – something you really do not see a lot of politicians doing. Cruz and Palin 2016!

    • JMax

      According to the Constitution, the President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, not of the Congress and not of the budget.

      Cruz and Palin in 2016. YES! PLEASE!

  • nhthinker

    Romney never had bad things to say about hardliners-

    Romney was not a moderate- he funded TP darlings- Heck- he was endorsed by Jim DeMint in 2008 (now Heritage President).
    His positions for 2012 (and 2008) were clearly conservative.

    • Patrick H.

      Of course not, why would he risk alienating his base? Many thought he was flip-flopping from earlier positions.

      • nhthinker

        My point was Goldberg claimed hardliners stayed home because Romney was a moderate. Populists stayed home because they viewed Romney as a wall-street banker…(Even though his capital gains plan was much more populist than Gingrich’s and other candidates so much so that the WSJ called it “timid” ).

  • Brent D Cates

    Great, standing on the Principles and Values (keeping your Word) is political suicide.
    So lets lose our Souls and WIN WIN WIN!
    Sorry Bernie, I consider the LONG VIEW, which, last I checked is strewn with the debris of the wavering quasi-virtuous.
    Ted Cruz is doing EXACTLY what we (I am a Texan) SENT HIM TO DO.
    Regardless of the (already descending) consequences
    We will be on the side of Truth now and always.
    What are you going to have?

    • Bernie

      Brent

      I get it. I also hope you enjoy President Hillary Clinton

      Bernie

      • GlenFS

        If Hillary’s elected it won’t be because of anything Cruz did, she’s got to be the favorite for the same reason Obama was re-elected: the country’s been moving left and she’s their next champion. It will remain that way until the right shows them a better way, and that’s not done by being passive.