Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
Mike Murphy ·
July 14, 2011 at 7:48pm
I know the knee jerk reaction of many here will be to dismiss the argument and just call names: RINO, Sell-out, liberal media conspiracy... blah blah. But I know Al Hoffman well. His credentials are very strong: Good conservative. Worked with him twice to help elect Jeb Bush, best conservative Governor FL has ever had. Al has not been carping on the sidelines, but in the tough front lines of helping a great Republican conservative win and change FL. His take on the debt crisis is here. I could not agree with him more.
- Comment (85)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
May '11
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
John Boehner earlier today likened negotiating w/ Obama to dealing w/ Jello. Firm one minute and soupy all over the place the next.
Mike, you are TOTALLY mistaken to believe that the administration is negotiating in any kind of good faith. (Our version of the Palestinian Authority with the same potential for disaster?)
Tell me, why are the negotiations behind closed doors? What would happen if they were in full view?
Jul '11
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
Mike Murphy: I have been warned? I'm howling over that one. Listen, there are far, far too few GOP primary voters to win a general election. But too many in the party now thing the whole election is simply a big GOP primary. I hope we don't have to lose the House, Senate and WH to learn this, but...
Luntz focus groups are a joke. Voodoo. Real/serious focus groups are not done in front of camera on TV. Like testing your stereo under-water. It's just a chimp act for cable TV and nothing more.
The Rocky button is indeed a gag; thought I'd see how many Rico-cadets have a sense of humor. So far, results are mixed, but I'm hopeful. · Jul 14 at 12:01pm
Too bad our current president doesn't have a mistress like Mr Rockefeller.
You overestimate Mr Obama's abilities to behave correctly about this. If I see an actual plan from him on paper that conforms genuinely to this 4/1 concept I'll donate a kidney to your favorite dialysis patient.
Edited on July 14, 2011 at 9:27pmMay '10
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
Swing voters don't have to like Republicans. They just have to hate us less than Democrats. Republicans can afford to be the lesser of two evils.
And swing voters are unprincipled lemmings. It doesn't matter what Republicans do now, a year before the elections. Republicans just have to win the spin game in the final months.
May '10
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
Where does one go to get credentialed? Will my press pass do?
Dec '10
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
That piece repeats again the very incorrect red herring of default. We won't default. No one in government, including Obama, is Machiavellian enough to default on our debt to prove a point. We simply won't be able to afford all the other government services we are currently on the hook for. My guess, Obama will cut off the elderly, the infirm, and the military while keeping up our foreign aid payments and other useless things. He'll make tax hikes the lesser of two evils while blaming republicans for his decisions on who gets paid and who doesn't.
Feb '11
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
With all due respect to Al Hoffman his idea won't work.
The problem is that no one in the base of the Republican party believes that "the high road of compromise now to achieve real reform later" will result in anything except more of the endless taxing and spending. In fact we've been on the high road to compromise my entire life and it's turned out to be a highway to bankrupt ruin.
Enough. We need to find an exit before we go over the cliff. And if the GOP accepts tax increases now for promises of spending cuts later and essentially gets rolled yet again it's game over for the GOP. People will give up on the Republican party and look elsewhere. Yeah, this will be a disaster - but we're getting disaster now anyway.
The GOP needs to make Obama lose - and lose badly enough that everyone knows he lost, accompanied by howls of rage from the left - or the GOP will have failed. And the election result of 2010 will have meant essentially nothing.
Jul '11
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
Xennady: With all due respect to Al Hoffman his idea won't work.
The problem is that no one in the base of the Republican party believes that "the high road of compromise now to achieve real reform later" will result in anything except more of the endless taxing and spending. In fact we've been on the high road to compromise my entire life and it's turned out to be a highway to bankrupt ruin.
Enough. We need to find an exit before we go over the cliff. And if the GOP accepts tax increases now for promises of spending cuts later and essentially gets rolled yet again it's game over for the GOP. People will give up on the Republican party and look elsewhere. Yeah, this will be a disaster - but we're getting disaster now anyway.
The GOP needs to make Obama lose - and lose badly enough that everyone knows he lost, accompanied by howls of rage from the left - or the GOP will have failed. And the election result of 2010 will have meant essentially nothing. · Jul 14 at 12:51pm
perfect
Jul '11
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
Been a Ricochet reader for months now, but a chance to stand up for Mike Murphy a bit has gotten me to do it. I do, though, want to make one stipulation about my support for the Murphy/Hoffman(/Douthat: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/the-tax-increases-well-get/#more-14183) proposal.
I support the GOP's proposing a deal that isn't totally revenue-neutral, not because I think more revenue is itself good, but because I think it'd appeal to independents, and because rejecting it (as I think they would) would be costly for Dems. Basically, I'd agree to an 85/15 spending/revenue ratio if (1) the revenue all came from eliminating deductions and (2) we got at least Coburn-Lieberman, if not Rivlin-Domenici, in exchange. That would fundamentally reform Medicare and take away the Dems' only argument for 2012. Rivlin-Domenici (premium support + traditional Medicare option, both capped) is a compromise between the two sides' positions.
Should the GOP let itself get hosed in this? No, of course not. Will the Dems agree to the deal? Probably not. Would it help our cause either way? I think so.
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
I'm learning from the posts today that all it takes is $3.58 a month and you guys are all ready to run the national political strategy for the GOP. Talk about credentials... Also love the "Swing voters are all unprincipled lemmings" bit. Try that message out... and see how it pays off in November.
Meanwhile, we find out that Bachmann cannot figure out how to pronounce "Chutzpah"... Video:http://t.co/2RtGLRU
Maybe she can build a time machine and go back to Lexington NH and founding father and anti-slavery crusader John Quincy Adams can explain it all to her.
Apr '11
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
Obama has run record setting deficits three years running.The aim of his policies it seems to me is to increase spending as much as possible and then lock that spending in with a tax increase or increases.This "compromise" to pass the debt ceiling that involves and makes credible the idea of solving this crisis with tax increases leaves a huge deficit going forward that will again and again need to be solved with higher taxes.The GOP is split down the middle and open warfare breaks out,possibly resulting in a third party that splits the GOP vote and re-elects Obama.Meanwhile,the subject of taxes is no longer a compelling argument and spending continues to grow unabated with periodic tax increases to pay for the beast.People get used to the new European welfare state and nobody is willing to give up any of their benefits going forward.The US is stuck in a Greece like vice and its greatness a thing of the past.Obama looks back years after his second term has ended and basks in the knowledge that he has indeed fundamentally changed America just as he promised!....no thanks!
Jan '11
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
Hmmm ... political ... combative ... last name Murphy ...
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you have a touch of Irish in you, Mike?
Aug '10
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
Hehe, Pseud! When I saw Murphy's new avatar I thought to myself, if Murphy can make fun of himself like this, maybe he isn't such a jerk after all.
Put me down as one of the Ricochetoiseerians that likes it.
Jun '11
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
Mike Murphy: I'm learning from the posts today that all it takes is $3.58 a month and you guys are all ready to run the national political strategy for the GOP. Talk about credentials... Also love the "Swing voters are all unprincipled lemmings" bit. Try that message out... and see how it pays off in November.
Meanwhile, we find out that Bachmann cannot figure out how to pronounce "Chutzpah"... Video:http://t.co/2RtGLRU
Maybe she can build a time machine and go back to Lexington NH and founding father and anti-slavery crusader John Quincy Adams can explain it all to her. · Jul 14 at 1:08pm
The other thing you could learn is that there are several reasonable posts above and that a really "kewl" way to to use Ricochet is to answer some of those posts.
Or not.
Jul '11
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
Two more stipulations: first, the tax reform should bring down rates, just not so much that some revenue from eliminating deductions can't go to deficit reduction (i.e., more like Simpson-Bowles than like the Ryan budget; again, 85/15 ratio); second, none of this "accept tax increases now for promises of spending cuts later" stuff. Again, the deal the Republicans propose should be firm, the Republicans shouldn't let themselves get hosed. If the only way to make this tax reform happen all at once is to give us all a bit more time by having a short-term debt ceiling increase, the Republicans should propose one (met by dollar-for-dollar spending cuts, of course).
Once again, I really don't think the Democrats would sign onto a deal like this, for reasons that commenters have given. But whether they did or didn't, I think we'd do well. It'd upset Norquist, sure, but I just think he'd be wrong to feel that way. Unfortunately we don't control the entire government right now and doing this might go a long way towards making that happen.
Open to any criticisms of this, of course.
Apr '11
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
The bottom line is ....spending has increased from 18-20% of GDP to 25% of GDP under this president and he wants to lock that in and I and other conservatives want to see it returned to pre-Obama levels.The goal should simply be to cut spending over time to the past norms and pursue economic policies that encourage growth,the problem will take care of itself under that circumstance.To raise taxes is to undermine this argument and give credence to the argument that this problem exists due to taxes not runaway spending.
Edited on July 14, 2011 at 10:19pmMar '11
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
Mr Murphy - now that I have time to think about this...
You sound a lot like Mr Obama - we voters are too stupid to figure this out... leave it to the elites of the Harvard faculty lounge, or the master strategists of the GOP that got us into this mess - there is no difference.
If the Republic is to go down, I would rather it go down with a fight, rather than go down slightly slower under your tutelage,
So, Bachmann for President :-)
May '10
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
You mean we have a strategy? When the GOP held on to all three branches of the government for six years under George W Bush, what part of the government shrank or simply went away? Nada.
The "strategy" was to try to out Democrat the Democrats and spend, spend, spend, to be "compassionate conservatives" and to embrace and become good managers of the welfare state.
Apr '11
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
Why characterize our reactions before we read the story? Haughty, that is ... thanks for taking time out for us.
This isn't knee-jerk -- I've thought this way for YEARS: No compromising. Cut every taxpayer's taxes. Help those who do not pay get into a situation where they do pay. Keep promises, however foolish, made to seniors, veterans, and those who cannot fend for themselves, but stop making false promises to everyone else.
If you concede my premises (the facts that make it obvious that our fiscal path is unsustainable), then you're not going to change my "knee-jerk" conclusions.
Please explain how compromising with people who will happily destroy this country if they can't control it -- i.e. the Democrat Party -- changes the dystopian denouement of this national nightmare?
Love,
"Crazy" Louie
Apr '11
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
Mike Murphy: I'm learning from the posts today that all it takes is $3.58 a month and you guys are all ready to run the national political strategy for the GOP. Talk about credentials... Also love the "Swing voters are all unprincipled lemmings" bit. Try that message out... and see how it pays off in November.
Meanwhile, we find out that Bachmann cannot figure out how to pronounce "Chutzpah"... Video:http://t.co/2RtGLRU
Maybe she can build a time machine and go back to Lexington NH and founding father and anti-slavery crusader John Quincy Adams can explain it all to her. · Jul 14 at 1:08pm
Hadn't seen this before I posted ...
I thought you started out wanting to be less than civil ... but now ...
REALLY?
If winning is the only thing then the conversation between you and me is over.
If I kept score at Ricochet, I'd characterize this post and comments as a significant "wasted opportunity" for Mike Murphy. No one's coming over to your way of thinking if you use this approach.
I don't think I would anyway, but your methodology is, shall we say, inelegant.
"Crazy" Louie
May '10
Re: Al Hoffman in NYT on Debt
You invited our input by creating this thread. Ricochet is about conversation. "Join the conversation," Peter says in the advertisement. If you're here only to talk at us and not with us, then you're on the wrong site.
If Ricochet's administrators are not willing to back me up on that, then my estimation of Ricochet is obviously too high.