Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Government Shutdowns, Let’s Take Our Own Side
The president of the United States is not going to [defund Planned Parenthood, and all we’re going do is shut the government down … The American people are gonna shake their heads and say, “What’s the story with these Republicans?” … There are ways to do it without having to shut the government down, but I’m sympathetic to the fact that we don’t want this organization to get funding, and the money ought to be reprogrammed for family planning in other organizations that don’t support this tactic. But I would not be for shutting the government down …because I don’t think it’s going to work out.
That’s what John Kasich said during last week’s Republican debate and Karl Rove said something similar this morning in The Wall Street Journal. Honest people can disagree on whether a “shutdown” strategy is a good idea or not, but we need to be truthful and accurate about how this works: Republicans can’t shut down the government; Congress can’t shut down the government; Only the president can shut down the government.
Can’t a conservative politician bring himself to say “We don’t want to shut down the government. In fact, we can’t do that. It’s the president that is threatening to shut down the government. We call on President Obama to keep the government open.”
It isn’t like the two sides are playing chicken. Only one side can commit the childish act of shutting down the government. Only one side is the guilty party.
Even worse, Sen. Ted Cruz was on the same stage when Kasich made the above statement and even Cruz couldn’t bring himself to correct the record. Talk about a conservative communication problem.
Whether or not Congress defunds Planned Parenthood in the face of Obama’s threats, the press will be talking about a possible shutdown and, yes, the press is against us. That’s all the more reason we should tell the plain truth. Honest people can debate the strategy, but we can’t have a proper debate if we can’t describe the situation properly.
We need to take our own side in this argument.
Published in Politics
You have already conceded that the media is in the tank for Obama and that he has the easier narrative to tell – his credibility won’t even take a smudge mark let alone a dent.
At no point has the President had to defend his veto shutting down the government using his support for Planned Parenthood as HIS reason for stopping everything else in government.
You’re absolutely correct – and why would you expect that to change?
The Vichy Republican Establishment.. they all need a haircut. In fairness to the French, all of the French rifle jokes should be re-written with a GOP Establishment search and replace.
There certainly is no reason for change if the circumstances don’t change. No one has been able yet to ask him why he has vetoed an appropriations bill that threatens to shut down the government. You favor his never having to do anything other than make comments like we do here?
I favor biding our time and actually winning on this issue.
Now what was it we gained by electing a majority of Republicans to the Senate in 2014? Wait, we stopped some judicial appointments. Anything else?
Without the presidency what exactly were your expectations?
I don’t remember. Were you interested in the 2014 Congressional campaign, if so, why?
I can’t help but notice the contrast between Kasich and Fiorina on this. I much prefer her approach.
It has been suggested on this thread in different ways that we should wait for better battle field conditions (such as a Republican President) before we charge up the hill or scale the cliff.
Sounds wise and responsible until you look at the underlying assumption. The assumption is that a better battlefield is on the way.
What if we don’t win the Presidency? What if we lose the Senate? What if President Gilmore isn’t the man we think he is?
Just maybe, the present battlefield is the best we’ll ever have.
A problem with war metaphors in politics is that the path to victory in politics is often much more difficult to comprehend.
By that I mean that winning in battle usually means, to oversimplify, killing the enemy and seizing his territory. In politics, such as those of the current moment, winning means convincing people of widely divergent views to see things your way. Would victory be made more likely by convincing middle-of-the-roaders that Republicans are not simple minded ideologues, or would it be made more likely by convincing rock-ribbed Republicans that their leaders are fully committed to the conservative cause?
That is an empirical question that can’t be decided by argument, but only by voting.
I could strip the war metaphors out of #101 and it’s still a valid point. We might not get better political conditions for moving forward than we have right now. Understand I said “might.”
I’ll admit, however, that “better battlefield on the way” is a rather clumsy use of a war metaphor. :-)
I’m with you, Junior.
Maybe Republican’s aren’t getting the blame. Maybe they are getting the credit?
Some here have even foreshadowed the Republican’s excuse when they have the House, Senate, and Executive – The filibuster.
Followed closely by: “We can’t possibly eliminate __, if we do that we will lose the majority and White House we aren’t doing anything with anyway!”
Planned Parenthood isn’t the only factor here. There’s funding for VA in the same legislation. And the VA is in a bad way, like they may have to close hospitals until they get some funding.
Good point. So question for you: If the republican led Senate and House both vote a budget with full funding for the VA, perhaps even a little more than requested, but does not include funding for PP and the President vetoes it, whose responsibility is it that the VA doesn’t get funded.
We already know the NYT’s answer, but what about yours?
But that’s hypothetical. We’re talking about the current legislation as it’s written. Also, Republicans are trying to cover their butts with regard to the VA because the funding bill they passed previously to extend more private access to VA patients has been a debacle. The VA is even more in the hole than before.
Oh, is that the “excuse”? I have some other “excuses” to suggest. The Constitution, with its pesky checks and balances, neglected to provide dictatorial powers. The absence of a magic wand. And that old standby – the voters.
There are only two ways to get anything done in this here Republic. One is to compromise; and I’m sure that “compromise” is such a dirty word that by now it is on the verge of violating the CoC. The other way is to get an overwhelming electoral majority. That’s how the Dems got Obamacare, after fighting for socialized medicine since FDR. After 80 years of trying, they finally got the Presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and at long last they got their way. Just barely. They did it because they kept trying. They didn’t throw up their hands and give up. We could learn something from them.
The Dem’s didn’t get their way on Obamacare by a filibuster proof majority, they passed Obamacare using reconciliation. The filibuster is not in the Constitution it is a Senate rule that can be changed with only 50 votes.
Larry,
My biggest beef with the Republican leadership in Congress is that I think they are bad politicians. They don’t even attempt to sway public opinion by using the powers they have. Instead of complaining that they can’t do anything because Obama will just veto it, go ahead and force Obama to veto it. At least then Obama will have to explain his veto. Same thing with the filibuster in the Senate. Use parliamentary tricks to force the Dem’s to actually filibuster (you know stand on the floor and actually speak, this non-filibuster filibuster is ridiculous. In addition, Senate rules allow a certain number of bills every year to pass via the reconciliation process with only 50 votes (I seem to remember it is five). Why not use one of those reconciliation votes to force a budget to Obama’s desk that defunds PP? It will at least show that they are trying.
The base will forgive losses, but they won’t forgive forfeits.
Catholics are out. They’re bigots, doncha know.
I don’t disagree with that. Smart politics is, well, smart. I even made a suggestion for how to do it earlier in this thread.
I would like to see more practical suggestions from the “into the valley of death” wing of the party, instead of just complaints. And real issues, rather than pure symbolism. The symbolism of PP is especially ironic since, if federal funding was slashed, private abortion supporters would donate much more than what was cut.
That’s THEIR business. If they want to pay to murder children, and we can’t make it illegal, let it be on their consciences. Why should I have to pay to murder children?
We are at a point with the federal government that we don’t need more of it and what we have largely can’t be reformed.
We need less of everything and that means repeal, de-fund, and eliminate.
I agree the optics of that can come across as dismal, but it doesn’t change the prescription.
That sentence is spot on there Brent. Most of the federal government just can’t be reformed. The vast majority of the federal budget is spent on the military, interest on the debt, and social security/medicare. Obama has already made dangerous cuts in the military. Not much room left to cut there. And I don’t think anyone wants to default on the debt – the consequences would be catastrophic. So that leaves social security and medicare. The third rail of American politics.
Bush tried to reform social security in 2005. Small reforms. The only result was that it tanked his Presidency, and gave us Democratic landslides in ’06 and ’08. That landslide became Obamacare and a trillion dollars down the toilet of “stimulus.”
When you pick a fight you can’t win, it really is worth thinking about the actual consequences. I understand that there is a wing of the party that wants to pick a fight, any fight, win or lose, just for the sake of fighting. I call it the “into the valley of death” wing of the party. But if the result is going to be making things even worse (much, much worse), then I can’t get behind that plan.
Your surrender statement is focused almost solely on the budget/debt issue. I don’t want to speak for Brent, but my sense of his point- repeal, de-fund and eliminate- does not have to start with any of the things you referenced. Let’s work on the things that are interfering daily with the American way. Reduce or eliminate Federal involvement in education, energy, environmental regulation, income tax enforcement and all the regulation impeding small business formation.. How many civilian components of Federal government have ‘law enforcement’ elements traipsing around our country intent on policing and enforcing so-called Federal responsibilities when law enforcement should be a State function. One enforcement responsibility that is clearly Federal is immigration and border control. Let’s move all those armed Federals doing things not needed to border control. Much can be accomplished without a focus on budget.
Are you suggesting it’s not time to engage on these matters?
Sure. Where do you want to start? Bureau of Prisons? DEA? Secret Service? U.S. Marshals? I suppose we could take the 250 officers who work for the Bureau of Land Management and add them instead to the 50,000 officers who work immigration, customs and border protection. That will make a big difference, right?
What you call “surrender,” I call bothering to be minimally informed before getting all fired up about meaningless gestures. This is another version of Romney’s proposal to defund Big Bird. I just can’t get too excited about it.