It’s actually pretty clear: the only people that would have standing are people who shorted the market in such a way as to profit from the US defaulting. If they feel like suing the President of the United States for not allowing the biggest economy on Earth to fail utterly and therefore preventing them from making some extra money, good luck to them.
Or we could just have one party not threaten to destroy the economy if they don’t get their way…
And caving like this will possibly cost him the election anyway because it hurts the economy more than a “naked” debt ceiling increase, plus it emboldens the hostage-takers to do more hostage-taking the next time around.
This is bullshit.
That last part is real classy, Brett.
What’s maddening (to us that are not GOP fans anyway) about Obama is precisely what you’re saying, though, that he declares unilateral disarmament before the fight even starts.
By having the guts to tell them, “No.” Unfortunately, the other 375 politicians in the House seem unable to stand on the strength of their convictions, if they have any at all.
Personally, I think a random sample of the US population would govern better.
Seems insane in general, but given that this is basically one of the worst possible decisions a government could make (willfully attempting to destroy its own economy for literally no upside), maybe not. Does anyone know offhand if the House has a higher proportion of Tea Party wackos than the general population does?
Give the Republicans credit and Grover Norquist credit, here is what he said quite some time ago:
And he got exactly what he wanted. Kudos to him. Sure it was messy and there was a tremendous amount of hang wringing, but in the end he believed that the Democrats would fold and he would get what he wanted. He was right.
Too bad the Democrats are not anywhere near as strategic and organized as the Republicans. They also don’t have media cover, so it is much more difficult for them to be as bold as the Republicans but there isn’t much that can be done about that.
The only thing he was wrong about was the requirement that the things you attach to it be “reasonable.”
I don’t think there are good statistics on the Tea Party because it’s a pretty amorphous group, with lots of different organizations around the country and no comprehensive public policy agenda. I’m as interested as you, though; I’d love to know.
My assumption was that the general population would also have a higher proportion of people who wouldn’t go “ACK PRIMARY CHALLENGE AND UNFAVORABLE MEDIA COVERAGE, I’LL DO WHATEVER YOU SAY!” than the House.
I’m sure it is reasonable from his perspective.
It’s the inevitable consequence of a party that, when confronted with arguments against a thing, replies, “Yes, but that’s just failure in practice. Have you tried it in theory?”
Last November, a country fed up with “insider politics” and unable to make heads or tails of national policy choices elected an unqualified band of fat-headed attention hogs on a platform that eschewed compromise from the outset. Believing that Obama is determined either to change the country beyond all recognition, or else to actually do harm for reasons that have never been quite clear, they have no qualms about doing everything they can to discredit him. They are often so reckless that they do not see how transparent, or childish, their antics really are. Meanwhile, they have successfully convinced themselves that there are no good ideas on the other side of the aisle, meaning that cooperation is either (A) unnecessary, or (B) unwise, because legislation is now a zero-sum game.
In essence, a goodly proportion of conservative voters determinedly sent freshmen lawmakers to Washington with an admonishment never to compromise. They’ve done exactly as asked, for the most part, when it comes to the big issues.
Next fall should be pretty entertaining to say the very least.
XPav
1813
I’m interested to see what happens to Boehner – he’s shown that he can’t control “his” party.
Who can control the party at this point? Seems like if the Republican Party wants to continue to be a united front then the more “moderate” members will have to vote along with the Tea Party caucus lines, 'cause the Tea Party has shown they have no interest in swinging towards the center. If anything it will be interesting to see how, and if, the Republicans get their house in order or if they even believe that it’s out of order.
The unfortunate part about all of this is that anybody whose agenda is dismantling the federal government will be feeling very emboldened after this, whatever sort deal eventually passes. The Tea Party has shown that they are willing to use any tool at their disposal, no matter how crazy or extreme it is, to accomplish their goals, whereas liberals still aren’t willing or ready to go to the same lengths. Obama had plenty of weapons at his disposal, of varying degrees of crazy, like the 14th amendment and trillion dollar coins. If the situation was reversed (inversed?) does anyone think that a Tea Party president (god help us) wouldn’t gladly use these types of options to push their agenda through?
We’d be in the exact same spot without the 2010 elections. The GOP minority in the senate would just filibuster until the exact same outcome occurred.
The Democrats have no balls at all. The whole situation could easily be the opposite, with the Democrats ramming through a bill with every single thing they want and told the GOP “It’s your fault, you’re the one letting the nation die if you don’t vote for it.”
So you want the dems to act exactly like the party you hate, but it would be ok because its your side doing it?
That attitude is what has destroyed our political process, that my party can do nothing wrong and the other party is pure evil.
JeffL
1817
You know what Brett? I’m the guy that Jason has frequently accused of getting my thoughts from Limbaugh. I’m the guy that has often said how much I think both parties are corrupt as hell, and been attacked for believing there is any equivalency at all.
But damn, we’re at a new level of destroyed political process, and it is 100% REPUBLICAN ROOTED at this point. We had a little handful of GOP wackos, a minority, a couple of dozen who have said they will vote to oppose paying our current bills (which is what approving the debt ceiling is) NO MATTER WHAT. And this group, rather than being pushed into a corner by the GOP and told, OK, that’s cool, express your opinions, but the adults have a country to take care of, instead have been allowed by the GOP to literally blackmail the country into going along with their completely wrongheaded schemes. Or else they will be willing to allow the nation to default.
Yeah, Obama has been poor leading, yeah, the Democrats have handled this poorly. But to claim any equivalency at this point is like having a terrorist holding a school room of children hostage with a bomb and demand that we give him what he wants or he kills the children, and then blame the police for the consequence because they made some mistakes in how they talked to him.
I.e. it is a problem that both sides demonize the other side and assume their side can do no wrong. But in this case there was only one side who said either give us what we want, and we give you nothing substantial you want, or we willingly put the nation in default. ONLY ONE SIDE.
And THAT has TRULY destroyed the political process. We have seen a complete destruction of our process, a piece of legislation passed by blackmail that would have never passed without the threat of loonies willing to put us into default and everyone realizing they really are just that crazy.
Wait, are you claiming that Repubs are not pure, unmitigated evil, against all that is decent and human? ( to Brett)
Did you forget, JeffL, that Obama voted against the debt ceiling in 2006? I bet you did. See, in Brett’s mind, Obama’s vote is literally no different than the Tea Party/Republicans holding the country hostage for no reason.
Pogo
1820
Who cares? Just stop replying to him. You’re only further enhancing his delusional persecution complex.
