Grover Norquist isn’t about to let Republicans off the hook on his no-tax pledge, but he seems to be getting ruffled by them. His criticism of potential pledge-breakers got personal last night:
“The pledge is not for life, but everybody who signed the pledge including Peter King, and tried to weasel out of it, shame on him,” Norquist said on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” on Monday, adding, “I hope his wife understands that commitments last a little longer than two years or something.”
Norquist’s comments came as King and some other top Republicans said they were willing to end their commitment to the pledge as Washington scrambles to find a deal that will fend off the looming fiscal cliff. On Sunday, King said that the “taxpayer protection pledge” — first offered in 1986 from Norquist’s organization, Americans for Tax Reform — isn’t binding today.
“Hey, if you think a commitment is not for as long as you make it for, the commitment for the pledge, as Peter King well knows when he signed it, is that as long as you’re in Congress, you will [rein in] spending and reform government and not raise taxes,” Norquist said. “It’s not for 500 years or two generations. It’s only as long as you’re in the House or Senate. If he stayed too long, that’s his problem. But you don’t tell the bank, ‘Oh, the mortgage, wasn’t that a long time ago?’
“If you make a commitment, you keep it,” he continued.
As the Wall Street Journal argues today, it’s the voters, not the pledge, that Republicans will have to answer to. The problem for the GOP is that a plurality of voters do want to raise taxes on people making over $250,000, at least according to exit polls. So Republicans from moderate areas seem to face a choice between two bad options: oppose tax hikes and risk alienating voters, or break the no-tax pledge and potentially lose trust with voters.
Of course, there’s also a third way that the Journal outlines, which would require a compromise between Norquist and Republicans on tax reform. And while it would require eliminating deductions without lowering rates, it’s better than the alternatives of a.) voting to raise tax rates on those making over $250,000 a year, or b.) going over the cliff and getting blamed for tax increases across the board:
The Bush rates expire on December 31 unless Mr. Obama signs an extension, and he shows no inclination to do so except for anyone earning less than $250,000 a year ($200,000 if you’re single). The question is how Republicans should handle this reality while staying true to their principles and doing the least harm to the economy.
This is where Mr. Norquist can give some ground. If taxes are going up anyway because the Bush rates expire, and Republicans can stop them from going up as much as they otherwise would, then pledge-takers deserve some credit for that. Mr. Norquist says it violates his pledge to eliminate deductions without lowering rates, but at the current economic and political moment it is also a service if Republicans prevent tax rates from going up. Speaker John Boehner deserves some leeway to try to mitigate the damage by negotiating a larger tax reform. …
Mr. Norquist’s tax pledge has been one of the few restraints over the years against those bad Beltway appetites. Democrats demonize Grover because they know this. They want to pit Mr. Norquist against other Republicans precisely so they can dispirit the tea party grass-roots and take away the tax issue as a GOP advantage.
But this only works if the GOP appears unified on the issue. The more Republicans who attack Norquist’s tax pledge, the more leverage Democrats will think they have in getting their desired tax rate increase.
Yes…Primary away. I think Christine O'Donell is free. How about Santorum? Don't you get it? It's the primaries that enable liberals to keep winning. How'd Todd Akin work out for you? Josh Mandel? Mourdock? Do you think conservative voters say, "Well, so-and-so is not conservative enough, so I guess I'll just vote for the liberal?" n nWhy is it that conservatives have such a jones for "pledges"? Who is Grover Norquist anyway? What exactly is he going to do? Say sadly, "You broke my pledge, now we're not BFF's anymore?" Will he cry? n nSo yes, please keep finding more lunatics to primary sensible conservatives and continue your journey into rump status.
Sorry but you have it all backwards..it is not the color of one's political belief that is at stake here. Plenty of "moderate' republicans lost too (Tommy Thompson anyone? Brown? Berg? ) it is the strength of the candidate, not his beliefs. O'Donnell was a disaster and so was Akin. The other ones had stre ghts and may yet recover (Josh Mandel, for sure).
“It is the strength of the candidate, not his beliefs”. Are you kidding me? The issue is one of beliefs. Republicans seem to believe that a man named Grover is somehow worthy to pledge allegiance to or else. The question is then, or else what? Grover might recommend you vote for someone else in a primary? What if that person supported abortion rights or same sex marriage? Here we go, it is your purity tests that are killing you. So go ahead, primary everyone with more and more “severe” conservatives. Good luck with that.
Scott Brown went from being a State House Backbencher and husband of a popular TV NewsGal (Gayle Huff) — a working guy who really did drive around in a truck with 200K miles on it, to being a US Senator and GOP Establishment and listening to the party "experts" and that is why he lost. Along with selling out the conservative base to some extent — and he needed that base as Polkahautus had the enthusiastic supporters on street corners and he didn't. n nChristine O'Donnell — she was poorly served by whatever idiot who told her to make that "I am not a witch" commercial. Good lord!
"Do you think conservative voters say, "Well, so-and-so is not conservative enough, so I guess I'll just vote for the liberal?"" n nNo, I more think that they won't bother to vote at all. At ALL — if the same number of white males who voted for McCain had bothered to vote for Romney — people who are mostly still alive and still able to have voted — he would have won. n n"Who is Grover Norquist anyway? What exactly is he going to do?" n nExactly what some other folks on the left did for Angus King, the new US Senator from Maine. nA former Dem, now Independent, who defeated a Dem. If Norquest got one or two independents elected, he would truly have power. n
A weak underfunded Dem lost to a Dem caucusing independent. Your point is what exactly? That Grover might try to primary Dem challengers who will sign his autograph book? Really, how Grover entrances you all. Because really, what pledges do Republicans actually hold sacred?
A weak, undersupported (and possibly underfunded) Republican could loose to a well funded and enthusiastically supported Independent who may (or may not) caucus with the Republicans…. n nOr someone like James Buckley who won election to the US Senate in 1970 as the Conservative Party nominee — the Tea Party isn't a formal party *YET* but could well become one.
What does that have to do with Grover? Why is his one-issue conditional endorsement so important that you would primary a reasonably successful Republican incumbent for an extremist when history has shown clearly that they will lose? The polls are clear, it is Republicans who will pay the price if Grover is appeased.
Never raising taxes again is a good thing. We do not have a revenue problem at all. If these moes want to flaten the tax base fine. Start talking about which deductions to keep-not which ones will be given up. Home mortgage deduction of 25k max. 1,000 per kid. That is it!! If you want to subsidize some grand idea, the government should pass it through appropriations and hand the money to the company-stop using the tax code!!!
The irony is that the GOP is the only hope for those owners and employees of small to mid size businesses. Democrats inherently favor larger businesses. Every single left-wing economist advocates on behalf of crony capitalism! There are no exceptions whatsoever. Some are merely unable to take their views to their logical conclusions.
No — this is how Romney lost — and how we got Obama again — Romney's mantra was that the aforenamed folk would be forced to hold their nose and vote for him as the lesser of two evils and never anticipated that they might just say "we're screwed regardless" and not vote at all.
Those people who did not vote for Mitt Romney were behaving foolishly. Their action was illogically and self destructive. Moreover, nobody had to hold their nose to vote for the man. He was sufficiently conservative. Romney's selection of Paul Ryan alone justified our support.
The GOP needed to focus on the crushing regulations that stifle growth and energy production, not this stupid fight over tax cuts that were specifically meant to expire if then Fed chair Greenspan's forecast of budget surpluses "as far as the eye can see" failed to actually appear. n n"Starve the beast" failed. Norquist needs to retire and not be replaced. He is a bully and a tyrant who lost the election 2012. You have no idea how many voters DID catch Norquist at CPAC, convincingly describing the puppet needed in the Oval Office. Norquist's puppet.
I am quietly hearing through back-channel sources from really calm and rational people that Norquist really is in bed with the radical muslims. He sleeps with one — his wife. n nDaniel Pipes has documented some of this. n