In her Wall Street Journal column, Kimberley Strassel writes about two lessons the GOP should take from the fiscal cliff negotiations. One is that President Obama is not, and will never be, a serious negotiating partner. The second is that a house divided is a losing house. Ms. Strassel goes on to counsel the GOP to internalize these recent experiences, since the political dynamic won’t change much. In the future, she writes, Republicans “can continue the folly of believing this president will compromise” — or they can “realize that [Obama] will never be reasonable on taxes — and so they can’t give anything away.”
Ms. Strassel is always intelligent and always worth reading. But in this case there are some elements to the story that may complicate her analysis. It could be House Speaker John Boehner, based on his previous negotiations with Obama, went into the talks with the president hopeful but unconvinced he would get a deal this time. Still, Boehner may have made the calculation that he had to offer a plan that was viewed by the public as reasonable and flexible. Why? Because many Americans have (unfortunately) bought into Obama’s critique of the GOP as being obstinate. That is, even if Obama was not intent on compromising with Republicans, Boehner felt like he had to offer a deal that demonstrated the GOP was not being obstructionist and unyielding. So the speaker first offered raising $800 billion in revenues and then offered a second plan raising taxes on those making a million dollars or more.
As for the House sticking together: The premise here is that in presenting a unified front, Republicans can force Obama to “fully own his mistakes” on issues like the stimulus legislation and ObamaCare. But the difference is that the stimulus package and the Affordable Care Act were considerably less popular than Obama’s stand on raising taxes on the highest income brackets. That’s why Republicans were able to stay united on the former but have broken ranks on the latter. It may be that in this particular circumstance, if Republicans stand shoulder-to-shoulder against raising any taxes, even on those making a million dollars or more, it won’t have the effect of strengthening the GOP but rather weakening it. Going over the fiscal cliff would allow the president to come back with a proposal early next year in which he cuts taxes for 98 percent of the tax-paying public, which is hardly ideal for the Republican Party.
To state the obvious: There are no good options for Republicans, who are playing an exceedingly weak hand. The president knows it. Republicans therefore have to find a way to extricate themselves from this mess while inflicting minimum damage on themselves and the country. They have to embrace a tactical retreat in order to live to fight another day. Agreeing to a bad deal in order to avoid an even worse (political and economic) outcome is not an appealing choice for Republicans. But it may be the most prudent one.
Let it Burn. Let the Dems have everything they want. It will hasten the decline of productivity and wealth creation, and therefore dry up the source of what the parasites who voted for Obama subsist on. They know not what they do. They are immune to reason or economic literacy. The only solution is to Let it Burn at the national level and to rely on the state level for Republicans and conservative economic principles to demonstrate their superiority amid the wreckage. The Dems are little better than the Southern cavaliers before the Civil War, hell bent for ruin and oblivious to the inherent folly of their chosen path. The U.S. needs a second Sherman's march to the sea.
well said!
This article certainly makes sense, granted — but what deal would move public opinion in any way? It seems to me that nothing short of the MSM saying that the fiscal cliff was avoided will help the Republicans (and, keep in mind, the MSM would only phrase such an outcome as a complete victory for Obama and the Whig-like capitulation of Republicans. Still, I don't know what else Boehner can do but put forth something to keep Obama from getting credit for being the tax cutter. The bigger problem, however — for the future, 2014, 2016 — is that Boehner is extremely weak in dealing with the media and putting forth anything that can even get public opinion to pause long enough to hear what he's saying. I don't know what House members want in a Speaker (they seemed to not want an idea-a-minute and town crier who got lots of media attention like Gingrich), but they sure need a Speaker who can get people considering Republican political, economic principles, which is not Boehner, the Silent Speaker!
The lesson is we can't waste potential Congressional seat pick-ups on the crazy wing of the Republican Party. No more Akins, O'Donnells, Angles, etc. that the far right wants but have no hope when facing the non-primary electorate. Had we followed this simple rule, we'd likely control the Senate, which would give us the strong hand we need to deal with a president who refuses to negotiate in good faith.
I gave your comment a thumbs up because it's common sense. That said, how do you account for the biggest fruitcake, the most extreme hater and caught liar (over and over) and joke of a buffoon, who was also practicing law without a license because she's so greedy for money, to run for office in 2010 or 2012 was Elizabeth Warren … who beat a well-liked, well financed, VERY moderate and independent Republican incumbent in Massachusetts? n nThat is, I think it's more about how the MSM can make voters feel than about a candidate's own extreme principles or dumb answers.
you can include the biggest joker of em all- "senator" Al franken….
There is one lesson that goes unmentioned and which will not get much agreement on this site. A major problem has been that too many rank and file Republicans and office holders, such as Congressmen, take their talking points and marching orders from the conservative talk show hosts .Most of these people have no clue how to run a government, and how offensive millions of good people consider their inflammatory rhetoric and associate them with the Republican party. When it comes to political tactics and strategy, their influence is destructive. Yes, they get the message out, but they do so like a crying, bratty, obnoxious child does when it wants something. I have no use for most of them and we conservatives should hold their feet to the fire or we'll go down with them.
There is nobody on the right to equal Chris Mathews or Soledad O'Brien (just for instance), or who can even come close to the seemingly well-meaning but ignorance of any points or arguments other than Democratic Party platform ideas, which he accepts at face value no matter how absurd, as George Stephanopoulis.
That just proves how moronic some of our fellow country men and women are. Chris Matthews is a blithering idiot…
Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin do not need GOP to win for them to flourish with their conservative brands. MSNBC is not a major ratings draw nationally–it's business model is to preach to the lib-prog-far-left HuffPost converted.
The Right was asleep at the wheel, letting academia and the media define the agenda unchallenged. I cannot imagine a right wing Ayers attaining tenure at any university. This allowed the culture to develop in a way that would ultimately reject the message of the right even as they were winning elections. n nAdditionally, the Republican presidencies never really curbed spending. That includes Reagan's. Read Stockman's account. Only Gingrich was up to the task, but Clinton got the credit. So he could go on in 2012 and state the lies that were believable that sund Romney's chances. n nBush 2's presidency was fiscally irresponsible, so it is no wonder that Republicans have no credibility. At least Reagan and Bush 1 had Democrat legislatures to deal with as an excuse. n nNow Republicans feel they need to play defense. And now, nothing will change without a crisis. Only then will it occur to enough people to form a majority that the unchallenged ideas of the left has indeed taken us over the real cliff. Therefore, I say that our best choice is to give the Dems what they want, but preface it with a warning of what will occur. n n
The GOP originally passed a law to "raise taxes" in 2001. That horse already left the barn. The Bush tax cuts were legislated as temporary measures. The law is that they are expiring and the former tax rates are going back into effect. If the GOP didn't want to "raise" taxes they should never have passed a temporary tax cut in the first place. It is the GOP law that lowered the rates, the same law, that mandates them rising again. Then the GOP put forth a hopelessly conflicted standard bearer in Romney who sat on a non-existent lead after the first debate–the highly motivated, ideological, scrappy, and devious Obama won. The GOP's law. The GOP's loss. A very weak hand self-dealt.
Agree. The original error was passing a temporary tax cut. This is 100% a consequence of that foolish move.
That was courtesy of Olympia Snowe and John McCain.
The GOP have to act like adults consistently and they will eventually triumph. I remember my parents telling me principles and ideas that I rejected. However, they always said, "You'll agree WHEN YOU GROW UP and see things differently. How right they were; about everything. n nIf the GOP remains consistent, but temporarily less popular, Boobis Americanis will eventually be impressed with the integrity to adhere to beliefs held to be inalienable (Reagan and Thatcher never varied in their stated core beliefs) and not only defend these principles, but vigorously ATTACK Progressives/Socialists/Marxists/Democrats, they will dominate past the present tactics. Strategy and fealty are needed here. Enter Allen B. West, stage right, please.
Look, it's very simple, even though an unpleasant truth. When your party controls only one-half of one of two branches that legislate, it is at a disadvantage. If we continue down this path of irrational defiance by going to the mat for the very wealthy, by 2015, we will control nothing!!
It's going to the mat for the economy and fiscal sanity but never you mind.
Killer, I strongly disagree. There is no evidence that the very wealthy will stop doing what they do that is positive for the economy by kicking up their tax rate a few percentage points. As far as spending cuts, I agree, those would help the economy. But we live in the world that confronts us, not what we wish. At times, strategic shifts become necessary in order to gain in the longer term. Republicans have been tagged as the party of the rich. Up until the last few years, that have been able to shed some of that. By resisting tax increases for the very wealthy, they lose those gains and that means likely permanent minority status. Boehner realizes this and, regrettably, the talk-show groupies in his caucus do not.
The U.S. cannot tax its way to prosperity. RINOs allowed the GOP to be tagged "the party of the rich" by the partisan MSM; the GOP needs to be the party of productivity, wealth creation and equality of opportunity, and thus of prosperity – not the party of appeasement. Appeasing your enemies doesn't turn them into your friends (Kate MacMillan), and the GOP needs to stand firm on a prosperity agenda and tell the Dems and the country which voted for them that there is no compromise on those principles, and if the Dems insist on being the party of class warfare, confiscation, punitive taxation and redistribution, then fine, they own the consequences. Let it Burn.
The GOP is a bad situation either way, but if you think the "talk show groupies" can be completely alienated and the GOP will still win congressional majorities, you had better think again. Those groupies probably make up 40% or more of the GOP. n nAnd the GOP will still be the party tagged as the party of the rich after this deal, if one is made. All the "credit" for it will go to Obama.
Once the GOP endorses tax increases they may well lose their House majority, because they will alienate a large number of conservatives. They'd better hope that ObamaCare backlash gets them the votes they will lose otherwise. n nGoing off the cliff may not be a good option, but joining the Dems as a tax increasing party is going to hurt the GOP badly with the Tea Party vote, which is needed. Don't kind yourself on this one, Wehner.
The Tea Party is stronger than some want to believe.
Astonishing that the GOP still does not realize the strategic importance of Branding. nIs there no one from Coca Cola who can tell you what you did wrong (Bush43-Cheney-DeLay) nand how to re-Brand? n nAnd the GOP still does not realize that the Democratic Party ALSO has a Branding problem – called Identity Politics and too late to learn simple math. n nBut the GOP is still defined as Cheney's "deficits don't matter" and the longer-standing "starve the beast". n nand all of America is the loser of this 12-year bipartisan insanity. n n
Everyone is making a reasonable argument, but we are all essentially preaching to the choir. Like it or not, a large number of voters find it acceptable to increase taxes on the very wealthy and will blame–as in vote against–Republicans if a deal is not made based upon that policy, and their taxes increase, thus making for a very ugly image: a party that raises taxes on the middle groups in order to protect the incomes of the very wealthy. Boehner's Plan B was a reasonable offer to finesse the issue. By the way, polls show a very large percentage of Republican identifiers accept a deal that increases taxes on the very wealthy. Image counts for a great deal in contemporary politics. Just ask Mitt Romney.
Here is a great idea, lets get a new Speaker of the house first.