Ironic...

[GoSlash27]

It appears that the Senate Republicans have been having the exact same disagreements we've been having on this forum.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ans-again.html

McCain’s disagreement over what appears to be a technical point of Senate process is actually a fundamental split over the party’s approach toward Obama. The conservatives want to continue their stance of total opposition and instigating crises — the stance that has defined the party throughout the Obama era — while McCain wants to engage in compromise and negotiation. McCain’s softening stance toward Obama can be seen in other ways. He broke with his party to support the Manchin-Toomey background-check bill. He met with Obama last week and discussed immigration and budget issues.

Yesterday he lauded Obama’s foreign policy address, promising to support a rewriting of the 2001 authorization of military force. “Such legislation would be a fitting legacy for this Congress — and for President Obama,” he said. Perhaps McCain has gotten past his bitterness from 2008. Or maybe he’s just found different people to be bitter about.

Me personally, I side with Cruz, Lee, and Paul. The single largest threat to our national security is the national debt that results from this sort of reckless spending. This is not something to "compromise" on; it requires people willing to stand and fight.

[GBMelBlount]

McCain is right and so is Reagan.

It's just that very few people are brilliant enough to do it and gridlock loving defeatists are too "black and white" to comprehend what Reagan knew from successfully negotiating with liberals.

The only chance we have (or had) was to get a brilliant negotiator in there just as Reagan (one of your favorite conservatives) who said in his own words:

Ronald Reagan on the improtance of Negotiation

"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/960104/posts

Unfortunately, you and the liberals won and we will have to wait until this country COMPLETELY falls apart before there will be any change.....which even then will *STILL* require the thing that you hate so much.....compromise.

THAT is the definition of IRONY.

[st33lersguy]

John McCain is a coward, always has been, never a man of conviction, but always looking to cower to the left, just to prevent himself from being vilified

[GBMelBlount]

John McCain is a coward, always has been, never a man of conviction, but always looking to cower to the left, just to prevent himself from being vilified

That does not negate McCain's belief that negotiating and compromise is necessary imo 33....only that he would not be a good person for the job.

He would likely concede more to the liberals than he would gain for the conservative cause.

[Mach1]

Speaking of cowards.

[zulater]

John McCain is a coward, always has been, never a man of conviction, but always looking to cower to the left, just to prevent himself from being vilified

Coward? That's what we're calling former POW's these days?

Whether you like his politics or not the guy has done enough in life that he shouldn't be labeled a coward.

[GBMelBlount]

Coward? That's what we're calling former POW's these days?

Whether you like his politics or not the guy has done enough in life that he shouldn't be labeled a coward.

I don't think he means it in that broad sense Zu.

[zulater]

I don't think he means it in that broad sense Zu.

Possibly not. Still a bad choice of words to use against someone who diplayed a great amount of courage in the worst of circumstances.

[GBMelBlount]

Possibly not. Still a bad choice of words to use against someone who diplayed a great amount of courage in the worst of circumstances.

I know.

[GoSlash27]

That does not negate McCain's belief that negotiating and compromise is necessary imo 33....only that he would not be a good person for the job.

He would likely concede more to the liberals than he would gain for the conservative cause.

That *is* the rub, isn't it?

[GBMelBlount]

That *is* the rub, isn't it?

That made me laugh. Yes.

We have very similar beliefs and a similar end game in mind Slash. I consider us kindred spirits in that regard.

It simply comes down to figuring out the best way to get there.

[Seven]

John McCain is a coward, always has been, never a man of conviction, but always looking to cower to the left, just to prevent himself from being vilified

A coward? You must be joking. Do you know anything about the man? I know a lot of people who disagree with his politics but I've NEVER heard anyone call him a coward. Not even Democrats. You can disagree with him over policy and how he handles his business in D.C., but calling him a coward is the furthest thing from the truth.

I didn't vote for him in 08 BTW.

[Seven]

As for the topic at hand, it comes down to this. Republicans like McCain/Toomey are trying to turn this country around with little victories wherever they can find them. If that means compromise to attain a greater good, so be it. Hardcore Republican types like Paul want all or nothing. They want to quit cold turkey. You can debate which way is better all day long, but in general making small improvements towards any goal has a much higher chance of success. Weight loss, qutting smoking, getting off alcohol... quitting cold turkey usually doesn't work. Is government different? I don't think so. But there are some in this country who do. Maybe it can work. But until more Libertarian types figure out a way to get into elected office, we aren't going to find out. So it really doesn't matter.

[Wallace108]

McCain is right and so is Reagan.

It's just that very few people are brilliant enough to do it and gridlock loving defeatists are too "black and white" to comprehend what Reagan knew from successfully negotiating with liberals.

Reagan said:

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."

No one is going to get their way 100 percent of the time. So sure, compromise is great if you're able to receive 75 or 80 percent of what you want. But looking over the past five years, have McCain and the rest of the RINOs gotten 75 to 80 percent of what they wanted? They've done nothing but compromise ... what has it gotten them? How much have Obama and the Democrats given in on? During Obama's presidency, have the Republicans received even 25 percent of what they've wanted? I wonder how Reagan would feel about the kind of compromise where you're constantly giving and rarely receiving.

I don't think you should ever compromise on your principles. You should never compromise on doing what's right. Doing nothing is better than compromising on watered-down legislation that neither side really wants, especially if the end result isn't good for the people. Early on in this presidency, the Republicans got branded as the Party of No. Watching everything that the Obama administration has done and is doing, I prefer to belong to the Party of HELL No.

[Seven]

I don't think you should ever compromise on your principles. You should never compromise on doing what's right. Doing nothing is better than compromising on watered-down legislation that neither side really wants, especially if the end result isn't good for the people. Early on in this presidency, the Republicans got branded as the Party of No. Watching everything that the Obama administration has done and is doing, I prefer to belong to the Party of HELL No.

Not picking on you at all here Wallace, but I just want to point out that this is exactly what I was describing with my last post. All or nothing. And there are plenty of people like you there, but for that strategy to work, you really need a party to take majority of D.C. and you need that party to act in near total solidarity. I don't think it's realistic. I'd rather see conservatives try and compromise while this country is still worth fighting for. Maybe if they get enough backdoors and riders into some of these programs, if they are able to take the White House in 2016, they can expunge some of the clutter. I don't think you have to abandon your principles or even compromise on them to compromise on policy. If you want economic program A and the opposing party wants economic program C, if you can fight to get economic program B to pass in a Democratic Washington that's a win in my opinion. Certainly better than just giving up and giving in because if you can't have things totally your way you aren't going to try and make improvements at all.

[GBMelBlount]

Wallace108

No one is going to get their way 100 percent of the time. So sure, compromise is great if you're able to receive 75 or 80 percent of what you want. But looking over the past five years, have McCain and the rest of the RINOs gotten 75 to 80 percent of what they wanted? They've done nothing but compromise... and what has it gotten them? How much have Obama and the Democrats given in on? During Obama's presidency, have the Republicans received even 25 percent of what they've wanted? I wonder how Reagan would feel about the kind of compromise where you're constantly giving and rarely receiving.

It sounds by your words as though you understand and agree with Reagan on the importance of being able to skillfully negotiate outcomes that are more to your advantage than disadvantage.

If that is the case I am also frustrated because it does appear that we are giving up far more in concessions than what is benefitting the conservative or libertarian cause.

Wallace108

I don't think you should ever compromise on your principles. You should never compromise on doing what's right. Doing nothing is better than compromising on watered-down legislation that neither side really wants, especially if the end result isn't good for the people. Early on in this presidency, the Republicans got branded as the Party of No. Watching everything that the Obama administration has done and is doing, I prefer to belong to the Party of HELL No.

I agree with your views on principles Wallace.

...and what I THINK I am hearing from most principled conservatives and libertarians is that they DO understand the importance of negotiating and consensus building to achieve desirable ends IFF the concessions are reasonable.

However there is a point when the results of the negotiations are perceived to be far more adverse than beneficial (as you are alluding to) and at that point gridlock is arguably more desirable in your opinion.

I get it.

I guess I am just also of the belief that anything is better than what we have with Obama.

[43Hitman]

I guess I am just also of the belief that anything is better than what we have with Obama.

Its precisely that type of attitude that has gotten our Country where it is today. In the shitter.

[GBMelBlount]

Its precisely that type of attitude that has gotten our Country where it is today. In the shitter.

and your gridlock libertarian mentality is going to save us?

How?

[43Hitman]

and your gridlock libertarian mentality is going to save us?

How?

It will certainly keep us from going over the cliff. Do you speak Mandarin?

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

just watch that little thing for 20 minutes my friend. That is debt your grandchildren are going to be stapped with. Our children will be lucky if they have half the quality of life that we've been able to enjoy.

Toast.

[GBMelBlount]

It will certainly keep us from going over the cliff.

Gridlock will?

How?

[GoSlash27]

Gridlock will?

How?

The debt ceiling cannot be raised without both sides agreeing to it. Same thing with their pork- laden "Omnibus spending bills". The whole thing can be stopped in it's tracks if the Republicans simply refuse to pass it.
This same sort of gridlock is exactly how Clinton managed to balance the budget.
The only course of action that makes flat-out impossible to get the debt under control is your "compromise and consensus" strategy.

[GBMelBlount]

So if all republicans refuse to pass any more spending bills they cannot be passed?

Also, do you REALLY believe gridlock is THE primary reason Clinton balanced the budget?

What about increased tax revenue?

[Seven]

So if all republicans refuse to pass any more spending bills they cannot be passed?

That's only a half-truth.

[GoSlash27]

So if all republicans refuse to pass any more spending bills they cannot be passed?

Also, do you REALLY believe gridlock is THE primary reason Clinton balanced the budget?

What about increased tax revenue?

1)As things stand right now, yes.
2) Yes.
3) What about it? The overwhelming majority of the Clinton surplus was due to money that didn't get spent, not additional revenue.

[X-Terminator]

So if all republicans refuse to pass any more spending bills they cannot be passed?

Also, do you REALLY believe gridlock is THE primary reason Clinton balanced the budget?

What about increased tax revenue?

Increased tax revenue played a role in Clinton's surplus. However, THE main reason there ultimately was a surplus was the Republicans standing their ground and forcing a government shutdown, ultimately forcing Clinton and the Democrats to give in and cut spending to balance the budget. Otherwise, the Democrats were prepared to spend whatever extra tax revenue they got from the 93 tax increase, and there would have been no surplus. Too bad the "compassionate conservative" Bush squandered that surplus in less than a year.

The exact same kind of "gridlock" is needed if there is to be any hope of getting the current budget under control.

[GBMelBlount]

3) What about it? The overwhelming majority of the Clinton surplus was due to money that didn't get spent, not additional revenue.

Spending increased by 1/3rd during Clinton's tenure.

Sounds like it got spent to me.

[steeldawg]

Increased tax revenue played a role in Clinton's surplus. However, THE main reason there ultimately was a surplus was the Republicans standing their ground and forcing a government shutdown, ultimately forcing Clinton and the Democrats to give in and cut spending to balance the budget. Otherwise, the Democrats were prepared to spend whatever extra tax revenue they got from the 93 tax increase, and there would have been no surplus. Too bad the "compassionate conservative" Bush squandered that surplus in less than a year.

The exact same kind of "gridlock" is needed if there is to be any hope of getting the current budget under control.

Tax increase did play a role but the bigger contributor was the increased tax revenue caused by the dot com bubble paired with budget cuts. we cut spending at a time when the economy was booming so the federal government spending was controlled, businesses where hiring, and wages were rising creating revenue that exceeded spending and viola ...a surplus! So that was great but when the economy slowed again that's when government tried to come to the rescue, bush tried to give the economy a shot in the arm by tax cuts, but when you spend like a drunken sailor and take the country to war, cutting your revenue stream is a recipe for disaster. Then Obama came in and he was spending like a madman, now the tax cuts expired we saw a bump in revenue but the economy still has not picked up, so Bernanke starts flooding the economy with cash which might make for some nice short term numbers but its not really a solution. So the two questions are where do we make our spending cuts and how do we get economy rolling again?

[GBMelBlount]

Tax increase did play a role but the bigger contributor was the increased tax revenue caused by the dot com bubble paired with budget cuts. we cut spending at a time when the economy was booming so the federal government spending was controlled, businesses where hiring, and wages were rising creating revenue that exceeded spending and viola ...a surplus! So that was great but when the economy slowed again that's when government tried to come to the rescue, bush tried to give the economy a shot in the arm by tax cuts, but when you spend like a drunken sailor and take the country to war, cutting your revenue stream is a recipe for disaster. Then Obama came in and he was spending like a madman, now the tax cuts expired we saw a bump in revenue but the economy still has not picked up, so Bernanke starts flooding the economy with cash which might make for some nice short term numbers but its not really a solution. So the two questions are where do we make our spending cuts and how do we get economy rolling again?

Very concise. Nice post.

[Wallace108]

I'd rather see conservatives try and compromise while this country is still worth fighting for.

They've been compromising for five years (longer, actually). What has it gotten them? Or us? The only thing they've put up a worthwhile fight on is their defense of the Second Amendment. And even in that battle, some of them have been trying to compromise. Let's look at Reagan's quote again:

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."

Unfortunately, that's exactly what liberals have been doing to conservatives over the past few decades. Other than Obamacare, there haven't been any sweeping changes ... just small things here and there. Get a little now ... come back for the rest later. Hell, even eight years of having a Republican (Bush) in the White House didn't alter the course. During those eight years, what liberal agendas were squashed? What conservative principles were pushed?

The Republicans have been willing to compromise. The Democrats ... not so much. When was the last time you heard a liberal willing to compromise on abortion, for example? Never. It doesn't happen. They fight for what they believe in. So the liberal/progressive agenda is now winning. Compromise has led us to the point where, for the first time in American history, we can envision our country falling. That's what compromise has gotten us.

It sounds by your words as though you understand and agree with Reagan on the importance of being able to skillfully negotiate outcomes that are more to your advantage than disadvantage.

If that is the case I am also frustrated because it does appear that we are giving up far more in concessions than what is benefitting the conservative or libertarian cause.

Exactly, Mel! If conservatives were getting most but not all of what they wanted through compromise, that would be fine. But that's not the case. It's the liberals who are getting most of what they want. Through Republican compromise, THEY are the ones getting the 75 percent instead of 100 percent. It's time for Republicans to stop compromising and start fighting for what they supposedly believe in.

I agree with your views on principles Wallace.

...and what I THINK I am hearing from most principled conservatives and libertarians is that they DO understand the importance of negotiating and consensus building to achieve desirable ends IFF the concessions are reasonable.

Yeah, I think we agree here. Compromise is OK under Reagan's philosophy. But if you're giving up more than you're getting, then your side is losing. And that's what we see happening. It's been happening for quite a while now. And I think part of the problem is that there are a lot of Republicans who aren't that far away from the Democrats in their thinking. That makes compromise a lot easier and has greatly silenced the conservative voice.

I guess I am just also of the belief that anything is better than what we have with Obama.

I don't disagree with that, Mel. But given the choice of getting punched in the face or kicked in the nuts, I'm going to choose option C ... none of the above. And hopefully, enough people will get tired of getting punched and kicked and start choosing option C.

[GoSlash27]

Any opinions on McCain's recent trip to Syria?
If we're going to ally ourselves with Al Qaeda in Syria, we might want to figure out why we're fighting them in Afghanistan.
/McCain needs to retire