You decide .
Was that a mis-statment, a mis-interpretation or a walk-back? Beats me! Whatever, it's doesn't seem to clarify much, especially for the congressmen who signed his pledge.
Some are merely afraid the public will blame them more than the Dems for a default. Others, like the Reps in the "gang of six" know enough to understand a default will be a disaster for America. They recognize the liklihood of a devastating market crash and a disaster for the general economy and don't want it to happen. They also know their party will be punished if the worst occurs.
Ever since the Tea Party movement got started, there have been battles within the Party.
This happens to every Party that is not in the White House. A very cyclical type of thing.
as it relates to the debt-ceiling crisis. They were in lock-step a month ago. No more.
of reaching a compromise.
The "Gang of Six," in my opinion, is nothing more than six senators that are trying to make themselves look good by proposing this bi-partisan plan.
Although I don't particularly like the guy, I give John Boehner some credit for trying to work out a compromise with the Dems.
Ironically, Boehner may end up being the best thing to happen to President Obama's reelection drive. The two seemed to have worked together pretty well, especially in today's ugly world of partisan politics.
But I do think he's a practical politician who understands the risks of not getting a deal done. His problem is the "true believers" among his Tea Party faction, just as Obama must deal with his own left wing. I hope there's some ground in the middle. I don't share your view of the "gang of six." They've been working on this for months in a bi-partisan way and I see no reason to cast aspersions. Their plan may be the blueprint for a deal.
whenever six Senators join forces and try to spotlight their own deal like this, it smacks of ego to me. Kind of like the McCain-Feingold deal of a few years ago. Two egos that went wild.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I know that Dick Durbin has never done anything that wasn't done with the intention of making Dick Durbin look good. Can't say I know anything about the other five, though.
The only thing I know for sure about them is it's no last-minute grandstanding play. They've been working on this for months based on the recommendations of Obama's deficit-reduction commission. Everyone seems to have forgotten about that one.
If this is truly a statement from Norquist, this is hard back peddling for the Republicans
(actually, it is permission from a lobbyist to backpedal).
Norquist stance has always been to starve the government of resources to limit its size, any increase of revenue has been against his platform.
So what could cause such a turn around??
How about a Democratic President offering spending cuts in the rage of 3 Trillion over 10 years for the trade off of 1 trillion in revenue, not from increasing taxes but from closing tax breaks?
(Regan Closed allot of tax breaks)
Offering cuts to Social security and medicare?
And barely a squeak from the Democratic Party?
Reagan and both Bushes wouldn't have even spoken about such cuts in a closed room, never mind publicly offering them up.
Any other time in our history, the whole republican party would have creamed themselves and signed up, but not the Pledged Tea Party.
They are saying "Let the Country burn now, before we increase taxes".
So what are the outcomes?
The Tea Party takes a deal with some tax increases, Obama broke their wall down.
We default, the economy slides back..... Obama, a Democrat, put Medicare and Social security on the table, who was the one willing to sacrifice to protect our interests.
My personal favorite do to it's lunacy, give the President Unlimited borrowing authority with out a 2/3 majority. Any Tea Party rep that signs onto that would be shot.
or not. President Obama while campaigning said he would let the Bush tax cuts expire. Again, Obama lied. Obama is pissing all over the promises he made to the liberals and progressives. Man, Obama has you fooled. He has you so focused hating the GOP and BUsh you do not scream while he his screwing you. Brilliant.
-- Modified on 7/21/2011 11:59:18 PM
He left the Bush tax cuts as part of a deal with the GOP House to keep unemployment benefits going. It's called negotiation, and it's what politicians are supposed to do when they want to get things done.
Another reason why Norquist would back off the Bush tax cuts would be the people he works for really don't want the corporate loopholes (write offs, tax breaks, whatever) closed, if revenue has to go up, they want it pushed on as many smaller businesses as possible.
I am at the point that I hope that we default on Aug. 2nd, and we get all the cuts that the GOP Tea Party are hoping for.
Sudden unexpected cuts in services, massive layoffs, government work stoppages... all at once in a weak economy with a privet sector that has no interest in expanding in this country.
Show them what they are screaming for.