Hayward offers a crucial reminder to the squishes lamenting the loss of their ability to conduct business as usual:
This is said to have “weakened” Boehner. The Tea Party and conservative stalwarts in the House are told they’re “embarrassing” or “killing” the Speaker. Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post calls them the “burn-the-building-down set.”
This is a puzzling analysis, because it portrays the Tea Party as lunging out of the shadows to tackle an unsuspecting Boehner as he brings “the best deal he can get” to Capitol Hill. On the contrary, the people who oppose the Boehner bill are the most forthright, honest, and consistent American political movement in generations. They couldn’t have been more clear about the reasons they marched to the polls and sent all those new Republicans to Washington in 2010…and it was not to cut a deal that would reduce the deficit from $1.7 trillion to $1.697 trillion immediately, with the hope that if all of its unenforceable future promises are realized, we’ll get the deficit down to $1.689 trillion in a couple of years.
If the resistance Boehner is encountering has “embarrassed” him, that’s his fault. If he’s genuinely surprised by it, he should be embarrassed. Did he think all of the Tea Party’s passionate demands for fiscal sanity and smaller government were just empty rhetoric, and they really just wanted more people with (R) after their names sitting in Congress when the American system goes down in flames?
The entire premise of this deal-making process is flawed. Once again, Washington negotiates with itself, while the people who pay the bills are locked out of the process, and told they’re unreasonable extremists for sticking to their principles.
The first rule of making a deal is to bid high, so you can negotiate down to what you really wanted. The acolytes of the monster State are very good at that, and they can rely on support from a media apparatus that will never describe their sky-high opening demands as “extremist” or “radical”. How were the people who just want a balanced budget to follow suit, especially when Washington regards the very concept of a balanced budget as ridiculous pie-in-the-sky extremism, barely worthy of discussion?
We started with the statists demanding that the national debt be doubled in 10 years. Conservatives said they want to balance the budget, which will prevent the debt from growing at all. “Oh, no, that’s insane,” they were told. “You extremist wingnuts have to compromise.” Well, the “compromise” turns out to be increasing the national debt by 90%. That’s how it always works. That’s why we’re cruising into fiscal collapse, and nobody seems able to take Washington off auto-pilot.
Lots more, including a very damned pointed question for Charles Krauthammer: “Exactly what part of the Obama experiment are we “containing?” No fooling’. Read all of it. The “burn the building down set?” Count me in. Some buildings need burning down; they’re beyond fixing, and must instead be leveled and replaced.