Rant: GOP tying themselves in knots

I'm so tired of how the GOP is trying to avoid the inevitable. This article talks about two (or is it three?) scenarios that the GOP in Congress could use to avoid voting for a tax increase on the highest 2%.

THEY NEED 2 DIFFERENT WAYS TO AVOID THIS?????

If you don't want to vote for a tax increase, just admit it and let the Bush tax cuts expire. Boom, no vote and the problem is solved. "Buuuuut, then we look like we don't care that taxes went up on everyone..." they seem to whimper. OK, so vote on something that can pass and prevents the taxes for going up on everyone. "But that breaks the tax pledge solemn commitment to our constituents and blah blah blah blah..."

The GOP congressmen are also whining about Obama playing hardball and zero-sum games (horrors) just when they're [finally] trying to be bipartisan.

Frankly, I'm so fed up that I don't care if we go over the fiscal cliff, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S IMPORTANT, because I can't stand the GOP whining. I would love to be able to hibernate until mid-January and wake up to the definitive answer to "did they or didn't they?" Unfortunately, I need to work, eat, and maintain my human relationships, so hibernation isn't an option, damnit!

The bottom line is that I'll be trying to ignore all the weasly, intricate, obscure, legalistic positions that the GOP takes as it tries extract itself from its own labyrinth. I won't be analyzing those GOP positions. I'll just be waiting for the end. That is all.

/rant

Photo of Boehner and congressional GOP leadership

Image: coverbooth.com

Best Line: "Right now, [Boehner] is hoping to lead his fractious GOP to an orderly surrender" -- Dana Milbank. So true. I wish Boehner success.

Extra. I found this tax-vote-avoidance method a few days ago. It's worth reading, but I'm not looking at any others. None, I tell you!

Must see TV: Changes at Fox News

This post is prompted by articles about Fox News temporarily sidelining Karl Rove and Dick Morris. Hooray!

I've been expecting some changes in Fox News. The spark for this thought was a comment on Plain Blog:

...Limbaugh's show will embrace diversity iff he can add at least one new diverse listener for each angry white guy that leaves in disgust. -- CSH

I replied that it was possible for Fox News, but highly unlikely for Limbaugh. The path for Fox News would be more anchors like Shep Smith and different marching orders for most of the Fox talking zombies, who are too numerous to name.

Orders from the Top

That Fox News runs on marching orders dictated on high is well documented, besides being obvious from viewing. (Just one example from my viewing: Joe Trippi, a Democratic campaign manager, talked about the Romney campaign without ever mentioning doubts about whether Romney tax reform math actually adds up. Why would he pass up that opportunity, except that he can't if he wants to keep his regular paid gig?)

Fox News blew their election predictions. Their followers, naturally, are angry for being misled, especially since they were pancaked by election reality. The head of Fox News, Roger Ailes, is not going to take the fall for this when he has massive numbers of talking heads that he can blame.

Scapegoats

How did he choose Karl Rove and Dick Morris? I'm not sure. Karl Rove famously had a meltdown in election night and questioned the calling of Ohio. But note that Megan Kelly, not exactly the most independently minded host, pushed back hard, allegedly on orders from Roger Ailes.

I don't know what Dick Morris's particular offense was, unless it was always being a grotesquely inflated hateful windbag. In this appearance on Hannity on Nov. 12, you can see Fox backing away from Dick Morris.

The Real Fox News

Is Fox News starting its makeover? I'm guessing yes, but it's just a hunch. If their audience comes to realize that Fox is nothing but unreliable propaganda that leaves them unprepared for reality, that audience is likely to desert Fox in significant numbers. That is not a good business model, and the Fox broadcasting empire is principally about profit, not political ideology.

How do I know this? Because I saw their lineup of programs from the very beginning. It was low-brow and profitable, definitely far removed from any lofty ideals. I remember Married With Children. Its high purpose was to earn money, and that's what Fox News is for too. Anyone who thinks Fox News is just an extension of the Republican Party is forgetting first principles.

BUSTED!!!!

Image: FoxNews.com

Update 12/6/12. The Fox chief White House reporter says that some of the Fox guys have pushed the Benghazi too far. He also says that he personally doesn't follow marching orders. Um, yes to the first, LOL to the second.

This is a comment I published on Atlantic yesterday:

But I also have a pet theory that Fox needs to steer its viewers and the conservative center of gravity to a more realistic place. If they don't, the Republicans will keep losing elections and Fox will lose influence and viewers. Rebranding is not necessary for just the GOP, it's also necessary for Fox News. 

Update 5/10/16. Since this is in my top 10, it's still viewed fairly regularly. Therefore, it makes sense for me to point out that my prediction was way off. The fare at Fox News hasn't changed--still fodder for the angry conservative.  

Constituent parts of the GOP

Months ago I tried a thought experiment--trying to classify the different constituent parts of the Republican Party. I never wrote it up, but it was an interesting exercise is species classification, which is always one of the first steps in a scientific understanding of the natural world.

With the GOP fracturing (to what extent we don't know yet), it's apropos to talk about the constituent parts, which may soon be warring factions:

1. The country club set of monied executives. They want a good business environment and as low taxation as they can get away with.
2. The middle class/working class allies of the executives. They want a good business environment for the jobs it entails. They are pro-business and pro-development because they are pro-jobs.
3. The social conservatives who are pro-prayer, pro-life, and anti-modernism. They got lip service during most of their association with the GOP, especially at the federal level. A lot of the establishment treated them as patsies, but enough patsies can take over large swathes of the party.
4. The traditionalists who are fearful or resentful of the changes that started in the 60's and were embraced by the Democrats.
5. The foreign policy hawks who want America safe and ascendant in the world. 
6. The fiscal conservatives who want the government to restrict its purview to the areas where it is necessary and effective, and thus stop wasting money on other areas. This isn't a philosophical viewpoint was much as a practical view.
7. The anti-tax brigade that don't care whether government could do something well--they just want to pay the least tax they can.
8. The libertarians who want a small federal government focused only on its limited constitutional role.
9. The haters who are in the GOP because they hate the Democrats for assorted reasons. (The Dems have their hate wing too. I'm not just picking on the GOP.)

I think that covers it. I'm not planning to use this classification in any particular way, such as trying to figure out rivalries and internal jockeying. It really was just an exercise in trying to understand an unfamiliar clan.

Image: brookings.edu

Breaking: Major fissures in the conservative world

Is the US conservative universe collapsing? There are certainly a lot of odd tremors:

• A major leak from Fox News--a high-level Fox contributor visited David Petraeus in Afghanistan with a message from Roger Ailes advising Petraeus on how to deal with his boss (otherwise known as the president). We lowly peons can listen because someone made a digital recording which has been leaked to Bob Woodward. I wonder what other vile secrets will be escaping the Fox vaults next.
• Fox has exiled Karl Rove and Dick Morris from their Fox News pulpits, at least temporarily. Another interesting Fox leak.
• A group of fiery no-compromise congressmen have been removed from their committee posts. This is a message to Tea Partiers and Ron Paul supporters that compromise will happen, so get out of the path of the speeding bus.
• Key senators aren't backing Boehner's inadequate but significant offers to raise taxes. DeMint is icy, McConnell is non-committal.

I'm not predicting the end of US conservative or any such nonsense, but there appears to be increased seismic activity. I expect a major shake-up, and I can't see the hard-liners, no-compromise guys winning. However, they may put on one hell of a show while they're going down.

Image: hshdude@flickr

Extra: More great images here, but too much for this post.

Same day update. Oops, I forgot about Dick Armey leaving FreedomWorks in a huff. FreedomWorks had a major role in training conservatives in grassroots organizing, though it wasn't in on the very beginning of the Tea Party.

Update 12/6/12. Jim DeMint is leaving the Senate and going to the Heritage Foundation where he hopes to be more successful at conservative messaging. Or maybe he's tired of being in the minority and all that blasted compromising that has to be done.

Last outpost of sanity: Pat Robertson

Pat Robertson has stated on the 700 Club that the Earth isn't 6000 years old and that doctrine wasn't divinely inspired. He also said:

"If you fight revealed science, you're going to lose your children. I believe in telling them the way it was."

What, no more tying yourself in knots to argue for the "young Earth" and against evolution? I'm hoping this is the start of a major trend among evangelicals. I'll have to check back in a decade or two and see if the creation science wars are over.

Snide aside: Robertson should call Marco Rubio and tell him it's OK to say the earth is very old. However, Pat Robertson is still a false prophet, as are most other preachers according to the Google search auto-completion truth-o-meter.

Image: apostasywatch.com

Negotiation box scores

The Atlantic Wire had a neat summary of the negotiation offers, and I think I'll steal the idea. It'll be fascinating to see the evolution of the offers through these summaries. Here goes:

_______________________________________________________
Boehner/Ryan 11/14/12

• New revenue only through GDP growth.
• All the spending cuts in the Ryan 2012 budget. (source)

_______________________________________________________
Boehner 11/15/12

• Ok, maybe some new revenue.
• All the spending cuts in the Ryan 2012 budget. (source)

______________________________________________________
Obama 11/29/12

• $400 billion in entitlement cuts.
• $1.6 trillion in tax revenue.
• $50 billion stimulus program. (source)

______________________________________________________
Boehner 12/3/12

• $800 billion in tax revenue.
• $600 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts.
• $300 billion in savings from programs like farm subsidies.
• $200 billion to slow growth of government, including Social Security.
• $300 billion cut to federal agency budgets. (source)

______________________________________________________

The first partially serious offer is Boehner's on 12/3. By the way, Boehner's new revenue would come only from high earners, according to the Washington Post. Look for more box score updates!

Image: businessinsider.com

"You really should take Simpson-Bowles"

During the campaign, the GOP complained that Obama really should have supported Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report. They made this earnest suggestion while not supporting S-B themselves, but it was just perfect for the Dems.

Of course it's chutzpah to tell your opponents what positions they should take, but not really surprising. Simpson-Bowles is the ugly girl with a great personality and much more good sense than all the boys and girls combined. Someone should be bringing her to the senior prom negotiating table, but not ME. She's just not right for me, because I need a girl with lower revenue requirements than 21% of GDP and a real overhaul of Medicare. Besides, if I bring Simpson-Bowles as an opening at negotiations, the end point is going to be much worse than S-B when negotiations are finished. [Odd that this problem wasn't on the radar when various GOPers remarked that Obama should have embraced S-B.]

A few conservatives, such as this editor at Town Hall, are bucking this logic and pushing for the GOP to make S-B as their first serious offer. Currently, that's the outsider's position because the leadership isn't close to doing that.They're still in the faux outrage phase, "flabbergasted" that Obama as victor is less conciliatory than he was in August '11 or during the debates.

Well, it looks like no one will take the sensible ugly girl to the prom. Instead, they'll be acting like adolescents, jumping off the fiscal cliffs, maybe shutting down government over debt ceiling increases, and trying the make hay with whatever opportunities they have.

When it comes to the end of the Bush tax cuts, the truth is that no one has to do anything. They fade into the sunset all on their own. Each side will blame the other--"We wanted to save them, but those other scoundrels just wouldn't cooperate"--but neither will sacrifice a high card to prevent the tax rises. They will, however, try like hell to pin the blame on the other guys.

The next real choke point will when we hit the debt ceiling in March, but there is also the funding bills for the government which will start in the spring, if I remember correctly from 2011. Maybe some smart young senator or Congressman will ask Simpson-Bowles to one of those lovely events. Maybe she'll be the date for the entire Gang of Six, and she'll finally achieve the popularity she deserves.

Call me already--you know you need me!

Image: dontwannahearit.com