so either start writing budgets, or we win on sequestration anyway.

Pubs.=Dems. One and the same. Different name.

they lie on January 18, 2013 at 10:15 AM

I disagree. There is a definite difference. Many of the Repubs would like to do the right thing but the “leadership” prevents them. Also, the laft have no morals and are fearless and ruthless in their nastiness. They are the ones in lockstep. The Repubs try to be “reasonable” instead of fighting back with the same vehemence and end up getting pushed around by the Dems with impunity and their complicit minions in the media have the public at large believing every negative thing they say about the Repubs. Looks like some of that rubbed off on you.

Midas on January 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Incidentally, The big difference between Left and Right is that the Right prefers status quo, whereas the Left is not interested in winning the war – they want perpetual revolution (a la Trotsky).

Midas on January 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Midas on January 18, 2013 at 11:56 AM

No, I’m suggesting that some battles be avoided/skirted, so that the important ones can better be fought – without carrying any negative messages from previous less important battles.

This has already happened, in that the GOP has been labelled, rightly or wrongly, as the Party of NO. They need to bury that.

Question – which battles are the Dems choosing to ‘lose’ ‘strategically’? Seems to me they’re fighting to win in every circumstance, and guess what – they are, and they are winning the war as well.

Midas on January 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Exactly!

I bet if the GOP had been in the position the Dems were in with respect to the fiscal cliff, they would have found a way to bungle their advantage.

If the GOP is in the minority, they bemoan their lack of political power. If they are in the majority, they give excuses that their power is still not enough or that “independents” would be offended.

Doing it again will bring about better results?

Don L on January 18, 2013 at 11:40 AM

At home, the US gave in – without offering a targeted defense of the war. They capitulated, but I’m not suggesting that be the case with this (fiscal) war. On the contrary, the GOP should be honing in on those areas of expenditure where there is a chance of success, such as alternative energy, TSA, Obamacare, etc.

These measures would not, in any way, solve the debt problem, but it would show the way on a very long road to repair the destruction of the last century.

He is talking about winning tactical victories but losing wars. See “Phyrric Victory” for context.

KW64 on January 18, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Seems to me that’s precisely what is being suggested; “win that *next* tactical victory – but not this one”, and… hope that somehow by losing some we’ll win the war? If we let the spending continue out of control, give increases to the spendthrift’s credit card, then “win that *next* tactical victory” WILL be a ‘phyrric victory’ indeed.

Agreed. I’m just suggesting that banzai attacks won’t win the war, but properly targeted attacks will.

Of course, the fly in the ointment goes by the name of politician.

OldEnglish on January 18, 2013 at 11:31 AM

To continue your Vietnam analogy then… the US would’ve been better to not fight every battle tooth and nail, but would’ve done better to lose a few of them?

I see what you’re saying about winning decisively, so yeah, let’s do that. But why would you *plan* to *lose* any battles? How ’bout we win them all, including the decisive ones?

Question – which battles are the Dems choosing to ‘lose’ ‘strategically’? Seems to me they’re fighting to win in every circumstance, and guess what – they are, and they are winning the war as well.

Don’t know about that, but I suspect they fought every battle as if their very lives and freedom depended upon it, unlike the GOP. Is that your point?

Don L on January 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM

He is talking about winning tactical victories but losing wars. See “Phyrric Victory” for context. We might get a small perhaps temporary spending cut for a short debt ceiling increase but if we lose the public support for 2014 you will lose the ultimate fiscal responsibility battle. The public supports reduced spending (at least until specific programs are mentioned) we can engender support on that ground. The public is not for shutting down government (altought I think that would not really be as bad as many think) or defaulting on the debt. If the GOP house passes a budget authorization and the Dem Senate does not, the government shutdown can at least theoretically be laid at the Senate Dems feet and used in the 2014/2016 campaigns.

Don L on January 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM

No, the US lost the war. Winning every battle is of no use if the enemy is still intact. Choose the battle and the weapons that will conquer the enemy – without mercy.

The debt ceiling is going up – no point in providing fodder for the enemy by swimming against the tide.

The sequester, on the other hand, can be used to advantage – by stressing the equality of pain.

OldEnglish on January 18, 2013 at 11:20 AM

My history tells me we only lost because we refused to fight at home–our entrenched lying media left–and so we capitulated. Doing it again will bring about better results?

Scott H on January 18, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Agreed. I’m just suggesting that banzai attacks won’t win the war, but properly targeted attacks will.

Of course, the fly in the ointment goes by the name of politician.

The GOP just want to regain/stay in power.
Scott H on January 18, 2013 at 11:22 AM

And that’s why they won’t.

Face it. The GOP just want to regain/stay in power. They have chosen a different means to that end, but that is their end. Why should we be that means?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

gophergirl on January 18, 2013 at 10:24 AM

I can see it now. Boehner and Cantor walk out to the podium (don’t say a word), TV in the back drop, play the “Bill on Capital Hill” video, say “this is our procedural plan for the 2014 FY budget,” and then walk away (end of press conference).

These behaviors are self-reinforcing, and I think that the GOP has already past the point where the behavior has become a habit.

Don L on January 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM

No, the US lost the war. Winning every battle is of no use if the enemy is still intact. Choose the battle and the weapons that will conquer the enemy – without mercy.

The debt ceiling is going up – no point in providing fodder for the enemy by swimming against the tide.

The sequester, on the other hand, can be used to advantage – by stressing the equality of pain.

demanding a normal-order budget from Harry Reid

That should give old Harry a heart attack. He’s been covering Obama’s RED INK for the last couple of years by not passing a budget.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rove-fox-re-signsailes/2013/01/18/id/472030

Boy, I’m glad he’s back. /s

That ship sailed a few years ago.

Mr. Arrogant on January 18, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Exactly. This story is written, this Party is over.

That ship sailed a few years ago.

Tater: If spending is the problem, why do you advocate letting them do more of it?

Scott H on January 18, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Maybe it’s like promiscuity, if you keep doing more of it, it’s the best route to virginity?

Midas on January 18, 2013 at 10:38 AM

In Vietnam, the US won every battle …

OldEnglish on January 18, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Don’t know about that, but I suspect they fought every battle as if their very lives and freedom depended upon it, unlike the GOP. Is that your point?