The Republicans indeed are terrorists, and the fantasy depicted above is indeed the truth, and it is the Republicans’ fault.
The thing is, they saw the “deal” offered to a real terrorist, Mr. al-Assad, and they thought they could get the same deal. And when this is through, maybe they will.
The other parallel is Mr. Boehner is not Gingrich just as Assad is not Saddam. I get the idea that Boehner is really along for the ride on all of this and is acting as a figurehead, much as Mr. Assad is the public face to various hardline factions.
Mr. Boehner is trying to save his job and Mr. Assad is trying to keep his head attached to his body. Just knowing that is a critical piece of information on how to deal with either the Syria or the House of Representatives situation. You know the SunTzu aphorism — give your enemy a Golden Bridge to retreat across — especially true when the adversary is “in it” for self preservation. But I guess Mr. Obama never read Sun Tzu.
Just as Mr. Obama’s lack of experience perhaps contributed to the Syrian Civil War where he failed to intervene when he had a chance to help things, his policies and negotiating stance have touched off a Civil War among Republicans, who are as remote and strange in their customs and beliefs as Alewites.
But the defenders of Mr. Obama will never, ever admit to problems with this Administration. After all, the situation in Syria is the fault of the Syrians, the situation in Congress is the fault of hard-core Red Staters and TEAists.
Maybe Mr. Obama is channeling Seinfeld. His adminstration, in the end, is about nothing because no blame can be assigned to him for the destruction occuring in his wake.
Mr. Boehner is trying to save his job
No doubt, but Obama can’t save Boehner from his own party.
his policies and negotiating stance have touched off a Civil War among Republicans
Really, we’re going to blame GOP dysfunction on Obama?
But the defenders of Mr. Obama will never, ever admit to problems with this Administration.
Are you serious? I don’t know of any defenders of the president who don’t have complaints about him, and his administration. It’s just hard to get too worked up about those problems while the Republicans are taking the economy hostage.
Canceling SNAP and WIC payments is no big deal, but closing memorials — now that’s going too far.
Canceling payments saves money. Shutting down memorials (something never done in any previous shut down) costs money. It’s nothing but pure sadism.
The overall shutdown doesn’t save money, it costs money. By your logic that makes the entire shutdown pure sadism.
Your obtuseness (probably feigned) apparently knows no bounds.
Cancelling WIC payments is Reid’s doing. According to Obama, Reid’s in charge. Reid also doesn’t care if children have cancer.
So Reid not bringing up the WIC bill for a Senate vote makes Reid responsible for missed WIC payments?
“Really, we’re going to blame GOP dysfunction on Obama?”
Are we going to blame Syrian dysfunction on Mr. Obama? Well, as a matter of fact yes. To the extent that the man is President and that America has a leadership role, and such leadership could have avoided human misery, the answer is yes.
As to the shutting down of Memorials, I can readily understand the logic of it. It is the logic of “collective punishment”, something the occupied Palestinians accuse their Israeli occupiers of doing.
The thing is that standing up to the Republicans, for one reason of not letting them establish the precedent of “pushing the President around”, although that precedent has long been established and used by both political parties. The other thing is defending Health Care Reform.
But the tactics. You (I am addressing Mr. Obama) are not a community organizer following Mr. Alinsky in drawing a line with a slum landlord, you are the President, you are the Commander in Chief. So what do you do to apply pressure (in the shutdown standoff). You disrespect veterans.
So Jim, disrespecting veterans (and by extension active military) is no big deal. But you (addressing Mr. Obama again) are the President, the Commander in Chief, the pinnacle of the Civilian Command Authority to which every active member of the Armed Forces owes obedience. Yes, the military will do what you tell them to, even if you slight veterans over what are totally symbolic matters, because we don’t “do” military coups in our country and Civilian Command Authority is a part of the Constitution we take very, very seriously. We, as a culture, supported Harry Truman in firing Douglas MacArther.
But you (Mr. President), are using up your “design margin.” There may come a time when you may have to issue difficult orders, and yes, the military will obey as they shall and they must and as they will. But do you really think it is wise to disrespect military personnel, active duty or veterans?
You know, I really don’t care that veterans are being “disrespected” at the Memorials. The Health Care Act must be protected, and ultimately soldiers, active duty or veterans must respect Civilian Command Authority and it is not “about them.”
But doing what Mr. Obama is doing is not smart, it is not wise, it is “not a great idea” because there may be some national or international crisis where Mr. Obama needs the unwavering support of the military, that our country needs the unwavering support of the military. The military and its men and women are in the end just a tool, but it is wise to not treat your tools like junk because you may need them to have a fine edge on them for a difficult job.
What bothers me is not that the veterans are being disrespected but that the action the President is taking, yes, in defense of his signature domestic initiative, is simply not wise. And it bothers me that a person other than the President who seeks to influence political opinions in support of the President, does not “get” this.
You, Jim, will tell me that I am completely wrong, that there is nothing unwise about disrespecting veterans in service of a major domestic policy initiative, and that our Constitutional traditions are strong, and the active-duty military will always do their duty regardless of what symbolic actions the President takes vis a vis veterans. But do you, Jim, want the President to depend on this, to as I said, use up the “design margin.” I suppose this kind of thinking is only for wingnuts as myself.
the action the President is taking, yes, in defense of his signature domestic initiative, is simply not wise
If you think the shutdown is about Obamacare, you’re already wrong. The shutdown is about the House’s attempt to leverage their veto over spending bills into the power to force arbitrary changes to unrelated legislation. This time it’s Obamacare, but next time it could be Keystone, or corporate taxes, or oil drilling, or the Clean Air Act, or who knows what. The old-fashioned way to change a law is to get the House, Senate and President to agree. The GOP has given up on that path (back in January Boehner promised to not negotiate with Obama, and the GOP blocked all attempts to set up a budget conference), and is trying to create a new way: refuse to pass an otherwise unobjectionable spending bill until the other side caves.
Allowing such a tactic to succeed, by any party, on behalf of any issue, would be the opposite of wise.
This shutdown and, to an even greater degree, the debt ceiling fight, are about bigger issues than Obamacare, much less how the National Park Service handles open-air memorials during a funding gap. I don’t get the sense that many on the Republican side have any idea how the Democrats are thinking about these issues.
A planned immigration reform rally will take place on the National Mall on Tuesday even though the site is closed due to the government shutdown.
Organizers for the “Camino Americano: March for Immigration Reform” were spotted Monday setting up a stage and equipment on the National Mall for the rally which will take place on Tuesday.
A few scattered barriers around the park have signs informing visitors that the area is closed as a result of the government shutdown.
Susana Flores, a spokesperson for the rally, confirmed for the Washington Examiner that the Park Service will allow the event to take place under the group’s rights granted by the First Amendment.
About 30 members of Congress are expected to attend the rally, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J.
More reason for the federal government to be smaller. Do remember that last month, prior to any shutdown; the National Park Service denied bikers a permit to rally.
Or, as the InstaPundit suggested, If I were in Congress, I’d be introducing legislation to turn the national parks over to the states.
Do that and disband the National Park Service. They’ve played the Washington Monument strategy perhaps one time too often and need to be taken down. Americans love our parks. The National Park Service, not so much.
In the meantime, I’d be dragging the head of the National Park Service before committee and taking testimony under oath as to who ordered these closures.
The Republicans indeed are terrorists, and the fantasy depicted above is indeed the truth, and it is the Republicans’ fault.
The thing is, they saw the “deal” offered to a real terrorist, Mr. al-Assad, and they thought they could get the same deal. And when this is through, maybe they will.
The other parallel is Mr. Boehner is not Gingrich just as Assad is not Saddam. I get the idea that Boehner is really along for the ride on all of this and is acting as a figurehead, much as Mr. Assad is the public face to various hardline factions.
Mr. Boehner is trying to save his job and Mr. Assad is trying to keep his head attached to his body. Just knowing that is a critical piece of information on how to deal with either the Syria or the House of Representatives situation. You know the SunTzu aphorism — give your enemy a Golden Bridge to retreat across — especially true when the adversary is “in it” for self preservation. But I guess Mr. Obama never read Sun Tzu.
Just as Mr. Obama’s lack of experience perhaps contributed to the Syrian Civil War where he failed to intervene when he had a chance to help things, his policies and negotiating stance have touched off a Civil War among Republicans, who are as remote and strange in their customs and beliefs as Alewites.
But the defenders of Mr. Obama will never, ever admit to problems with this Administration. After all, the situation in Syria is the fault of the Syrians, the situation in Congress is the fault of hard-core Red Staters and TEAists.
Maybe Mr. Obama is channeling Seinfeld. His adminstration, in the end, is about nothing because no blame can be assigned to him for the destruction occuring in his wake.
Mr. Boehner is trying to save his job
No doubt, but Obama can’t save Boehner from his own party.
his policies and negotiating stance have touched off a Civil War among Republicans
Really, we’re going to blame GOP dysfunction on Obama?
But the defenders of Mr. Obama will never, ever admit to problems with this Administration.
Are you serious? I don’t know of any defenders of the president who don’t have complaints about him, and his administration. It’s just hard to get too worked up about those problems while the Republicans are taking the economy hostage.
It also happened at the Iwo Jima Memorial.
This is a time for civil disobedience.
Canceling SNAP and WIC payments is no big deal, but closing memorials — now that’s going too far.
Canceling payments saves money. Shutting down memorials (something never done in any previous shut down) costs money. It’s nothing but pure sadism.
The overall shutdown doesn’t save money, it costs money. By your logic that makes the entire shutdown pure sadism.
Your obtuseness (probably feigned) apparently knows no bounds.
Cancelling WIC payments is Reid’s doing. According to Obama, Reid’s in charge. Reid also doesn’t care if children have cancer.
So Reid not bringing up the WIC bill for a Senate vote makes Reid responsible for missed WIC payments?
“Really, we’re going to blame GOP dysfunction on Obama?”
Are we going to blame Syrian dysfunction on Mr. Obama? Well, as a matter of fact yes. To the extent that the man is President and that America has a leadership role, and such leadership could have avoided human misery, the answer is yes.
As to the shutting down of Memorials, I can readily understand the logic of it. It is the logic of “collective punishment”, something the occupied Palestinians accuse their Israeli occupiers of doing.
The thing is that standing up to the Republicans, for one reason of not letting them establish the precedent of “pushing the President around”, although that precedent has long been established and used by both political parties. The other thing is defending Health Care Reform.
But the tactics. You (I am addressing Mr. Obama) are not a community organizer following Mr. Alinsky in drawing a line with a slum landlord, you are the President, you are the Commander in Chief. So what do you do to apply pressure (in the shutdown standoff). You disrespect veterans.
So Jim, disrespecting veterans (and by extension active military) is no big deal. But you (addressing Mr. Obama again) are the President, the Commander in Chief, the pinnacle of the Civilian Command Authority to which every active member of the Armed Forces owes obedience. Yes, the military will do what you tell them to, even if you slight veterans over what are totally symbolic matters, because we don’t “do” military coups in our country and Civilian Command Authority is a part of the Constitution we take very, very seriously. We, as a culture, supported Harry Truman in firing Douglas MacArther.
But you (Mr. President), are using up your “design margin.” There may come a time when you may have to issue difficult orders, and yes, the military will obey as they shall and they must and as they will. But do you really think it is wise to disrespect military personnel, active duty or veterans?
You know, I really don’t care that veterans are being “disrespected” at the Memorials. The Health Care Act must be protected, and ultimately soldiers, active duty or veterans must respect Civilian Command Authority and it is not “about them.”
But doing what Mr. Obama is doing is not smart, it is not wise, it is “not a great idea” because there may be some national or international crisis where Mr. Obama needs the unwavering support of the military, that our country needs the unwavering support of the military. The military and its men and women are in the end just a tool, but it is wise to not treat your tools like junk because you may need them to have a fine edge on them for a difficult job.
What bothers me is not that the veterans are being disrespected but that the action the President is taking, yes, in defense of his signature domestic initiative, is simply not wise. And it bothers me that a person other than the President who seeks to influence political opinions in support of the President, does not “get” this.
You, Jim, will tell me that I am completely wrong, that there is nothing unwise about disrespecting veterans in service of a major domestic policy initiative, and that our Constitutional traditions are strong, and the active-duty military will always do their duty regardless of what symbolic actions the President takes vis a vis veterans. But do you, Jim, want the President to depend on this, to as I said, use up the “design margin.” I suppose this kind of thinking is only for wingnuts as myself.
the action the President is taking, yes, in defense of his signature domestic initiative, is simply not wise
If you think the shutdown is about Obamacare, you’re already wrong. The shutdown is about the House’s attempt to leverage their veto over spending bills into the power to force arbitrary changes to unrelated legislation. This time it’s Obamacare, but next time it could be Keystone, or corporate taxes, or oil drilling, or the Clean Air Act, or who knows what. The old-fashioned way to change a law is to get the House, Senate and President to agree. The GOP has given up on that path (back in January Boehner promised to not negotiate with Obama, and the GOP blocked all attempts to set up a budget conference), and is trying to create a new way: refuse to pass an otherwise unobjectionable spending bill until the other side caves.
Allowing such a tactic to succeed, by any party, on behalf of any issue, would be the opposite of wise.
This shutdown and, to an even greater degree, the debt ceiling fight, are about bigger issues than Obamacare, much less how the National Park Service handles open-air memorials during a funding gap. I don’t get the sense that many on the Republican side have any idea how the Democrats are thinking about these issues.
This is rich: Park Service OKs immigration reform rally on ‘closed’ National Mall:
A planned immigration reform rally will take place on the National Mall on Tuesday even though the site is closed due to the government shutdown.
Organizers for the “Camino Americano: March for Immigration Reform” were spotted Monday setting up a stage and equipment on the National Mall for the rally which will take place on Tuesday.
A few scattered barriers around the park have signs informing visitors that the area is closed as a result of the government shutdown.
Susana Flores, a spokesperson for the rally, confirmed for the Washington Examiner that the Park Service will allow the event to take place under the group’s rights granted by the First Amendment.
About 30 members of Congress are expected to attend the rally, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J.
More reason for the federal government to be smaller. Do remember that last month, prior to any shutdown; the National Park Service denied bikers a permit to rally.
Or, as the InstaPundit suggested, If I were in Congress, I’d be introducing legislation to turn the national parks over to the states.
Do that and disband the National Park Service. They’ve played the Washington Monument strategy perhaps one time too often and need to be taken down. Americans love our parks. The National Park Service, not so much.
In the meantime, I’d be dragging the head of the National Park Service before committee and taking testimony under oath as to who ordered these closures.