about those “scheming republicans”

I occasionally read a blog one of my old law professors contributes to and, I must say, from time to time, articles posted on this site leave me quite well, incredulous.  The fact that they actually believe what they are writing is, at times, depressing — at best.  Let’s explore one of these recent posts… shall we?

Here is Mr. Chambers starting us off:

Why are congressional Republicans refusing en masse to support President Obama’s stimulus package?

Oh, I don’t know… maybe because it’s 7 TRILLION DOLLARS OF SPENDING composed primarily of democrat pet projects–financed on credit we don’t have, creating obligations we can’t afford.  And most of it won’t be spent until well into 2 years after we are scheduled to come out of the recession…  do those sound like reasonable reasons to be against something??

Are they sticking to their guns for conscientious reasons? Or are they just playing politics?

Ya, they are all sick twisted freaks those Republicans.  All they know is dirty politics… and he Jews are probably pulling strings in the background.  Sure, Democrats sometimes (errr… often) try to oust Republicans with baseless ethics violations and grand juries… but the POLITICS is MOSTLY on the Republican side.

If they latter they should keep in mind that 74% of the American public believe that President Obama is trying to compromise with the Republicans while only 39% of Americans believe congressional Republicans are trying to compromise with the President.

But, what’s so important about the public’s perception of  a willingness to compromise?  Isn’t a more important statistic the percentage of the American people who SUPPORT THE STIMULUS PACKAGE???!! Last I checked the public support was only at 37 percent.  It seems to me we should pass legislation based on what the American people support… regardless of who controls Congress. They are, after all, our representatives to Washington.

Some Republicans seem to think that compromise requires equality between two sides to a political dispute.

WHO?  name names.  It is easy to destroy the straw men you create… harder to back up your assertions with proof.

If two individuals both want an apple pie, a compromise requires splitting the pie in two equal halves. According to this view of compromise, both the Republicans and Democrats should each have an equal share of the stimulus pie.

But shouldn’t we all share in something so important as “Economic Stimulus”?  We are ALL Americans, are we not?!  Shouldn’t we all benefit equally as a result of the stimulus package?  Or should Democrat constituents benefit more?

After subtracting those issues upon which there is agreement, each Party should get an equal share of the remainder. In ordinary circumstances, such a conception of compromise might be plausible, but certainly not in politics. If this conception applied to political compromises, why have elections at all.

To determine what the percentage share of the remainder?  I’m not following you at all here.

If the will of the electorate was to give the Democrats control of Congress and the Presidency, then the lion’s share of the compromise should go to the Democrats.

(thinking to myself: In your dream world, buddy)  But seriously, that’s not true at all… we have a democracy that protects minority interests… not a democracy where the party “in control of congress” gets to run rough-shod over the entire population… a system where the majority party has a RIGHT to some arbitrary percentage of compromise.  In fact, we have a political system designed to allow minorities to stop the majority in power, not enable a large percentage of their agenda.  I’m having a hard time taking you seriously with this nonsense.

“Compromise” in a republican democracy means that the electoral winner should take the loser’s suggestions into account and implement some suggestions while rejecting others.

Wow, it’s funny how all the terms get re-defined when Democrats are in power… If I remember correctly, “compromise” meant something entirely different when Democrats were in the minority…  “patriotism” meant something completely different too.

During the Bush administration, Democrats were virtually shut out of policy making.

Except for the Education Bill, all the votes on Iraq they got, the Prescription Drug Bill, and many others the president included them as he tried over and over as part of “the new tone”.  Are you really justifying DEMOCRAT actions based on BUSH administration policies… because I thought he was the worst president ever….

Now, President Obama has met with all the congressional Republicans and he’s dropped some elements of the Democratic Congress’s version of the stimulus package the Republicans found unacceptable. But that’s not enough for congressional Republicans. Why?

Because they aren’t STUPID.  Because they’re not going to VOTE for a piece of legislation their collective conscience abhors and their constituents don’t support.

But this begs the point… You really expected them to???? REALLY? How dumb do you think they are?  I suppose you think they should just bend over and take whatever Obama decides to give them?

They seem to believe that should get an equal share of the pie. But that, in effect, would, betray the verdict in the last election.

What verdict are you talking about exactly?  The verdict to give tax cuts to 95% of the electorate like Obama promised?  The verdict to increase government transparency like Obama promised?  The verdict to get out of Iraq by the end of 2009?  The verdict not to increases taxes for anyone making under 250K?  (all of which have been broken, by the way)

Funny, the verdict I (and the American people) remember from the last election had NOTHING to do with unconscionable government debt, skyrocketing inflation, and liberal interest projects, or a far-left agenda (Obama ran as a moderate)…  It had nothing to do with massive infrastructure spending, nothing to do with a 7.7 trillion dollar deficit over the next 10 years.  It had much more to do with TAX CUTS for 95% of the people… and the world loving us again.  What verdict are you talking about, Mr. Chambers?

The Democrats won and are bound by that victory to favor their own programs, especially when up against intransigent Republicans. So what do Republicans want? The obduracy are hurting the possibility of planting the seeds of an economic recovery. They care more about politics than they do about the nation.  Congressional Republicans seem oblivious to the fact that their indifference to the plight of the American public can backfire on their political scheming.

Funny you should say this… especially since Republicans just recently gained ground on the generic ballot.

What is entirely apparent from reading your post, Mr. Chambers, is that you and your audience want nothing more than re-enforcement of a worldview where Republicans crumble at the slightest political pressure, where Republicans speak softly and dutifully write checks for whatever Democrats want to spend money on.  I am astonished you actually believe this stuff… and that your conception of washington politics is still stuck in a 1970′s paradigm — where de-facto Democrat control is the unquestioned norm.  Believe it or not, reasonable people can differ on the stimulus bill… and your assumptions with regard to the ulterior motives of Republicans speaks more about your ideaological prejudices than it does about the motives themselves.

You, Mr. Chambers, have ALREADY sunk to the level of calling your political opponents UNPATRIOTIC (after all, isn’t “caring more about politcs than the nation” the very definition of unpatriotic?) for opposing a policy that has proven economically irresponsible in Japan, the UK, Denmark, Iceland, and many more countries that have followed the Keynesian model.  I think that is quite enough for now .

Thanks for letting us know exactly what kind of liberal you are, Mr. Chambers.

link: Essentially Contested America » Scheming Republicans.