Bill Kristol tells GOP to come back to the table.

With all the issues I have with Jindal, I don't think that Anti-Mexican-immigration stance necessarily makes him a racist outright. Merely a nationalist.

Wow, I hope that was snark because otherwise Godwin is going to want to come talk to you.

Bloo Driver has it. I don't follow Jindal and was confused how Vargen got from point A to point B.

I don't believe a word of Bobby Jindal until he actually shows it with action. He has been one of the strongest pushers of creationism in schools at the state level, and I didn't see anything about backing off of that in his speeches.

Not only that, he has a degree in biology, but we're expected to believe he doesn't accept evolution? Really? After all, it's not like Louisiana has a history of pandering politicians, so I'm at a loss. (sarcasm alert)

Vargen wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

I don't believe a word of Bobby Jindal until he actually shows it with action. He has been one of the strongest pushers of creationism in schools at the state level, and I didn't see anything about backing off of that in his speeches.

What do creationism and racism have to do with one another?

Yeah, they're both right-wing positions, but other than that I can't see how they're connected. I think it's entirely reasonable for somebody to genuinely come around on one of them and still be horribly wrong about the other.

It's certainly possible that he turns on some positions and not others. I just won't believe it until I see it.

Georgia's Saxby Chambliss rejects the Nordquist pledge

And he puts it in a way I think will make it easier for more Republicans to get on board with.

But I don't worry about that because I care too much about my country. I care a lot more about it than I do Grover Norquist.”

Please let this be the start of a trend.

Norquist argued in response that the pledge was to America and Georgia, not to him. He pointed out that the Senators who had violated it were not re-elected, because they lied to America and the citizens of their states.

One thing I never see address: Who the f*ck is Grover Norquist?

iaintgotnopants wrote:

One thing I never see address: Who the f*ck is Grover Norquist?

IMAGE(http://images.hyun.wikia-dev.com/muppet/images/c/c1/Supergrover.jpg)

Grover Norquist shouldn't be anyone. Instead he writes a juvenile pledge, and somehow convinces conservatives to sign it and now holds everyone hostage through fear and manipulation. He's a giant nerdy bully.

The whole business behind the Norquist pledge sort of reminds me of this:

Tanglebones wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:

One thing I never see address: Who the f*ck is Grover Norquist?

IMAGE(http://images.hyun.wikia-dev.com/muppet/images/c/c1/Supergrover.jpg)

I'm pretty sure Grover (the good one) can now sue you for libel.

iaintgotnopants wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:

One thing I never see address: Who the f*ck is Grover Norquist?

IMAGE(http://images.hyun.wikia-dev.com/muppet/images/c/c1/Supergrover.jpg)

I'm pretty sure Grover (the good one) can now sue you for libel.

Kinda funny as that reminds me pretty much of a exchange between Stewart and O'Rielly that pretty much was summed up like that.

I think the jist of it was, Stewart: Well what about Norquist O'Rielly: Who?!?!? that doesn't matter.

For my money, Benedict Cumberbatch is the most British name in history. Saxby Chambliss is the most Old South name in history as well. You expect that Saxby Chambliss stood stout and resolute over Atlanta as Sherman marched, pledging revenge.

KingGorilla wrote:

For my money, Benedict Cumberbatch is the most British name in history. Saxby Chambliss is the most Old South name in history as well. You expect that Saxby Chambliss stood stout and resolute over Atlanta as Sherman marched, pledging revenge.

Given that Chambliss was a draft-dodging coward who went on to impugn the reputation of a double amputee war hero, I would say that the better image is of him dressing up like a woman to run screaming away from the Union Army and their colored troops.

It's "Benedict Timothy Carlton Cumberbatch". Even more English. Especially the Carlton.

Robear wrote:

It's "Benedict Timothy Carlton Cumberbatch". Even more English. Especially the Carlton.

IMAGE(http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/carlton.jpg)

What the...

In 2001, Republicans won the general argument. President Bush wanted to cut taxes, while Democrats were trying to limit the size and scope of the cuts. In exchange for the tax cuts, a sunset provision was agreed upon. That is compromise.

In 2012, the argument is already left of center. Republicans are not trying to cut taxes. They are simply trying to prevent Democrats from raising them. Conservatives have already drifted from conservative dogma.

Obama has not moved an inch. Emboldened by his reelection, he has claimed that if Republicans do not allow taxes to rise on the "wealthy," then it will be their fault if everyone faces higher taxes in 2013.

This is false. Obama could extend all of the Bush tax cuts, but he adamantly refuses to do so. He is the inflexible ideologue posing as the reasonable statesman. He speaks about spending cuts, but has never offered a single cut in any domestic, discretionary, or entitlement program. President Obama has never cut anything non-military. He wants higher taxes and spending which must be stopped.

Republicans have compromised. They have offered to close loopholes, which would cause many Americans, especially the affluent, to pay more taxes without marginal rate increases. Loopholes should not exist anyway. Loopholes by definition alone are ways of legally gaming the system. Yet closing loopholes is not good enough for Obama. He is simply hell-bent on higher tax rates based on his leftist ideological beliefs.

...
President Obama will try to make this personal, but this is the heart of policy. Congressional Republicans must fight to the death to extend the Bush tax cuts. Failure to do so will destroy the party of Abraham Lincoln and wreak havoc on an economy already under siege from increased regulations, more spending, and higher taxes, known collectively as Obamanomics.

Taking the above conservative opinion piece in conjunction with the speaker's recent statements that they'll consider closing some loopholes but absolutely, positively no tax increases, I'm worried that we're heading right back to where we were a few years ago and all of this talk of being more flexible in negotiations ends up being nothing but lip service designed to allow people like the above writer to rant and rave about how Obama is the one killing negotiations.

Eric Golub is a conservative blogger living in Los Angeles. A more impotent life I cannot imagine, outside of Bob Dole.

Ah, revisionist history...

The Bush tax cuts were made to expire after 10 years because of the Byrd Rule, not because of some political compromise. The Byrd Rule allows the Senate to block any legislation that increases the federal deficit beyond a ten year term. Even back in the early 2000s the projections were that the Bush tax cuts would increase the federal deficit, so the Bush administration simply sidestepped the entire issue by making the cuts automatically sunset in ten years.

I wonder if you grow cysts in your body with all of that wrong floating around.

Ask Andrew Breitbart about that theory...

Robear wrote:

Ask Andrew Breitbart about that theory...

IMAGE(http://www.bloguin.com/crystalballrun/images/stories/crystalball.jpg)

Insane Article wrote:

President Obama will try to make this personal, but this is the heart of policy. Congressional Republicans must fight to the death to extend the Bush tax cuts. Failure to do so will destroy the party of Abraham Lincoln and wreak havoc on an economy already under siege from increased regulations, more spending, and higher taxes, known collectively as Obamanomics.

This part really kills me. Tagging Obama's name to something automatically means it's just his fault, only his fault, and if he would stop doing things, everything would be better! I'm surprised that the GOP hasn't moved to get cancer renamed to Obamcer or something by now. We could call abortions Obamortions!

While this is just one (obviously highly partisan) blogger, it just confirms my feeling that the Republican Party is going to make mild overtures and speeches about wanting to work together and then do exactly what they did four years ago - just keep making demands until the Democrats stop caving and then stonewall. Or just not participate at all, but point to the times they said they wanted an open dialogue as proof that they're trying to compromise.

SO back to the no cuts on Entitlements. The ACA is weening Medicare and Medicaid off of hundreds of billions. He attacked that sacred cow, and he was still handily re-elected.

Republicans in the House, but especially the Senate (almost 2/3 of the seats this last election that were up were for Democrats) need to take a hard look to see if stone walling will get them re-elected. And with what went down in many states, it seems a lot of the US wants higher taxes, closed loopholes.

KingGorilla wrote:

And with what went down in many states, it seems a lot of the US wants higher taxes, closed loopholes.

I believe that's been reflected in public opinion polls for a while now: the majority of Americans are very comfortable with the idea of increasing taxes, especially on the rich.

OG_slinger wrote:

I believe that's been reflected in public opinion polls for a while now: the majority of Americans are very comfortable with the idea of increasing taxes, especially on the rich.

But as Jon Stewart once said, it seems that many Republicans feel that even though Obama was re-elected what the American people were really saying was that they supported Romney's financial plan. So, off they go talking about how Americans have resoundingly criticized the President's plant to "tax and spend while cutting defense".

Kehama wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

I believe that's been reflected in public opinion polls for a while now: the majority of Americans are very comfortable with the idea of increasing taxes, especially on the rich.

But as Jon Stewart once said, it seems that many Republicans feel that even though Obama was re-elected what the American people were really saying was that they supported Romney's financial plan. So, off they go talking about how Americans have resoundingly criticized the President's plant to "tax and spend while cutting defense".

His imaginary financial plan?

So what they are saying is that the American public decided "We are voting for Obama because we prefer Romney for president."

*crack*

Ahh, much easier to understand once my brain is borked.

Heard it again on NPR today -- that the President has to be the one to do the compromising, or if we 'go over the fiscal cliff', it's all his fault, because he 'wasn't flexible enough'. Of course, what that actually means is 'does exactly what the Republicans say'.