Matchett, courtesy *PING* for late in the reply; you are not deeply involved, so feel free to skip this if you wish.
LS, following up an inflammatory remark with ad hominem really is consistent with trolling: the remarks alone could have been due to mere miscommunication, but that is now looking less likely.
I'll give it another try here in behaving as though your last couple of posts to me on thie thread really were in earnest, and quote Palin, West, and Coulter on the debt deal.
Palin says it was a Tea Party victory. Coulter says it was a Tea Party victory (from what I heard-—didn’t hear the statement itself). West says it was the best we could do. I guess these are all turncoats.
Palin said: PALIN: Well, I think that we shall take this victory and make sure that our politicians in office today are learning from this victory, realizing that it's not 100 percent pure, genuine victory because realize, Greta, we just handed the most liberal president, I believe, in U.S. history a $2.4 trillion debt increase. We're allowing him to increase the budget even more, and without guaranteed cuts, and without guaranteed reforms. And we have to make sure that we realize that, yes, this is a victory, because Tea Party patriots did shift the debate. However, there's so much more work to do in order to get the economy back on the right track and to restore the exceptionalism that is America.
West said (paraphrase of the interview with Susteren) "Who'd have thought we'd be talking a year ago about cutting spending?" and said he wasn't enthusiastic about the committee (SuperCongress), but still had the opportunity for cuts in Federal Govt. spending, so we have the opportunity to turn this thing around for the first time in quite awhile.
Coulter said (paraphrase / partial quote from interview with Hannity) “The Tea Party Republicans have made their point. They refused to raise the debt ceiling. We know what they want to do, but you have one half of one branch of government. You want them to do better? Americans give them 2/3 of the House and Senate or give them Chris Christie in the Presidency.”
So all of these folks emphasized, not the actual deal which was reached as being so successrul, as much as the change in the terms in which the debate is conducted: "Tax and Spend" is no longer axiomatic, with the debate over how much.
So it is not a decisive victory, but one which prepares the ground for further victories.
Your quote in Post #205 made it sound like all of them agreed heartily with the actual deal struck: and it is THAT which constituted trolling.
(See also the response to you by Matchett-PI in Post #207.)
Cheers!
This drifted into an argument of whether Rush is ever wrong---and he has been from time to time, including saying that first, Hillary would never run for the NY Senate because she couldn't stand the stigma of losing, then, after she ran, saying she was a lock for the Dem nomination for pres. It's irrelevant why his predictions were wrong---it's only relevant that Rush is not 100% right, nor am I, nor are any of you.
So, the issues then became these:
"Is the debt deal a good one?" Absolutely not. It may not be a disaster in the vein of TARP, but it's as Rush correctly portrayed it yesterday, a "blown opportunity" to knock this out of the park. I agree. Bad deal, missed opportunity.
"Was it the best the GOP could get?" Depends on who you talk to. There are 22 Tea Party freshmen who say no, but even people like Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and Tea Party Freshman Allen West say yes. I think it was not---but I'm not inside Washington, and I am willing to admit that there may be things we don't know going on. I doubt it, but again, I'm not there---this is called representative government for a reason.
The next set of issues was, "Who won?" My comments had to do with the fact that MANY icons on this board, including Sarah Palin and Allen West (who is a terrific guy) and Ann Coulter claimed it was a victory for the "Tea Party." Forget for a moment if they used terms like "qualified." The media never, ever reports qualifiers, and the headlines are "Palin says Budget Battle Tea Party Victory." Why have these Tea Party icons said it was a victory? Most of them say that because, they claim, it "changed the terms of the debate."
I'm not sure---it seems to me that Rick Santelli "changed the terms of the debate" with his coining the term "tea party" back in 2009 and that the country has been focused on the national debt quite clearly ever since. But this is what the people who say "the Tea Party won" are claiming.
The liberal side of the fence, however, is utterly exploding with rage and looniness claiming that the Tea Party won as well. Forget for a moment that their so-called logic in this is grounded entirely in the fact that there were no new taxes and that the Bush tax cuts are still in place. This is the continuation of the Bush Derangement Syndrome. For whatever reason, they think they lost big. Our side, or most of our side, thinks we had a qualified win.
Rush, and some here, are afraid Obama is going to use a "Tea Party victory" to play us in 2012. Folks, Obama isn't that smart. There is just as great a danger in overestimating your opponent as in underestimating him---ask General McClellan! And more over, according to the Quinnipiac poll on Drudge today, 61% of independents disapprove of Obama; and I saw a Gallup poll (someone will have to help me here, because I thought it was on Drudge and it isn't), that said that the numbers who think the debt crisis is a serious issue and has NOT been addressed has increased. So I don't see any way in heck that Zero gains from this. The economy is a huge millstone around his neck, and his attempts to blame Bush/Republicans/GOP just (apparently) aren't working.
My concern is that there are a LOT of people who have come to this board since 2001 who are not conservatives and who in fact are Dem trolls or LaRouchies or whomever and they constantly post anti-GOP stuff for the sole purpose of demoralizing the base. I know Coach isn't demoralized, and I'm not demoralized---but in the past six months as I've spoken to Tea Party and conservative groups around the country, I have seen a great deal of apathy or complacency (don't know which) set in. Liberty Groups that used to draw 150 are now getting 30. There are other signs too that I would be happy to share on a personal basis. So while solid criticism is necessary and useful, we need to keep our eyes on the prize which is first and foremost to get that evil oaf out of the White House; to STOP SPENDING; and then to cut, cut, cut.
Unfortunately, I do think it has to be in that order.