Posted on 10/17/2013 2:47:59 AM PDT by lbryce
The Republican Party's tea-party adherents believe they made an important point by setting in motion the events that led to this month's government shutdown, ill-fated though that shutdown might have been.
The question they and the rest of their party now are left to ponder is this: Was the price paid worth the point made? That question, in fact, now lies at the heart of what figures to be a full-fledged struggle over the soul of the party, and over who really leads it.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
No groundswell of added support? I’m thinking that you are going to be pleasantly and surprisingly wrong on that. Tons of patriotic old dems just ran into a wall of stubborn reality with the recent actions of this American hating prez!
I challenge the first half of the question. There was no point. It was grandstanding theatrical BS that had no effect of any kind other than getting a few deluded dupes to think “their guy” was “fighting hard”. Anybody that thinks there was a point has chosen to believe lies.
Ted has the people’s support including mine. But the old dems are outnumbered by the new dems. The old dems helped but 0bama in for 2 terms. But the second term was only due to Romney being too mushy to get the one issue right to the polls and did not excite the mushy middle at all. I’ll be 60 in January, I am a Vietnam ERA Veteran. I know that the only reason Reagan was able to beat Carter was due to the misery index. There is no longer a misery index outside of true conservatives because the left’s level of stupid is twice what it was. The Gimme crowd is larger than it has ever been. Amnesty will double that. I’m not giving up, but the dynamics have changed due to GHW Bush and GW Bush showing that dems and rinos are not that different. I pray I am wrong because I have two children and five grandchildren.
There was no price. Cory Booker won in New Jersey by 10 points. He should have won by 20 points. The only price the republicans will pay will be in the primaries and in their national war chest. Never get another dime from me, my money will go to Conservative organizations, not liberal republican sh6tbirds.
I have a few checks to put behind a new second party. It’s time to let the moderate GOP dry up and blow away.
If anyone wants to do some organizing, please add me to a ping list.
But the large deductibles in the bronze plans are easy to rebut by telling them that a silver or gold plan, for a couple hundred more, gives a much lower deductible.
In my state (don't know about other states or the federal plans):
Individual Deductibles:Bronze: 5,000 (ouch)
Silver: 1,500
Gold: 750
Same with copays
Copayment rate:Bronze: 40% (ouch)
Silver: 20%
Gold: 10%
I agree. Even if Cruz’s work was Quixotic, it is none the less a valient effort to save our nation.Obama and his running dogs decry the Tea Party, because the Tea Party succeeded in telling America the truth.The Truth is very dangerous to Obama and his political allies.
Obama says that telling the truth is a great sin, horrible, holding the government up for ransom....yada..yadda ....yada...( BARF!)
Cruz and Lee did just what they should have, and they need to keep up the good work, because it circumvents the MSM and the continuing Obama campaign , and their efforts inform the public about the truth of Obama’s failure on Obama Care and other matters such as Bengazi.
Obama is always campaigning to redefine truth so it is a lie.Thats Obama’s purpose in campaigning continuously. Obama is acting to continuously misinform the People.His efforts never cease in that regard.And the MSM will never call him on it.
This is exactly how fascism takes root in a free nation.We have seen that happen before in Japan, Italy and Germany. Obama and his propagandist media are no different than their historical predecessors.Obama is now evolving into a quintessential tyrant.And we need to be shot of him, ASAP.
Read :
Obama, the Quintessential Fascist:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html
Cruz is where Churchill was in 1934, when his own party told him to stop warning the world about Hitler.
Fast forward five years, everyone knew Churchill was right all along.
Cruz is where Churchill was in 1934, when his own party told him to stop warning the world about Hitler.
Fast forward five years, everyone knew Churchill was right all along.
___________________________
That was a terrible 5 years for many many people
Sad to say, but a lot of people are going to have to suffer down the road, before people wake up, and realize what we here know.
Long Live the Tea Party!
Agreed.
Gail Collins said today everybody’s going to want to be Ted Cruz for Halloween. She gets it, but she doesn’t know she gets it.
No surrender. No retreat. Remember the Alamo!
lbryce:Sounds like a question only a Democrat would ask.St_Thomas_AquinasOr a WSJ Collaborator.They're as bad as the NYT, now.
It was Obama that was willing to shut down payments to military and seniors if the house did not give him everything he demanded. How could the fail to make that point?
The question to ask Gerald Seib is, “Did President Reagan shut down the government? And if so, exactly how did he shut down the government back in the 1980s, and in what sense did Congress shut down the government this time?The answer is, of course, that people who are Democrats in fact (whether card-carrying or not) will blame the Republican party to any dispute with a Democrat party. The same is not true in reverse; Republicans will admit that “it takes two to make an argument,” and that a government shutdown is always the result of a confrontation between two opposing parties, each having control of a branch of government.
To the extent that “Reagan shut down the government” in the 1980s, and “the Republicans shut down the government” in 2013, the person or institution who is telling the story is taking the Democrat side of the argument for granted in both - generally in all - cases.
Yes, the WSJ is “as bad as the NYT” - but then, it always was, everywhere except the Editorial Page. And I assume that this piece, tho in fact an opinion piece, was not published on the editorial page. Because the “liberalism” endemic to all wire service journalism, including that of the WSJ, lead the editors outside the conservative redoubt of the official editorial page to create their own “shadow editorial page” from time to time. And that has historically had the moniker, “Politics and Policy” IIRC - whereas the editorial page itself is headed, “Review and Outlook.” And rest assured, I have seen this byline before in “Politics and Policy” more than once - but I do not recall seeing that byline on the op-ed to the “Review and Outlook” editorial page. And it does not appear there today - I looked. The writer is the WSJ Washington Bureau Chief - not a writer for the editorial page.
As to why our reporting is all left wing, I puzzled over that for decades before happening on a book,the mere title of which gave me a blinding flash of the obvious - the telegraph surely must have changed journalism, and was therefore a candidate for causing journalism to swerve firmly into leftism. A bit of reading about the AP:
- Mr. Lincoln's T-Mails:
- The Untold Story of How Abraham Lincoln Used the Telegraph to Win the Civil War
by Tom Wheelerbrought home the fact that the AP was aggressively monopolistic from its inception.
My own analysis is that all journalism has the tendency play "the critic” vs. “the man who is actually in the arena,” and that must always push reporters towards leftism. And wire services - the AP is the biggie, even if there are others - constitute a continuous virtual meeting of journalists. The one Adam Smith quote that “liberals” like is,People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)But if in the above quote you replace “people of the same trade,” with “journalists,” and if you recognize that they “meet together” via the wire services, you conclude that the wire services empower journalists to follow their own natural predilection without check by other journalists. And to the extent that journalists lust after stories which put journalists and journalism in a favorable light, it is only natural that their tendency is toward advocacy for the proposition that you and I need the protection of journalists from “the man who is actually in the arena” - from, that is, the producers of all the goods and services upon which we depend. Which is, IMHO, the defining characteristic of leftism (which in America has since the 1920s termed itself “liberalism”).Thus, my tagline:“Liberalism” is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.Why the Associated Press is Pernicious to the Public Interest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.