If you were paying attention, we just observed some very cool political chess this past week. President Obama mentions John Boehner’s name about 8 times during a speech. Most of America does not know who Boehner is (he is the leader of the minority party—the Republicans—in the House). Readers of Flopping Aces probably know this, but most of America has no idea. Probably a third of our voting population does not even know which party is in power in the House and the Senate.
Anyway, so Obama gets Boehner’s name out there. He knows that these elections are going to be nationalized, so he needs a face to put on the Republican party, so that he can demonize that face (ala, Saul Alinksy).
Then, almost simultaneously, Boehner is pressed on television about tax cuts for the rich (remember, the news media, for the most part, is an arm of the Democratic party). The principled position is for Boehner to say, “We should not let the Bush tax cuts expire for rich or poor; they should remain in place for all Americans, and that is what we as Republicans will hold out for.” But, he did not say that exactly, because this was all a set up to make Boehner known as the head the Republican party, and then to get a quote from him that could be played and replayed in order to make it look as if the thrust of the Republican party is to get tax cuts for the rich.
Instead, to the surprise of many people, Boehner immediately capitulated and said, “We will take whatever tax cuts we can get for the American people, rich or poor. If we can only get some tax cuts, then that is what we will do.” (Not an exact quote). Now, if you are a strong conservative, when you saw this, you probably yelled at the TV and though that Boehner was selling out the principles of conservatism. Wrong. This whole thing was a trap, and Boehner deftly avoided stepping into it.
Well played, Mr. Boehner!
A retired math teacher who spends most of his time exegeting the Old Testament and, once a week, puts out an ezeen.
@anticsrocks, #48:
Nope, not at all. But the fact that someone has an American flag in one hand, a copy of the Constitution in the other, and a bible back home on the nightstand doesn’t guarantee purity of principle, or a uniformity of their application. Right wing authoritarianism has sometimes been known to carry those things as props. Some people reference those things selectively, only to support their personal views.
Greg, you are right some people pretend they are Christian by attending church for 20 years so they can get elected!
@Greg:
Really?
Examples please.
You’re right about that one.
Can you point me to the portion of the US Constitution which gives government the authority to redistribute wealth?
Can you show me the part of the US Constitution which mandates that I give up what I have worked for in order for someone else to have it?
Can you provide for me citations from the Founding Fathers in which they indicated that charity is a function of the gov’t?
Can you put together an even remotely coherent argument by which you balance out the progressive income tax system with the principles of equal justice and equal protection?
@Aye Chihuahua, #53: “Examples please.”
Joe McCarthy? The John Birch Society? The Klan?
@Greg:
Oh, you mean Senator Joe McCarthy who was ultimately proven right about the Communists in our gov’t? Nah, he doesn’t fit your definition.
And by the Klan, you mean the KKK, the terrorist arm of the Dimocrat Party? Nah, they weren’t “right wing”. They don’t fit your definition.
And how, precisely, has the John Birch Society ever been an example of “right wing authoritarianism”? They’ve never been more than a bunch of loons as far as I can tell. They don’t fit your definition.
None of what you cited meets the definition of “right wing authoritarianism.”
Care to try again?
Did I miss your answers to the second half of post #53?
@Greg: You said:
So you are saying that the Tea Party folks are guilty until proven innocent? They must prove the “purity” of their principles?
I seem to remember that in America it is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
@Aye Chihuahua, #53:
Without progressive taxation, the ungoing concentration of wealth at the top would accelerate. Since there’s a correlation between money and power, equal justice and equal protection would ultimately become empty concepts. We could all expect about as much equal justice and equal protection as we could afford. That would likely also be true of things less abstract. Food, shelter, medical care, etc.
@anticsrocks, #56:
I didn’t mention those folks. Some of them have voiced concerns that are also my concerns, so I won’t make generalizations. I’m a lot more critical of some of the people who are harnessing that energy. I think Sharron Angle, for example, is an extremist, and inconsistent in the application of her principles. She appears to loath intrusive government, for example, but has no problem whatsoever with heavy-handed government intrusion into a woman’s reproductive choices, regardless of circumstances. I’m sure she’d happily have your door broken down if she thought you were in there smoking marijuana. People apparently have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to behave as Sharron Angle believes they should.
Sorry Greg. That’s not an argument which balances the progressive tax system with the principles of equal justice and equal protection.
Care to try again?
“Care to try again?”
Nah, it’s getting late, so I think I’ll stick with that.
Nice buzzer! It conjures up vague memories of my grandparents’ living room and 1950’s television game shows, though I can’t quite place it.
Aye Chihuahua,
You should reserve your intelect for others who can carry on a sane conversation. As for Greg, my Grandpa said that even a jack ass will tire of hearing himself bray! Don’t waste your time.
RANDY #60 I’d suggest you learn to spell intellect before questioning mine or Gregs.
I may be wrong but I think A.C. would be extremely bored if he only had you to debate.
A.C. Reminds me of Reggie Miller draining a game winning 3.