Interesting take: Why Republicans Shut Down the Government

[JCDenton0451]

Why Republicans Shut Down the Government (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-04/why-republicans-shut-down-the-government.html)
If you want to understand why the government is shut down or why elected Republicans would even consider doing something as reckless as using a debt default to extract policy concessions from the White House -- without necessarily even knowing (https://twitter.com/frankthorpNBC/status/385498983268769793) which policy concessions they want -- Stan Greenberg has a memo (http://www.democracycorps.com/attachments/article/954/dcor%20rpp%20fg%20memo%20100313%20final.pdf) for you.


Greenberg has been a prominent Democratic pollster for decades, with a specialty (http://www.democracycorps.com/wp-content/files/backtomacomb082208v11-final.pdf) in white working-class distrust of Democratic elites. In addition to his own polling firm, he operates Democracy Corps (http://www.democracycorps.com/)with former Democratic consultant James Carville. (Both men worked for former President Bill Clinton.)


Democracy Corps issued a report this week on six focus groups conducted with Republican subgroups -- two each with Tea Partiers, evangelicals and moderate Republicans. The results somehow manage to be unsurprising and shocking at the same time -- largely due to the bracing effects of reading the real words of (almost) average Americans.


First, a word on focus groups. Unlike a poll, which asks a series of standardized questions to hundreds of people and then tallies the results, a focus group is more like a conversation. Usually 10 or 12 people are chosen because they meet certain demographic and partisan profiles and invited to a conference room. A professional moderator is charged with keeping the conversation flowing in a productive (for the researchers) direction, and a sense of safety is established among participants.


Safety is largely a function of sameness. If you want to know what black working-class men think about Mitt Romney, for example, don't throw three white professionals with briefcases into the mix. Instead, surround like with like. Groups that are homogenous in terms of race and class tend to produce far more uninhibited responses.


That's what Greenberg did -- putting together separate homogenous groups of white Tea Partiers, white evangelicals and white Republican moderates.
The moderates are in some respects a breed apart. They share the antipathy Tea Partiers and evangelicals have toward President Barack Obama, but lack the other groups' default position amid demographic, political and cultural change.


That default is essentially abject terror. Before discussion began, participants were asked to write down private thoughts about Obama that they wouldn't have to share with the others. Here's a sample:


"Socialist, income redistribution"
(Tea Party man, Raleigh)


"What is he really thinking?"
(Tea Party man, Raleigh)


"Background"
(Tea Party man, Raleigh)


"Lack of relationship with the American people."
(Tea Party man, Raleigh)


"Muslim; birth agenda; Fake; not true"
(Tea Party man, Raleigh)


"Not a US citizen. Supports Terrorists."
(Evangelical man, Roanoke)


"I don’t believe he’s a Christian. He’s a tyrant."
(Evangelical man, Roanoke)


"He wants to fundamentally change the country."
(Evangelical man, Roanoke)


"He is going to try to turn this into a communist country."
(Evangelical woman, Colorado Springs)


"His motives behind his actions."
(Evangelical woman, Colorado Springs)


"He supports everything that is against Christianity."
(Evangelical woman, Colorado Springs)


It's worth noting these were not the words of activists dressed in colonial garb on their way to a Capitol Hill protest. All these participants did was get paid to attend a focus group in or around their home towns.


For them, Greenberg notes, Washington looks nothing like the capital many others see. Gridlock? There is no gridlock. Only a socialist steamroller before which the Republican Party is feeble and afraid. "Evangelicals who feel most threatened by trends embrace the Tea Party because they are the ones who are fighting back," the report states. Republican base voters "think they face a victorious Democratic Party that is intent on expanding government to increase dependency and therefore electoral support."


This is the context of the fight against Obamacare. The basic idea -- similarly articulated (http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/15/4-questions-with-ted-cruz-on-defunding-obamacare/) by some Republican officeholders, including Texas Senator Ted Cruz -- is that Obama has extended a new entitlement to create a class of lazy, poor voters whose well-being is dependent upon the Democratic Party. Shorthand: more 47 percenters.


"Their party is losing to a Democratic Party of big government whose goal is to expand programs that mainly benefit minorities," the report states.


The Republican moderates were staunch fiscal conservatives, but most readily embraced new gender relations and minority empowerment, including gay rights. The Tea Partiers and evangelicals spoke as if they were in the midst of War of the Worlds. As the report characterizes the Tea-Party worldview: "Obama's America is an unmitigated evil based on big government, regulations and dependency."


It's a tough situation to rectify. A lot of Americans were not ready for a mixed-race president. They weren't ready for gay marriage. They weren't ready for the wave of legal and illegal immigration that redefined American demographics over the past two or three decades, bringing in lots of nonwhites. They weren't ready -- who was? -- for the brutal effects of globalization on working- and middle-class Americans or the devastating fallout from the financial crisis.


Their representatives didn't stop Obamacare. And their side didn't "take back America" in 2012 as Fox News and conservative radio personalities led them to believe they would. They feel the culture is running away from them (and they're mostly right). They lack the power to control their own government. But they still have just enough to shut it down.

[angelatc]

Oh, go get a job, troll. Go away.


As the report characterizes the Tea-Party worldview: "Obama's America is an unmitigated evil based on big government, regulations and dependency."

They are right.

[AuH20]

There are large portions of Appalachia dependent on welfare programs. This insinuation that white Republicans primarily rail against the welfare state because of minorities is bogus.

[angelatc]

There are large portions of Appalachia dependent on welfare programs. This insinuation that white Republicans primarily rail against the welfare state because of minorities is bogus.

Yes, but they would not be liberals if they didn't play the race card. Liberals lie. When they start losing one argument, they just start a new one. They keep the conservatives on defense, draining resources away from an offense.

Until we get some real men back at the top of the GOP, we're going to lose. You can't beat liberals by trying to placate them. Look back at the origins of Medicare. The opposition said it would lead to a national health plan, and the left ridiculed that idea. Look who was right.

They are parasites who will never be placated. They won't negotiate one bit on Obamacare because they know how important it is for it to become entrenched as quickly as possible.

[better-dead-than-fed]

If you want to understand why the government is shut down or why elected Republicans would even consider doing something as reckless necessary as using a debt default..

[jbauer]

So what do you want JCdenton?

Are we supposed to agree with what you've posted so you can take our names and IP's down so when they come for us you've got documentable proof that "we're" against the government?

Whats the rate per head on an anarchist?

They're paying $68/head on signing folks up for Obamacare. Surely your pay per/head for indefinite detention in a FEMA camp is higher then that isn't it? We should change your name to Judas.

[angelatc]

So what makes it interesting, JCDenton? What did you learn from it, specifically?

[Cleaner44]

So what makes it interesting, JCDenton? What did you learn from it, specifically?

I suspect that he will not answer. JC is not a small government guy from what I can tell. I get the feeling that he thinks "a little socialism" is a good thing.

[jbauer]

I suspect that he will not answer. JC is not a small government guy from what I can tell. I get the feeling that he thinks "a little socialism" is a good thing.

Na he's a government plant. He's here to collect information on us and report to his superiors if/what/when he see a potential "non-supporter" of all things big government. The guy should check out democratunderground. He'd fit right in.

[Occam's Banana]

I suspect that he will not answer. JC is not a small government guy from what I can tell. I get the feeling that he thinks "a little socialism" is a good thing.

I wonder ... how ever could you have gotten such a feeling? ...


[The failure of economic central-planning] is mostly theory with little empirical data to support it.

Central planning seemed to work in the Soviet Union for decades. [... The] Soviet Union lasted 90 years. Are you suggesting it was dieing [sic] the whole time? lol

[... W]ithin the Communist Bloc, East Germany had arguably the most robust economy with the highest productivity, GDP per capita and corresponding living standards etc.

[erowe1]

I don't see how anything in the OP relates to the thread title.

[Antischism]

Sounds like people who don't understand the terms they're using and who fell victim to anti-socialist paranoia/birtherism. Lots of intolerance in the name of fundamentalist Christianity, too.

For one, these people probably don't even know what socialism is; they just hear a bunch of fear-mongering from Republican talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and think the welfare state and socialism are synonyms. Socialism, by definition, is the ownership of the means of production by the laborers. Without that, there is no socialism. Ever.

Two, Obama is nowhere NEAR being a socialist or a communist. He's a crony capitalist/corporatist. Call him what he is, not what you think will scare people into hating him through red scare tactics.

Three, Obamacare is a Republican idea created by the Heritage Foundation. Both parties have now fought for and against the very same idea. Further proof that there's very little difference between the two.

Maybe if these people weren't so misinformed, some of their real concerns would be taken seriously. They're stuck in the two-party-paradigm of shit.

[angelatc]

.

Three, Obamacare is a Republican idea created by the Heritage Foundation.

Liberal talking point alert - not true. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?429552-Obamacare-INVENTED-by-Conservatives-Do-they-seek-redemption-!-!-!&p=5257584&viewfull=1#post5257584)

[erowe1]

For one, these people probably don't even know what socialism is; they just hear a bunch of fear-mongering from Republican talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and think the welfare state and socialism are synonyms. Socialism, by definition, is the ownership of the means of production by the laborers. Without that, there is no socialism. Ever.

Where did you get that?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism?s=t

so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

[jbauer]

Sounds like people who don't understand the terms they're using and who fell victim to anti-socialist paranoia/birtherism. Lots of intolerance in the name of fundamentalist Christianity, too.

For one, these people probably don't even know what socialism is; they just hear a bunch of fear-mongering from Republican talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and think the welfare state and socialism are synonyms. Socialism, by definition, is the ownership of the means of production by the laborers. Without that, there is no socialism. Ever.

Two, Obama is nowhere NEAR being a socialist or a communist. He's a crony capitalist/corporatist. Call him what he is, not what you think will scare people into hating him through red scare tactics.

Three, Obamacare is a Republican idea created by the Heritage Foundation. Both parties have now fought for and against the very same idea. Further proof that there's very little difference between the two.

Maybe if these people weren't so misinformed, some of their real concerns would be taken seriously. They're stuck in the two-party-paradigm of shit.

I really think Obama is more of a fascist then anything. (keeping in mind that fascism usually lands on the extreme right) BUT...

Obamacare is nothing short of socialism at its finest. So I can see where the confusion might be.

[AuH20]

Sounds like people who don't understand the terms they're using and who fell victim to anti-socialist paranoia/birtherism. Lots of intolerance in the name of fundamentalist Christianity, too.

For one, these people probably don't even know what socialism is; they just hear a bunch of fear-mongering from Republican talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and think the welfare state and socialism are synonyms. Socialism, by definition, is the ownership of the means of production by the laborers. Without that, there is no socialism. Ever.

The extraction and pooling of resources from the private sector is the lifeblood of the socialist model. Now whether corporate interests dip their beaks in these funds doesn't change the model.



Two, Obama is nowhere NEAR being a socialist or a communist. He's a crony capitalist/corporatist. Call him what he is, not what you think will scare people into hating him through red scare tactics.

Obama serves many masters and many causes. He's both SOCIALIST and CORPORATIST like his former predecessor. He's gutted former welfare restrictions as well as pushed for an extension of unemployment benefits.




Maybe if these people weren't so misinformed, some of their real concerns would be taken seriously. They're stuck in the two-party-paradigm of shit.

Yes, the one party paradigm of big government and neverending deficits.

[Antischism]

Liberal talking point alert - not true. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?429552-Obamacare-INVENTED-by-Conservatives-Do-they-seek-redemption-!-!-!&p=5257584&viewfull=1#post5257584)

So why did the Heritage Foundation take credit for RomneyCare, for example, which heavily influenced ObamaCare?

[Antischism]

Where did you get that?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism?s=t

State socialism is as much socialist as crony capitalism is capitalist.

[erowe1]

State socialism is as much socialist as crony capitalism is capitalist.

So when you said they probably didn't know what socialism was, you just meant that they probably didn't use the word "socialism" in the same idiosyncratic way that you do?

[Occam's Banana]

The whole "Is it (or are they) socialist or fascist?" question strikes me as being as bogus as the "left vs. right" paradigm.

Statist idolators idolize Statism. That is all. Socialist? Fascist? Who cares?! They're just two different shades of shit ...

[Cabal]

The whole "Is it (or are they) socialist or fascist?" question strikes me as being as bogus as the "left vs. right" paradigm.

Statist idolators idolize Statism. That is all. Socialist? Fascist? Who cares?! They're just two different shades of shit ...

The only distinction that's worth a damn is statist vs. anti-statist--violence vs. voluntary.

[Antischism]

The extraction and pooling of resources from the private sector is the lifeblood of the socialist model. Now whether corporate interests dip their beaks in these funds doesn't change the model.




Obama serves many masters and many causes. He's both SOCIALIST and CORPORATIST like his former predecessor. He's gutted former welfare restrictions as well as pushed for an extension of unemployment benefits.




Yes, the one party paradigm of big government and neverending deficits.

But the welfare state has absolutely nothing to do with socialism. It has everything to do with the means of production being owned by the people, the workers, not the State. State socialism is a fraud. In an actual socialist country, capital would become obsolete/abolished, in favor of something like labor certificates.

[Antischism]

The only distinction that's worth a damn is statist vs. anti-statist--violence vs. voluntary.

I can agree with this.

[Antischism]

So when you said they probably didn't know what socialism was, you just meant that they probably didn't use the word "socialism" in the same idiosyncratic way that you do?

If they tell you anything other than a shift in the means of production to the common man and not the State, they're wrong. Production is controlled and owned by the people, the workers. It's stateless. No government involvement.

[angelatc]

If they tell you anything other than a shift in the means of production to the common man and not the State, they're wrong. Production is controlled and owned by the people, the workers.

Socialism is evil. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html)

[angelatc]

If they tell you anything other than a shift in the means of production to the common man and not the State, they're wrong. Production is controlled and owned by the people, the workers. It's stateless. No government involvement.

This is wrong.

[angelatc]

But the welfare state has absolutely nothing to do with socialism. It has everything to do with the means of production being owned by the people, the workers, not the State. State socialism is a fraud. In an actual socialist country, capital would become obsolete/abolished, in favor of something like labor certificates.

Who would issue the certificates?

[Antischism]

Angela, I mean no disrespect, but I think you'd get a much better understanding of socialism if you read some of the works of Pierre Joseph Proudhon and on the topic of mutualism as well as Benjamin Tucker, an individualist anarchist.

[JCDenton0451]

So what makes it interesting, JCDenton? What did you learn from it, specifically? I'm unable to understand Republican behavior politically, so I had to turn to the realm of sociology, psychology looking for answers. And of course the media and Democratic social scientists are more than happy to oblige.

Separating facts from the liberal spin can be challenging, but the article paints a picture of panicked and desperate people, which fits the observed behavior among the Republican base.

Personally, I find it fascinating that the Democrats study Republican voters like that. I'll make sure to read the entire report (http://www.democracycorps.com/attachments/article/954/dcor%20rpp%20fg%20memo%20100313%20final.pdf)when I have time.

[ronpaulfollower999]

I'm unable to understand Republican behavior politically, so I had to turn to the realm of sociology, psychology looking for answers. And of course the media and Democratic social scientists are more than happy to oblige.

Separating facts from the liberal spin can be challenging, but the article paints a picture of panicked and desperate people, which fits the observed behavior among the Republican base.

Personally, I find it fascinating that the Democrats study Republican voters like that. I'll make sure to read the entire report (http://www.democracycorps.com/attachments/article/954/dcor%20rpp%20fg%20memo%20100313%20final.pdf)when I have time.

I think you'll find that your average Tea Partier is more anti-Obama/anti-Democrat. If Romney was in power, I'm sure everything would be fine and dandy for the Tea Party. But rest assure, us here at RPFs would still be bitching and moaning.

[angelatc]

I'm unable to understand Republican behavior politically, so I had to turn to the realm of sociology, psychology looking for answers. And of course the media and Democratic social scientists are more than happy to oblige.

Separating facts from the liberal spin can be challenging, but the article paints a picture of panicked and desperate people, which fits the observed behavior among the Republican base.

Personally, I find it fascinating that the Democrats study Republican voters like that. I'll make sure to read the entire report (http://www.democracycorps.com/attachments/article/954/dcor%20rpp%20fg%20memo%20100313%20final.pdf)when I have time.

So when you want to try to understand Republicans, you turn to moderate Democrats who hire Democrat pollsters and strategists for an explanation? (While bashing a piece in a right wing publication and calling us all racists in other threads, even?) Might I suggest that's probably not the best plan?

You could just ask us why we feel the way we do. Why not do that?

I do not deny that there is a battle for the soul of the GOP. Here's an article that sums it up: http://www.libertylawsite.org/2013/10/06/the-country-party/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+librarylawliberty+%28Library+ of+Law+%26+Liberty%29

First paragraph:


The Republican Party died during the struggle over Obamacare. Its most vital elected officials chose to represent their voters. This left their erstwhile leaders to continue pursuing acceptance by the ruling party, its press and its class. The result is a new party that represents the roughly three fourths of Republican voters whose social identities are alien to those of the ruling class and whose political identity is defined by opposition to the ruling party. These voters are outsiders to modern America’s power structure. Hence the new party that represents them is a “country party” in the British tradition of Viscount Bolingbroke’s early eighteenth century Whigs, who represented the country class against the royal court and its allies in Parliament. The forthcoming food fight over the name “Republican” is of secondary importance.

Last paragraph:


The question is not what the Republican Establishment will do with these dissidents but what the dissidents will do with the Establishment.

Lots of good stuff in between. That's the stuff you should be reading, if you want to understand Republicans.

[angelatc]

I think you'll find that your average Tea Partier is more anti-Obama/anti-Democrat. If Romney was in power, I'm sure everything would be fine and dandy for the Tea Party. But rest assure, us here at RPFs would still be bitching and moaning.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that the TEA Party didn't turn out and vote for Romney, therefore keeping him out of office.

[angelatc]

So why did the Heritage Foundation take credit for RomneyCare, for example, which heavily influenced ObamaCare?

I'm sorry - perhaps you didn't read anything I posted?

Or maybe you did, and are just determined to stick by the left's talking points anyway?

[FrankRep]

So why did the Heritage Foundation take credit for RomneyCare, for example, which heavily influenced ObamaCare?

State vs. Federal. States are allowed to create a healthcare system.

[JCDenton0451]

There are large portions of Appalachia dependent on welfare programs. This insinuation that white Republicans primarily rail against the welfare state because of minorities is bogus.I think you missed the main point. There seems to be a sensation on the part of the large chunck of the Republican base that they are losing the country, and pres. Obama (along with his heathcare law) has become a symbol of it.

The base isn't thinking about Obamacare in terms of policy. They are waging a Crusade.

[Antischism]

State vs. Federal. States are allowed to create a healthcare system.

The original Heritage plan (the mandate) was on a federal level. Here's the book (http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/ci_0891950494.pdf) that outlines it. That was in 1989. What's funny is they're trying to do damage control and lie by stating it was only in response to BillaryCare and that Milton Friedman came up with it first using statements he made more than two years after the Heritage publication.

Gingrich got the individual mandate from Heritage, Romney from Gingrich, then eventually Obama from Romney. Gingrich was always a staunch supporter of a federal individual mandate.

Stuart Butler's "Assuring Affordable Healthcare for All Americans (http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1989_assuring_affordable_health_care_for_all_ameri cans.pdf)" in 1989.

It's important to know where things are rooted and how they came to be. No amount of damage control can change documented history. I can't take any of these clowns seriously because it's only a matter of politics to them. If the individual mandate were popular and a Republican were pushing it in office right now like say, Romney, they'd be all over it wanting to take credit.

[Brett85]

There's not necessarily anything wrong with having JCDenton post here. We get the daily perspectives-talking points from the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground, so that we know what their current plans and tactics are.

[LibertyEagle]

I really think Obama is more of a fascist then anything. (keeping in mind that fascism usually lands on the extreme right) BUT...

Obamacare is nothing short of socialism at its finest. So I can see where the confusion might be.

NO, IT DOESN'T!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

[silverhandorder]

I think you missed the main point. There seems to be a sensation on the part of the large chunck of the Republican base that they are losing the country, and pres. Obama (along with his heathcare law) has become a symbol of it.

The base isn't thinking about Obamacare in terms of policy. They are waging a Crusade.

All the better. Destroy each other for all I care. You are naive if you think you can just outright win this. Much smaller minorities made it hell for when they lost power. I suspect as whites actually get threatened they will band into a group the same way minorities have in the past. The new majority 10 years from now is a white nationalist middle class. They will have a mix of republican and democrat views of today. And you will fall in line if you are white and make up all kinds of excuses for things you oppose. Or bitch and moan as everything you believe in falls apart.

[angelatc]

The original Heritage plan (the mandate) was on a federal level. Here's the book (http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/ci_0891950494.pdf) that outlines it. That was in 1989. What's funny is they're trying to do damage control and lie by stating it was only in response to BillaryCare and that Milton Friedman came up with it first using statements he made more than two years after the Heritage publication.

Blah blah blah. You're pretty naive if you think that the Democratic plan for healthcare wasn't announced until after Bill took office. Go listen to his campaign speeches - they had their plan all laid out and talked about it plenty in the years leading up to his election.

Guess what? The first Congress passed a mandate that ship owners buy healthcare for sailors. Two years after that, they amended it to force sailors to carry their own medical insurance. Can you blame Heritage for that, too?

And again, the mandate that the Heritage plan talked about was for catastrophic coverage. There were no spending caps, no threats to foreclose on your home, no requirement to pay for routine services, and no subsidies to insurance companies.

But if it makes your lefty panties unbunch to know that you're actually a Rockefeller Republican deep down, then enjoy it. But be aware that we're from the Goldwater wing, and we don't much care for your type. You're the same branch that got Prescription Part D passed through too. W

[RabbitMan]

Thanks for the article JC! I think it confirms what many in the country suspected all along--that the majority of Tea Party or Evangelical voters are either incredibly misinformed or misguided.

My feelings are that this situation is always a high possibility in large, populous, and diverse countries, and a key reason to strictly enforcing federalism and states rights.

[JCDenton0451]

All the better. Destroy each other for all I care. You are naive if you think you can just outright win this. Much smaller minorities made it hell for when they lost power. I suspect as whites actually get threatened they will band into a group the same way minorities have in the past. The new majority 10 years from now is a white nationalist middle class. They will have a mix of republican and democrat views of today. And you will fall in line if you are white and make up all kinds of excuses for things you oppose. Or bitch and moan as everything you believe in falls apart.

I can understand identity politics, but this is madness. The Base is clearly blinded with fear and their political representatives are failing at leadership. I doubt the GOP even understands what's going on...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/360598/conservatives-wary-deal-robert-costa

Speaker John Boehner may be trying to finalize (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/360590/house-indecision-jonathan-strong-robert-costa) a plan (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/360413/emerging-offer-robert-costa) to raise the debt limit, but House conservatives are already skeptical of his efforts. In interviews, several of them tell me they’re unlikely to support any deal that may emerge.


“They may try to throw the kitchen sink at the debt limit, but I don’t think our conference will be amenable for settling for a collection of things after we’ve fought so hard,” says Representative Scott Garrett (R., N.J.). “If it doesn’t have a full delay or defund of Obamacare, I know I and many others will not be able to support whatever the leadership proposes. If it’s just a repeal of the medical-device tax, or chained CPI, that won’t be enough.”


Representative Paul Broun (R., Ga.) agrees, and says Boehner risks an internal rebellion if he decides to broker a compromise. “America is going to be destroyed by Obamacare, so whatever deal is put together must at least reschedule the implementation of Obamacare,” he says. “This law is going to destroy America and everything in America, and we need to stop it.”


“Stay the course, don’t give in on it, that’s what the people in my district are saying,” says Representative Ted Yoho (R., Fla.). “We did a town hall the other day, and 74 percent of people said, ‘don’t raise the debt ceiling.’”



Do you see the problem here? Rep Yoho attented a meeting with a bunch of scared old Evangelicals, and now he thinks that such views are mainstream. But the truth is the people feeling acute racial panic are a minority. You can never build a national majority on the platform of burning the house down.

[erowe1]

I can understand identity politics, but this is madness. The Base is clearly blinded with fear and their political representatives are failing at leadership. I doubt the GOP even understands what's going on...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/360598/conservatives-wary-deal-robert-costa


Do you see the problem here? Rep Yoho attented a meeting with a bunch of scared old Evangelicals, and now he thinks that such views are mainstream. But the truth is the people feeling acute racial panic are a minority. You can never build a national majority on the platform of burning the house down.

Whatever the reason, if they don't raise the debt ceiling, that's a good thing. There's no downside to it.