Right Pundits

Democrats are the worst poker players in the world.

The Republicans have stated that they will not approve a debt ceiling hike and will not negotiate on any tax increases.

Republicans play rough and are not afraid to use leverage, which is smart.

If the Democrats want to get any traction on their agenda they need to integrate the same strategy.

As the real world ramifications of not adjusting the debt ceiling are extraordinary, it will be approved at the last minute.

If the Republicans do, indeed, let it lapse, they are well aware that it is political suicide.

A negotiation only works if your opponent believes you will “walk away”, otherwise, it is an empty
bluff.

As Doyle Brunson, the Babe Ruth of poker, says, “It is not the cards you hold, it is what cards you can make your opponent think you possess.

The lack of business savvy among Democrats is what makes them such an
easy adversary.

They are not going to “persuade” the Republicans, especially Tea Party members, heck, they won’t even negotiate with Republicans.

If the Democrats think they are going to gain any tax increase concessions they need to “play rough”.

The rhetoric on this battle is just starting. The party that is more adept at managing the media will emerge as the victor.

I wasn’t illustrating any point relevant to spending, I was merely making an observation on the negotiations and gamesmanship involved in this scenario.

I am, however, a Michigan-based business owner of over 35 years. I used to be centrist, but like many others, we are now considered “leftist” once the “right went right”

Once the Christian Coalition, and later, the Tea Party, took over the Republican Party, there was no refuge for a moderate Republican.

The “new” Republicans have made it clear that we are now the enemy.

The Republican Party now requires the passing of numerous litmus tests, be it relevant to religion, abortion, the Ryan plan and no negotiation with the “enemy” (people in office that don’t believe exactly as you do).

As I have stated before, for all of the reverence for Reagan, he would be pilloried by the current Republicans. He would be classified as a RINO, and is therefore, “the enemy within”.

“Once the Christian Coalition, and later, the Tea Party, took over the Republican Party, there was no refuge for a moderate Republican.”

You seem to forget that Dems have gone much further left in the last 50 years than the right has gone right.
You guys used to nuke our enemies….twice.
Now you’re helping them point ICMBs at us.
WW2 there was no anti war movements as we all, regardless of party, held the same contempt for our enemy.
Now, supposedly moderate democrats have made “America” the “enemy within”.
Conservatives have an affection for tradition, its practically our foundation, which has kept the party closer to its root ideology. A 1940 Democrat would not recognize anyone today who calls themselves a democrat no matter how center of right they claim to be.
Other than sharing some economic views with 30s democrats todays dems really have little in common with each other.
The “New Deal” was actually more of a progressive application you were all unknowingly served under a different banner.
It failed then.
And failed these last 3 years

“While people may differ on moral, social or religious issues, most are certainly invested in promoting a viable economy.

The old adage, “It’s the economy stupid” certainly trumps other issues.”

Problem is too many today think the economy should be run by a fed which violates the moral of private property.
There are different kinds of economies.
Ours is a capitalist one that todays left would like to do away with and replace it with an immoral and unethical wealth distribution system that goes totally against the grain of the economic principles that made us the most prosperous on earth, in history.
The left uses moral/emotional rationale to determine economic policy instead of a capitalist system based on motivation by profit.
The liberal tries to motivate legislature by giving examples of insensitivity, dont care about kids, old people as proxys to influence votes.
This kind of thinking on applied to an economy is self destructive.
SCHIP was designed to be paid for by cigarette taxation. The guilt was sold that if you dont support SCHIP you dont support kids.
Then, at the same time our right to smoke even in our own homes was taken away from us.
Seeing as how it was the cigarette taxation that was supposed to pay for SCHIP they kinda fcked themselves by making the sales of cigarettes ten times harder.
Less people smoked because some moonbat though it was immoral to treat your body that way, let kids see it on tv, created second hand smoke myths, and consequently SCHIP had to look for funding elsewhere which led to some shady maneuvers that took monies from other parts of the budget.
So, like medicaid, medicare, welfare etc.. we ended up with another entitlement progam offering second rate quality product and service while it went hudreds of times over budget in way less time than expected.
Whereas a profit driven, not a ‘moral’ driven economy would focus on the bottom line and a profit margin to survive as an incentive, the feds way has no incentive as its not their money.
They waste our money by lying to us under the guise of morals and guilt instead of selling us on the fact it can sustain itself definitely.
Because it cant.
Government needs to stay the hell out our economy and business like it does our religions.
The left for the better part does not want what by normal American standards is a viable economy.
They want payment based on intentions and moral appeasement.
Which is why were screwed the way we are.
Heading into the largest debt in history so they can feel good about themselves as opposed to a viable economy that can serve generations to come

“The point is, by limiting “membership” to a narrow view, the Republicans have constructed a “small tent”.”
I dont think in terms of tents when I imagine conservatives.
“Membership’ construes a “collective”
There is no collective without the individual.
Theres more of us aware of this than you think. We just dont commune under the same tent. This is why the majority of presidents have been republicans in the last 60 years.
Theres more of us than you think. This also explains the fact that the majority of this country is right of center.

“Extremely loyal? Yes, but the inflexibility has alienated many potential voters. They may not vote for the opposition, but may choose to sit out the next election.”

I’ve noticed cycles.
Theres always some generation that comes along, about every 20 years that thinks they can make socialism work. Carter, Clinton, Obama run uphuge debts in entitlement spending and social engineering experiments. (Fannie n Freddie) And then we see the damage as familiar to another time in history and elect the party back into office that prefers Laissez-faire economics that encourage the private sector instead of raping it dry

“What strikes me as odd is that many of the issues that demand a candidates opinion are rarely Presidential decisions.”

Voyeurism, liberals love it…

“Boxers or briefs” seem like liberal questions.
CNN conducting the last debates asked these dumb questions. “Blackberry or I Phone” ?
If the qualifying answer is either one….

….get me the fck outta here !

“The biggest input they have on moral issues is limited to court appointments as most social decisions reside within the legislature, or even more often, the judicial system.”

Who ?
The right or the left ?
If you ask me, liberals tend to love to legislate what they think is moral and ethical

“Elections are always won in the middle and with a rapidly changing demographic the “middle” is up for grabs.”

Right now the middle is fed up.
By most reputable polls the people want conservatives to handle the economy.
By next year that ‘middle’ will hold more liberals than it did 3 years ago.
He couldnt fix what was there when he came into office. That debt was 1/3rd of what hes created in the last 3 years.
Theres no way hes going to fix his mistakes in one year never mind the little ones he inherited that took 8

Well, they cant leave social issues alone if it comes up in debates or townhalls.
But, as you said, its the economy.
Most of the country doesnt favor abortion, most dont care about gays.
What they care about is having these things crammed in our kids faces by government(liberals) instead of it being a family issue.
Most are okay with civil unions but want the integrity of the traditional American family intact.
The title “MARRIED” (IMO) should only apply to those who can make new life, pro-create, offer both role models to a kid.
Most have no problem with gays adopting but feel having a male and female role model is the “IDEAL” environment for a child.

But, in the end, the one thing on everyones mind is

1) Economy (Which conservatives are trusted with more)

2) National security (Which most trust the right to perform)

You are right in the sense that should try as much as they can to not make it a focal point, but Liberals like to make things social issues, like I said above.
If you dont support Obamacare, you’re a racist or you hate kids.

Even national security.
Our wanting to seal the border makes us racist.
So, its kinda hard around liberals to avoid social issues when you guys like to tie them to everything

I am going to approach this Constitutional debate from another angle. That President Obama would risk impeachment by NOT acting under the 14th Amendment to prevent default.

Whether any of us like it or not it this debt ceiling debate is all about the “obligations” that Congress over time has signed into law, not the bonds.

The ceiling raise has nothing to do with future spending, only that which has already been committed to by this and prior sessions of Congress over out history.

We elected them, they act via their Constitutional responsibility passes laws/funding programs, we own it and has the “full faith and credit” of the US behind it. These are all laws that then need to be upheld, ie honored.

The Constitution is by definition the original document plus any and all Amendments to it so trying to separate the two is a specious argument as well.

In PERRY V. UNITED STATES, 294 U. S. 330 (1935)SCOTUS addreses the larger context of debt as “obligations” that further supports the notion that default would be unconstitutional and thus stopping it would be required of the President:

“…The government’s contention thus raises a question of far greater importance than the particular claim of the plaintiff. On that reasoning, if the terms of the government’s bond as to the standard of payment can be repudiated, it inevitably follows that the obligation as to the amount to be paid may also be repudiated. The contention necessarily imports that the Congress can disregard the obligations of the government at its discretion, and that, when the government borrows money, the credit of the United States is an illusory pledge.

We do not so read the Constitution….To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor. This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our government.

The Fourteenth Amendment, in its fourth section, explicitly declares: ‘The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, * * * shall not be questioned.’ While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, as to those issued before the amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression ‘the validity of the public debt’ as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations.”

The office of the President as “Chief Executive” is empowered by the Constitution that “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.

He is also Constitutionally bound by his oath of office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

This creates a slippery slope for any President. In other words he has no choice in acting per the Constitution lest he violate his oath and for that could be subject to impeachment.

A secondary argument, slightly less compelling, is that in his job as Commander in Chief to protect the nation against any threats could be cited here. A default that plunges the nation into another recession and costs the taxpayers hundreds of billions in additional Federal interest payments and billions more in higher credit card, mortgage and consumer loans threatens the nation as much as any war or attack does. Not acting would weaken the nation considerably and his failure to protect the nation from this sort of “attack” would also be seen as a failure to fulfill his oath.

So the 14th/PERRY V. UNITED STATES makes it clear on the debt’s validity and the fact that it cannot be abrogated in anyway that diminishes the full faith and credit of the nation and its trust with any one owed money via a statute approved by Congress, be it your mom on SS, a cleaning contractor for a federal building or foreign nations holding bonds. All are equally valid and must be honored.

So no action by Congress is illegal and the Debt Ceiling law in any dispute is trumped by the Constitution. In “Perry” Chief Justice Hughes wrote the majority opinion: “We do not so read the Constitution…the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations.”

Altering those obligations means that the terms of meeting them cannot be changed in anyway so even a default of a few days or a program to pay bills in some order with revenues is not allowed. So inaction that allows any sort of modification is out of the question as well.

If Obama does not act to avert the crisis if negotiations fail that is a more compelling reason to Impeach than trying to claim that he exceeds his Constitutional power in resolving the crisis using the 14th.

Obama is a fast learner and I would think he is constructing a backup plan should the need arise. I would. I would want my treasury secratary to arm me with all the options available then vet them thru my top aids and lawyers to prepare for a constitutional crises if necessary to save the republic. The republicans can be outmanuevered with their own stew. Getting them to realize this might make them a bit more business like and work for a joint compromise, to save the republic. I think you are seeing some real leadership come to the fore here and he’s doing what a President is expected to do.

John…

Think you could be a little more concise ?

Sheesh.
Do you write Obamas bills ?