GOP: Autopsy Time

[thebin]

Sorry you are off basis on this one. We need not sign up to a vanity project like this anymore than Germany needs to sign up to a UN treaty that requires countries to make fine automobiles or France needs to join an international movement to make fine wine. There is no call for it whatsoever and frankly I don't think one needs to be paranoid to avoid making totally useless commitments. That's not paranoia, that's just straight conservatism. And not a bigoted or irrational one. I say that as the guy who started this very thread urging the Republicans to cut loose the crazies. I'm not sure what your perspective on this is but my gut tells me this is more of a traditional "bash the other party" partisan maneuver on your part. Sorry but it will take more than 20 year old Black Helicopter references or non sequitur links to actually make an argument as to why the US should do this.

If I took anything away from Professor Arend's International Law class it is that the most salient fact about International Law is there isn't any.

[SSHoya]

"This is a direct assault on us." -- Rick Santorum.

Thebin, is ratifying this Treaty a direct assault? I can't help thinking that some of my more conservative friends have very little faith in this country. My perspective during the past election was one of a persuaable independent and not a merely "bash the other party" partisan. Is this a vanity project of George W.Bush? John McCain? John Kerry? Whose vanity project? President Obama?

I guess you believe international treaties are merely empty symbolism and that, in fact, there is nothing to be gained by any treaty since there really isn't any such animal as international law. I just returned from a two-yeasr overseas assignment as the Treaty lawyer for a bilateral Peace Treaty, in an extremely volatile region of the world. In my on-the-ground experience, despite the turmoil in the region, the Treaty served a real purpose. Aside from the technical aspects of the Treaty, there was a collateral benefit of the aspirational nature of the Treaty. Even to the extent there is something aspirational in a treaty such as this one, I think it has a valid, positive impact. Maybe I'm just an idealist --- but one with real world experience.

[Boz]

Can I ask, what is the point of this treaty?

I am not arguing, as SS suggests that there is no value to any international treaties, but what is the value of this particular treaty?

I do believe Santorum is simply bloviating on this. There is no threat. I believe John Kerry when he says that this treaty cannot force the U.S. to change its own laws.

But if that is the case, am I expected to believe that it will force China, for example, to change their laws? China clearly doesn't think so.

So, in this case, is this particular treaty anything more than, to use SS's words "empty symbolism"?

That doesn't mean it isn't aspirational. It is. It also is, in my opinion and unless it has some teeth I don't know about, pretty much a waste of time.

Which should kind of be the UN motto.

[TC]

Dec 5, 2012 19:26:25 GMT -5 Boz said:

So, in this case, is this particular treaty anything more than, to use SS's words "empty symbolism"?

That doesn't mean it isn't aspirational. It is. It also is, in my opinion and unless it has some teeth I don't know about, pretty much a waste of time.

Which should kind of be the UN motto.

The "empty symbolism" argument doesn't fly, for anyone that has ever looked at the House or Senate calendar and seen how many motions go daily that honor all nature of people, places, things, and events. It's not an excuse, given what they spend most of their floor time doing.

[Boz]

I don't disagree with you there. I was not speaking on behalf of those in Congress opposed to this. Just speaking for myself.

I agree that there is way to much in Congress where the question "What is the point of this?" certainly applies.

[thebin]

www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/06/have-treaties-gone-out-of-style/the-us-is-right-to-be-skeptical-of-un-treaties

[SirSaxa]

BTW, did KCHoya self-deport following the election?

[thebin]

Did KCHoya drop a Reverse Baldwin?

I'm constantly a bit baffled how many educated Americans on both side seem to react like small children at the horrible prospect that their team doesn't get to win every election.

[quickplay]

Dec 7, 2012 15:55:42 GMT -5 thebin said:

Did KCHoya drop a Reverse Baldwin?

I'm constantly a bit baffled how many educated Americans on both side seem to react like small children at the horrible prospect that their team doesn't get to win every election.

Or how depressing it is when election after election you don't support either of the two "options"

[thebin]

Dec 7, 2012 16:07:59 GMT -5 quickplay said:

Dec 7, 2012 15:55:42 GMT -5 thebin said:

Did KCHoya drop a Reverse Baldwin?

I'm constantly a bit baffled how many educated Americans on both side seem to react like small children at the horrible prospect that their team doesn't get to win every election.

Or how depressing it is when election after election you don't support either of the two "options"

Tell me about it. Only a 5-hour, hurricane Sandy-driven commute home on election day prevented me from casting my first third party vote- was going to go with Gary Johnson. I'm more convinced than ever that the two party system has been shattered beyond repair by a juvenile and un-American hostility to compromise. A two party system can only work if one party doesn't think the other party is actively trying to destroy the country.

[DanMcQ]

www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/2012/12/23/the-story-behind-mitt-romney-loss-the-presidential-campaign-president-obama/2QWkUB9pJgVIi1mAcIhQjL/story.html

[hoyainspirit]

A good long read:

Blues Cruise
Steaming past Guantánamo, en route to the Cayman Islands, a boatload of Republicans ponder the plight of a party at sea.

[SSHoya]

This borders on the bizarre:

Richard K. Armey, the group’s chairman and a former House majority leader, walked into the group’s Capitol Hill offices with his wife, Susan, and an aide holstering a handgun at his waist. The aim was to seize control of the group and expel Armey’s enemies: The gun-wielding assistant escorted FreedomWorks’ top two employees off the premises, while Armey suspended several others who broke down in sobs at the news.


www.washingtonpost.com/politics/freedomworks-tea-party-group-nearly-falls-apart-in-fight-between-old-and-new-guard/2012/12/25/dd095b68-4545-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.html

[TC]

Don't all "grassroots movements" end in high 7 figure golden parachutes because the leader essentially blackmailed the people funding it? I mean I thought that was just the way grassroots movements worked!

[Boz]

All I know is that everyone can relax and take a deep breath.

They have made a deal in Washington.

Whew! That was a close one.

So, when is the next artificial deadline of impending doom that will require another grand bargain that addresses none of the long-term (or real-world short-term) problems our country faces?

I hope its coming soon. Otherwise, the news outlets will have to find a missing white girl or dead celebrity to cover 24/7.

Sorry, I didn't know where else to post this. And I am far too cynical to bring a new thread into the world in these times.


*My only consolation regarding this debacle was that they did it on New Year's Eve, thus likely preventing a very large number of Senate staffers to go out and be their normal d-bag selves and ruin the night for the rest of us. I say "likely prevented" as I did not want to take any chances, so I avoided any venue on 12/31 that had the remote chance of being populated by any Senate staffers.

[EasyEd]

The Republican party in the House and the Senate has no leadership. To have both houses approve a bill that is $40 of spending for every $1 of cuts (or fill in your preferred number) represents unconditional surrender. Did this represent the balanced approach Obama has talked and talked and talked about for months? The House had veto power over this legislation and they caved. Even Paul Ryan voted Yea. No Profiles in Courage there.

The Repubs now have the opportunity to use the debt ceiling to get a better deal by the end of February. Will they do it? No, they will cave again. Unless they elect true conservative leaders who put the good of the country's financial mess ahead of polls. But, sadly, that's not going to happen,

[Boz]

Jan 2, 2013 11:30:29 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

The Republican party in the House and the Senate has no leadership. To have both houses approve a bill that is $40 of spending for every $1 of cuts (or fill in your preferred number) represents unconditional surrender. Did this represent the balanced approach Obama has talked and talked and talked about for months? The House had veto power over this legislation and they caved. Even Paul Ryan voted Yea. No Profiles in Courage there.

The Repubs now have the opportunity to use the debt ceiling to get a better deal by the end of February. Will they do it? No, they will cave again. Unless they elect true conservative leaders who put the good of the country's financial mess ahead of polls. But, sadly, that's not going to happen,

I agree on the leadership issue, Ed. On the other hand, this is what America voted for. America bought the argument that what we really need is for the wealthy to pay their "fair share" and that would solve our problems.

So. Now that we're done soaking the rich and getting nowhere for it, what's next?

I'm guessing more taxes. But maybe we can get the French Constitutional Council to intervene before it gets too bad.

[AustinHoya03]

Jan 2, 2013 12:58:56 GMT -5 Boz said:

So. Now that we're done soaking the rich and getting nowhere for it, what's next?

I'm guessing more taxes.

"But the proposal is not a balance of taxes and spending cuts. It doesn’t involve a single hard decision. It does little to control spending. It abandons all of the entitlement reform ideas that have been thrown around. It locks in low tax rates on families making less than around $450,000; it is simply impossible to avert catastrophe unless tax increases go below that line."

www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinion/brooks-another-fiscal-flop.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0

I honestly can't understand why we haven't ended up with the Simpson-Bowles as legislation; I guess that would be too sensible for the US Congress.

Meanwhile, jobs numbers are still terrible. Will they get much better as long as the legislature keeps putting off major fiscal decisions?

[Boz]

Jan 2, 2013 14:23:43 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

I honestly can't understand why we haven't ended up with the Simpson-Bowles as legislation; I guess that would be too sensible for the US Congress.

Meanwhile, jobs numbers are still terrible. Will they get much better as long as the legislature keeps putting off major fiscal decisions?

That was rhetorical, right?

I think this about sums it up for me:

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/396919_10151189394414117_1843708275_n.jpg

(Don't worry; it's SFW)

[Problem of Dog]

Jan 2, 2013 11:30:29 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

The Republican party in the House and the Senate has no leadership. To have both houses approve a bill that is $40 of spending for every $1 of cuts (or fill in your preferred number) represents unconditional surrender. Did this represent the balanced approach Obama has talked and talked and talked about for months? The House had veto power over this legislation and they caved. Even Paul Ryan voted Yea. No Profiles in Courage there.

The Repubs now have the opportunity to use the debt ceiling to get a better deal by the end of February. Will they do it? No, they will cave again. Unless they elect true conservative leaders who put the good of the country's financial mess ahead of polls. But, sadly, that's not going to happen,

I love when I hear conservatives say that the Republican party needs to get MORE conservative. When that happens, the party will really cease to be relevant.