Friday, February 06, 2009

Republicans Considering Taliban-Type Insurgency

Tell me what you make of this:
Frustrated by a lack of bipartisan outreach from House Democratic leaders, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said House Republicans -- who voted unanimously last week against the economic plan pushed by President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- will pitch a "positive, loyal opposition" to the proposal. The group, he added, should also "understand insurgency" in implementing efforts to offer alternatives.

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Sessions said during a meeting yesterday with Hotline editors. "And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with." Sessions: GOP Insurgency "May Be Required"

It did not seem that the results of last November's elections were especially unclear. America is a mess. The American people voted out the ones who got us into the mess and voted in a whole new case of characters to get us out of it. We chose new leadership.

Will Americans stand for insurrection by the losers? I don't listen to talk radio, but from conversations with a couple of people who do I surmise that the noise machine has not quieted down, that the dittoheads are generating and believing one conspiracy theory after another, and maybe the Rpublicans will be able to ride on the back of that. I really don't know, in my old age I have learned to sometimes accept cynicism as realism.

From the same story.
"If they do not give us those options or opportunities then we will then become insurgency of a nature to where we do those things that are necessary to making sure the American public knows what we think the correct answer is," Sessions said during the 60-minute interview. "So we either work together, or we're going to find a way to get our message out."

When pressed to clarify, Sessions said he was not comparing the House Republican caucus to the Taliban, the Muslim fundamentalist group.

"I simply said one can see that there's a model out there for insurgency," Sessions said before being interrupted by an aide. The staffer said Sessions was trying to convey that the Republicans need to start thinking about how to act strategically from their perch in the minority.

I might not be the only one who finds it amazing that the leader of the National Republican Congressional Committee sees Afghanistan's Taliban as the model for the GOP to follow. In Afghanistan a fundamentalist minority seized power and went about stripping citizens of their rights, forcing individuals to conform to strict religious dogma and rules, they were going through crowds with whips beating those who violated religious law -- women whose faces showed, for instance.

I have been led to understand that members of Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and here is a GOP leader proposing an insurgency. I hope the Justice Department is following this.

Sessions wasn't finished...
"I think insurgency is a mindset and an attitude that we're going to have to search for and find ways to get our message out and to be prepared to see things for what they are, rather than trying to do something about them," Sessions said. "I think what's happened is that the line was drawn in the sand" by Pelosi.

Sessions said the GOP's 178 members stand by their votes against the bill.

"I don't think any one of our members today feels like they would take back that vote," he said. "... There's no remorse."

Let's not forget that the reason we are at war in Afghanistan is because of the Taliban's support for and enabling of al Qaeda's attack on our country. A psychologist may be able to explain why a victim identifies with the attacker, but I do not see anything admirable about the Taliban.

You might say this is one guy shooting his mouth off, but this is the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee meeting with editorial staff from the National Journal. On the other hand, I can't see where any of the major corporate news media have picked this story up.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

It hasn't been picked up because it's not a story.

He says he's going to get the opposition's message out to the public.

Sounds like he's done that now.

I don't know about you but I don't personally feel threatened by whatever they've done to do that.

We're a democracy and the opposition and the public will let our public servants know what they need to do to stay on our good side.

Dems don't have the votes for this bill in the Senate because senators know their constituents oppose it.

That's the way our system is supposed to work.

We don't elect dictators. We elect public servants and, prior to this week, Obama claimed to understand this better than anybody.

February 06, 2009 10:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That Obama!

We need a constitutional amendment allowing for a recall of national elected officials, like in California.

Four more years of this will drain the country.

February 06, 2009 1:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's going to take a lot of money to clean up the mess Bush/Cheney made in their eight year effort to drown the federal government in the bathtub.

February 06, 2009 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apparently, Nancy Pelosi doesn't agree. She thinks we have alot of other money to waste so she must not think we need it for "clean up".

February 06, 2009 3:07 PM  
Blogger Hazumu Osaragi said...

The Conservative Taleban is praying for the ECONOpocalypse.

The Conservative Taleban wishes for the end to all social programs, and are hoping such an economic collapse will bring that about -- after all, social programs take money from the RIGHTeous Rich and give it to all those who lacked the morality to earn it for themselves.

In the ECONOpcalypse, the RIGHTeous Rich will be rewarded for their sterling adherence to THE morality by being able to acquire and own much more of our great, godly nation.

And there are those such as our own AnonBigot who will support such a RIGHTeous endeavour -- even as he is losing his job, and his car, and his house, and his life savings, and is succumbing to a sickness for which there is a reasonable treatment available but for which he cannot afford (because he 'temporarily' lacked enough of THE morals to RIGHTfully deserve these things -- but he'll work harder to get ahead and get RIGHTeous, and show Them (whoever They are.))

And he'll be glad to be alive and witness the cleansing ECONOpocalypse.


February 07, 2009 11:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some like barryo like to argue that we need more tax cuts and less spending to stimulate the economy. Here's President Obama's reply:

Then you get the argument, "This is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill." What do you think a stimulus is? That's the whole point! (laughter) No, seriously. Tha..(laughs) that's the point.

Moody's reports on the effectiveness of various economic stimuli:

Tax cuts:
-Every dollar of non-refundable lump-sum tax rebates increases the GDP by $1.02
-Every dollar of refundable lump-sum tax rebates increases GDP by $1.22
-Every dollar of payroll tax holiday increases GDP by $1.28
-Every dollar of across the board tax cut increases GDP by $1.03
-Every dollar of accelerated depreciation increases GDP by $0.25
-Every dollar spent to extend the alternative minimum tax patch increases GDP by $0.49
-Every dollar spent to make Bush tax cuts permanent increases GDP by $0.31
-Every dollar spent to make dividend and capital gains tax cuts permanent increases GDP by $0.38
-Every dollar cut from the corporate tax rate increases GDP by $0.30

-Every dollar spent on UI (Unemployment Insurance) benefits generates an estimated $1.63 in near-term GDP.
-Every dollar increase in food stamp payments increases GDP by $1.73.
-Every dollar of general aid to state government increases GDP by $1.38
-Every dollar of increased spending on infrastructure increases GDP by $1.59

There's a lot more bang for your buck with spending than with tax cuts. And there's no time to waste. 698,000 jobs were lost in 31 days last month. That's more than 22,500 jobs lost every day, while the Taliban GOP tells us, we have to go slow, take our time, not rush into providing relief. What a crock!

February 07, 2009 11:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's great, Bea, but debatable.

The general rule is that giving money to the least bureacratic entity will increase GDP most. Efficiency is important and government is the inefficient of all.

Tell us, please, why giving money to citizens to spend will stimulate the economy less than giving money to gobvernment agencies to spend.

Reducing marginal tax rates would do more to stimulate the economy than anything else.

There are so many examples of things in the Democrat bill that won't stimulate the economy, it's mind-boggling.

You and Obama have painted yourselves into a lonely little corner.

February 07, 2009 12:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It appears to me that Anon is getting into the Jack Daniels a little earlier than usual today.


February 07, 2009 12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love it when TTFers concede they have no argument.

Or maybe they want to get their face back in the bong ASAP.

Whatever, as been the case all week, there islittle they can say to defend Obama's embarassing intitial foray into presidential economics.

February 07, 2009 12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So now you think T. Toteler is Ms. or Mr. TTF? Get a hold of yourself, barryo.

It's the Republicans who painted themselves into the obstructionist corner and now, finally, cooler more moderate heads within the GOP who are willing to work across the aisle, are prevailing.

Last night the Senate reached a compromise on the President's stimulus package, the very day we learned that the economy caused another 598,000 families to lose their source of income, the largest job loss in 35 years. The unemployment rate now stands at 7.6 percent, a rise of .4 over the December rate of 7.2 percent.

Today's Washington Post front page reports:

Against a backdrop of rising unemployment, Senate Democrats struck a hard-won deal yesterday with a handful of Republican moderates to scale back spending in a massive economic stimulus bill, virtually guaranteeing Senate passage of the legislation but also ensuring arduous final negotiations with the House.

The compromise represented a dramatic finale to a tumultuous and frustrating week for Democrats pushing the package, as Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) saw the limitations of an expanded majority and a band of GOP centrists came to appreciate the very high price they can extract for their votes on key measures.

The bipartisan deal was cut after two days of talks and would cut more than $100 billion from the $920 billion bill, dropping its cost to about $820 billion, if amendments added on the Senate floor are retained.

Most Republicans remained strongly opposed to the compromise bill, saying it was too costly and ineffective, and Democratic leaders were counting on just three GOP votes for the plan as of last night but hoped to expand the number before a final vote.

Moments after Reid announced the deal on the Senate floor, GOP lawmakers said that they will seek to delay a final vote through procedural objections...

February 07, 2009 1:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

update from this morning:

Republicans have now succeeded in chopping another 40 billion off, bringing the cost to 780 billion

vote won't come until next week but you wonder why Bea is crowing because Republicans were able to restrain Democratic excess

looks like a few Republican moderates, like Susan Collins and Olympia Snow will control the fate of every piece of legislation for the next two years

electing John McCain would have had a similar effect

Obama took a hit, Pelosi took a hit, Reid took a hit

guess they're all high on ineptitude

keep passing that pipe around

February 07, 2009 1:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems like the one who's hitting the pipe is the one who said:

"...looks like a few Republican moderates, like Susan Collins and Olympia Snow will control the fate of every piece of legislation for the next two years..."

Senators Susan Collins, Olympia Snow and Arlen Specter are just the first few Republicans to join our President in the new era of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill. This is part of the change President Obama was elected to bring. Others will join these moderate GOP Senators in following President Obama's lead to move beyond partisanship in favor of cooperation.

February 07, 2009 8:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

don't speak too soon 'cause the wheel's still in spin

there's going to be a heck of a battle trying to reconcile the Senate and House bills, even if the Senate passes the thing

fasten your seat belts, folks

the Dems want to ruin your country's future

the fight will be intense

February 08, 2009 6:56 PM  
Blogger Katie said...

Cheney et. al. seem to have forgotten that the majority of Americans voted for a change in strategy. So why does it make sense for the Republicans to think we want to do the same things that were done for the last 8 years?

They are critical of Obama for not continuing the failed policies of Bush 2. They are absolutely illogical. The people voted. They made their wishes clear. Out with the Republicans, in with the Democrats.

Let them whine all they want. The rest of us are moving foward and will leave them behind.

February 08, 2009 7:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
I think SNL got it right when they said of George Bush(who had no regrets) - He broke the world.

President Barack Hussein Obama!!

February 08, 2009 9:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why I Support the Stimulus

By Arlen Specter
The Washington Post
Monday, February 9, 2009; A17

I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.

The unemployment figures announced Friday, the latest earnings reports and the continuing crisis in banking make it clear that failure to act will leave the United States facing a far deeper crisis in three or six months. By then the cost of action will be much greater -- or it may be too late.

Wave after wave of bad economic news has created its own psychology of fear and lowered expectations. As in the old Movietone News, the eyes and ears of the world are upon the United States. Failure to act would be devastating not just for Wall Street and Main Street but for much of the rest of the world, which is looking to our country for leadership in this crisis.

The legislation known as the "moderates" bill, hammered out over two days by Sens. Susan Collins, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and myself, preserves the job-creating and tax relief goals of President Obama's stimulus plan while cutting less-essential provisions -- many of them worthy in themselves -- that are better left to the regular appropriations process.

Our $780 billion bill would save or create up to 4 million jobs, helping to offset the loss of 3.6 million jobs since December 2007. The bill cuts some $110 billion from the $890 billion Senate version, which would actually be $940 billion if floor amendments for tax credits on home and car purchases and money for the National Institutes of Health are retained.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the proposed cuts "do violence to what we are trying to do for the future," especially on education. Her objections are a warning to conservatives that more cuts would be unlikely to win House approval. They are also an admission of the high price that moderates have been able to extract for their support of stimulus legislation.

If a stimulus bill doesn't pass, there won't be any money for Title I education programs. The moderates' bill provides marginally less money for Title I than the House and Senate bills. But while it's less than supporters want, this proverbial half a loaf beats no loaf by a mile.

In health funding, both the House and Senate bills contain billions of dollars for wellness and prevention programs, including for smoking cessation, prenatal screening and counseling, education, and immunization. The moderates' bill, regrettably but necessarily, cancels this funding on the grounds that such programs are better left to the regular appropriations process.

"In politics," John Kennedy used to say, "nobody gets everything, nobody gets nothing and everybody gets something." My colleagues and I have tried to balance the concerns of both left and right with the need to act quickly for the sake of our country. The moderates' compromise, which faces a cloture vote today, is the only bill with a reasonable chance of passage in the Senate.

The writer is a Republican senator from Pennsylvania.

February 09, 2009 9:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The legislation known as the "moderates" bill, hammered out over two days by Sens. Susan Collins, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and myself, preserves the job-creating and tax relief goals of President Obama's stimulus plan while cutting less-essential provisions -- many of them worthy in themselves -- that are better left to the regular appropriations process.

Our $780 billion bill would save or create up to 4 million jobs, helping to offset the loss of 3.6 million jobs since December 2007. The bill cuts some $110 billion from the $890 billion Senate version, which would actually be $940 billion if floor amendments for tax credits on home and car purchases and money for the National Institutes of Health are retained.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the proposed cuts "do violence to what we are trying to do for the future," especially on education."

Thanks for posting the article, Bea.

Nutshell time. Democrats are irresponsible. Using this crisis to "avoid the appropriations process". Republicans have provided restraint.

The most notable thing is how ineffective Obama has been so far. As many feared, Pelosi appears to be running the country. She'll run rings around the inexperienced President.

The good news is that this can be fixed in two years,whereas, if Obama was running things, we'd be stuck for four years.

John McCain has a plan that will provide more stimulus at half the price. If negotiations collapse on the reconciliation, it may yet come to that. As Specter says, we need to act.

Congress' current plan will probably not fix the economy any more than TARP fixed the financial industry.

February 09, 2009 10:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nutshell time.

Um sure, barryo, with emphasis on the "nut" portion.

As the new thread Jim posted above shows, Gallup reports that 67% of the country approves of the way President Barack Obama has handled efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill, 48% approve of the way Democrats in Congress have handled efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill, but fully 58% disapprove of the way Republicans in Congress have handled it.

The country doesn't like it when Republicans march in lockstep behind their Grand Obstructionist Party leaders. Maybe Senators Hatch's and Snow's good faith efforts will win Congressional Republicans some approval from the electorate. They sure could use some.

February 09, 2009 12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ROFL, Bea.

I only hope that the poll above will encourage Dems to keep doing what they're doing. Vast increases in government bureaucracies have never stimulated the economy before so it's doubtful it will this time. Lowering marginal tax rates is the way to go. That's always worked.

In 2012, we'll be able to see what effect the bill has had.

Despite your illogical mockery, the point of the article you posted is that Republicans have restrained the excesses and opportunism of the radical left Pelosi Congress.

Oh, it also says a stimulus bill needs to pass but no one ever disgreed with that. The dispute is over focus and direction. Getting it wrong could be as bad as doing nothing.

Look at the same page you got your article from and you will see an article describing how hard it will be for government to expend the huge stimulus funds quickly without inefficiency and corruption because adequate oversight entities are not in place, making it easy for scam artists to grab funds with impunity.

Putting money in the hands of citizens would do more to stimulate the economy than creating productivity-killing bureaucracies.

February 09, 2009 6:43 PM  
Blogger Katie said...

The repugs oops, repubs just still can't accept that they lost. They think it must be some mistake and that American citizens really want to continue the failed strategies of the previous 8 years.

I'm just hoping that David Duke and Sarah Palin get that new party going. Then we'll really have some fun.

February 09, 2009 6:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When Republicans are elected to Congress, they are expected to fight for the issues they told their constituents they would. This contention that they should desert the interest of their country just because there are more Democrats in Congress is absurd, especially when most Americans don't share these Democrats socialist ambitions.

Believe me, the party of William Ayers and Barney Frank won't in power long.

Americans prefer a party of people that don't bomb the Capitol and have gay prostitution rings operating out of their house.

February 09, 2009 11:45 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Bomb the Capitol ... Gay Prostitution rings ...

I think it is really neat that TTF gets the day's Republican talking points delivered to our blog ever morning.


PS Is there really somebody who believes the Democrats will bomb the Capitol and operate gay prostitution rings out of their house?

February 10, 2009 6:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You should consider context. I unfairly associated Barney Frank with William Ayers just to compare it with the absurdity of the previous commenter associating Sarah Palin with David Duke.

The hatred Sarah Palin stirs up in the radical left community is so inexplicable it simply must mean she doing something right and scaring the bejeebies outta you.

Also, interesting how you guys use the term "talking point". You basically use it any time you can't think of anything else to say.

"Is there really somebody who believes the Democrats will bomb the Capitol"

Obama supporter Wiiliam Ayers did.

"and operate gay prostitution rings out of their house?"

Barney Frank, the villain who destroyed our economy, had a homosexual prostitute living with him who did just that. No reason to think it couldn't happen again.

February 10, 2009 7:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Believe me, the party of William Ayers and Barney Frank won't in power long.

Sure, we believe you, just like we believed you when you said Huckabee would win the 2008 Presidential election.

February 10, 2009 8:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard Michael Steele on Hannity yesterday. Does the Republican party really think they can reach out to the middle if they buddy up to far right wing hate radio?

February 10, 2009 11:28 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home