Comments on: daggatt blog: nihilism http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/mbutler/2010/01/30/daggatt-blog-nihilism/ "if you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much room" Mon, 19 Jul 2010 02:56:05 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Ian Alterman http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/mbutler/2010/01/30/daggatt-blog-nihilism/comment-page-1/#comment-9260 Ian Alterman Sun, 31 Jan 2010 02:36:08 +0000 http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/mbutler/?p=826#comment-9260 The only question here is: why are we surprised? Did anyone really think that ANYTHING Obama said was going to change the G.O.P. leadership? And after a whole year, is Obama naive, foolish or just hopelessly optimistic to believe that "bipartisanship" will EVER occur in DC - particularly during his presidency? The G.O.P. has made its choice: they have accepted being "the party of 'no'," and they will remain in (obstructionist) lockstep on all major issues. The only possible silver lining here is if in doing so, they end up shooting themselves in the foot. Rachel Maddow made an astute observation in this regard: that by being against the Wall Street "tax" (in order to get back the remaining unpaid taxpayer money provided in the bailouts), against the Consumer Protection Agency (which would help consumers re the obnoxious practices of the credit card companies et al), and in favor of the SCOTUS ruling on campaign finance (which works against the average citizen), the G.O.P. has positioned itself as pro-Wall Street, pro-credit card companies, and pro-foreign and domestic influence in elections - at a time when even the "tea party" set is unlikely to support such a platform. It will be interesting to see how the G.O.P. spins these positions as the midterms approach. Peace. The only question here is: why are we surprised? Did anyone really think that ANYTHING Obama said was going to change the G.O.P. leadership? And after a whole year, is Obama naive, foolish or just hopelessly optimistic to believe that “bipartisanship” will EVER occur in DC – particularly during his presidency?

The G.O.P. has made its choice: they have accepted being “the party of ‘no’,” and they will remain in (obstructionist) lockstep on all major issues.

The only possible silver lining here is if in doing so, they end up shooting themselves in the foot. Rachel Maddow made an astute observation in this regard: that by being against the Wall Street “tax” (in order to get back the remaining unpaid taxpayer money provided in the bailouts), against the Consumer Protection Agency (which would help consumers re the obnoxious practices of the credit card companies et al), and in favor of the SCOTUS ruling on campaign finance (which works against the average citizen), the G.O.P. has positioned itself as pro-Wall Street, pro-credit card companies, and pro-foreign and domestic influence in elections – at a time when even the “tea party” set is unlikely to support such a platform.

It will be interesting to see how the G.O.P. spins these positions as the midterms approach.

Peace.

]]>