So. Is Grover Norquist Finished?

[rareboy]

So yesterday, a lot of Republicans voted to increase taxes.

After letting them expire so that they could claim that it was Obama's fault.

Poor Grover seems to be in denial about this.

Does yesterday's vote finally crack the hold that Norquist has on the Republican party?

Last night, Norquist seemed to undermine some of Obama’s staunchest opponents on Capitol Hill when he tweeted,

The Bush tax cuts lapsed at midnight last night. Every R voting for Senate bill is cutting taxes and keeping his/her pledge.
— Grover Norquist (@GroverNorquist) January 2, 2013
At least one reader seemed to notice this and tweeted in response,

sauerkraut ‏@IamSauerkraut
@GroverNorquist everyone republican who is voting for this measure is punching you square in the mouth. hope your ears bleed.

http://www.politicususa.com/grover-norquist-fiscal-cliff-deal-violation-pledge.html

Andrea Mitchell wasn't buying his delusional nonsense.

“Wait a second,” Mitchell interjected with a laugh. “We’re not living in the Alice in Wonderland world here. There is a tax increase for wealthy Americans. It’s literally a tax increase. Rates are up.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/andrea-m...ense-of-republicans-who-voted-for-a-tax-hike/

And even Joe Scarboro was shaking his head over Norquist's inability to see that he had been dealt a serious, if not fatal blow.

 

[Kulindahr]

Let's hope it's the end.

Then we'll be left with the more loveable Grover.

 

[nycguydowntown]

Like other moronic nerds who must have been bullied in their youth like Ham head Karl Rove---and now has found importance in a nutty GOP---the guy makes millions as a lobbyist ---he's going to say anything to keep the money rolling in---

 

[JayHawk]

I doubt sincerely just because of this one fall from grace that the republican party will divest itself of the government evil/taxes always bad argument. That means Grover still has a job as a mouthpiece.

 

[EastMed]

There will always be a constituency for Grover Norquist.

A declining one, hopefully.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I thought after gross incompetence Republicans got promoted?

 

[frankfrank]

No, Republican turdballs are never finished...until they die.

With rare exceptions, such as Tom DeLay, who was the vilest of the vile.

If Tom DeLay could run now, he would certainly be the Republican shoo-in for the Presidential nomination.

I don't see any indication that any Republicans are trying to make Nordquist irrelevant.

 

[TX-Beau]

Tom Delay was actually convicted in a CRIMINAL court of law - if that doesn't kill your political career, nothing will.

 

[frankfrank]

^ True, that - but did that stop him from getting utmost support from his Party (after the crimes were already well known) until the moment before he got caught up in the legal system?

The Republicans don't have a monopoly on that either. I can give you ONE WORD that proves the Republicans don't have that monopoly:

ILLINOIS.

 

[TX-Beau]

HA! That's only what they managed to convict him of, the actual list is far longer.

 

[chance1]

Grover's take was not far from the truth

At all

The tax cuts were set to expire

Thus the decision was made to cut taxes for most

Not sure they're so much twisting on that one

As for Andrea Mitchell ..... Her comment was silly grandstanding but mild for msnbc

 

[rareboy]

^ And that is why even Joe Scarborough was shaking his head.

That people like Grover and you just don't get it and will now try to spin it so that it doesn't look like what it is. Republicans voted to increase taxes too.

Which puts a battering ram through Norquist's gstes and renders his stranglehold on the country increasingly tenuous.

 

[chance1]

I love Joe - that doesn't mean I agree with him all the time - reasonable people don't follow blindly

Obamallegiance is a disease - it's not a mindset to follow with Obama or others rareboy

The FACT is that the tax cuts were to expire - if nothing was done - that's the base

a decision was made to cut taxes on 98 some odd %

if you want to politically put that around republican's necks go for it - who gives a shit

what's important is what the taxer in chief does next with the budget - as in we need to cut expenses - just like i do in my household and regular people do when they're under water

semantics are for assholes

 

[JayHawk]

Actually we need to keep spending until we have recovered from recession. We have reduced spending from 10% to 7% of GDP over the last three years. Once the economy is trucking along again about 40% of our deficit disappears as unemployment eben's end and more people are paying into the system.

What we should do to solve the deficit is sign a free trade agreement with Europe and align ourselves with the EU to back Germany and reassure them we will not let them fail. Together the US and the EU are 50% of the entire worlds economy. Get that trucking and the rest will easily follow.

For cuts we could slash 25% of the DoD over the next ten years and that combined with recovery would restore all the short term financial imbalance.

Moving on from there we do need to change Social Security and Medicare to find savings in the long term.

Grover Norquist is demonstrably irrelevant.

 

[chance1]

It's not an either or situation

IF Obama - and I suspect he will - chooses to try to increase taxes from the current expiration deal - prior to REAL economic growth ....... well that'd be awful

Spending is not good unless it is for things that are investment based, have real value and or help grow the economy either by providing (necessary) improved infrastructure i.e. costs that need to be expended better to do now vs. when crumbling - or in retraining of the workforce which is the elephant in the room - this provides sustaining not one off benefits potentially to millions - and the trickle down - sideways from that is immeasurable

the current admin has shown no particular skill in understanding economics much less how to recharge the economy with deficit spending - neither has congress

unless there is a plan for spending that is VETTED and is based on the principles above it's just a drunken sailor (like it?) binge - with high fives and lots of cum - but a major hangover

the american public (rightly) has no confidence that those in charge have any idea of what they're doing as it relates to spending/deficit reduction/economic growth

so grover is not irrelevant

the idea of a pledge is absurd

but the idea that tax policy impacts the economy is not irrelevant - u just don't agree with his findings

 

[JayHawk]

It's not an either or situation

IF Obama - and I suspect he will - chooses to try to increase taxes from the current expiration deal - prior to REAL economic growth ....... well that'd be awful

He already has increased taxes on 77% of america. However the majority of that is to fund Social Security so it can remain un-associated with our deficit. The number of Americans that tax was raised on is .07%. Those folks could give two flying shits. So he is doing it on entities that will spend exactly the same way they are now no matter how much we tax them. No harm no foul. We have tried the give them huge tax breaks and they will spend more for twelve years and it has proven false. Also combined with other tax code policies that has allowed people in the .07% to pay half to a quarter of the percentage of tax I pay. SO at a minimum that is bullshit.

Spending is not good unless it is for things that are investment based, have real value and or help grow the economy either by providing (necessary) improved infrastructure i.e. costs that need to be expended better to do now vs. when crumbling - or in retraining of the workforce which is the elephant in the room - this provides sustaining not one off benefits potentially to millions - and the trickle down - sideways from that is immeasurable

Right but both parties are bought and sold with pork. Even with the Sandy relief bill republicans and democrats could not help but feed pork into the bill. As some has said it is how sausage is made in Washington. I don't foresee that changing. Not unless we give dictator powers to Obma and I am pretty sure that wont fly.

the current admin has shown no particular skill in understanding economics much less how to recharge the economy with deficit spending - neither has congress

Actually their stimulus that was passed without a single republican vote has been the single most successful spending bill in history. It has achieved everything it set out to do. The auto industry bailout was an additional piece of genius policy that worked especially well. Soon you will see business ripping republicans apart publicly to keep them from using the debt ceiling like a crying hostage with wet pants. So shit definitely isn't perfect but had the second stimulus bill went through we would be at 5.5 to 6 % unemployment and that snowball would keep rolling into a strong economy that the world will rebound off of.

unless there is a plan for spending that is VETTED and is based on the principles above it's just a drunken sailor (like it?) binge - with high fives and lots of cum - but a major hangover

It will not be vetted with any sense of reasonable purpose. Everything we spend on has a constituency in congress.

the american public (rightly) has no confidence that those in charge have any idea of what they're doing as it relates to spending/deficit reduction/economic growth

so grover is not irrelevant

the idea of a pledge is absurd

but the idea that tax policy impacts the economy is not irrelevant - u just don't agree with his findings

Grove is just another person so he is as relevant or irrelevant as you make him. Tax policy does indeed affect the economy and the infrastructure and many other items. Americans like this level of security both physically and socially. So you have to have a revenue plan that pays the bills. That is what Americans want. Even those republicans who are besides themselves because a black muslim socialist heathen is in office really do like the services... they line up for them whether they believe it or not.

 

[chrisrobin]

Grover Norquist? Finished? Not hardly.

As Machiavelli once wrote, "never underestimate your opponent."

>Enter the Koch brothers.<

 

[chrisrobin]

so grover is not irrelevant

Gave me an idea for the 2013 Republicon mascot... an irrelephant.

 

[frankfrank]

Right but both parties are bought and sold with pork. Even with the Sandy relief bill republicans and democrats could not help but feed pork into the bill. As some has said it is how sausage is made in Washington. I don't foresee that changing. Not unless we give dictator powers to Obma and I am pretty sure that wont fly.

Or, if the President had the line item veto, which I WOULD NOT want to see. I remember years ago there was some effort to get it into place [early Bill Clinton era?]. I don't exactly remember what happened, but it never did get put into place.

The Confederate States of America actually DID have a line-item veto provision in their Constitution, I think.

 

[Kulindahr]

Or, if the President had the line item veto, which I WOULD NOT want to see. I remember years ago there was some effort to get it into place [early Bill Clinton era?]. I don't exactly remember what happened, but it never did get put into place.

The Confederate States of America actually DID have a line-item veto provision in their Constitution, I think.

I'd go for a line-item veto that allowed a president to eliminate a piece of a bill that wasn't related to the main topic of the bill. So a defense bill couldn't have anything about abortion tacked on, and a highway bill couldn't have anything health issues, etc.