I have never been hurt by what I have not said
Calvin Coolidge
Basil: This is typical. Absolutely typical… of the kind of… ARSE I have to put up with from you people! You ponce in here, expecting to be handwaited on  hand and foot while I’m trying to run a hotel here!
Fawlty Towers Warldof Salad 1979

Yesterday I gave some advice on deciding whether or not to support the Ryan Murray budget deal.  In my opinion judging the bill based on those factor and calling on your congressman and senator to vote accordingly is smart.

There are decisions concerning the bill that haven’t been so smart such as stuff like this:

House Speaker John Boehner went off on outside conservative groups Wednesday morning for pushing against the new budget deal.

“They’re using our members and they’re using the American people for their own goals,” he said. “This is ridiculous.”

Really Mr. Speaker, you’re going to use your face time to attack conservatives?  Let me give you some advice before you start giving speeches about Our members.

The reason you have a majority to be speaker , are invited to Sunday shows and have your press conferences covered  is because of the Tea Party that mobilized to elect that GOP majority

The reason you keep that majority is those Tea Party voters also gave the GOP the majorities in state houses when it was time to draw districts.

Turn your mind back to when you were first elected, you only were in the house for two years when Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and the conservative movement gave the GOP their first majority since the 50’s,  but your predecessors would have different memories.

I wonder what Buz Lukens, elected in 1966 & 1986,  Walter Powell, elected in 1970, Tom Kindess elected in 1974 would have given to enjoy the support of those tea party republicans and those conservative activists.  What do you think they would have given to be in the majority for just one term?

It took great effort by an awful lot of people to achieve that GOP house majority that you preside over, and it will take more than Obamacare to get people to overcome their natural inertia to turn out to give the GOP the senate in 2014 and if you don’t believe me ask Senator Gabriel Gomez (R-Hisapnica) how easy it was to bring out the 50% of 2010 Scott Brown voters he needed to win or ask why former Senator Brown crossed the border rather than run in a state where he ran away from his base.  As Powerline said yesterday:

In all likelihood, he has the votes he needs to pass the deal. So why lash out at opponents within the Party? Does Boehner imagine a Republican majority in which groups like Heritage and the Club for Growth have abandoned the Party? I don’t, and certainly not a conservative majority. So why antagonize them unnecessarily?

You’re the freaking leader of the GOP.  If you’re pissed off, vent in private, let an aide leak something in background or do what I do, get yourself in front of a pinball machine and beat the crap out of it.  You don’t repeatedly go after conservatives group and by extension the base in that way and feed the MSM’s  “GOP base crazy/angry” meme that they will jump all over because let me tell you, if you become the minority leader unlike Nancy Pelosi the media will have no interest in anything you have to say.

And if you can’t trust your self-control in public then take President Coolidge’s advice and just be quiet.

No charge.

Update:  Added Waldorf Salad quote

Update 2:  corrected quote

Update 3: Instalanche, only six behind Charles now. Here is that Fawlty Towers clip I was talking about.

FYI at this moment despite a successful week I’m $183 behind the pace to make this month mortgage. I only need 62 1/2 subscribers at $20 a month to cover Da Mortgage & Da Magnificent Seven writers for a full year. If I can get those subscribers it would not only be a great Christmas gift for me but it would be one that gave back to you 365 days a year in 2015.




Update 4 Added link to explain the Hispanica reference

Here is the very funny audio version of the Farie Tale of the GOP and the Mystical land of Hispanica

.

Update 5: Mrs. Richards not withstanding it’s Fawlty not faulty

Update 6:  Pastor George Kelly of my Magnificent Seven writers elaborates on the (very) long history of divisions in the GOP in his latest:  A House Divided against itself Will not stand.

The Ryan Murray deal has now been out there for about two days and there are many different opinions on it.

Some think it’s a win for the GOP:

Though I, too, would like government to shrink, I think this is the right policy trade-off; shutdowns are making it harder and harder to talk about rational budget policy in this town. And tactically, I think this is a clear win for the Republican Party. The last thing they need right now is to take the focus off the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and revive Obama’s flagging poll numbers with an ill-timed budget battle. Their best shot at a budget they really like is, after all, to retake the Senate in 2014.

Some think it’s a disaster

I am old enough to remember when the GOP said not to worry about it caving on Obamacare funding because, by God, it would hold the line on sequestration.

Hell, that was a month ago.

Amazing how much can change in a month. Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator Patty Murray have decided to give up the last thing the GOP was fighting for — spending restraint. “Don’t worry,” Paul Ryan says with his boyish charm designed to induce sweats and heart palpitations among conservatives, “it’s only a little less restrained.”

The budget deal puts discretionary spending over $1 trillion, which is higher than the sequestration deal of 2011, which was at $967. This is, in fact, a spending increase.

It funds Obamacare.

It does not impact the national debt. It does not reform entitlements.

And it raises taxes, but with the more acceptable euphemism of “user fees”

And some who look at it pragmatically:

When I heard there was a budget deal, and that the deal didn’t amount to much, I had two thoughts. The first was, “Most conservatives probably aren’t going to like this; they’ll consider it just another case of weak Congressional Republican gruel and lack of Republican spine.” The second was, “Good. The Republicans weren’t going to win this battle anyway, and this deal will take away the Democrats’ most potent argument against them—the one that hurt them so much earlier this fall, the obstructionist argument—and allow Republicans to focus on the awfulness of Obamacare.”

The way I look at it is this: the best way to combat the Democrats is to win majorities in Congress next year, and to vote for people who are conservative enough to actually stick to their principles in the exceedingly tempting and corrupt atmosphere of Washington DC (no mean feat that, and it’s somewhat unpredictable who will stand firm and who will not). Republicans and/or conservatives can bluster all they want from a minority position, but it’s a weak position

All are valid opinions but as I see it there are three things for a conservative to judge this budget deal by:

1.  Are the military cuts due in sequestration so damaging that it’s worth making this deal to prevent them?

If you think the military can’t sustain these cuts or that they will go to the meat rather than the fat then this deal is a necessary move to stop it. 

If you think that this is simply not the case or that the military as well as the rest of the government need to live within its means then it’s a bad move.

2.  Is a short term deal, even one with tax (fee) increase worthwhile to achieve the political goals of depriving the media / democrats of an issue to use in 2014?

If you think the media would use a shutdown or even a continuing resolution continuing current funding would be used like a club to distract low information voters from Obamacare and the economy before the 2014 elections, it’s a smart move to made a deal that deprives them of it. 

If on the other hand you figure if the MSM doesn’t have an actual issue they will make one up anyway and this will cost us more votes in the base than it will win us or them in low information voters then it’s a waste of time to equivocate.

3.  Do you trust the GOP if successful in taking the senate in 2014 to actually advance meaningful budget restraint?

If you think the tactical move to make a deal will lead to a GOP congress that will make fiscal responsibility a priority and act accordingly then this is the right move, at times you have to regroup before you advance.

If however you have concluded that the GOP is more interested in getting chairmanships and the power of the purse than actually being responsible with it then it simply will not do to make this deal.

I think making a judgement on the budget deal based on these factors is smart.

Tomorrow I’ll give some advice on something concerning this bill that isn’t so smart.