The House GOP Freshmen: Pragmatists in Wolves’ Clothing?

I swear, it must be Stockholm Syndrome.

Teabaggers in men’s suits…

The Tea Party won’t accept pragmatism. They elected these folk to destroy the government, not negotiate with it.

Jay Newton-Small:
.
You write:

“In the following interview, you’ll find a group of freshmen that are more pragmatic than Washington realizes. They say they will refuse to vote to raise the debt ceiling without a balanced budget amendment and are in fierce opposition to tax hikes. But they are open to cutting deals in some areas. Not too long ago, compromise was a dirty word among new Republican members of Congress. In Tea Party groups outside the Beltway, it still is.”

In your parlance, is the term “pragmatic” essentially identical in meaning to “open to cutting deals?”

http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/155627-dcs-deficit-frenzy
.
Digby says:
.

Government spending didn’t cause our economic problems, and it’s delusional to think cutting it will solve them. But the powers that be are apparently going to forge on and try to immediately “reform entitlements” to prove that they are Very Serious about purging the phantoms the moneyed interests have created to explain why the American Dream is turning into a nightmare. Let’s hope this fever burns itself out before it causes permanent damage.

Jay, thanks to you and Brianna for interview. I’ll watch CNN to see what else was covered, but in a mild critique of the transcript, you both covered the basics well (vote on budget / debt ceiling, public perception), but I wished you had asked tougher questions. The R’s are taking hardline stances so they deserve harder questions.
.
For example, if they will allow a debt default their constituents won’t benefit. It’s rare when Wall St. and Main St. are on the same side but applies here. A default, however brief, will wreck markets, investments, pensions, you name it. Yeah, China will take a hit too, but so will our individuals and companies at home …except those who short Treasuries. So what’s in it for those freshman R’s? How do THEY benefit from a default? If only you had asked, sigh, but thanks for the effort….

One of the most troubling aspects of these new extremists is the fact that no one seems prepared to act as a counter weight to them.

Does it really matter? People who propose drastic cuts in government spending simultaneous with outrageous levels of unemployment and a liquidity trap, cannot be characterized as pragmatists by any sane person who understands what’s happening and the meaning of the word “pragmatist”.

More like Teen Beat, ‘cept with right-wing pols instead of Beiber or the Jonas Brothers.
.
They are the single most powerful group in Washington right now and no one inside the Beltway knows much about them.
.
Hyperbole much, Jay?

Liberals could probably do a better job if many of them weren’t regularly and foolishly conflating the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Liberals might have a little more faith in Democrats if they weren’t always negotiating and compromising with black mailers. Liberals are also not centrists.

Countering good ole common sense has never ended well derek. That’s why liberalism has always failed. You’re experiencing only the first wave of freshmen, there’s another batch to follow come 2012. B.O may win another term, but he will have a house and senate just chock full of republican freshman to deal with. If you’re troubled now, I guess you’ll be literally sh!tting your britches when that time comes.

What we have learned over the last decade is anything can be stopped in the Senate. It will just take one or two real liberals to shut down the herd of extremists and compromisers.

“Liberals might have a little more faith in Democrats if they weren’t always negotiating and compromising with black mailers.”
.
Faith is for religion. What liberals need is to get over themselves and realize that American politics is a blood-sport and that the oligarchs have all the blood-letting equipment. Then they should exercise a little good old fashioned rational, self-interest, which is never served by ceding more governing power to Republicans.

“Mild critique”. “Wish you had asked tougher questions”. Comming from the most polite and mild-mannered commenter on the blog, that’s pretty devastating. Let me join you in your mild critique. These weren’t even soft-ball questions. It was particularly disappointing how our TP friends were allowed to wiggle out of the question about their earlier demagoguing of Medicare cuts.

Thanks, blueswede, though I think others like Ivy, PNNTO, and kbang are even more polite (I’m more pottymouthed in real life), not to mention apr’s ability to stay poised in the face of crap flung at her by the trolls. I’d love it if swamp reporters, CNN, etc. would let US ask all the questions for Q+A’s….
.
…which KT did as her parting gift to us (the podcast is still available)…
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/27/health-cae-question-time-swampland-gets-answers/

“Broadening the tax base” (Labrador). We will be hearing a lot more about that one when budget and tax reform negotiations get underway. So if I understand correctly, that mostly means abolishing mortgage interest deductions, tax-free employer-based health insurance, and perhaps also tax-free retirement savings, all of it to pay for more tax-cuts that will mostly benefit the wealthiest. How to get away with that sort of reverse Robin Hood stuff? Well, by portraying deductions that the beleagured middle-class desperately need to stay afloat as “loop-holes”, something shady and vaguely wrong.
.
By the way, the current employer-based insurance system isn’t exactly the most fair system one could think of. But until a more rational option (like single-payer) is in place, it really is the only way for a lot of people to get health insurance at all.

Yes, I have noticed that apr takes a lot of crap from some of the more flamboyantly crazy RW commenters.
.
“I’d love it if swamp reporters, CNN, etc. would let US ask all the questions for Q+A’s….”
.
Not a bad idea.

“What we have learned over the last decade is anything can be stopped in the Senate. It will just take one or two real liberals to shut down the herd of extremists and compromisers.”
.
Wow, talk about drawing the wrong lesson. What we have learned over the past decade was that policies the plutocrats want (tax cuts, wars, bank bailouts, etc.) always pass and the ones that they don’t like (war funding, the public option, serious regulation, etc.) need 60 votes to pass. You’re short about 58 votes (I’m giving you Sanders and Franken) to stop the extremists and compromisers.

You are right of course but even one senator can obstruct and slow things down. The more liberals the merrier. If so, we would probably have a public option, less war and no tax cuts for billionaires.

Uh huh. And no country either. You guys are pathetic. Thank God there are so few of you.

Funny how he right gets so upset if anyone uses the same tactics they do. They resent losing their monopoly.

Jay: I read your interview. Thanks. But…
.
In a nutshell, it went:
Medicare cuts – yes
Tax Increases – no
Raise debt ceiling – no
compromise – no.
.
What in all of this stuck you as “pragmatic”?

The WaPo has Q & A sessions with Chris Cillizza and Gene Robinson. They used to have more reporters particiapating. I hoped they would include Karen, but not so far. That can be interesting.
I do agree that it would be wonderful if they used questions suggested here at swampland. So many of the commentators do research and have specialized knowledge. It would be an asset to the reporters.