Mark Levin on his show last evening gave a more thorough rebuke to Will than shall I offer here, so I suggest if what you’re looking for is a detailed analytical breakdown of what is, in short, a rationalization for “strategic” surrender and a sophistic attempt to conflate Constitutionalism with such a strategy, please go visit Levin’s podcast.
From my perspective, a reply rather simple, and takes few words, to answer Mr Will’s premises: until you show us the virtue of pushing empty calls for generic “compromise” with those who state repeatedly, “I will not negotiate,” your column is both absurd and, from a standpoint of defending liberty and using the Constitutional procedures granted us to fight a government cabal spending beyond its limits and tied to no specific budget or constrained by any individual appropriations fights, obscene. It is the rote platitudes of Republican (2x Obama voter) Colin Powell and Jeb Bush dressed up in the erudite referencing of historical red herrings and non sequiturs.
Granny glasses and a bow tie don’t mark you as conservative any longer. They merely remind us of how those who deny constitutionalism are trying to camouflage that cowardice and retreat of a party unmoored from its base that has, to date, left us with $17 trillion in fiscal operating debt, $90+ billion in unfunded liabilities, and, in the case of the GOP, as collaborators on the debt expansion and impediments to any compromise that would have at least delayed the biggest new entitlement in our lifetime from being imposed on a citizenry that overwhelmingly does not support it.
The TEA party offered a 1 year universal delay — an easy argument to win, given the selective waivers handed out by a man who is constantly preaching “fairness”; the caucus also wished Congress, the President, and staffers to enter the system they passed into law without a 75% subsidy from the taxpayers ensuring they get Cadillac plans at affordable prices.
Compromise for its own sake isn’t “conservative” or “Madisonian.” It is an excuse to pretend to a prudence and political acumen long ago surrendered by those who, when all is said and done, are comfortable and supportive of a more powerful federal government.
The end.
Dude. Half a loaf is better than none. So is half a baby.
I’ve only half-fallen but I still can’t get up…
At least these guys are half-vast
If the Madisonian system is absent in Washington, which condition Will seems to claim as a jumping off point, then which of the two entities he presumes to equate for the purposes of his thesis — TheClownDisaster and the TeaParty — is closer to demanding the return of the very Madisonian system Will is pleased to support, even if it may happen that the understanding of the complete system (which Will thinks he grasps better) falls short?
The progressive, following in the footsteps of Woodrow Wilson who denounced that Madisonian system as outdated and false to the needs of the United States?
Or those who see their formerly shining system of government stolen by the very acts of executive usurpation and Congressional concession they decry, volubly and stringently, for want of the attention and power the usurpers possess?
But Will admits as much regarding the latter, yet believes they should remain willing to cede still further illicit power and control to the usurpers, and not be willing to scream “this far and no further”?
Of course a party is concerned with power and its intended effects. And at its formation, a nascent party is concerned with building its strength while declaiming its purposes, precisely with a view to acquiring the power though which it will hope to achieve its intended effects.
“Make Washington listen” is where we are. And that the usual suspects can’t hear that cry even now, tells us all that the cry has a distance yet to traverse to achieve its intention.
That’s the problem right there, isn’t it? The leadership won’t lead the party in the direction its base wishes to go, and the base won’t follow where the leadership is headed.
I’m going to ask Mr. Will the same tired question that others of Will’s ilk never seem to answer: “Why are conservatives always the ones who are expected to compromise?”
George Will has interesting things to say about baseball. The rest tends to make me mad.
there’s no time for patience
Americans are being brutally raped by obamacare right *now*
it was nice of Mr. Cruz to try and stop the raping while the kitty genovese Republicans like Meghan’s coward daddy sat on their worthless cowardly asses
He should get a ribbon
That a guy who has “I got wedgies all the way up through the university level” written all over him is considered a “spokesman” says much, I think.
“I’m not a wusssy. I’m smaaaaaart. ”
” 800 deaths behind you and only 200 more to go. Poor coward.”
Go home George Will! You’re drunk!
I’m sick and tired of people claiming that I’m unwilling to compromise. The basic facts are thus: I want to eliminate two-thirds of federal spending, by dismantling or severely curtailing almost every program and agency in the Executive. That being said, in a show of how flexible I am, and how willing I am to engage in meaningful compromise: I’ll settle for just reducing Washington’s scope and power by just one third!
See? I’m a hell of a guy!
The Iron Law of Two First Names certainly applies to George Will.
Will drank the Kool-Aid. And seems to have become a clown.
Kool-Aid is a working class drink. It’s for mooks and schnooks. Mr. Will would never touch the stuff, unless it were served at a good old fashioned baseball game with a bit of neat rum as a chaser.
Come on, Slaphead… you can do it! Don’t let North Dakota with their 14 measly enrollees beat out the Great State of Oregon!
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/416090/
Whoops, meant to post that over on the OCare thread.