An Open Letter To All Republican Office Holders And Candidates For Office:

reply to post by antonia


No doubt, Norquist is in a league of his own. On pg 1 of this thread there were some questions about a comparable situation on the Democratic side, and I was just answering that question to the extent that I could.

You won't find any claims from me that there is a legitimate parallel to Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform on the Democratic side.

For one, the pledge signed by Dem's for social security doesn't have a face to it like Norquist. There is no individual that exercises such influence. Also, the social security pledge seems to be more of a counter measure to the Republican rhetoric of privatizing, where the Tax pledge was an original movement in itself (as I understand it).

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


I was just chatting, not trying to say you were making any claims. I find it interesting the GOP is much more adept at forcing conformity in the party compared to the Democrats.

reply to post by antonia


Sorry if that came off strong, just had to clarify because my post could have been seen as legitimizing Norquist.

You might be right about conformity in the GOP, although I'm not sure. They definitely cater to the extreme a bit more I think. Generally, one of the problems I find with politics is that both parties are pretty uniform. Especially during Obama's term, voting is consistently along party lines.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


Well, I think that has to be contrasted with the Bush era. The GOP was and is still able to keep all of it's members in line whereas the Democrats never were able to. Democrats consistently voted for most of the things Bush wanted passed even when the party leadership attempted to force unity against it on the floor. Harry Reid has gotten tougher on the Democrats in the senate since their majority has gotten pretty slim. I know on the state level where I live the Democrats have always been unable to force party unity.

Many people blame the parties for the polarized environment in politics today, but I personally think it's just a reflection of our population right now. I don't think there has been this much turmoil in our society since the late 60's. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

I apologize for abandoning this conversation, but I got busy with other things. PatrickGarrow I truly wish to thank you for the awesome participation in this thread! Actually in more than just this one!

It is late here and, even if I stay up awhile longer, my analytic mind is done for the day, so I will review the links you have provided about the Democratic equivalents to Norquist in the morning. I am positive that following the leads will lead back to a small set of originators. Most of the Republicans tend to throw the name Koch around a lot and, to be honest, I have seen his name mentioned in articles about Norquist - comparing the two... so I already have a theory of where the trail of crumbs will lead.

We'll see if my hunch is right.

Thanks all for your participation!

~Heff

reply to post by antonia


Looking into conformity between the two parties based on voting records.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act -

Senate Vote- Yea - Dem 55, Rep 3, Ind 2
Nay- Dem 1, Rep 38, Ind 0
www.govtrack.us...

Here's an example of legislation that may have been influenced by Norquist.

A majority of banking executives believe they will have a difficult time addressing the tax implications of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the Basel III accords, according to a new survey.

www.accountingtoday.com...

Although I believe the Norquist pledge applies to taxes on the individual, the philosophy certainly applies to businesses.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act-

Senate Vote - Yea Dem 58, Ind 2, Rep 0
Nay Dem 0, Rep 39

www.senate.gov...

So on two of the major bills during Obama's term, voting was basically along party lines.

Also found this, written by Norquist himself two months ago:

The Obamacare law contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses

Taxpayers are reminded that the president’s healthcare law is one of the largest tax increases in American history.

Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses.

Arranged by their respective effective dates, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, where to find them in the bill, and how much your taxes are scheduled to go up as of today:

Read the rest :Obamacare tax hikes by Grover Norquist on newsmax

reply to post by Hefficide


You obviously do not understand contract law. Their behavior is in no way controlled by that peice of paper. They can do whatever they want. There are no legal repurcussions. Research what is needed for a contract to be enforceable.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


I do, in fact, understand contract law. Have you read the posts beyond the OP? As this subject is addressed in following posts.

FTR: What Norquist has these people sign, as far as legal definition goes - has yet to be decided by pending lawsuits. But I am willing to cause it a pledge, oath, or affirmation for the sake of conversation.

What the document is called means nothing, really. Nor does the potential for legally enforcing it.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


You made outlandish claims that their behavior can now be controlled, yet offered no proof in your OP. He has no control and despite your claims you offered zero proof he does. Much like every pledge every candidate makes while running for office, it's only as good as their word is because none of it is enforceable.

I skimmed and saw a wave of people patting you on the back, if someone challenged your assertions I missed it in the sea of applause with no critical thinking applied.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04



There are a number of links, in the OP and in subsequent posts that clearly list Mr Norquists various and, in my opinion, clearly conflicting roles in several organizations.

I have made no outlandish claims and have sourced every fact stated. Even his control over members of the GOP is directly sourced and demonstrated in this thread - through quotes from members of the GOP itself.

As for your opinions and generalizations about the thread itself? Well, these are well known tactics and usually indicate a compensatory effort to offset the difficulty of having no substantial or adequate rebuttal of the materials presented.

Attack the premise all you wish, but if you choose to do so without substantiation then all that is left is our opinion. Opinions are wonderful things and I always respect that others have rights to them. The problem with them is that they fail to address the tabled issues and tend to focus more upon emotional statements and logical fallacies.

Still, if you'll review the material, or bring sourced material of you own into the conversation, I will more than happy to discuss it. But simply using terms like "outlandish" and charges of back patting? It just doesn't add to the conversation, nor does it disprove the hypothesis.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide

a contract which dictates and controls your behavior as a public servent is despicable, deplorable, and in my opinion criminal

You stated he controls them. I see no source here only your statement. Show me legal ramifications from people saying no to his control.

or to disassociate yourself from his illegal control of our party by publicly stating so

Again you state he controls the party due to a contractual obligation. Prove it.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Ahead of the looming expiration of the Bush tax cuts, an influential activist known for enforcing GOP anti-tax absolutism is reinterpreting his famous pledge, making it harder for Republicans to compromise in a way that ultimately raises federal revenues.

All but a handful of congressional Republicans have signed — and strictly adhered to — Grover Norquist’s pledge to “oppose any and all efforts” to raise taxes or revenues. But the White House’s insistence that President Obama will veto attempts to extend all of the Bush tax cuts creates a new incentive for Republicans to cut a deal with Democrats after the election. For that reason, Norquist is insisting on an interpretation of his pledge in which failing to prevent a tax increase — or even voting to partially cut a lapsed rate — would constitute a violation.

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...

Not the greatest source, but I think it's credible for these purposes.


Your stance that Norquist exerts no control over those who sign his document, which happen to be the majority of the Republican party, is not correct.

Here, we have a situation where tax cuts passed under a previous administration expiring constitutes a violation of the pledge. No EO wants to have their honor in question. So, they will all vote against the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts. Any time one person has an agreement signed by another they hold some measure of control over them.

Signing this pledge means a gradual lowering of tax rates or keeping them the same, even if the government is facing a severe deficit. It is different than some campaign promise because of a different level of accountability.

Would Republicans vote against expiring tax cuts regardless of signing? Maybe. But at least they would have a choice.

This represents possibly the most extreme example of the Norquist pledge coming back to haunt EO's. There is no opportunity to go back on a tax cut. The Bush Cut's brought taxes below the norm, and now there is no going back to the norm for Republicans.

Maybe the most effective tactic for the democratic party would be to say, alright no taxes at all. Let's pass a bill that creates a zero tax society. This is obvious madness. But if the bill were passed, the Republicans would be faced with either doing the correct thing and raising taxes to a reasonable level or violating the pledge.

While the legality of the pledge is vague, I think it's fair to say that it violates the spirit of the Constitution and Founders. We need a flexible, compromise oriented government in such a pluralistic society. Not one where congressman sign a document that says, "We won't do this under any circumstance." Regardless of what "this" is.

As the Republican National Convention begins this week, one of the party's most powerful players is neither a candidate, nor a speaker, nor a delegate. He is not a member of Congress, nor the holder of any public office. He's a lobbyist and a conservative activist named Grover Norquist, who over the years has gotten virtually every Republican congressman and Senator to sign an oath called, "The Pledge." It's a promise that they will never, under any circumstances, vote to raise taxes on anyone. And so far, Norquist has held them to it. As we first reported last fall, Grover Norquist, through the pledge, controls 279 votes, including both the speaker of the House, and the Senate minority leader. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have signed it. And in the coming campaign, you can be sure that Grover Norquist won't let them forget it.

www.cbsnews.com...

The issue is, whether the pledge is legal or Norquist's actions legitimate, we have one man exerting a disproportional influence on a large percentage of representatives from all over the country and preventing flexibility in policy.

Really, the fiasco that ensues when the Tax Cuts expire may be the undoing of Norquist and the Republican party as we know it.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


He exerts the same force EVERY citizen exerts on their elected officials. Follow through with your promises. Your source cited ZERO legal ramifications. He is saying if you don't follow through with the pledges you made to the people who elected you WE WILL TAKE NOTICE. If Democrats don't have someone doing the same thing they SHOULD after the whole Obama debacle.

The only thing he can do is cry foul. There are ZERO legal ramifications.

ETA: The founders did not believe we should compromise away our future. Democrats are being 100% unreasonable, and while I do not think my reasons are the same, I think it's very likely the Republicans are doing the US a favor here. Democrats want to keep squeezing the wealthy without stopping their spending spree. Sorry, credit cards have spending limits on them for a reason.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


You're right, a congressman won't go to jail or be fined for breaking the contract (as far as I know). That doesn't diminish the influence that Norquist has on politics, namely the Republican party. It also doesn't do away with the questionable circumstance of a lobbyist holding this level of control and creating an inflexible party that is more accountable to one individual than their constituents.


And Norquist crying foul would basically mean a job loss.

Regardless of whether one is democrat or republican, I think there should be agreement on both sides to reduce the effect of lobbying and interest groups on politics, and tc try to make the system as authentic to equal representation as possible.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


For many of them this is a selling point to their constituents. In fact, Norquist holds ZERO power. The constituents do. No one cares if Norquist is unhappy, what they care about is Norquist telling their constituents they went back on their word. So in the end it's the constituents who hold sway, and Norquist is a spokesman for them. Sort of like a Union. Liberals love Unions don't they? Only here the people aren't forced to pay money.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Americans for Tax Reform is basically a political gimmick to gain votes, not a grassroots movement. It was created within the Reagan administration and has no roots in the public. Norquist is the spokesman of GOP power brokers first, constituents second, and saying he holds zero power is pretty unreasonable.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


If Norquist cries foul and no constituents care, what power does Norquist have?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


That's exactly it, because Norquist has made Republicans beholden to this pledge he wields immense power. Him and his fellow leaders hav e created this ideology of never raising taxes and passed it down to voters. Even if taxes were lowered to a substandard rate previously, there is no going back when revenue is needed and there is room for increase.

Norquist's power is in this principle that he and his group created and now the entire party adheres to. If he cried foul and there was no whiplash in elections, I'd eat my words and be happy about it. Because this would mean Republicans realized that some revenue increase is probably needed to deal with fiscal imbalance and the electorate agreed.


And just to say so, I believe in a much smaller federal government with lower tax rates and a shift toward localizing government. But I also believe it is never good to constrain oneself with this type of promise and that lobbyists should have a reduced role in politics.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


You just proved my point. He holds ZERO power. The constituents do. The GOP fear their constituents not Norquist. Norquist is simply a manifestation of their power. As I said, Like a Union Leader, which liberals love.

If we had a situation where the constituents wanted option A and Norquist was getting the GOP to do option B I would be right there with you. But Norquist is only enforcing the pledge they made which the CONSTITUENTS wanted them to make. Since the constituents want this, it's a non issue.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


No, he created and enforces this entire movement and ideology. He ultimately holds a lot of the power. If there were no Norquist and pledge, Republicans wouldn't be facing a job loss if they choose to vote for a small tax increase for whatever reason.

Of course constituents don't want any tax increases. So the pledge might look good to them. But it's one thing to say I don't want to pay more taxes and another to say my elected official is not allowed to vote for any tax raise ever.

This thing wasn't created by constituents.

It's stuff like this that distracts from a lot of the positive aspects of conservative/republican thought.