Krugman: Extortionists Versus Con Men (the repub party and the debt ceiling)

[pampango]

It’s looking increasingly as if House Republicans won’t crash the world economy by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, at least not right now. Score a big one for the White House (provisionally); its bet that it wouldn’t need a way to bypass the ceiling is looking like a winner (although it ain’t over until the tanned guy cries).

It’s important, however, to be clear about what’s going on here, and in particular about the nature of the debate within the GOP. Some commentary depicts it as a debate between radicals and moderates; but it’s actually a debate between extortionists and con men.

**snip**

One faction basically wants to use the party’s power of obstruction: threaten to provoke a crisis over the debt ceiling — in fact, do this again and again — and thereby force Obama to implement the GOP agenda. The other faction wants to achieve the same goals by stealth. Pretend that what you’re really concerned about is debt and the fate of our children; cultivate the Very Serious People and the deficit scolds; impersonate a budget wonk; and smuggle the agenda in by dressing it in fiscal responsibility camouflage.

Unfortunately for the Republicans — and fortunately for the rest of us — neither approach seems to be working ...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/extortionists-versus-con-men/

That makes sense - the extortionists versus the con men. What a party the repubs have put together.

[GeorgeGist]

1. Con men eventually always choose ...

the wrong friends.

[patrice]

2. parasitic extortionists

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Best line of the week--

It ain’t over until the tanned guy cries.