Jujutsu […] is a Japanese martial art and a method of close combat for defeating an armed and armored opponent in which one uses no weapon or only a short weapon. The word jujutsu is often spelled as jujitsu, ju-jitsu, jiu-jutsu or jiu-jitsu.
“Jū” can be translated to mean “gentle, supple, flexible, pliable, or yielding.” “Jutsu” can be translated to mean “art” or “technique” and represents manipulating the opponent’s force against himself rather than confronting it with one’s own force. Jujutsu developed among the samurai of feudal Japan as a method for defeating an armed and armored opponent in which one uses no weapon, or only a short weapon. Because striking against an armored opponent proved ineffective, practitioners learned that the most efficient methods for neutralizing an enemy took the form of pins, joint locks, and throws. These techniques were developed around the principle of using an attacker’s energy against him, rather than directly opposing it.
Dear Republican Party:
“Vox populi, vox Dei” is Latin for “Dear God, how did we get in this mess?”(Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit). Well, the people have spoken, and once again the message is completely unintelligible.
The people seem to have voted for the status quo, which means they want Obama to keep proposing and they want y’all to keep disposing. In other words, gridlock. But gridlock is not in your best interests. I don’t believe it is in our nation’s best interests either.
If the Republican party spends the next 2-4 years more or less successfully opposing tax increases and the implementation of Obamacare while advocating spending reform, the Democrats will run for reelection claiming that GOP obtructionism is the reason why Obamacare ain’t working and the economy is still flatlined. You know, basically the same thing they said this year.
So what can you do? You can win by not fighting.
Imagine that there is a 6 foot, 6 inch tall, 300 lb muscle-bound steroid freak charging at you with intent to to you great bodily harm. What makes more sense – standing your ground and meeting him head-on or stepping aside and tripping him as he rushes past so that he crashes into an immovable object? I would go with the latter.
That’s the basic concept of Jujutsu. The principle can be applied in many ways. Let’s say you got a kid who won’t eat his dinner and just wants to eat candy other sweets all the time. You can fight with him every day, or you can buy him a big bag of candy and then let him eat as much as he wants. After he gets done puking it will be awhile before he craves sweets again.
Now what you gotta do is a little tricky and it involves some deception on your part, but no outright dishonesty is needed. The thing is you gotta give the impression you really are opposing Obama and the Democrats, but you are gonna lose on purpose. This strategy won’t work if everyone knows what you are doing.
The Democrats have been doing this for years – they make big promises and tough speeches, then cave in when it gets to the nitty gritty. Most of your people will still be able to vote their consciences, but you need to have just enough Republicans either not vote or vote with the Democrats to pass bills or defeat filibusters. In your case it’s best to pick people who plan to retire soon anyway, because the Tea Party activists will be coming after them in 2014 and 2016.
If you really want to win the next couple of elections, then let Obamacare go into effect. It’s gonna hurt the economy, but you gotta think of it as tough love. The voters won’t be blaming you guys even though Obamacare was originally a GOP idea.
Now I realize that raising taxes is anathema to you Republicans, but once again you gotta let it happen. But you can make the outcome hurt the Democrats more than it hurts you.
While I think that it’s adorable that Susan Estrich thinks that Barack Obama cares about why anybody did or did not vote for him, it’s also pretty much irrelevant. What’s got her guts in an uproar is apparently rumors that the President wants to cap charitable deductions and lower the mortgage interest deduction… coupled with the sudden and unwelcome realization that Republicans are maybe going to smile nastily and let Obama do just that…
What’s that? Why is that a possibility? Oh, well, the reason why is because a hard cap on charitable deductions will bite deep into the willingness of rich liberals to fund nonprofits, including ones that are frankly front groups for Leftist advocacy organizations; and lowering the mortgage interest deduction will have the same effect on Blue State residents as would, say, a sledgehammer between the eyes would to a cow. Shared sacrifice, baby.
Personally I would eliminate the deduction for charitable deductions and cap the mortgage interest deduction.
Victor Davis Hanson has some additional ideas:
The current battle over the budget hinges on whether to return to the Clinton-era income-tax rates, at least for those who make more than $250,000 a year. Allowing federal income rates to climb to near 40 percent on that cohort would bring in only about $80 billion in revenue a year — a drop in the bucket when set against the $1.3 trillion annual deficit that grew almost entirely from out-of-control spending since 2009.
Instead, why not agree to hike federal-income-tax rates only on the true “millionaires and billionaires,” “fat cats,” and “corporate jet owners” whom Obama has so constantly demonized? In other words, skip over the tire-store owner or dentist, and tax those, for example, who make $1 million or more in annual income. Eight out of the ten wealthiest counties in the United States voted for Obama. Corporate lawyers and the affluent in Hollywood and on Wall Street should all not mind “paying their fair share.”
Upping federal tax rates to well over 40 percent on incomes of more than $1 million a year would also offer a compromise: shielding most of the small businesspeople Republicans wish to protect while allowing Obama to tax the 1-percenters whom he believes have so far escaped paying what they owe, and then putting responsibility on the president to keep his part of the bargain in making needed cuts in spending.
Likewise, instead of hiking death taxes on small businesspeople, why not close loopholes for billion-dollar estates by taxing their gargantuan bequests to pet foundations that avoid estate taxes? Why should a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates act as if he built his own business and can solely determine how his fat-cat fortune is spent for the next century — meanwhile robbing the government of billions of dollars in lost estate taxes along with any federal say in how such fortunes are put to public use?
I won’t lose any sleep over the thought of Hollywood celebrities taking a big haircut. Obama’s their guy, let them pay for his ideas. But don’t be surprised to see them start skedaddling to other countries to avoid high US taxes.
But the really tricky part is on spending reform. It’s a trap.
Obama and the Democrats know damn well that we are headed for a fiscal train wreck if we don’t tame the budget beast. But they want to blame y’all for making the tough, unpopular choices. They want YOU to raise taxes on the middle class. They want YOU to cut government spending.
Don’t fall for it.
Unless and until the Democrats in Congress agree to pass bipartisan spending cuts and Obama agrees to sign them, do nothing. They will dangle a possible win in front of you – with a united GOP and a few crossover Democrats they’ll let you pass a budget that begins to significantly address the deficit. Obama might even sign it. But you will get blamed.
Paul Ryan’s plan will work, but it won’t be popular. Nobody likes going on a diet or tightening their budget. Controlling the deficit and reducing the national debt will require sacrifices from everyone. The only way it will work is if both parties agree to a plan, so if the Democrats won’t cooperate then you need to fail.
Put the Democrats in the hot seat where they will get the credit and the blame. I know that sounds like a trick but it’s not. I have the country’s best interests in mind here.
If the Democrats are able to pass all the key pieces of legislation they want in the next two years, one of three things will happen. Either things will get better, things will stay the same, or things will get worse. I’m guessing they’ll get worse.
If things get better then you’ll have done what’s best for our country and you can try to jump on the bandwagon before it’s too late. If things remain the same then no harm, no foul. But if things get worse, you won’t get blamed, they will. That will make winning the next election fairly easy.
But if you maintain the stalemate and things get better the Democrats will claim all the credit. If things stay the same or get worse they will blame you. If you compare the two strategies you can see that the first one is the only one with a positive outcome for your side and no outcome where you get blamed.
“He either fears his fate too much,
Or his desserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all.”
James Graham, 1st Marquess and 5th Earl of Montrose, 1612-1650