The Cycle | November 27, 2012
>>> republicans are saying they want a divorce from grover norqui norquist, but with each new republican disavowing grover norquist , the chances of a deal rises sharply.
>> that was chuck schumer last hour on the senate floor. grover norquist is either having the worst few weeks of his life or the best. it's hard to tell. his anti-tax pledge and the immense power he's wielded because of it has become a hotly debated top irk among hill watchers who wonder if its days are numbered. if republicans agree to raise tacks, it will be reluctantly, i'm sure, but also economically dangerous. it will also be because grown-ups have decided though that the good of the country and, indeed, the good of the party mean that the ends justify the means . pledges of this nature and grover 's isn't the only one, seem decidedly silly and easily broken whether codified or not. democrats pledge this year to fund their convention solely with individual donations and then promptly took millions in corporate cash. the problem with politics isn't a lack of pledges, it's a lack of will power on our part. politicians break promises all the time. we have a handy system in place to deliver consequences, vote the bums out. when the stakes are merely an endorsement one starts to wonder if we're operating under a monarchy or a spoil system where loyal underlings are rewarded for good behavior. finally, they are for the most part redundant. few republicans would argue with the need to lower taxes or for the imperative to raise them. wh among them would argue with the need to cut spending, cap spending levels, and balance the budget as was directed in the cut, cap, and balance pledge? or to promote a pro-life agenda as the susan b. anthony project required? committing to obvious pledges at the barrel of a gun seems to say more about the paranoid solicitor of the pledge than the signatories. i know grover and i get it, taxes are a tierney and starving the beast is not only a moral and political imperative but sound economic policy. his is an important mission. but purity tests take on a life of their own. failing to recognize changing social and political realities and hemming in a that shouldn't make sweeping and momentous decisions based solely on one narrow piece of doctrine. promises are important, keeping them even more important, but the political pledge is becoming a nuisance and an albatross. it's time to put the pledge to