Cruz "isn't fit to be President because his behavior over the past several weeks has been anything but presidential ..."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  ha..ha.. only the most uninformed are impressed with Cruz. frankly, after his much ballyhooed resume'... I was looking forward to see whatkind of orator & debater he would be.. sorry to say.. he left me underwhelmed.. that thin voice with no range is grating to the ear.. he sure talks a lot but listen carefully it carries no substance.. he speaks in a manner of the televangelist.. he is a bore. even that melodrama he concocted chastising Mc. one could see he really tried to make an impression. it's all conduct unbecoming on Senate floor.. sorry. he doesn't make the cut.
*  Terd Cruz shouldn't even be a Senator.
*  have you see his base? it says a lot about him.. he demands total subservience. when he really has nothing to say.. like you said.. misquotes his opponents to illicit an effect.. he is soul-less.. & thinks he's the smartest man in the room.. he isn't.. he's nothing but a junior first term senator.. desperately lusting to become President, most of all.. he doesn't have a clue how the game is played nor know the rules.. Just bec O managed it.. doesn't mean it will happen it again.. Obama was the exception to the rule.. not the norm.. one can even go as far as to say. destiny touched his shoulder. who would ever think for a second.. in our lifetime.. we'll have a black President.?!
*  Cruz has nothing to offer. He has nothing to give but being an obstrucionist. He never comes up with anything but is constantly tearing down whatever others do come up with whether it's Democrats or members of his on party. He would not even be a senator in any othr state wxcept Texas. They seem to like bullies who have nothing to offer but the ability to rip into others ideas.
*  Cruz has nothing but screws loose. If he were a car he'd be recalled. I think Texan's like to elect the truth twisters, to any office. You sure don't need an xray to see through him.
*   Ted Cruz may have cross the line but what about your friend, Donald Trump.  No one would have survive the indignities, the lack of respect and demeaning nature of Trump for peers.  Why is it that no one wants to hold Trump accountable for his actions, why does he get a free pass. It was the same way with Obama, the public some how someway creates a wall around these candidates that the media and the journalists dare not enter.  Lets face it, the media is scare to death of criticizing, attacking or questioning political figures that the public has place on a pedestal. That is what is hurting this country.

...................................................................................................................................................................

Ted Cruz Just Disqualified Himself for President, Part II
By Daniel R. DePetris, July 31, 2015

For a person who wants to be President of the United States, Sen. Ted Cruz is sure not acting presidential.

When he was Majority Leader, Harry Reid called Ted Cruz a "schoolyard bully" on the Senate floor. I won't go that far, because I don't know the man personally; I've never spoken to him, and it would be unfair for me to characterize someone in such a personal fashion without doing so. But I will reiterate something that I wrote last March: Sen. Cruz is not qualified to be President of the United States. It's not because he's a bully or a relatively inexperienced senator compared to colleagues that have been legislating for the past several decades (President Obama, after all, was only in the U.S. Senate for less than four years). He isn't fit to be President because his behavior over the past several weeks has been anything but presidential: calling his party leader a "lair" during a floor speech (something that he had to walk back as he was criticized by senior GOP senators for his conduct), misquoting witnesses during Senate hearings, and refusing to acknowledge that there are some things in this world (like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) that require level-headed, cool and calculated analysis.

A big part of being a Commander-in-Chief is to demonstrate the fortitude to treat your political opponents with respect, refraining from attacks directed at an individual just because your opponent happens to express a different position on a policy, and engaging in a pragmatism that enables the country to move forward. One can argue whether President George W. Bush and President Barak Obama's policies are wrong or foolish, but you can't argue the fact that both men acted like a President -- that is, exhibited the characteristics of patience during times of crisis or confrontation. Can we say the same thing about Ted Cruz, a senator that has based his entire political career on confrontation?

Confrontation, of course, is not necessarily a bad thing on is own. Sometimes, you need to stand up to your bosses (in Cruz's case, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) when you think they are straying on the wrong path or giving up their principles for the sake of political expediency. But other times, confrontation is downright disrespectful and doesn't do him any favors.

Take the Iran nuclear agreement. Congressional Republicans as well as some Democrats are absolutely convinced that the JCPOA negotiated by the Obama administration and six other countries is a terrible mistake. Whether it concerns the 24-day waiting period to gain access to undeclared sites, the $50-60 billion that Tehran will receive in sanctions relief, or the 15-year limitation on Iran's uranium stockpile (Iran will be free to enrich as much as it wants, for as long as it wants), plenty of lawmakers are concerned about what the White House agreed to. This is fair game. What isn't appropriate is when a member of Congress -- any member of Congress -- turns that legitimate opposition into an exhibition that has no basis in reality.

Sen. Cruz's questioning of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz on July 29 is a perfect illustration. Cruz could have done what many of his Republican colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did: give a lengthy speech about why the Iran deal is a bad one and why U.S. negotiators needed to hold out for something better. Instead, Cruz (and Sen. Lindsey Graham, I might add) used his several minutes of questioning time (starts at 2:41:33) to misquote Secretary Kerry, attempt to trap him into apologizing to the families of U.S. service members who were killed in Iraq by Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani, and misquoted Secretary Moniz's position on EMP's. How that helped the American people better understand a long and complicated 159-page diplomatic agreement is beyond me.

This useless encounter was after Cruz called "the Obama administration the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism" thanks to the billions of dollars in sanctions relief that Tehran would receive if they complied by the JCPOA. That remark was so ridiculous that 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney called it "way over the line" in a tweet.

Is this the type of rhetoric that we want a future President of the United States to use? Ted Cruz can blast the Iran agreement all he wants, but making up things as he goes along ain't working for him.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... the danger in the room wasn’t coming from the deal or its administration proponents. It was coming from the interrogators." Of course, that's because they're Republicans!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  So, my conservative friends? You want war?  Deal, on two conditions:  1: Immediate tax increases to pay all future costs of the war AND retroactively pay for all costs of the failed Bush wars. Patriots do not put wars on credit cards  2: A reinstatement of the draft. It's gonna be YOUR kids that might get sent to the front lines and get their legs or brains blown up.  You up for it, or do you have a major money-mouth disconnect?
*  Gotta love Lindsey Graham. Who wins in a war with Iran?? We win! (Just like Iraq!?) The sad part is, there are plenty of dumb Americans who will fall for the patriotic BS.
    *  The next question after that is who wins the peace? That's the one thing the GOP never did answer for Iraq.
        *  And Lindsey et al. are more than willing to make the same mistake. 'Merican exceptionalism in action.
    *  The question I would have posed in reply: "And who exactly, Sen. Graham, wins a nuclear war?"
*   And people wonder why I will not even consider voting for Republicans any more. This article goes a good way towards explaining why.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Not Fit to Lead
The Iran hearings have shown how the Republican Party can no longer be trusted with the presidency.
By William Saletan, July 31, 2015

If Republicans win the White House next year, they’ll almost certainly control the entire federal government. Many of them, running for president or aspiring to leadership roles in Congress, are trying to block the nuclear deal with Iran. This would be a good time for these leaders to show that they’re ready for the responsibilities of national security and foreign policy. Instead, they’re showing the opposite. Over the past several days, congressional hearings on the deal have become a spectacle of dishonesty, incomprehension, and inability to cope with the challenges of a multilateral world.

When the hearings began more than a week ago, I was planning to write about the testimony of Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. But the more I watched, the more I saw that the danger in the room wasn’t coming from the deal or its administration proponents. It was coming from the interrogators. In challenging Kerry and Moniz, Republican senators and representatives offered no serious alternative. They misrepresented testimony, dismissed contrary evidence, and substituted vitriol for analysis. They seemed baffled by the idea of having to work and negotiate with other countries. I came away from the hearings dismayed by what the GOP has become in the Obama era. It seems utterly unprepared to govern.

If you didn’t have time to watch the 11 hours of hearings conducted on July 23, July 28, and July 29, consider yourself lucky. Here are the lowlights of what you missed.

1. North Korea. [major snippage]

2. Israel. [major snippage]

3. The IAEA’s “secret deal.” [major snippage]

4. EMPs. [major snippage]

5. Sanctions. [major snippage]

6. Pariahs. [major snippage]

7. Bad guys. [major snippage]

8. Indifference. [major snippage]

9. Winning. [major snippage]

10. Patriotism. [major snippage]

There’s plenty more I could quote to you. But out of mercy, and in deference to the many dead and retired Republicans who took foreign policy seriously, I’ll stop. This used to be a party that saw America’s leadership of the free world as its highest responsibility. What happened? And why should any of us entrust it with the presidency again?
...................................................................................................................................................................

"If Senate Republicans want to end the use of fetal tissue in scientific research, they ought to say so ... rather than seek to cut off women’s access to birth control." But that's not their aim-- they want to stop women from having sex!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  The anti choicers never did have facts on their side, so they had to make them up. "Gotcha" videos are not facts. Unintended pregnancies are. And none of the Christ eaters ever want to help pay for any of the children they force women to have.  They're like absent fathers who are there at first, then leave.  But then, anti choicers are only interested in the "child" from conception until birth. Then it could starve to death for all they care.
*  So ol' Boner is now going to wait for facts. Quaint.
*  Hahaha. When these congress nitwits refund [sic] Planned Parenthood they will have absolutely no influence and PP can go in its most profitable direction.
*  Republican policies on reproduction have *never* been about reducing abortions. They have always been about making sure that women face steep consequences for having sex without explicitly intending to get pregnant.  You can't say you're against abortion, then do everything in your power to make sure women don't have access to accurate health information, and affordable, effective contraception. PP has been essential for getting women access to that contraception, thereby reducing the need for abortion. Call a spade a spade. They don't want fewer abortions- they want women to have less sex.
   *  ... YES. This describes the bulk of the anti-choice crowd in general.
        *   Yep, they continue to pander to the evangelicals.
*  It's the weird Calvinist streak in the American identity... it's been here since the Mayflower and it has been trouble for nearly 400 years. It is just a small step from The Scarlet Letter and the stocks to Ernst and her squealing pigs. It is a terrible thing to see that destructive force rise again.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Senate Republicans accidentally promote abortion
By Dana Milbank, July 31, 2015

Senate Republicans this week, teeming with righteous indignation, introduced S. 1881, “a bill to prohibit federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”

Here’s a better name for it: the Abortion Promotion Act of 2015.

No doubt the authors of the legislation think that anything that hurts Planned Parenthood, the leading provider of abortions, would further the pro-life cause. But their proposal — defunding all Planned Parenthood operations in retribution for secret videos showing the group’s officials discussing the sale of fetal organs — would do far greater harm to fetuses than anything discussed in the videos.

There already is a ban on federal funding of abortion, with rare exceptions, at Planned Parenthood or anywhere else. The federal funds Senate Republicans propose taking away from Planned Parenthood are used largely to provide women with birth control. And because there simply isn’t a network of health-care providers capable of taking over this job if Planned Parenthood were denied funding, this means hundreds of thousands of women, if not millions, would over time lose access to birth control.

Take away women’s contraceptives, and a greater number of unintended pregnancies — and abortions — would inevitably result.

Consider: Of the 4.6 million people who receive care annually under Title X, the federal family-planning grant program, 1.7 million of them go to Planned Parenthood — and two-thirds of women leave with some form of contraception. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and other sponsors of the Senate legislation claim that other providers in the family-planning network will pick up the slack. But Clare Coleman, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, says that’s nonsense.

“It shows an astonishing lack of understanding about how these networks are put together,” said Coleman, whose membership includes not just Planned Parenthood but also hospitals, state governments, local health departments and others — most of which don’t provide abortions. “This is not a network that’s ready to roll,” she said. Even with Planned Parenthood still in the equation, “they are worried about their capacity to do what they’re doing.”

Coleman’s forecast if the Senate bill were to become law: “We would see rates for unintended pregnancies and the need for abortions to rise. There are very real implications to the public health.”

Planned Parenthood has itself to blame for the current crisis: Even if fetal organ sales are legal and rare, and even if the videos were highly edited by ideological foes trying to entrap Planned Parenthood by using phony identities, officials at the organization should have known they were a fat target for such things. There’s no excuse for callous talk about how the group is “very good” at performing abortions so that fetal hearts, lungs and livers can be kept intact and sold. (Planned Parenthood didn’t respond to a request for information I made this .)

But antiabortion forces, in their zeal to slay their bête noire, are actually attempting something sure to increase the number of abortions: Denying women access to birth control. In June, I wrote about the paradox of antiabortion organizations’ antipathy toward expanding the availability of long-acting birth control — a policy that would do more than anything else (including severe abortion restrictions) to reduce abortion. The same perverse logic is in play here.

The Ernst legislation says that “all funds no longer available to Planned Parenthood will continue to be made available to other eligible entities.” But because Title X money is given as grants, this would be impossible to transfer to other providers in the short term, even if they were able to take on the load. And congressional Republicans’ assurances are suspect, Coleman notes, because they’ve already cut Title X funds by 13 percent, or $40 million, since 2010 — resulting in a loss of 667,000 family-planning patients annually. House Republicans this spring proposed eliminating funding entirely for the Nixon-era Title X program.

If Republicans are genuinely outraged about the Planned Parenthood videos, perhaps they should revisit the federal law that makes legal such harvesting of fetal tissue for research. Those standards were enacted in 1993, with the support of, among others, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), now the majority leader and a co-sponsor of Ernst’s bill. If Senate Republicans want to end the use of fetal tissue in scientific research, they ought to say so — and endure an outcry from the medical community — rather than seek to cut off women’s access to birth control.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has a sensible alternative to the Senate Republicans’ approach. “There’s an investigation underway and I expect that there will be hearings,” he said. “And as that process develops, we’ll make decisions based on the facts. But let’s get the facts first.”

Facts first: What a novel — and refreshing — notion.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... the Kochs are seeking to remake public perceptions of their family, their business and their politics, unsettling a corporate culture deeply allergic to the spotlight." It isn't going to work on me!

...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch Brothers Brave Spotlight to Try to Alter Their Image
By Nicholas Confessore, July 30, 2015

Once known for grim letters to fellow wealthy Americans warning of socialist apocalypse, Charles G. Koch now promotes research on the link between freedom and everyday happiness. Turn on “The Big Bang Theory” or “Morning Joe,” and you are likely to see soft-focus television spots introducing some of the many employees of Koch Industries.

Instead of trading insults with Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader, Mr. Koch and his brother, David H. Koch, are trading compliments with President Obama, who this month praised the Kochs’ support for criminal justice reform at a meeting of the N.A.A.C.P.

After two elections in which Democrats and liberals sought to cast them as the secretive, benighted face of the Republican Party, the Kochs are seeking to remake public perceptions of their family, their business and their politics, unsettling a corporate culture deeply allergic to the spotlight. Even as their donor network prepares to spend extravagantly to defeat Democrats during the 2016 campaign, the Kochs have made cause with prominent liberals to change federal sentencing rules, which disproportionately affect African-Americans, while a Koch-backed nonprofit, the Libre Initiative, offers driving lessons and tax preparation services to Latinos.

This fall, Charles Koch will publish “Good Profit,” a new book about his management philosophy and worldview that seems intended to introduce the Kansas-born Mr. Koch as a kind of libertarian sage of Wichita. The makeover attempt has even included the Kochs’ twice-yearly “seminars” for donors to their political operation, events previously shrouded in such secrecy that Koch aides once erected large fans around an outdoor pavilion to foil long-distance recording devices. At this year’s summer seminar, which begins Saturday in Dana Point, Calif., invited reporters will be allowed to attend some sessions, including those featuring many of the Republican Party’s presidential candidates.

“In light of the barrage of political attacks and distortions of our record, beliefs, and vision, we are taking the steps necessary to get our story out to the public,” said James Davis, a spokesman for Freedom Partners, a nonprofit group that oversees the Kochs’ donor network.

Critics see an effort to soften the image of a political and philanthropic empire that has budgeted $889 million for the 2016 election cycle, including tens of millions to build a grass-roots activist network, and of a family business that is a major lobbying force in Washington and has faced numerous threats of a consumer boycott.

Democrats, in the meantime, are preparing to spend millions of their own to paint the Kochs’ political efforts as cynical and self-interested. (“The Koch Conspiracy to Cut Off Millions of Americans’ Access to Healthcare,” read the subject line on a report released Thursday by American Bridge, a liberal research group.) And three books are in the works about the Kochs, some likely to be critical.

“These outreach efforts disguise the men behind the curtain and their true Tea Party agenda, which hurts Latino families,” said Representative Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, who heads the House Democrats’ campaign arm.

The brothers are sensitive to criticism that they are recent converts to issues like criminal justice. Mark Holden, the general counsel of Koch Industries, said the company had become active in defendants’ rights back in the 1990s, after four employees at a Texas refinery were snared in what the company viewed as an overzealous prosecution of federal clean air and hazardous waste laws. The company and family have long donated to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Mr. Holden said, as well as to the United Negro College Fund and other charities.

“Charles obviously is a classical liberal, who believes in the Bill of Rights, and limited but necessary government,” Mr. Holden said. “If those are your guideposts, criminal justice reform is where you need to be.”

But the two brothers, who have a combined fortune of about $100 billion, have also increased their giving in some areas. Last year, Koch Industries announced a $25 million gift to the college fund, much of it for a new Koch Scholars program in which the company will help shape the curriculum. The announcement prompted the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, another donor, to sever its relationship with the fund — a publicity coup, some argued, for the Kochs.

Michael L. Lomax, the president of the United Negro College Fund, said in an interview that any political dimension to the giving was not his concern.

“My focus is very narrow: Is this program working for our students?” said Dr. Lomax, adding, “I don’t really get very involved in the critics.”

Allies of the Kochs acknowledged that their approach has been shaped partly by the bruising experience of the 2012 and 2014 election cycles, when Democrats like Mr. Reid sought to make the Koch name a dirty word among voters.

Over the 2014 election cycle alone, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, Democrats and liberal groups aired more than 53,000 attack advertisements mentioning the Kochs. For all of the power of their political organization, the Kochs were ill equipped to respond to attacks on their name. A culture of discretion runs deep at Koch Industries, which does not have shareholders to respond to and which is eager to camouflage its business strategies from competitors. Relations with the news media could be fractious: If Koch Industries did not like an article, its public-relations team was in the habit of posting email exchanges it had with the reporter.

Last year, the Kochs and their aides saw an opportunity. Polls showed that most Americans had formed no opinion about the brothers, a vacuum begging to be filled. The company has since expanded its public-relations team, bringing in executives with experience defending politically beleaguered industries — one formerly worked for the private equity industry trade association — and an in-house pollster.

Last summer, Koch Industries started what has become a more than $20 million corporate branding campaign, “We Are Koch,” featuring not the two brothers but some of their 60,000 American employees. The ads, which the company has said were intended to aid in recruitment of new employees, were aimed in part at hostile territory: Some ran on episodes of “The Daily Show,” whose host, Jon Stewart, occasionally mocked the Kochs.

The public-relations push extends to the very private brothers themselves. In December, David Koch, who lives in New York, sat for an interview with Barbara Walters of ABC and described his liberal beliefs on gay rights and social issues. In April, Charles Koch, who for many years granted only the occasional interview to his hometown newspaper, The Wichita Eagle, answered questions from USA Today.

In recent months, Freedom Partners, the nonprofit that oversees the Kochs’ political donor network, has also persuaded some of its donors to put their names to op-ed articles in national and local newspapers, helping shift attention away from the two brothers. Because nonprofits do not disclose their donors, it is impossible to know how much of the Koch network’s spending is underwitten by the Kochs themselves. But several hundred like-minded donors are members of Freedom Partners and more than two dozen donors have signed the op-ed articles, which take up familiar Koch causes like abolishing the Export-Import Bank or cutting the size of the federal government.

“Charles Koch’s amazing. He gets death threats all the time, and there’s a lot of misinformation out there,” said Chris Rufer, a self-described libertarian and the founder of Morning Star, the world’s largest tomato processor. “They called and said, ‘Would you sign on to this?’ ”

Civil libertarians have also sought the company out as a partner. Mr. Holden has made several trips to the White House, striking up a partnership with Valerie Jarrett, one of Mr. Obama’s top advisers. “People are pulling us in because we can be helpful,” Mr. Holden said.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... couth ... is not in evidence on the campaign trail this year. ... Let us demand that the candidates respect each other and, in consequence, the rest of us."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  It all boils down to one thing.  16 candidates and not one good idea between them.  Bluster, name calling, rhetoric, all just to hide the fact that they have no clue what to do.  Ask Cruz how to fix immigration. The first word out of his mouth will be "Obama".  Ask Trump how to improve health care. Same answer. "Obama".  They better come up with something pretty quick because I can bet you that Clinton has some pretty well laid out plans.Itut plans.
*  Huckabee does not "speak in Christ", & is a "mere peddler of God's word". As such, he is once again, on the wrong side of history, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/opinion/why-the-naysayers-are-wrong-about-the-iran-deal.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-re  Huckabee lacks the wisdom to be President.
*  The people who are reliable GOP primary voters are motivated mainly by fear and hatred. Anyone wanting to win a majority will be making a sales pitch to customers motivated by fear and hatred, and there are at least 16 bozos trying to win a majority. The math is pretty simple.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Lack of civility takes its toll on America
By Ann McFeatters, July 30, 2015

This is an appeal, plaintive and heartfelt, for couth behavior.

That does not sounds like much of a big deal, but, apparently, if you decide to run for president it is not uncommon to discard couth behavior as quickly as a sticky popsicle wrapper.

Being couth is described as having well mannered, cultured, refined behavior. It should have been learned in kindergarten. It is not in evidence on the campaign trail this year.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee likened the pending Iran anti-nuclear arms deal to the Holocaust, suggesting that it would send Israel to the doors of the ovens. This is uncouth. It is not even hyperbole. It is incendiary hooliganism. It is a strong indication that Huckabee is so desperate for media attention that anything goes. Even many Israelis were horrified at Huckabee’s rhetoric.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie likes to berate his constituents unmercifully in public forums, including schoolteachers. His aides used to follow him around to record on video his rantings or his “moments” to post on You Tube. This is supposed to be “telling it like it is.” This is being a bully.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has taken to calling Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a liar. He thinks this makes his seem “anti-Washington.” It reveals him to be uncouth. Not surprisingly, he is one of the most unpopular members of the Senate.

Donald Trump does not hesitate to call people “stupid.” He relishes demeaning other people and other nations. That’s what he does. And, speaking of kindergarten, where bad behavior can spread like lice, the other candidates in the race seem to be doing their best to compete with Trump at his level.

People, what is wrong with civility? Why are we encouraging this bad behavior? Why have a majority of the candidates decided that we like this name-calling and constant repudiation of thoughtful, reasoned, intelligent debate? Is it any wonder that Americans are seriously worried about the future of this nation?

The amazing thing is that any decent people are willing to run, risking humiliation and their souls for public office.

It used to be called the politics of personal destruction. It has escalated far beyond that so that it is destroying who we are. In this month of county fairs and family reunions, we shudder to think of how many encounters will turn ugly because that is the only kind of behavior we see from most of our political leaders.

How about this for a change? You listen to me. I listen to you. We agree that we disagree. We see if we can find room for compromise. We say we respect each other’s right to his/her own opinion. We smile. We shake hands. We remain friendly.

If the political debates turn ugly, if civility is trashed, let’s resolve not to stand for it. Let us demand that the candidates respect each other and, in consequence, the rest of us.

And now, let’s get to those reunions.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... the S.S. Trump will slowly, but surely, accumulate so much extra weight that for The Donald, things just won’t be fun anymore. ... and Trump will start looking for his way out."

...................................................................................................................................................................
A bit of satire by Andy Borowitz pretty much covers the Trump picture: Trump Says He Heroically Avoided Capture in Vietnam by Staying in U.S.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Trump is so full of BS but conservative wackos still love him.  Just because he's willing to tell it like it is, whether it's true or not, doesn't qualify him for the presidency. He'd tell-it-like-it-is to our allies and then no one will like us. We'd probably get into a war because he doesn't know when to shut up.
*  Yea hide his stupidity. He sure does not have a varied vocabulary. Says the sames insults over and over to anyone. Thats what happens when your vocabulary is very limited to I and ME
*  Really doesn't matter what he is worth. He actually stated he would like Sarah Palin part of his cabinet if elected. I know the old saying, "two heads are better then one" but in this case no matter how you add, 0 + 0 it still equals 0. Another one of his numerous brilliant ideas........
*  Excellent article. The hot air keeping this misogynistic financial rapist (and otherwise) afloat will eventually deflate--leaving a fat loaded weird hair covered skeleton of nothingness.
*  The Donald's own mouth will be his downfall. Years ago I heard someone say "Sometimes we let our battleship mouth overload our rowboat #$%$. He rapidly jumped to the head of the line in the polls but, I suspect, he will fall just as quickly.
*  ... While I am not a Republican i don't like to see either party hijacked by stupid. I think a candidate like Trump hurts our election process. Trump has already (it seems to me) has had a affect on the other GOP candidates where some have started to say outrageous things and I think it is to bump their status. And with the Fox rules about higher polled candidates making the debate cut it is hard to blame them for doing this. Candidates like Trump can really damage a party. ...
...................................................................................................................................................................
Trump’s Net Worth Isn’t His Only Claim That’s Fake
By Rob Garver, July 29, 2015

The walls are closing in on Donald Trump.

The novelty of a bloviating billionaire disrupting the Republican presidential primary race can only put off the inevitable minute scrutiny of the political press for so long. Now we’re moving from the “Can you believe what Trump just said?!” phase of his candidacy into the “Okay, okay I’ll take him seriously enough to do some digging” phase. And that’s terrible news for The Donald.

Trump has had a good run so far, rocketing to the top of the Republican primary polls because of near-100 percent name recognition and a willingness to insult personally other candidates, journalists, and heck, that guy on the sidewalk over there, who might have looked at him funny just now. (“Hey, dummy! Yeah, you. You’re a loser, you know that?”)

The past 24 hours have confirmed what many observers already suspected: The Donald Trump candidacy is much like the Donald Trump hairdo. The longer you look at it, the more you’re convinced not only that there is much less there than meets the eye, but also that what actually is there has been carefully constructed to hide something.

Take Trump’s fortune. Yes, the guy is ridiculously rich, but Bloomberg on Tuesday released an analysis of his 90-plus page personal financial disclosure filed with the Federal Election Commission suggesting that he’s nowhere near as rich as he repeatedly, relentlessly, claims he is.

Trump had claimed that his net worth is something north of $10 billion, but once Bloomberg’s Billionaire’s Index started peeling away The Donald’s extraordinarily optimistic assumptions about the value of his brand and his properties, the number began to look smaller. Bloomberg’s final verdict: $2.9 billion.

Still, a vast fortune by any measure, but for some reason, that wasn’t enough for Trump’s ego, and had to be spun up and puffed out, like a financial meringue, until he could claim to be worth $10 billion.

Fine. A little financial braggadocio might not be the end of Trump. But part of being a presidential candidate is having your past life wrung out by the press until every potentially embarrassing drop has been captured. Remember the book based mainly on the recollections of Barack Obama’s ex-girlfriends? Or the story about George W. Bush trying to goad his father into a fistfight? The longer Trump hangs around, the more his past will begin to define him.

A story in the Daily Beast on Monday night recounted an allegation by Trump’s ex-wife, Ivana, that he assaulted her and raped her in a fit of (hair-related) rage in 1989 while they were married. It’s a disgusting story, now denied by both Trump and his ex-wife.

However, Ivana Trump, it turns out, as part of a legal settlement from their divorce, is legally barred from saying anything in public about Trump without his express approval.  

Trump’s people, in particular his attorney Michael Cohen, seemed to think that this was off limits, and Cohen’s creative threatening of Daily Beast reporter Tim K. Mak, made some headlines of its own. (“So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?”)

Then, The New York Times, on Wednesday, offered an analysis of Trump’s boorish behavior during a civil lawsuit deposition several years ago. In direct, undisputed quotes, he admits inflating the value estimates he makes of his properties when selling them. When a female attorney conducting the interview says she needs to take a break to pump breast milk for a newborn, Trump storms out of the deposition calling the woman “disgusting.”

The thing is, this stuff is going to keep coming. And coming. Every person that Trump got the best of in a business deal or who feels he or she was wronged by the man is, even now, lining up to talk to reporters about him, and inevitably, some will have things to say that find their way into print.

Theoretically, at least, the Trump campaign could continue into November 2016. Nobody but Donald Trump can stop Donald Trump from running for president. As long as he doesn’t mind spending his own money, he can keep flying his TRUMP-branded plane around the country, stopping occasionally to yell about Mexicans and John McCain, until the Republican nominating convention. When he loses that, he could announce a run as an independent and keep this show running all the way to the general.

But like a ship collecting barnacles, the S.S. Trump will slowly, but surely, accumulate so much extra weight that for The Donald, things just won’t be fun anymore. The smaller and smaller crowds, packed into smaller and smaller venues to give the illusion of a full house, will inevitably start to grate. And then one day, the bookers from Morning Joe will stop calling, and Trump will start looking for his way out.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... 'a disgrace' that Republicans are doing so little to address the nation's judicial vacancy crisis ..." Furthermore, they take unseemly pride in it!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Anyone who imagines that politicians are not professional liars who stand ready, willing and anxious to bear false witness, is naive beyond measure
*  Seems to me we need a "Do Your Job Amendment" requiring that congress vote on nominees within 6 months - otherwise the nominees would be automatically approved.
*  He's a typical Republican, putting his own selfish political interests over the interests of the American people.  "Republicans like to say that government doesn't work, then they get elected and prove it"!!!
*  Another great job of the GOP at work--the party which was going to show us the "right way to govern," once they found themselves in the majority. Unless judges sound and act like those judicial geniuses Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Robert--who claim to be "originalists" in terms of interpreting the Constitution, but somehow found the word, "corporation" in the Constitution--making them "individuals"--they don't meet Grassley's requirements. Best advice to Schumer: Don't get mad; get even."
   *  Indeed, sir. Corporations exist only through the auspices of government. They are certainly not citizens. I'll believe that corporations are citizens when they put one in jail.  Further to your point, where exactly is the foundation for refusing to do your job or as a Congressman or obstruction of process found in the Constitution? "Justice delayed is justice denied." - William E. Gladstone.
*   Wonderful job GOP in your first months as the majority in both houses...No immigration bill. No healthcare bill to replace the ACA you so stridently hate. No bill to do anything to move forward on your concern for the middle class. In fact, abominations like your budget proposals do just the opposite.  It seems all you can manage to do is sit and wait till you find out what the President wants, so you know how to vote against him...Or bring a law suit against him. Or bring a foreign politician to school the American Congress. Obviously, that leaves no time to do your job.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Chuck Grassley Blocks Judicial Nominees, Then Says GOP Is Doing A Great Job Confirming Them

"Put that in your pipe and smoke it."

By Jennifer Bendery, July 30, 2015

The Senate has done an abysmal job of confirming federal judges this year.

Only five of President Barack Obama's judicial nominees have been confirmed since Republicans took control of the chamber in January. By contrast, when Democrats ran the Senate during President George W. Bush's seventh year in office, they had confirmed 25 of his judicial picks by this point in the year.

But Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Thursday that he thinks his party is doing a great job with judicial confirmations -- moments after he blocked a Democratic effort to take up a batch of nominees for votes.

Grassley, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, rejected a request on the Senate floor by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to vote on three district court nominees from his state. None are controversial; all three sailed through the Judiciary Committee last month on voice votes. Yet the Iowa Republican defended his move, suggesting it was legitimate for the Republicans to deliberately slow-walk the process because they are confirming nominees at "roughly the same pace" as Democrats did in previous years.

Grassley argued that his party has actually confirmed 16 judicial nominees this year, not five, because Republicans should be able to count the 11 judges that Democrats confirmed during the lame-duck session in December. He suggested that Democrats had broken with Senate tradition by confirming any nominees in a lame-duck.

"At the end of last year, the Senate rammed through 11 judges, which, under regular order in U.S. Senate, should have been considered at the beginning of this Congress," Grassley said.

"So put that in your pipe and smoke it," he said to Schumer, who protested the delays on his nominees. "We're moving at a reasonable pace."

Grassley gets points for sass, but his argument doesn't add up. For starters, plenty of judicial nominees have been confirmed in previous lame-duck sessions. Democrats held votes on 20 of Bush's judicial picks in the lame-duck after the 2002 elections. The Senate also confirmed judicial nominees in lame-duck sessions after the 2004 and 2006 elections. In the 2010 lame-duck, the Senate confirmed 19 judicial nominees.

Beyond that, it appears that Grassley wants to take credit for confirming the same 11 nominees that he previously tried to block. And this comes after years of Republicans routinely using procedural tactics to delay Obama's judicial picks at every turn -- even if that meant blocking their own nominees.

Schumer called it "a disgrace" that Republicans are doing so little to address the nation's judicial vacancy crisis, never mind that he can't get votes on judges badly needed in his home state. There are currently 63 federal court vacancies, of which 28 are judicial emergencies, where caseloads are surging at short-handed courts. Two of the three Schumer nominees that Grassley blocked on Thursday would fill judicial emergencies.

"The job of the Senate is to responsibly keep up with the need to confirm judges, yet we have 10 percent vacancy in judicial courts," the New York Democrat said. "Democrats will not stand by and watch our judicial system brought to its knees by death by a thousand cuts."

The Senate is leaving next week for a monthlong recess. Grassley said GOP leaders wouldn't schedule votes on any judicial nominees until at least September.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... this year, with 16 GOP candidates, being crazy enough to get noticed is a lot harder."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  I love the republican melt down. the dems need another easy POTUS win
*  Why is FOX news deciding who the republican candidate is? How can a fair and balanced news channel be picking the candidates for only one party? Could it be that they have a republican agenda? Stupid question i know but sort of funny. Now they should stop calling themselfs a news outlet and just come out and say they are a republican propaganda machine.
*  "Every four years, the Republican base creates a market for crazy. "  No they don't. Crazy is what those guys doing stunts for Red Bull advertising do. What the Republican base creates, is a market for stupidity.
*  The GOP clown car is too full  They need a clown bus.
*  Conservatism has morphed into a lunatic show. Glad I am a liberal.
*   "Desperate Republicans" a new reality show on E! It's good for a laugh.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Desperate Republicans
By Peter Beinart, July 29, 2015

Any day now, Rick Santorum is going to gyrocopter into the White House and try to make a citizens arrest. That’s how desperate the GOP presidential hopefuls not named Trump, Bush, Walker and Rubio are for attention. Every four years, the Republican base creates a market for crazy. But this year, with 16 GOP candidates, being crazy enough to get noticed is a lot harder. And with only a week to go until Fox News decides who gets to participate in the first presidential debate, candidates in the GOP’s second and third tier are growing frantic.

In the last few days alone, Mike Huckabee has accused Barack Obama of orchestrating a second Holocaust, Ted Cruz has called the Republican senate majority leader a liar, Rand Paul has set the tax code on fire, and Lindsey Graham has ground up his cell phone in a blender. Bobby Jindal, ever precocious, suggested abolishing the Supreme Court in late June.

Obviously, the size of the GOP field helps explain these antics. With so many candidates, attracting media coverage was always going to be hard. Then Donald Trump jumped into the race, and between late June and late July single-handedly accounted for 62 percent of the Google-search traffic devoted to Republican presidential candidates.

Fox News has made the problem worse. It’s only allowing 10 of the 16 GOP hopefuls into its prime-time August 6 debate; the others get a shorter consolation debate earlier in the day. That means little-known candidates may lose their best chance at a free introduction to the American public, and be written off by the punditocracy six months before anyone casts a vote. By determining who makes the cut based on national polls, Fox has made name recognition the summer before an election more important than in the past, and made candidates desperate to boost their own.

And there’s another factor: money. In past cycles, candidates like Mike Huckabee in 2008 and Rick Santorum in 2012 have won Iowa, despite having relatively little money, by painstakingly building a network of activists on the ground. In the age of the Super PAC, that’s much harder, because the financial gap between scrappy underdogs and well-funded front-runners is much larger. In 2008, Huckabee won Iowa despite having raised almost 17 million less in the second quarter of 2007 than the flushest candidate, Rudy Giuliani. In 2012, Santorum won Iowa despite having raised almost 18 million less in the second quarter of 2011 than the flushest candidate, Mitt Romney.

But when the presidential contenders announced their second quarter hauls earlier this month, the gap between Huckabee and the flushest candidate, Jeb Bush, was $106 million. (The gap between Bush and Santorum was $114 million). The fundraising ratio between rich and poor candidates hasn’t changed much. But as the numbers have exploded, so has the gap. That means besting Bush (or another well-funded front-runner like Scott Walker), with a shoestring campaign, in the way Santorum bested Romney in 2012, is far more difficult.

In past years, candidates engulfed by negative media attention often tried to defuse the story. This year they double down.

I suspect there’s another reason that candidates are so desperate for national media attention: They know it’s harder to do well by flying under the radar this year. It’s also the reason that, having said something outrageous, this year’s candidates are less likely to back down. When President Obama called Huckabee’s Holocaust comments “ridiculous” and “sad,” the former Arkansas governor’s campaign quickly hit back with an online video that garnered more than 30,000 views in 40 minutes. In past years, candidates engulfed by negative media attention often tried to defuse the story. This year they’re so desperate for the spotlight that they double down.

It’s anyone’s guess when we’ll hit bottom. “In Bid to Take Attention from Trump, Other Fifteen Hopefuls Release Joint Sex Tape,” wrote Andy Borowitz on The New Yorker’s website on Wednesday. I had to read it twice before I realized it was a joke.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"While the Republicans are busy offering nothing but obstruction, President Obama is out in front leading the nation with wise proposals." With CLASS!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Spot on. The next White House family will be hard put to come anywhere near all the Obamas in dignity, honor and reaching out to the public and welcoming the public to the White House. President and Mrs. Obama and Grandma Robinson will leave their girls an incredible legacy of graciousness.
*  It's not hard to see who the haters are. I stand with President Barrack Obama, the most successful president of the modern age and the most genteel as well.
*  (R)'s and the RW cult are less than worthless.  They could have chosen to work with the president, but instead chose to obstruct as much as possible, in addition to lying constantly to their cult.
*  President Obama is the greatest president of my lifetime. (And I go back to Eisenhower.) I'm proud to be an American with this decent, principled, gracious, honorable family man in the White House, and I weep for this country should any of the Republican candidates make it to the presidency.
*  Well said! He has maintained professional decorum, class, competence and grace.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Obama Has Outclassed the Grand Old White Establishment
By Cody Cain, July 29, 2015

Being the first black President of the United States is a daunting undertaking. Occupying the White House for anyone is like living in a public fish bowl, but for the first black president, everything is magnified a thousand times.

Everyone is focused on this particular president with increased intensity. They all want to see how the first black guy is going to handle it. What will he do? Will he do a good job? Will he be fair?

Staunch activists for the black community want him to focus disproportionately on black issues. And his enemies, oh boy. His enemies are fierce. With utter fanaticism, they desperately want to see him fail, and fail miserably. Such an environment makes it all the more difficult and unlikely that the first black President could ever succeed.

So how has President Barack Obama measured up?

Well, as a comparison, let's consider the behavior of the current 2016 presidential candidates for the Republican party.

Donald Trump recently called Mexican and other immigrants rapists and murderers, and denounced Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as not being a true war hero, despite the fact that Sen. McCain served in the Vietnam War and was injured, tortured, and a prisoner of war for nearly six years. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) then referred to Mr. Trump as a "jackass." In retaliation, Mr. Trump publicly disclosed Sen. Graham's personal cell phone number in a campaign speech, which required Mr. Graham to obtain a new cell number.

In an absurd irony, Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) recently denounced President Obama for having "no class." Yet Sen. Rubio was blissfully ignorant of the fact that his own behavior in doing so is exactly what constitutes having no class.

Sen. Rubio's rationale for his accusation was that President Obama has appeared on comedy televisions programs hosted by the likes of Jon Stewart and internet personalities. Of course, the reason for this is because President Obama has sought to reach younger and nontraditional viewers with his important messages, which is actually an admirable endeavor. Sen. Rubio was also blissfully ignorant of the irony that to deliver his denunciation of President Obama having no class for appearing on these types of programs, Sen. Rubio did so by appearing on the widely discredited Fox News.

It is plain to see who has no class.

Another Republican presidential candidate, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, said in response to President Obama's recent nuclear deal with Iran that the deal would "take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven," referring to a second Holocaust against Jewish people that he was implying would be conducted by Iran. A truly deplorable remark.

These Republican presidential candidates certainly are quite a bunch all right. They sure make us thank our lucky stars that the White House is occupied by someone like President Obama.

The conduct of the Republican leadership in Congress throughout the Obama presidency has been no better.

The leader of the Republican Party in the senate, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), openly stated that the top priority of Republicans was to oppose President Obama. This is simply stunning.

This constituted an open admission that the Republicans would not even attempt to be cooperative and constructive. They would not even try to accomplish any helpful initiatives or make any compromises to pass needed legislation. They would not seek to better the nation or improve the lives of the American people they were elected to serve. No. Instead, all of their efforts would be intentionally dedicated to blocking anything and everything that President Obama would propose. The entire Republican Party would devote itself to trying its very best to cause President Obama to fail.

Gee, nice folks.

As promised, this is exactly what they did. Sen. McConnell led the Republicans on this mission in the senate, and Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) led the Republicans in the house. They diligently applied themselves to blocking everything, and preventing the government from enacting measures that would benefit the American people all to prevent President Obama from receiving any deserved positive credit.

As a result, the American people endured exactly what one would expect.

These Republicans caused the government shutdown of 2013. The Republicans did not care one whit that by shutting down the government they inflicted substantial harm upon innocent people all across the nation. It was far more important to try to make President Obama look bad.

This deplorable conduct is also what caused the gridlock that has paralyzed the nation during President Obama's term. The grand Republican strategy at every turn has been to block everything and cause gridlock to try to make President Obama appear to be a failure.

This bad behavior by Republicans has seethed out onto display in various other ways as well. In one incident of stunning crassness, a Republican representative from South Carolina shouted down President Obama before the nation and the world right in the middle of a Presidential address to a joint session of Congress by bursting out and calling President Obama a liar.

So what has been the reaction by President Obama to all of this outrageous Republican behavior? Has he retaliated by stooping down to this level and engaging in similar petty warfare? Has he shouted down Republicans as being liars, or called them "jackasses?" Has he pledged to destroy people who happen to be on the other side of the political isle?

Not even close.

Throughout it all, President Obama has been a model of dignity, grace, and elegance. Even under the bright lights of such intense public scrutiny and in the face of such despicable personal attacks, he has always maintained his composure. Cool as a cucumber. He has consistently risen above the pettiness of those attacking him and demonstrated the true qualities of honor and respectability.

And it's not just his impeccable decorum. President Obama has also excelled in matters of substance with unmatched wisdom and intelligence. On issue after issue, President Obama has articulated clear and compelling positions that have convinced us on the merits that his vision was also the right course for the nation.

The Republican response, again and again, has been to incite panic and hysteria and claim that President Obama is causing the sky to fall. But the Republicans have consistently failed to articulate rational reasons for their fanatical opposition and they never offer credible alternative plans.

They bitterly fight against everything President Obama proposes, they denounce him in disgraceful terms, and they bring lawsuits against him in the courts. They jump up and down and stomp their feet. They do everything they can to oppose the President, with the single exception of doing the one thing that political representatives are supposed to do, namely, to present credible alternative proposals.

While the Republicans are busy offering nothing but obstruction, President Obama is out in front leading the nation with wise proposals. We have seen this over and over again, such as with healthcare, immigration, the fiscal cliff, gay rights, the minimum wage, overtime pay rules, taxing the wealthy, and most recently with the historic nuclear deal with Iran.

The contrast is stark. President Obama runs circles around them.

The experience of witnessing the first black President in the history of the United States has indeed been a wonderment to behold. As it turned out, the grand old white establishment revealed itself to be petty, obstructionist, vindictive, and incompetent. History will remember them as such, to the extent history will remember them at all.

The first black President, on the other hand, has risen high above the establishment to serve as a model of integrity, honor, and virtue. And despite the entrenched opposition that has been so dedicated to his destruction, the first black President has nonetheless managed to overcome these tremendous obstacles to inspire the nation and achieve great progress for the American people.

History will judge President Obama as extraordinary. By the content of his character.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"The hostility ... could deepen schisms within the GOP before lawmakers return in September."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  The GOP is self destructing even faster than I could have imagined. Keep up the good work.
*  And why do these guys get to take a vacation when there is so much business on the table.
I have worked for 46 years and never got a vacation when there was work to finish.
It is the same old game. When they get back they will not have enough to do the jobs and will roll over as always. Every year the stock market always tanks at the same time and I am sure that the pres. will take exec. privilege on what ever he wants and they will wine that it was unfair because they were on vacation.*  So Trump is talking about giving Palin a cabinet post, and saying how smart she is? Lookout folks for another fool war and idiocy at taxpayers expense, and envision another recession.
*  If it were only true that the GOP is destroying itself. That begs the question, why does it still even exist given a recent history of discord? Truth of the matter is, the party thrives on negativity and conflict, not just with those of other political stripe, but within itself. It's what they do. If things ever settled out and everyone on the right got along, they would be completely disoriented. When it's all said and done come election time, they always pull together, wingnut whackos and RINO's alike. The political left needs to realize this. The apparent "self-destruction" is the new normal within the GOP.
*  When the country goes into another recession and we are in another War-for-Profit, will the right be happy AGAIN?
    *   Look at it this way...: With George H.W. Bush we got 1 recession and 1 war; with George W. Bush we got 2 recessions and 2 wars. I expect that the next Republican't president will provide us with 3 recessions and 3 wars....if the past is really prologue.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Real Danger from the GOP’s Latest Mutiny Against John Boehner
By Martin Matishak, July 29, 2015

If you thought the days of bad blood between House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and rank-and-file House lawmakers were on hold, at least for the summer, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) apparently didn’t get the memo.

Tuesday night, the congressman marked his 56th birthday by filing a resolution in the House to force Boehner from the top leadership post.

The “motion to vacate the chair” is the first time that a Boehner opponent has taken such a step and is a bit of payback from Meadows, a founding member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and one of 25 conservative rebels who in January voted against Boehner for a third term as Speaker.

Last month House Government and Oversight Reform Chair Mark Chaffetz (R-UT), a Boehner ally, stripped Meadows of subcommittee gavel after the North Carolina lawmaker opposed a vote to give President Obama the power to “fast track” trade agreements.

Conservatives raised an uproar over the punishment, and began openly talking about launching a rebellion against Boehner.

Meadows was eventually given back his subpanel chair but the damage was done. The text of his resolution seethes with animosity toward the Speaker. The document states Boehner “has endeavored to consolidate power and centralize decision-making, bypassing the majority of the 435 Members of Congress and the people they represent.”

The resolution rattles off seven accusations against Boehner, including that he is using the legislative calendar to “create crises for the American people, in order to compel members to vote for legislation” and using the “power of the office to punish members who vote according to their conscience instead of the will of the Speaker.”

The resolution is more of a warning shot than a real threat to Boehner’s leadership position. Meadows told reporters that he wants to promote a “discussion” among the House GOP about Boehner’s leadership, to insure that “every voice and every vote is respected.”

Whether the resolution will come to the floor for a vote remains to be seen, as House Rules Committee chair Pete Sessions (TX) could decide to dump it in the trash can. Meadows could use certain maneuvers to force a vote but even with the backing of the forty-something House Freedom Caucus members, the resolution is unlikely to pass. Democrats would sit on their hands in such a scenario, content to sit back and watch Republicans squabble with one another.

The resolution ensures that when the House adjourns Wednesday for the August recess, Republicans will leave Capitol Hill with bruised feelings and suspicions about one another’s loyalty rather than back slaps and best wishes for the extended summer break.

The hostility could spill into town halls across the country with Republican voters who want their leaders in Washington to fight for more firebrand policies and it could deepen schisms within the GOP before lawmakers return in September.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Ignore that, will you, GOP?

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Jeepers, what will you run on now? The ACA is working, the economy has turned around, Obama is not a Muslim,or a Kenyen, there was no cover up in the Benghazi incident, according to 7 investigations.  The Republicans are fighting and name calling among themselves now, with Trump running the competition into the ground.  All is right with the word.  Come on you can make something up, you've been doing it for years now.
*  This is precisely why the GOP Congress has done nothing except to push for repeal. They knew that Romneycare was a big success in Massachusetts and could be equally successful in meeting these goals on a much larger scale if allowed to go through. Anything that would make Obama look good either now or in future years is viewed as politically intolerable and must be defeated.
*  Now that the truth is out it is the job of every republican't to lie, lie, lie to get everyone to believe that the ACA is a very bad thing and must be repealed otherwise all their previous lies will have no merit. So get ready for a barrage of republican't lies. They will come with statistics and percents and polls all of which are lies, lies, lies. It's what good republican'ts do. If you don't believe me just ask Trump or Huckabee or Walker or Bush etc., etc.
...................................................................................................................................................................
New study shows Obamacare is succeeding at one of its most fundamental goals
By Barbara Tasch, July 28, 2015

It's been nearly two years since the Affordable Care Act was fully implemented. And a new study suggests it's succeeding at one of its basic goals: improving access to care.

Through the first two open-enrollment periods, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported that as of March 2015, 11.7 million people signed up for private insurance through federal and state marketplaces.

And an additional 12.2 million have been enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program since September 2013.

Previous studies have documented the sharp decline in the uninsured rate.

And a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the implementation of the law colloquially known as Obamacare has led to improved national trends in coverage and access.

Fewer Americans are uninsured, the study showed. Fewer Americans are having trouble getting the medicines they need. And there was a significant plunge among people who reported an inability to afford needed care.

The study also found that the largest improvements in coverage and access occurred among racial and ethnic minorities, which could lead the law to reducing long-standing racial and ethnic disparities in access to care.

Here's a look at key trends from the study, which measures the law's first two open-enrollment periods:

• The number of people insured increased, compared to pre-ACA trends, by 7.9 percentage points.
• The number of people who did not have a personal physician dropped by 3.5 percentage points.
• The number of people who had difficulties getting medications dropped by 2.4 percentage points.
• The number of people who who were unable to afford care dropped by 5.5 percentage points.
• The number of people who reported fair/poor health, dropped by 3.4 percentage points.
• The number of days with activities limited by health decreased by 1.7 percentage points.

The biggest decrease in the rate of uninsured people was among Latino adults. The uninsured rate in that demographic dropped by 11.9 percentage points, compared to about 6.1% among white adults.

Low-income adults in states where Medicaid was expanded also reported more coverage — with a 5.2% point drop in the uninsured rate. They also reported better access, with a 2.2% bigger drop than states where the program was not expanded.

Coupled with other recent reports corroborating those findings, the study's authors said it shows that expansion of Medicaid to even more states would result in benefits for low-income populations. Twenty states have declined to expand the federal Medicaid program under the Affordable Care Act. The study, however, did not find statistically significant changes in self-reported health for Medicaid patients, which other studies had previously displayed.

The study looked at six different measures to identify how the ACA and Medicaid had influenced people's health in the last two years: being uninsured, not having a personal physician, difficulties in getting medications, difficulties affording medical care for someone in the past year, overall health status, and the percentage of days over the past month in which poor health limited activities.

Data from more than half a million adults was used in the study. Researchers analyzed data from the Gallup Healthways Well-Being Index (WBI), which is based on a cell phone and landline telephone survey from US adults all over the country.
...................................................................................................................................................................