Hey, Michelle-- I haven't seen anything resembling a "rapture" yet. Guess your "gawd" isn't listening to you.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Really???!!! Seems to me, if God hasn't destroyed us because of the way we treated Native Americans, the way we murdered protestant ministers, the way we starved poor and migrant children, the way we caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and the way we totured, butchered and mudered slaves, it's really a stretch of unimaginal proportions to think that God would do anything about gay marriage.  Although, I suspect God's laughing at Michelle Bachmann.
   *  Which one of the gods do you think listens to Michelle? If I was a male god I'd watch her as long as she didn't talk.
*  So proud to be an atheist.
*  Good luck on getting Michele to acknowledge the truth. She's not going to talk about the truth that she is under investigation by the DOJ for breaking 11 election laws. (That's the reason she didn't run for re-election.). Plus if the Bachmann's knew anything about honesty & truth, Michele's "straight" husband would have long ago packed up his ineffective, yet lucrative business.....his "pray the gay away" Christian counseling clinic. It sure hasn't worked on Marcus Bachmann.
*  Well, he didn't destroy England, or Belgium, or Iceland, or New Zealand, or South Africa or Canada or 14 other civilized countries that got around to legalizing gay marriage before the US did. So I doubt he has any special distaste for America over the issue.
    *  But, don't you get it it?! According to people like her, this is the chosen land of "God". All those other debauched and blasphemous countries do not matter whatsoever and are insignificant, so "God" doesn't care enough to punish them. Amurica is the bestest! "God" holds our country to a higher standard and paragons like Ms. Bachman are only trying to appease the master and cleanse the nation of immorality and icky gayness.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Michele Bachmann Believes God Could Destroy The Nation Over Gay Marriage

Bye, America!

By Curtis M. Wong, September 29, 2015

Michele Bachmann is still vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage. 

The former Minnesota rep, who once dismissed the fight for marriage equality as "boring," blasted President Barack Obama's "dangerous policies," including those pertaining to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, in an “Understanding the Times with Janet Markell” interview last weekend.

"When we raise our fist to holy God and say that we are going to redefine marriage, we are going to be okay with paying a Planned Parenthood to cut up innocent baby parts and sell them for research, that clearly is a problem," Bachmann said, according to Right Wing Watch. "As we have seen God render judgment in the days of Noah, in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah and so forth throughout history, what the prophets have told every generation is that there is a just God and the people must repent and turn to him. So, too, in this day of wickedness in our own culture, we need to do the same."

You can listen to Bachmann's remarks in an audio recording of the interview, courtesy of Right Wing Watch, below.


Markell agreed with Bachmann, and went on to suggest that she and the former Republican presidential hopeful could witness "the Lord’s literal return" before the broadcast was complete.

Given Bachmann's history, of course, her comments aren't particularly surprising. Earlier this year, she predicted that Obama's support of same-sex marriage, as well as his policies on Iran’s nuclear program, would bring about "the rapture."

“Any nation that accepts God and his principles is blessed, and those who push away are cursed. That’s what we’re seeing happen to the United States,” she told Markell in an April interview. “We will suffer the consequences as a result.”  

We'll be waiting with bated breath, Michele! 
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... what the party has become in 2016 is what it has been since the Southern Strategy." Positively Nixonian.... too bad.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  This is totally right. The Republicans have been wrong about everything; it is all vapor and smoke held up by fear, anger, greed, and propaganda.  The Republican brand is toast, and for the simple reason that eventually, sooner or later, people will move towards the truth ... which is obviously bad for a bullshit platform devoted to class warfare.  We are witnessing the death throes of the power centers currently running the Republican Party, which will survive only by completely changing - completely. From bullshit to truth, from serving the elite few to serving all, as it should have always been.  It should be interesting.
*  Today's Republicans campaign on a platform of Fear and Loathing ...nothing more.
*  every time the anti american conservative idea fail they say they werent being conservative enough. so they more to the right. the next failure is the name they werent conservative enough.  which brings us to the current situation totally out of touch and unable to compromise. compromise means you arent conservative enough.
*  I can't think of one thing the republicans did that was good for America since Eisenhower started the interstate highway system. Can anyone?
*  They are baiscally the party of Slavery. In the sixties they supported slavery for African Americans, now they support slavery for everyone but the one percent. What has always blown my mind is that they find so many supporters who want to have their rights taken away.
*  Just remember the axiom : Left is right and right is wrong
...................................................................................................................................................................
Has the GOP Been Right About Anything This Century?
By Byron Williams, September 30, 2015

Here's what Peter Wehner, who headed the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives under President George W. Bush, had to say about the Republican presidential contest as it currently stands:

"This year is different, and what is happening now is leaving a searing impression," he said. "This is toxic for the Republican Party -- potentially lethal for it."

It almost feels Wehner is lamenting what has his party become. Though legitimate, there's another possibility.

Could Wehner's concerns be based more on the unvarnished version among many within the current GOP field, though uncomfortable to some, is it consistent with where the party has been for decades?

Decades before Donald Trump began blathering his mean-spirited utterings about immigration or Dr. Ben Carson, with total disregard for the Constitution, telling every Muslim American child that the day you were born, if he had his way, their religion would disqualify them from becoming President of the United States, Richard Nixon was crafting his "Southern Strategy."

The Southern strategy was a campaign tactic adopted by Republican Party for gaining political support, in particular white Southern voters, by appealing to racism against African Americans.

In 1980, candidate Ronald Reagan, days after securing his party's nomination for president told a group in Philadelphia Mississippi, the place where three civil rights workers were murdered by the Ku Klux Klan in 1964, he believed in State's rights. For many whites living in Mississippi and the surrounding areas, this was the dog whistle for race.

Here's what the late Lee Atwater, Republican political advisor and architect of the infamous Willie Horton ad during the 1988 presidential campaign, said in 1981 about the Southern Strategy:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "N****r, n****r, n****r." By 1968 you can't say "n****r" -- that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites... "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N****r, n****r."

For several decades this Faustian bargain with race had proven effective for the Republican Party. The GOP did not universally embrace this macabre practice, there was enough, however, to comprise a quorum.

As the nation moved into the 21st century, the changing demographics did not detour the party from perusing the path of systematic marginalization.

Beyond being on the wrong side of practically every significant public policy issue foreign and domestic, what does the Republican Party have to show for itself this century?

Its current brand has been shaped by championing an ill-advised war in Iraq, opposing gay rights, conflating illegal immigration with terrorism, against equal pay for equal work, blaming low-income people for the economic mess that was created by irresponsibly supporting tax cuts ad nauseam, exploding the deficit, and shutting down the government.

When asked how he planned to reach out to African Americans, presidential candidate Jeb Bush stated, "Our message is one of hope and aspiration." He continued, "It isn't one of division and get in line and we'll take care of you with free stuff."

Really? To whom was Bush's response directed? Was it the African American community or is he still stuck in the morass of post-Southern Strategy thinking?

Were GOP predictions right about the Affordable Care Act? Is it, as Ben Carson stated, "the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery"?

The party in its current state suffers from a toxic form of insufferable certainty based on a track record that has proven consistently wrong, rendering it unable to compromise. Eschewing that compromise is the hallmark of American democracy.

It is unhealthy for any group to overwhelmingly support a political party based on biological consideration, i.e. blacks, Hispanics, etc. But the voter suppression tactics, conducted largely in the states that necessitated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, along with the vitriol immigration speech is not the language of a party who truly wants their support.

Perhaps more recalcitrant, but what the party has become in 2016 is what it has been since the Southern Strategy.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"We have been saying for years that Republicans were exploiting the deaths of four Americans for political gain. Kevin McCarthy just admitted it. Disgraceful."

...................................................................................................................................................................
A top House Republican was accidentally honest about the Benghazi investigation
By Andrew Prokop, September 30, 2015

A gaffe, in Michael Kinsley's famous formulation, is "when a politician tells the truth — some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say."

On Tuesday night, Rep. Kevin McCarthy — the overwhelming favorite to succeed John Boehner as speaker of the House — made Kinsley proud.

During an appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, McCarthy bragged that the House GOP's investigation into the Benghazi attack had made Hillary Clinton's poll numbers plummet. Furthermore, he presented it as part of a "strategy to fight and win," rather than a nonpartisan effort to find the truth.

Here's what he said, via Roll Call:

What you’re going to see is a conservative speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?

But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.

"I give you credit for that," Hannity responded. "I'll give you credit where credit is due."

The Select Committee on Benghazi's investigation has long appeared partisan

Several investigations into the Benghazi events have already wrapped up without findings of serious wrongdoing. Yet the House Select Committee on Benghazi has kept at it — and has long appeared unusually focused on Hillary Clinton, and even on a member of her circle who wasn't even in the administration.

In June, the committee interviewed Sidney Blumenthal — a Clinton friend who emailed her advice and information while she was secretary of state, but had no particular useful knowledge about Benghazi — for nine hours. Vox's Jonathan Allen wrote then that they had "jumped the shark," finally stripping away "any pretense that they are more interested in the Benghazi attack than in attacking Hillary Clinton."

Still, the public line from Republicans was that they were merely trying to find the truth about what happened. Without this insistence that the investigation was nonpartisan, it's somewhat tougher for the media and the public to take them seriously.

So McCarthy's flub has overjoyed Democrats long hoping to discredit the investigation. Groups like Media Matters ensured the video was distributed far and wide. Brad Woodhouse of the pro-Clinton group Correct the Record harrumphed to David Weigel, "We have been saying for years that Republicans were exploiting the deaths of four Americans for political gain. Kevin McCarthy just admitted it. Disgraceful." And on Wednesday, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) called for the committee to be shut down entirely.

Comments like McCarthy's — even if they were well understood by most politicos in private — hurt the Select Committee on Benghazi's credibility among people who weren't already biased against it. Its more ambiguous findings, and the more opinionated judgments it issues, will be viewed with more skepticism.

Still, if the committee finds something real, it will be taken seriously. It's already hugely changed the 2016 race by setting in motion the scandal over Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email system for State Department business. That was a genuinely newsworthy revelation, even if it was discovered by a partisan source. If the committee manages to find something else similar, what McCarthy said about it won't really matter.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... Pope Francis met with the Kentucky clerk Kim Davis ... that simple encounter completely undermines all the goodwill the pope created in downplaying 'the gay issue' on his U.S. trip." For shame, Francis.

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

COMMENTS: 
*  Fifty years ago, a divorced woman was not allowed in the presence of the Pope. Now we have a Pope embracing not only a woman 3 times divorced but a heretic as well (her denomination does not believe in the classic Christian concept of the Trinity). Now i don't care what Kim Davis believes nor how many times she has been married, but this little stunt is alien to American values of a government blind to a person's religion or non religion. She is a government employee, not a spokesperson for religion. The Pope speaks about freedom of conscience, but that concept applies as well to one's religious beliefs (or non beliefs). Why does Kim Davis' and the Pope's religious beliefs trump yours and mine?
*  The Vatican seems to realize it was a bad move, and their responses indicate that they wish the meeting hadn't happened. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here bc it casts a nasty shadow over an otherwise positive trip.
*  Very bad PR for him. It's like the line from Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." In other words, Davis' rights are more equal than gay rights.
*  But by having a clandestine meeting with this horrible person he gives her homophobic stance some semblance of support
*  I have said a zillion times he is not to be trusted. All religions oppress. All religion are patriarchical in nature. It's all bs, and the pope is full of it.
*  I WAS so impressed with his visit, now I'm gonna have to rethink my feelings about him. He hid this part of his visit. The only reason we know about it is because she had to talk about it. Probably they were told no cameras, which only increases the aura of deception. Why hide it? To avoid detracting from his message . To avoid protests. To avoid confronting the freedom in question.
*  Meeting with her secretly, rather than openly, was an act of hypocricy.
*  Well, for one thing what she is doing isn't the letter of the law. He's not an American, she's not a Catholic. He told her to continue doing something that is not legal. She's trying to make a martyr out of herself, and he has just spurred her on. Full of herself to begin with, watch out her head may explode at any minute!
...................................................................................................................................................................
How Pope Francis Undermined the Goodwill of His Trip and Proved to Be a Coward
By Michelangelo Signorile, September 30, 2015

After first refusing to confirm nor deny it, the Vatican has confirmed that Pope Francis met with the Kentucky clerk Kim Davis at the Vatican Embassy in Washington, where Davis' attorney -- who made the news public after the pope's trip ended -- said Francis told her to "stay strong." And that simple encounter completely undermines all the goodwill the pope created in downplaying "the gay issue" on his U.S. trip.

The pope played us for fools, trying to have it both ways. As I noted last week, he's an artful politician, telling different audiences what they want to hear on homosexuality. He did that in Argentina as a cardinal -- railing against gay marriage when the Vatican expected him to do so -- and he's done that since becoming pope, striking a softer tone on the issue after Benedict's harsh denunciations were a p.r. disaster for the Catholic Church in the West. But this news about Kim Davis portrays him as a more sinister kind of politician. That's the kind that secretly supports hate, ushering the bigots in the back door -- knowing they're an embarrassment -- while speaking publicly about about how none of us can judge one another.

I would have more respect for the pope if he had publicly embraced Kim Davis and made an argument for her, as he did in his visit with the Little Sisters of the Poor, who are battling against filling out a form to exempt themselves from Obamacare's contraception requirement, claiming that even filling out the form violates their religious liberty -- even though I vehemently disagree with the pope on that issue. I'd have more respect if he boldly, explicitly made a public statement (not the vague, general statement he made on his plane on the way home only in response to a reporter's question about Davis), as he did in trying to stop the execution of a Georgia inmate who was put to death this morning. But by meeting with Davis secretly, and then at first having the Vatican neither confirm nor deny the encounter -- and now having the Vatican say it "won't deny" the meeting while it still won't offer any other details -- the pope comes off as a coward.

He shows himself to be antithetical to much of what he preaches and teaches. He talks about dialogue and having the courage of one's convictions and the courage to speak out. But he swept this Davis meeting under the rug, seemingly ashamed and certainly not wanting to broach the subject. Even Davis's supporters should find that insulting to them.

We all knew Francis was playing a p.r. game, and we were fine with that. He was focusing on climate change, immigration and other issues passionate to him -- and certainly I, and I hope everyone, still welcome whatever influence he can have on those issues. And it appeared he viewed the LGBT rights debate as a distraction from a focus on those causes. He even told U.S. bishops in a meeting during his trip that they should stop complaining about it and turn their attention to other issues. The sense was that he was probably not passionate about gay rights, but not passionate about attacking them either.

But by telling Davis that she should "stay strong" -- if her attorney's account of the encounter is to be believed -- the pope is only encouraging the bigots, even if he's doing so quietly. We don't know all the details yet regarding how Davis came to meet Francis -- if, for example, it was one of the more vocally anti-gay U.S. Catholic Church leaders who brought her along, or if the Vatican invited her.

But the optics of it are bad no matter what. Rather than moving us forward on LGBT rights ever so slightly, as many viewed the pope as doing, he now, with this meeting, emboldens the haters in the church who will be pushing to make sure church doctrine continues to call homosexuality "intrinsically disordered." And it sends a message to all those people who've experienced anti-gay discrimination -- like the Catholic school teachers fired from their jobs in the U.S. simply because of who they are -- that this pope is not going to end that discrimination any time soon. Rather than stopping that discrimination, he welcomed, with open arms in the Vatican's own embassy, the bigots who promote that discrimination but who've turned themselves into the victims.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"Davis has not traveled internationally during the past few months that her controversy has played out ..." so obviously she hasn't received any thumbs up!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Business as usual....exaggerating the size of a crowd. I would be surprised if two people in Peru even know who she is.
*  We had a large convention of ants by the compost heap who were obviously praying for Kim Davis as well.
*  The dust mites in my house prayed for her too. Considering the amount of dust in my house, that's a lot of prayers.
*  Right wingers don't think that lying is a sin.
    *  Unless it's done to them, of course.
*  Not to worry everyone. Remain calm. The organization is still accepting donations in hopes that next time they can afford a better lie....
...................................................................................................................................................................
Kim Davis’ Attorneys Finally Admit This Picture Is A Hoax
By Zack Ford, September 29, 2015

At last week’s Values Voter Summit, Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel displayed a picture that he claimed showed a 100,000-person prayer in Peru for his client, Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis. That picture has since been identified as having been uploaded to Facebook on May 25, 2014 and portraying a massive one-of-a-kind five-day convention known as “Jesús Te Ama Y Te Cambia” (“Jesus Loves You And Changes You”).

After spending Monday defending the photo, Liberty Counsel has admitted that it is not of a Kim Davis rally. In fact, they no longer claim that any rally whatsoever took place for Davis in Peru, but merely that some people in Peru prayed for her.

Nevertheless, the organization is trying to avoid taking responsibility for the photo, tweeting to ThinkProgress Tuesday morning that Peruvian Congressman Julio Rosas was the source of the photo and that they were just parroting his claim:

ThinkProgress 

✔@thinkprogress

.@libertycounsel recants own press release http://thkpr.gs/3706199/#update-0 … pic.twitter.com/NU9HSWpjDn

Liberty Counsel @libertycounsel

@thinkprogress picture & story came to us from Peru @juliorosas1 and we repeated it.

3:37 AM - 29 Sep 2015

Later Tuesday morning, Liberty Counsel issued a new statement addressing the controversy and further scapegoating Rosas for the photo.

“When some questioned whether such a large event occurred, Liberty Counsel sought verification this past Saturday and yesterday,” the statement reads. “It now appears that while prayer meetings did occur throughout Peru, the photograph presented to Mat Staver was an honest mistake and was of a different Christian assembly in a soccer field.”

This is a change of tune even from Monday, when a different press release claimed that Rosas had confirmed the validity of the picture both on Saturday and again Monday morning.

Staver has apparently attended several anti-gay and anti-choice marches that Rosas has organized in Peru, which is why he claims that the photo “did not appear unusual because such large Christian gatherings happen much more frequently in Peru.” Liberty Counsel still asserts that people in Peru did pray for Davis that Sunday, but now offers no evidence of how widespread that support actually was.

Matt Barber, who also used to work for the Liberty Counsel, similarly defended the photo on Monday on his conservative site BarbWire, but published a correction noting that “Zack Ford and Think Progress appear to have been correct about the questionable nature of this photograph.” The site has since crossposted Liberty Counsel’s new statement.

Though Staver called the photograph “an honest mistake,” he insisted that people still give Davis a thumbs-up everywhere she goes. “Make no mistake, however, that there is widespread support for Kim Davis. Last week she was recognized by many people as she walked through the Philadelphia, New York LaGuardia, and Washington, D.C. Reagan airports. People gave her a thumbs up sign or verbally expressed support for Kim Davis. While she has obvious detractors, Kim Davis also has wide support.”

Davis has not traveled internationally during the past few months that her controversy has played out, and thus has likely not received any thumbs-ups in Lima’s airport.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Rep. Lawrence, are you sure your "colleagues are more intelligent than this"? They are Republicans, after all.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  ... you should watch today's "hearing" and you'd whole-heartedly agree with Notdem. I've never seen unprofessional, aggressive and humiliating behavior like this in elected politicians. O, excuse me, I just remembered that I have: it was called the Third Reich. With the way the RWNJ act, that's where we're headed.
*  But I thought surgical abortions were LEGAL. Ah, but I guess I misunderstood; after all, I am a silly woman that needs the strong leaders of the GOP to keep me on the straight and narrow.
*  It's all grandstanding. These pack of balloon heads. All show for re-election. If the majority of the country wants it legal, than it will be. That's democracy and how a representative republic works. Majority rules right, wrong or otherwise. If you think there is something wrong with that, then we need to have a different, deeper discussion regarding how this country was founded. And yes, it was founded as a Christian nation, however, they also made sure that religion will have nothing to do with government. You're free to practice whatever you like with no interference from the government or anyone else. Welcome to America. It's legal, they make the laws... Who are they complaining about, themselves? Makes no sense.
*  ... women do require a lot of health care. you people should stop trying to defund health care for everyone. and those tapes were edited perfectly for impressionable fools like yourselves to eat up with a spoon. remember the Acorn tapes? same thing. you jeebus freaks are laughably gullible and controllable. keep voting for you nut case obstructionist, Dr Suesss reading, do nothing clowns
*  Nothing but birth control and STD testing and treatments? Isn't that better than nothing? How do you expect unwanted pregnancies to be prevented and diseases to be treated for women without insurance? Mammograms are usually performed in a specialized office. I've never been offered a mammogram at my doctor's office. They send me to a place that does only that. Planned Parenthood saved my life when I did not have health insurance (well before the ACA) and I needed birth control when I was in my late teens and early 20's. If I had not had access to those services, I would have wound up pregnant and/or with an STD, which likely would have cost our government more money, because again, I didn't have insurance. Get over yourself.
*  What was up Jim Jordan's az today? Are republican's just determined not to get the women's vote ?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Democratic congressman explodes at 'misogynist' Republicans during tense Planned Parenthood hearing
By Maxwell Tani, September 29, 2015

Republicans didn't go easy on Planned Parenthood's president during a highly contentious hearing over the future of federal funding for the women's-health organization.

The popular-but-divisive organization has found itself at the center of a political firestorm after an anti-abortion group posted a series of undercover videos featuring Planned Parenthood executives and affiliates discussing the use of aborted fetuses for research.

Planned Parenthood has repeatedly denied accusations that it profits off aborted fetal tissue, saying it acts within federal law and accusing its opponents of exaggerating claims in a years-long effort to derail the organization

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee used Tuesday's emotionally charged hearing to critique the organization on everything from revenue, to abortion care, to corporate-travel spending, to Richards' personal salary. The line of questioning infuriated some Democrats.

"The disrespect, the misogyny, rampant here today tells us what is really going on here," said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Virginia).

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the chair of the House Oversight Committee, contended that Planned Parenthood doesn't need federal funding. He briefly teared up while talking about the death of his parents, which Chaffetz implied may have been prevented if the federal government spent more on cancer-prevention research.

Chaffetz dedicated some of his time to questioning Richards' salary, which he pointed out rose by $100,000 over four years.

“Does this organization, Planned Parenthood, really need federal subsidies?” Chaffetz asked Richards.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) focused on questioning Richards about an apology she made in a Planned Parenthood video addressing the controversy. During his line of questioning, Jordan grew increasingly testy with Richards, repeatedly interrupting Richards and talking loudly into his microphone.

"You said, 'I personally apologize for the tone and statements," Jordan said. When Richards began to speak, Jordan cut back in.

"No, no, no, no. Here's the question: Which statement were you apologizing for?" Jordan said.

"It was really the situation that she was in —"

"That's not what you said," Jordan said, before repeating his question.

The Hill quickly posted the testy exchange, which lasted for several minutes:



One by one, Democrats on the committee lined up to defend the embattled organization and criticize Republicans like Jordan.

"I hope every American woman is watching today's hearing, because just the visuals as well as the audio tells you a lot," Connolly said.

"This is very troubling to sit here as a woman," said Rep. Brenda Lawrence (R-Michigan) said, calling the questions from Republican members on the committee "insulting."

"For the life of me, I know my colleagues are more intelligent than this," she added.

But many Republicans on the committee dismissed the claim that Richards was being treated any differently than other congressional witnesses.

"Ms. Richards, this is my 27th year in Congress, and I can assure you I've seen many male witnesses treated much tougher than you've been treated here today," said Rep. Jim Duncan (R-Tennessee) "I'm not going to be tough on you, but surely you don't expect us to be easier on you because you're a woman."

Watch the full hearing below:


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

"The campaign has been particularly unhappy with the narrative that Trump's support may have reached its ceiling." Isn't that just too bad? [snort]

...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump's front-runner status has virtually evaporated
By Maxwell Tani, September 27, 2015

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has climbed into a virtual tie with real-estate magnate Donald Trump, according to a new poll.

A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Sunday shows Carson with 20% support among Republican primary voters nationally, just one point below Trump.

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) tied for third in the poll, both grabbing 11%, while former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's (R) support sunk to 7%.

Trump and his campaign have attempted to play down and outright deny his slight dip and overall failure to gain ground in recent polls.

But the NBC/WSJ survey is more evidence, at least, of stagnation. Trump is up 2% from the same poll in July, while other candidates continue to gain on the man who has been the party front-runner for almost three months.

Earlier this week, Trump told Business Insider that the media was failing to highlight several polls and polling averages that still show him far ahead in the race for the Republican nomination.

"It's dishonest reporting and — let me change it — it's knowingly dishonest," Trump said. "Because the polls speak for themselves. I'm up. Check out Zogby. Check out Reuters — the Reuters — what do they call that? The Reuters average. Even The Huffington Post. Check all of them."

Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski pointed out that other candidates — the majority of whom have never seen their support grow beyond single digits in the polls — would likely be thrilled to have Trump's level of support.

"If you were any other candidate in this race, you would welcome the opportunity to have Mr. Trump's poll numbers," Lewandowski said.

The campaign has been particularly unhappy with the narrative that Trump's support may have reached its ceiling.

Trump lashed out at The New York Times earlier this week for suggesting that the relatively small crowd size at a recent event was an indicator that the real-estate mogul may be struggling to expand his base of support.

"Dishonest @NYTimes reporter Jonathan Martin refused to acknowledge massive crowd surge forward during my speech in South Carolina. Liar!" Trump said this week in an Instagram post.

At the moment, Trump's numbers appear to have stalled. But he still maintains an ever so slight lead, and his numbers haven't dropped in the fashion of other candidates. Sunday's NBC/WSJ poll shows Bush down 7% from July, while it found Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) with 5% support — down 4% from July.

Still, other political "outsider" candidates have continued to gain on Trump.

Sunday's NBC/WSJ poll also provides evidence the momentum Fiorina has built on the back of two strong debate performances. She had essentially no support when the previous NBC/WSJ poll was conducted in July, but has jumped into a tie for third place. Carson's support, meanwhile, has doubled since July, from 10% to 20%.

Trump also loses in head-to-head matchups against his Republican rivals in key early primary states.

A new Public Policy Polling poll out on Tuesday showed that Trump would lose to Carson and Rubio in Iowa if the election were held today.

In the conversation with Business Insider last week, Trump said he could not answer questions about if frequently emphasizing the strength of his poll numbers would come back to haunt him if his numbers begin to drop.

"I can't tell you," Trump told Business Insider. "My numbers have just gone up. I just can't tell you."
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... candidates who aren't beholden to donors ... Republican voters are ready for a real transformation that would make that true of ALL candidates."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Congress could certainly pass legislation which would totally reform campaign spending, but no member of Congress seems willing to even write such legislation, let alone sponsor or carry such legislation.
*  We need to have a culture of citizen politicians not politician lawyers!
*  This will not happen. The idea is OK for a primitive country as was the US in the late 18th century, but cannot work now. What can work is prohibiting PACS, Corporations and wealthy donors from buying those running for office. Have a $100 limit for individual contributors period. Matching funds for those donated and no other money coming in. Candidates not allowed to run political add more than 60 days before an election or after a nominating convention, whichever is a shorter time frame. Direct popular elections with no electoral college (as outdated as citizen politicians). Centralized voter registration across the US so no more GOP disenfranchisement allowed. All members of Congress pay into Social Security and medicare and do not have a special pension or medical program other than any person would have.
*  Well they won't get any of those things with a republican in office..  We need to end the days of the bought and paid for politicians period..
*  ... this is an important issue - the main reason why our politicians can't do the work of the people. They are too busy doing the work that they were "bribed" to do - they owe their donors......
*   ... you dont hear any politcian talking about important things at all, its the same bullShit year after year, abortion, gay marriage, now it is religioous freedom, all a smoke screen so they dotn have to talk about the important things
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republican Voters Want These Four Surprising Things
By Zephyr Teachout, September 28, 2015

A presidential poll released as Speaker Boehner made his announcement shows Republicans want something no Republican candidate is talking about

Last week, we -- MAYDAY.US -- ran a poll of the supporters of Presidential candidates to find out where they stood on big, fundamental contentious issues around money in politics. We wanted to know whether there was a big difference between, say, Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters on public financing of elections. We wanted to know whether Rubio and Bush supporters had different takes on whether the SEC should require companies to disclose political spending. And we wanted to see if we could go find those supporters who cared about a total overhaul, and work with them.

I went in with certain assumptions. I assumed that because no major Republican candidates are talking about public financing of elections, we'd see low support for public financing and fundamental reform. Not because I think public financing is a partisan issue -- it's not -- it's a brainchild of the Republican Teddy Roosevelt, and whatever your politics, you should want a system built for democracy, not oligarchy! But national Republican leaders have been weak and absent on the issue, talking vaguely about reform and corruption but silent on how to do anything meaningful about it.

But here's what we learned: Supporters of Republican presidential candidates want to see fundamental structural change in how we fund elections as badly as Democrats do.

I talk a lot about how this is a bipartisan issue, but consider that 94% of Republican voters said that "special interest money has too much influence in American political campaigns," and 81% agreed that "the system for funding elections needs fundamental reform."

In particular, we learned Republican voters want these four surprising things:

1. 85% of Republicans polled believe elections would be "less corrupt" if politicians focused more on small donors instead of special interests to raise money. This includes: 91% of Huckabee supporters, 86% of Fiorina supporters.
2. A majority of Republicans supported a system of citizen-funded elections, where individuals can make "small contributions that are then matched by a limited amount of public funds." This is without Republican candidates talking about it, and without the broad cultural understanding of a new system.
3. 92% of Republicans think the FEC should be reformed so that it holds accountable those who break election law.
4. 88% of Republicans believe the Securities and Exchange Commission should force corporations to disclose their political spending.

Public financing of elections, SEC action and FEC enforcement, taken together, is bigger than reform. It's a structured political revolution. It transfers power. What these polls show is that Republicans want that structured political revolution, even though their leaders aren't talking about it.

This means a majority of Bush and Trump voters would be happy if they came out and supported a new, opt-in system of citizen funded elections. The poll demonstrates to Republican candidates that a majority of their voters believe the system is rigged, and more importantly, they want politicians to act.

I'm not naive. The real reason most candidates don't publicly support public financing of elections is because it is such a fundamental change in power that their big donors (and super PAC sponsors) don't want it, and because they are scared that they'd get more grassroots challengers if there's no big money filter deciding who gets to run.

But I will tell you, if those poll numbers start getting backed by bird-dogging numbers, and phone calls, and protesters, those candidates are going to stop blowing off basic democracy questions and start coming up with answers.

Remember Eric Cantor's defeat last year? Ironically, Dave Brat, who beat him, and I, were talking about a lot of the same things during our campaigns -- crony capitalism and crony politics -- and he's evidence that there's a rising anti-corruption force in the Republican electorate that isn't going to accept the usual pablum.

Republican strategist John Pudner, who had a leading hand in Brat's victory, is pushing for a public financing bill, one that allows voters to use the first $100 of their tax money to go to their favorite candidates who choose to participate in the new, citizen-funded system.

Public financing already has 153 co-sponsors of both parties in the House. The Government by the People Act (H.R.20) would create a national version of New York City-style public financing, amplifying the voices of voters by matching small donations using a limited amount of public funds. There is only one Republican co-sponsor right now -- Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina -- but these polls show all Republicans that there is a base of support waiting to be tapped.

Many people have argued that Trump draws some of his support from voters who want candidates who aren't beholden to donors -- but what this poll shows is that Republican voters are ready for a real transformation that would make that true of ALL candidates.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... among Republicans, the immigration debate has largely focused on how to address undocumented immigrants ..." But "... undocumented immigration [is] now declining ..."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Republican debate on illegal immigration is missing the point, study suggests

A new Pew report finds that illegal immigration is stagnant, and Asian Americans are on their way to becoming the largest immigrant group.

By Jessica Mendoza, September 28, 2015

In the face of heated rhetoric about undocumented immigrants from Latin America, a new report has noted that their influx into the United States is slowing – and that a broader demographic shift is taking place within the nation’s immigrant population.

While the country’s foreign-born share has soared to record highs, the population of 11 million unauthorized immigrants has remained relatively unchanged since 2009, the study found. Meanwhile, the makeup of the foreign-born population is changing, with Asians expected to be the largest share of immigrants – about 36 percent – by 2055, making them the fastest-growing racial group in the country.

The findings, released by the Pew Research Center on Monday, suggest a gap between the actual state of immigration and the polarized political discourse about it, some experts say. The report also highlights Americans’ views about how immigrants affect US economy and society – views that some say need to be addressed for meaningful dialogue to take place.

“To some extent, the discourse around [immigration] is driven by rhetoric rather than data,” says Jeffrey Passel, senior demographer at Pew. “Were that fact more widely known, it could inform how we can best respond to the issue,” he adds.

The center has previously reported on the decrease in unauthorized immigrants in general, and from Mexico in particular. But among Republicans, the immigration debate has largely focused on how to address undocumented immigrants, with candidates for the 2016 presidential elections wrangling over proposals about mass deportation and border security.

“This means that the whole US debate over immigration is skewed,” writes Noah Smith, an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University in New York, for Bloomberg. “[W]ith undocumented immigration now declining, this aspect of the issue is less and less numerically important.”

Leaders should instead hone in on policies that boost immigrants’ contribution to the US labor market, such as training and English-language programs, and bring in foreign-born nationals who can have a positive impact on the American economy, says Daniel Costa, director of immigration law and policy research at the Economic Policy Institute.

“The problem is perception hasn’t matched the reality,” he says. As a result, “we haven’t been able to get a rational immigration reform law passed that improves things ... so that we’re using immigration both to get skilled, talented migrants from abroad and as a tool to fill labor shortages.”

The focus on unauthorized immigrants has also drawn attention away from Asian Americans’ growing political potential. About 47 percent of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders don’t identify with either Republicans or Democrats, which leaves “a sizable portion of the AAPI electorate up for grabs for both parties,” according to the Center for American Progress.

“The Pew report underscores the fact that there’s not enough hard data to know what the true needs of the [Asian-American] community are,” which obstructs meaningful dialogue, says Christopher Kang, director of the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans, a Washington-based coalition of Asian Pacific organizations.

Part of the problem, he says, is perception: The Pew report found that majority of US adults see immigrants as having a positive impact on American food and culture, but a negative impact on crime and the economy. And while Americans do have a more positive view of Asians than of other immigrant groups, Mr. Kang notes that the notion reinforces the “model minority” myth, which tends to incorrectly lump all Asian Americans into one monolithic, successful group. But immigrants from India and China have different concerns than those from, say, Bangladesh.

“We do have a lot of different needs that need to be addressed,” including family reunification, health care, and poverty, he says.

Engaging Asian-American communities at the ground level and recognizing that they have diverse concerns would be a step toward activating their political power and conceiving of truly comprehensive immigration reform, he continues.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Carly, Carly, Carly, Carly, Carly, it is NOT happening! You likely dreamed it, and like all Republicans, once you lied about it, you continue lying about it!

...................................................................................................................................................................
Fiorina, pressed on Planned Parenthood, becomes even more extreme
By Michael Hiltzik, September 28, 2015

It's unclear whether the precept being followed by Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina is "never apologize, never explain," or "the best defense is a good offense," or "in for a penny, in for a pound," but her defense on Sunday's "Meet the Press" of her manifest lies about Planned Parenthood was her most bizarre and extreme yet.

Fiorina was so insistent that she had seen and heard things on videotapes purporting to show babies aborted by Planned Parenthood, and made such an outrageous new charge, that host Chuck Todd had trouble keeping up. Her insistence on telling lies about Planned Parenthood could undermine one of her prime defenses against critics of her 1999-2005 performance as head of Hewlett-Packard, which is that the critics are telling lies about her.

The "Meet the Press" video can be seen here and the transcript is here. The results are sad to watch for several reasons. One is that several of Todd's rivals among news anchors and hosts on other networks turned in a creditable job Sunday of holding Fiorina's rivals to account for their own words.

CNN's Jake Tapper effectively exposed the fatuity of Dr. Ben Carson's dictum (issued, as it happens, to Todd a week ago) that being a Muslim is a disqualification to serve as president. Tapper told Carson that as a Seventh Day Adventist and an African American, "you know what it's like for people to make false assumptions about you, and you seem to be doing the same thing with Muslims." Tapper's questioning finally provoked Carson's media handler to end the interview. Like Tapper, ABC's Martha Raddatz refused to let Carson claim he'd been misquoted, by showing the NBC transcript. (Tapper showed the actual clip from "Meet the Press.")

On "60 Minutes," Scott Pelley did a fairly creditable job of puncturing the cartoonish bluster of Donald Trump in a lengthy one-on-one interview. It was marred, however, when Pelley displayed a shocking and irresponsible ignorance about Social Security by casually calling it a "basket case." (See Dean Baker's gloss on Pelley's uninformed words.)

Back to Fiorina, who seems determined to set a new standard for extremism in her claims about Planned Parenthood. Todd started by asking her to defend her assertion, during the Sept. 16 GOP candidates' debate, that the doctored videotapes distributed by the anti-abortion Center for Medical Progress showed "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.'"

This scene does not appear in the videotapes targeting Planned Parenthood. A clip in one video shows a fetus moving, but the anti-abortion Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, which provided it to CMP, doesn't identify its source and doesn't claim it's from a Planned Parenthood facility. Neither organization has provided documentation that the image is of an aborted fetus. A second shot of a fetus in the same tape came from a stillbirth, not an abortion. The line Fiorina quoted is not heard on any of the released tapes.

Todd asked her, "Are you willing now to concede that you exaggerated that scene?"

Fiorina: "No, not at all. That scene absolutely does exist. And that voice saying what I said they were saying, 'We're going to keep it alive to harvest its brain' exists as well....

Todd: "So you saw that moment on the tape?"

Fiorina: "Yes."

That's bluster on a Trumpian scale. There's no such scene on the tape to which she's referring, no such audio, and her campaign hasn't identified any.

But then Fiorina went even further, claiming, "Planned Parenthood is aborting fetuses alive to harvest their brains and other body parts. That is a fact." She added, "Planned Parenthood will not and cannot deny this because it is happening. It is happening in this nation."

In other words, Fiorina has moved from asserting in effect that Planned Parenthood "harvested" (a loaded word) tissue from a still-live fetus, to claiming that Planned Parenthood deliberately aborts live fetuses for that purpose.

This is a major expansion of her attack on the organization. There is absolutely not a speck of evidence on those videotapes that Planned Parenthood has done this; not a single one of the numerous state investigations that followed the release of CMP's heavily edited videotapes supports that charge.

Planned Parenthood can and has denied it, repeatedly. Even the CMP videotapes, especially the supposedly clean unedited versions, show Planned Parenthood officials repeatedly reminding the disguised CMP agents they're talking with that the organization complies with federal law requiring that patients be offered the opportunity to donate fetal tissue only after they've decided to undergo an abortion.

Pressed by Todd, Fiorina resorted to rhetorical legerdemain: "Chuck, Chuck, Chuck, Chuck, Chuck," she said. "Do you think this is not happening? Does Hillary Clinton think this is not happening?"

This could have been the opening Todd needed to reply: "No, there's no evidence it is happening--do you have any?" He didn't, although he did accuse Fiorina of "sort of ducking the video" and described the footage she alluded to as "at best a reenactment." (It isn't; it's stock footage exploited to illustrate an unsupported accusation.)

It's hard to understand Fiorina's strategy. Yes, she's throwing red meat to the lowest-information voters in the coming GOP primaries, while staking a claim to the far right of even her most zealously anti-abortion rivals in the race.

But she's doing so by moving far beyond anything she can conceivably document, and by refusing to acknowledge her errors. The more outlandish her claims, the more they will provoke demands for proof, and the more unprincipled she will look if she can't produce it. It's a fair assumption that if she could provide documentation, she would have done so by now, instead of erecting a wall of bluster as a defense. Instead of fessing up, she has doubled, tripled, quadrupled down.

This strategy can only erode the credibility of her candidacy. Among her defenses against critiques of her dismal performance as chairman and CEO of Hewlett-Packard from 1999 to 2005 are attacks on the integrity of her critics. Her dishonesty about Planned Parenthood saps her ability to fight back as a "truth-teller" about her HP record.

Fiorina's theme, which she repeated to Todd several times, is that Planned Parenthood's alleged misdeeds involved "the character of our nation." What about the character of a candidate who goes this far just to win a vote?
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... all these people yelling and screaming, ... ask them, 'What have you accomplished in the time that you've been in public office?'" The answer, of course, is NOTHING!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Look at how far the economy has improved from where it was 7 years ago. Now imagine at where it could be today if the GOP didn't do everything in it's powers to obstruct Obama and had instead worked WITH him. The worst congress in US history and it's owned 100% by the GOP.
*  The world is increasingly diverse.  America is increasingly diverse.  The TP and the GOP can't handle the fact.  They have no control over this . . . and no one has control of a robust, dynamic world that is no longer dominated by white privilege.  It isn't good or bad, it just is.  Don't fear it, embrace it.
*  Carnival cruz represents  a small group of extreme people but thinks he has some kind of mandate. Seventy five percent of the people in Texas did not vote for him. 
*  There is no GOP!  It is dead.  Americans have turned over the reins to a bunch of right wing pseudo religious political terrorists that want to bring in Christian Sharia law.  They are well financed by money intent on turning this country into an oligarchy and they will dump these nut cases as soon as they can for they see them for what they truly are.  They should probably officially change the name to TP Radicals and adopt a slug for a mascot!.  People like Rafael Cruz exemplify the new party and are interested in only white rule and privilege.
    *  The GOP has proven beyond a doubt that the crazier the candidate the more popular he or she becomes. The clown car now has multiple drivers.
*   Kasich on GOP agitators: "What have they accomplished?"  NOTHING OF VALUE FOR AMERICA!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Kasich on GOP agitators: "What have they accomplished?"
By Rebecca Kaplan, September 27, 2015

Ohio Gov. John Kasich had sharp words Sunday for members of his own party who are promising change but don't have the record to show they can deliver it.

"It's about inexperience. I mean, the people who keep saying that they want things to happen, what have they accomplished? What have they gotten done?" the 2016 Republican candidate said on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday. "When I served [in Congress], we achieved things, I achieved things."

Kasich was defending House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who announced last Friday that he would resign - an announcement that drew cheers from conservatives at the Values Voters conference the same day.

In a separate interview on "Face the Nation," Boehner warned of "false prophets" within the GOP who promise things they can't deliver.

"He's a great guy," Kasich said of Boehner. "We need to reflect on his accomplishments then and his accomplishments in rising and becoming speaker."

Although political outsiders have proven to be popular among Republican voters this election cycle, Kasich thinks that someone with his experience - as an Ohio congressman and governor, as well as several years working in the private sector - will prove to be the most appealing mix.

"Sometimes you hear loud voices out here, they're the ones who get the attention and get the headlines. But I got to tell you, at the end of the day, I believe the Republican Party will pick somebody who is a reformer, who is a change agent, but who has accomplished things and have experience," he said. "So all these people yelling and screaming, ask, you ask them, 'What have you accomplished in the time that you've been in public office?' It would be an interesting question, wouldn't it?"

He said he respects people who are in the private sector, but he said, "If you want to get things accomplished in government, you need to know how it all works."

Kasich also weighed in on what went wrong for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who dropped out of the presidential race last week.

Walker and his team, "kind got over their skis, they spent a lot of money and they ran out of money. You've got to husband your resources," Kasich said. But, he predicted, "He'll come back. He may be president someday."
...................................................................................................................................................................

Can it be this simple? If so, why hasn't it been done?

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  The time has come to end tea party terrorism
    *  Excellent comment. But as long as these groups, Teaparty and others/ continue to play on the fears of the American people and use spin, they will be around for a long long time.
*  Simple and straight forward. Once a bill is passed it is assumed active until another bill,negating it, is pased. This idea of shutting government seem so childish and uncivilized.
*  Tea Party folk are totally unamerican, I have always said that. They are subversives.
*  Almost sounds to logical for congress to comprehend. Especially the fringe of the republican party who haven't exhibited the sense God gave a Goose.
*  One sentence to end the Tea Party's fiscal terrorism against the American people:  "These spending authorizations will continue in full force and effect until changed by future enactment(s), and the debt ceiling is raised to accommodate the authorized spending, plus interest, as it occurs".  This is a GREAT idea but is it even possible for common sense to apply in Congress anymore? Somehow, sadly, I doubt it.
*  That is so elegantly simple! Until then, anyone whose vote leads to a shutdown ought to permanently forfeit all salary and benefits for the entire period of the shutdown. Do nothing, receive nothing.
...................................................................................................................................................................
How Boehner Can 'Clean House': One Sentence to Prevent Government Shutdowns Forever
By Paul Abrams, September 27, 2015

The small band of Tea Party radicals wields its power because most other Republican members of Congress are cowed by the primary threats if they do not adhere strictly to Tea Party dictates. It is not that most would not win primaries from the likely nut jobs that will be thrown up against them. They just do not want to be bothered with the challenge.

Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has had his life as speaker made miserable by this dynamic.

Now that they have drummed him into retirement, he might feel liberated to end these terrorist threats to the country (and to his party).

A simple sentence in the omnibus spending bill would do it: "These spending authorizations will continue in full force and effect until changed by a future enactment."

Want to raise defense spending in the future? Just pass a defense spending bill that alters the omnibus spending bill. Want to defund Planned Parenthood in the future? Just pass a defunding bill in the future. Want to re-order all spending? Just amend the omnibus spending bill.

So, the impact is not to lock these spending authorizations in place. The impact is to lock them in place until changed. That way, the government cannot be shut down.

Another simple phrase would eliminate the debt ceiling fiasco: "and the debt ceiling is raised to accommodate the authorized spending, plus interest, as it occurs".

The full sentence would read: "These spending authorizations will continue in full force and effect until changed by future enactment(s), and the debt ceiling is raised to accommodate the authorized spending, plus interest, as it occurs".

While this would by no means emasculate the Tea Party, it would end fiscal terrorism against the American people.

Better, Mr (retiring) Speaker, to do this in one stroke, and leave a legacy of terror-free governance. The nation's credit rating would improve. And, the stock market would hit new highs.

It would be called the "Boehner boom". I will even drink to that! (I bet Wall Street will reward you with even a higher salary in your next job.)

Democrats and a group of rational Republicans who want their own power restored would pass it. They are going to have to pass the current measure and a debt ceiling hike anyhow for which the Tea Party will try to exact revenge.

Might as well get it all over with, once and for all.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"Today, the conservative base is looked upon even by the Republican Party as 'crazies' ..." Not only by the Republican Party.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  It was white guilt in 2007 it's white anger in 2015
*  Tea party taking over nukes the GOP
*  bye bye Mr Tangerine Man... Goof-Off Party can't even compromise with itself... 2012 Rmoney lost women by 12 points and Latinos by 44. GOP on track to break that record and lose the popular vote in SIX of the last SEVEN Presidential elections.  Demographics = Destiny ... bye bye Goof-Off Party
*  If the GOP lets the Tea Party take over they are bigger whimps than Boehner. and no I don't support any party what good does it do nobody listens to the people anyway.
*  G'head, GOP- give in to the TP. Let their slash and burn antics run their course- cut off funding for PP, refuse to extend the debt ceiling, cut off Medicare and SS, endure government shutdown after shutdown when they don't get their way..... and when it blows up in your faces, you can have a seat right next to the WHIGS and Green PArty at the "Politically Irrelevant" table.  Reagan could NEVER get elected in Today's GOP, let alone nominated.
*  I read the comments on the political news articles and I can't stop thinking about how ideologically divided the nation is. We really can't compromise? Is reaching a middle ground such a sin? Should the nation be split in two then? I recently watched a documentary about the Civil War. I hope we can avoid having that kind of self-inflicted misery and carnage on this land again.
...................................................................................................................................................................
John Boehner vs. the 'crazies': Should GOP just let tea party win?
By Mark Sappenfield, September 27, 2015

The Republican Party is barreling head-first toward a worst-case scenario – or is that a best-case scenario?

The tea party wing of the party has essentially toppled House Speaker John Boehner. His replacement will almost certainly need the tea party's stamp of approval.

Meanwhile, the Republican presidential campaign continues to confound the establishment. Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz together have more support than all other Republican candidates combined, according to polls.

Is the Republican Party finally having its "Goldwater moment"?

When Barry Goldwater won the Republican presidential nomination in 1964, the base exulted. Here was a true conservative. Here was a man who would not compromise. Here was a man of rare vision.

Then he lost by 434 electoral votes, winning only 39 percent of the popular vote – the most lopsided loss in presidential history, by that measure.

To the Republican establishment, it was an unmitigated disaster. In 1968, the party nominated Richard Nixon – a moderate if not a liberal Republican – and retook the White House.

To arch-conservatives, however, Senator Goldwater's campaign laid the groundwork for America's conservative revolution. His doctrine of low taxes and limited government became bedrock ideals for Ronald Reagan, who campaigned for Goldwater before becoming governor of California. The conservative Heritage Foundation calls Goldwater "the most consequential loser in American politics."

Today, much remains to play out, and the establishment almost always has the last word. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R) of California, a Boehner protégé, is a front-runner for the speaker's post. And the presidential election, in many ways, has barely even started.

Yet even if the establishment reestablishes some measure of control, does the Republican Party need a Goldwater moment?

With Mr. Boehner's departure, the tea party has outlasted a man of legendary political patience. In the presidential race, they have taken a process that the Republican Party designed specifically to help establishment candidates and emphatically done the opposite.

In other words, there is little evidence to suggest the Republican populist rebellion is going away, though seismic changes in the country since 1964 – partly as a result of the conservative revolution – mean that the underlying situation is in many ways dramatically different.

On its face, today’s Republican insurgency echoes the conservative groundswell for Goldwater in 1964. The Atlantic’s Matthew Dallek writes that “in the late 1950s and early 1960s conservatives were widely dismissed as ‘kooks’ and ‘crackpots’ with no hope of winning political power.” Today, the conservative base is looked upon even by the Republican Party as “crazies,” said Michael Needham of Heritage Action Sunday. Mr. Boehner, only somewhat more charitably, called them “false prophets.”

"Absolutely, they're unrealistic!" he told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

The mainstream media also thought little of Goldwater’s conservative rebellion: “In 1962 a writer in the The Nation suggested that conservatives were more interested in thinking up ‘frivolous and simple-minded’ slogans than in developing intelligent proposals to meet the complexities of post-Second World War America,” Mr. Dallek writes.

Could today’s much-maligned conservative insurgents similarly be laying the groundwork for a new Reagan, as Goldwater did? Does the establishment need to yield in order to move forward?

Perhaps, but the lessons from the Reagan Revolution were different, some say. Reagan took something that was already a reality on the ground – the New Deal – and gave it Goldwater’s conservative spin, said Henry Olsen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, to the Monitor. “He permitted a conservative interpretation of the New Deal’s development that moved politics rightward.”

Today’s Republicans, by contrast, appear to be working against political realities rather than looking for ways to massage them. Mr. Trump has made his mark by advocating for the deportation of immigrants in the United States illegally – a position at odds with the country as a whole. And the political crisis that precipitated Boehner’s decision to depart also goes against broader public opinion – shutting down government to defund Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider.

On a more fundamental level, Goldwater’s vision was a new vision for America. Coming while the country was in the throes of a deep and sustained period of unvarnished liberalism – still emerging from the New Deal and with President Johnson’s War on Poverty ahead – Goldwater’s brand of conservatism promised a novel rightward pivot.

Today, by contrast, the broad strokes of American politics are still largely in the mold Reagan made from Goldwater’s model. President Clinton, a centrist Democrat, said the era of big government is over. Tax rates are near historic lows. If anything, polls suggest the country could now be shifting back leftward somewhat, with Millennials showing strong liberal leanings on a host of social and economic issues.

For Boehner, the political realities are that the country has twice elected the president who gave America Obamacare – a program that is the very opposite of Goldwater conservatism. Shutting down the government to defund it was not standing on principle, it was the height of political stupidity, he said.

"We got groups here in town, members of the House and Senate here in town, who whip people into a frenzy believing they can accomplish things that they know – they know! – are never going to happen," he told CBS Sunday.

“Kooks,” you might call them.

Whether they are the vanguards of a new American conservatism or the last defenders of the old is what these elections – for speaker and for president – are all about.
...................................................................................................................................................................