...............................................................................................................................................
Rieder: Combating ugly political rhetoric
Can journalists help tamp down our overheated public conversation?
By Rem Reider, December 11, 2013
Journalists are not exactly perceived as heroes these days. Poll after poll finds the public is soured on them, ranking them down toward the bottom of the list with lawyers, congressmen, ax murderers and other lowlifes.
It's no wonder. For years, Hollywood has loved to portray reporters as a cynical lot who would do anything for a story.
And in real life, major mistakes (jumping to bogus conclusions on the D.C.-Navy Yard shooting and the Boston Massacre bombing, 60 Minutes' Benghazi fiasco) haven't helped. Nor has the propensity of some outlets to go overboard on online linkbait ranging from the silly to the inflammatory.
But a different, much more noble side of the profession was on display at a conference this week, one that reflects the romantic belief in their profession as a calling that often underlies the harder shell..
The event was called "Incivility in the Media: Engaging Journalists." It was put together by the National Institute for Civil Discourse, an organization created in the aftermath of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords whose mission is pretty well summed up by its name; the Poynter Institute, a journalism education outfit; and the Newseum, the museum for news in Washington, D.C., that hosted the event. The conveners assembled a strikingly smart, diverse and passionate group of journalists from both legacy news outlets and new-media ventures, representing a broad swath of age groups, ethnic backgrounds, geographic bases and world views.
Incivility in American public life is a pretty big foe to tackle, and a collection of 40 or so journalists, no matter how perspicacious, is not likely to solve it in a few days. Even if the entire news media tightened up their games (don't bet heavily on that), much more would remain to be done, given the sheer amount of vitriol and paralyzing dysfunction that pervade our political life.
But you've got to start somewhere.
And make no mistake: today's civic ugliness is an opponent well worth taking on. This is, of course, hardly a new phenomenon. President Johnson was vilified by the anti-war movement. Liberals loved poking fun at Presidents Reagan and Bush II for being dumb.
And the right's visceral hatred of President Clinton (and Hillary) was off the charts, and kind of scary.
But in the past few years, it seems as if we have plummeted to a new low. The sense among those who loath him that President Obama is somehow an illegitimate president has triggered an astounding level of antipathy. Even public officials who should know better feel free to say outrageous things about him. Call it the "You lie" era.
Compounding all of this is the disappearing middle in both political parties. A friend of mine recently described her husband as the last surviving Rockefeller Republican. And just a handful of conservative or centrist Democrats remain in Congress.
The days when Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neill, or Sen. Ted Kennedy, a liberal warhorse, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, a conservative stalwart, could cut deals are as hard to remember as a world without Facebook and Miley Cyrus. Although this week's budget accord may be a sign we are tiptoeing back from the brink.
And the news media, or some of its key components, reflect this bitterly polarized world. The advent of right-wing talk radio, dueling partisan cable combatants Fox and MSNBC, digital aggregators and blogs that skew right and left, have combined to give us echo chambers where people who simply want to have their own views reinforced, with brio, can do just that.
Then throw in Twitter, which has revolutionized, as it has so many things, political reporting by dramatically ramping up the RPMs. Now the gaffe of the moment, the latest incendiary comment, goes viral in an instant, further poisoning the civic well.
So back to the journalists. No one at the conference brandished a silver bullet. But there were plenty of ideas that could help improve a fraught situation.
One of life's many ironies is that a conclave of journalists, in a setting devoted to celebration of the First Amendment, was off the record. But the fact that the event happened, and the core values statement cobbled together by the participants, weren't. And that document is an inspirational reminder of why journalism matters.
The statement decreed that journalists, among other things, must:
• "Seek and report truth and information founded in facts, grounded in humanity and necessary to public function."
• "Hold the powerful accountable; challenge them to speak the truth and act with integrity; expose wrongdoing and injustice."
• "Create meaning; report facts in context with fairness, relevance and significance."
None of this is revolutionary, of course. Cynics will no doubt deem it a fantasy. And with the intense pressure in today's newsrooms to move at the speed of tweet, it's not an easy creed to live up to. But the document is an important statement of aspiration, and a valuable reminder that journalism is more than the morsel of the moment.
The sponsors see the gathering as a beginning, not the end. Adding political figures and ordinary citizens to the mix next time would make the conversation even richer..
And perhaps be a step, albeit a small one, toward a more civil society.
...............................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
"... Boehner’s list of accomplishments as Speaker is literally non-existent" and even though he's seeking another term, the odds of meaningful policymaking aren't any better
...............................................................................................................................................
Why Boehner’s re-election bid matters
By Steve Benen, December 10, 2013
It went by largely unnoticed, but House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) published a blog item yesterday that made a little news: he’s not retiring.
Yes, the way all Republican paragraphs are structured in 2013, condemnations of the Affordable Care Act must be incorporated into unrelated news items.
Awkward writing notwithstanding, Boehner’s re-election campaign was hardly a foregone conclusion. On the contrary, the Huffington Post reported in September that the Speaker’s former aides and a variety of high-level GOP operatives are “increasingly convinced” he will step down after the 2014 midterms. A former Republican leadership aide who is part of Boehner’s circle told Ryan Grim and Jon Ward , “Everybody around him thinks this is his last term.”
Another former senior Boehner aide said, “I’d be surprised if he did [stay].” Another party operative added, “The natural assumption is that he leaves. It’s the overwhelming, working assumption as people are making strategy going into 2015 and 2016.”
Barring an 11th hour change of heart, it now appears those assumptions are incorrect. So why should anyone outside Boehner’s southwestern Ohio district care? Because the Speaker’s decision to run rather retire has a significant impact on Congress’ willingness (and ability) to govern over the next year. Yesterday’s news carries broader implications that aren’t often talked about.
Revisiting an item from September, my Grand Unified Theory of Boehner has long held that the Speaker’s political instincts are fairly sound – he’s perfectly comfortable striking deals, reaching compromises, passing bills, and governing in a traditional way. None of this has happened since he became Speaker, of course, because he leads a radicalized caucus that has no such appetite for legislative success – on anything.
Why does Boehner look so weak and inept as Speaker? This is why – he’s pushed around by unyielding extremists who have no use for his brand of “leadership.” And so popular bills that Boehner might consider passing gather dust, while House Republicans shut down the government, threaten a sovereign debt crisis, and vote several dozen times to repeal a health care law that will not go away.
By all appearances, the Speaker has endured three years of this nonsense because, well, he wants to be Speaker.
Deciding against re-election would have changed the calculus – as we discussed three months ago, with retirement comes freedom. He wouldn’t have to be held hostage to his unhinged base; he could abandon the “Hastert Rule”; he could give up on the never-ending series of hostage crises; and he could start brin[g]ing legislation to the floor for votes – where popular bills could start passing.
Let’s not forget, prominent lawmakers are often mindful of history, and want to be remembered for having used their time in power wisely. At this point, Boehner’s list of accomplishments as Speaker is literally non-existent. That could change, though, if he were ready to walk away and decided to rack up some successes before he goes, without regard for how it might affect his electoral future.
But as of yesterday, the speculation no longer matters. Boehner will seek another term, which means he will almost certainly expect to stay on as Speaker, which means he will care about keeping his party happy, which means the odds of meaningful policymaking before the 2014 elections just deteriorated a little more.
...............................................................................................................................................
Why Boehner’s re-election bid matters
By Steve Benen, December 10, 2013
It went by largely unnoticed, but House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) published a blog item yesterday that made a little news: he’s not retiring.
Before heading to D.C. today to continue the fight on behalf of families and workers hurting under the president’s fundamentally flawed health care law, Speaker Boehner stopped by the Butler County Board of Elections to file petitions to seek re-election.
Yes, the way all Republican paragraphs are structured in 2013, condemnations of the Affordable Care Act must be incorporated into unrelated news items.
Awkward writing notwithstanding, Boehner’s re-election campaign was hardly a foregone conclusion. On the contrary, the Huffington Post reported in September that the Speaker’s former aides and a variety of high-level GOP operatives are “increasingly convinced” he will step down after the 2014 midterms. A former Republican leadership aide who is part of Boehner’s circle told Ryan Grim and Jon Ward , “Everybody around him thinks this is his last term.”
Another former senior Boehner aide said, “I’d be surprised if he did [stay].” Another party operative added, “The natural assumption is that he leaves. It’s the overwhelming, working assumption as people are making strategy going into 2015 and 2016.”
Barring an 11th hour change of heart, it now appears those assumptions are incorrect. So why should anyone outside Boehner’s southwestern Ohio district care? Because the Speaker’s decision to run rather retire has a significant impact on Congress’ willingness (and ability) to govern over the next year. Yesterday’s news carries broader implications that aren’t often talked about.
Revisiting an item from September, my Grand Unified Theory of Boehner has long held that the Speaker’s political instincts are fairly sound – he’s perfectly comfortable striking deals, reaching compromises, passing bills, and governing in a traditional way. None of this has happened since he became Speaker, of course, because he leads a radicalized caucus that has no such appetite for legislative success – on anything.
Why does Boehner look so weak and inept as Speaker? This is why – he’s pushed around by unyielding extremists who have no use for his brand of “leadership.” And so popular bills that Boehner might consider passing gather dust, while House Republicans shut down the government, threaten a sovereign debt crisis, and vote several dozen times to repeal a health care law that will not go away.
By all appearances, the Speaker has endured three years of this nonsense because, well, he wants to be Speaker.
Deciding against re-election would have changed the calculus – as we discussed three months ago, with retirement comes freedom. He wouldn’t have to be held hostage to his unhinged base; he could abandon the “Hastert Rule”; he could give up on the never-ending series of hostage crises; and he could start brin[g]ing legislation to the floor for votes – where popular bills could start passing.
Let’s not forget, prominent lawmakers are often mindful of history, and want to be remembered for having used their time in power wisely. At this point, Boehner’s list of accomplishments as Speaker is literally non-existent. That could change, though, if he were ready to walk away and decided to rack up some successes before he goes, without regard for how it might affect his electoral future.
But as of yesterday, the speculation no longer matters. Boehner will seek another term, which means he will almost certainly expect to stay on as Speaker, which means he will care about keeping his party happy, which means the odds of meaningful policymaking before the 2014 elections just deteriorated a little more.
...............................................................................................................................................
This sounds like the Tea Party has decided they need their own man as Senator from Texas, never mind that Cornyn, the incumbent, appears to be "so far to the right he’s in danger of falling into the Gulf of Mexico"
...............................................................................................................................................
Facing a Tea Party Challenge
By Jason Stanford, December 11, 2013
For those who enjoy lowbrow political theater, it’s Christmas come early. Steve Stockman, a Texas congressman so far to the right he’s in danger of falling into the Gulf of Mexico, is challenging Sen. John Cornyn in the Republican Primary. Though Tea Party leaders were calling Texas’ senior senator a “traitor” who “surrendered” on Obamacare, the conservative case against Cornyn is thin. Stockman’s challenge demonstrates that nothing less than absolute faith is sufficient to survive in a radicalized Republican Party that no longer resembles the Party of Reagan, much less that of Lincoln.
Cornyn’s worst sins against the conservative orthodoxy were to bail out Wall Street banks and not voting with Sen. Ted Cruz to shutdown the government to kill Obamacare. Less remembered is his 2009 vote to prop up the housing market with $192 billion in stimulus spending, and if you’re into predetermined outcomes you can find more evidence of impurities, but that’s basically it. The bailout and the you-Cruz-you-lose tactic are essentially the whole case for taking on Cornyn in a Republican primary.
Actually, that’s not true, is it? Look at him. He looks like the very model of a modern major pragmatist, someone who prefers compromise to benefit the greater good than someone who would enjoy building the party up by burning the capitol down. The conservative clerics sense his hidden sanity and distrust how phony his protestations strike their discerning ears. Basically, Cornyn looks like he’s faking it.
Take, for example, Cornyn’s reason for supporting a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage: “It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right.” The logic is unassailable. Your neighbor would be wrong to marry an animal. It would probably bring down the property values, though to be fair, your neighbor could legally consummate that union in Texas where bestiality is legal.
His courageous stand against zoophilia notwithstanding, Cornyn didn’t need to torture logic to convince the High Church of the Flat Earth that he was a true believer. To a real movement conservative, marriage is between a man and a woman, full stop. Simply put, Cornyn doth protest too much. When he strains to show his loyalty, the flop sweat of anxiety soaks his collar.
That’s weak evidence for an excommunication, and there’s precious little evidence in the record of his disloyalty. In 2012 BC (before Cruz), the National Journal ranked Cornyn as the second-most conservative senator for voting with conservatives 93.8 percent of the time. The Chamber of Commerce, the National Rifle Association, the Christian Coalition, and the National Right to Life Committee gave him 100 percent ratings.
In fact, you can’t find any room to Cornyn’s right on abortion. He voted to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program for unborn fetuses but against expanding healthcare coverage for children who were actually born. He voted to ban federal family planning grants to Planned Parenthood and against reducing teen pregnancy by funding birth control and education. He even thinks employers should be allowed to decide whether their employees get their contraceptives covered by insurance.
Therein lies the conundrum that is Cornyn. He speaks like a man smart enough to realize that birth control prevents unplanned pregnancies and thus reduce abortions. Despite all that, his voting record fails to convince the rightwing jihad that Cornyn shares their mission.
That’s why Cornyn was running scared even before Stockman’s announcement. Cornyn’s campaign ran an ad up touting that he’s “conservative — like you, like Texas,” a quality he demonstrates by shaking the hands of three people but never uttering a word other than “I’m John Cornyn, and I approve this message.”
This ad, like his voting record and his rhetorical excesses, did not appease the Tea Party mullahs who are thrilled Stockman is taking him on. For the next three months, Cornyn will trot out his conservative votes and increasingly reactionary opinions to convince the Tea Party that he’s one of them, but it won’t work. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they’ve made up their mind that Cornyn must be purified by the hellfires of a Republican Primary. It will be quite a show.
...............................................................................................................................................
Facing a Tea Party Challenge
By Jason Stanford, December 11, 2013
For those who enjoy lowbrow political theater, it’s Christmas come early. Steve Stockman, a Texas congressman so far to the right he’s in danger of falling into the Gulf of Mexico, is challenging Sen. John Cornyn in the Republican Primary. Though Tea Party leaders were calling Texas’ senior senator a “traitor” who “surrendered” on Obamacare, the conservative case against Cornyn is thin. Stockman’s challenge demonstrates that nothing less than absolute faith is sufficient to survive in a radicalized Republican Party that no longer resembles the Party of Reagan, much less that of Lincoln.
Cornyn’s worst sins against the conservative orthodoxy were to bail out Wall Street banks and not voting with Sen. Ted Cruz to shutdown the government to kill Obamacare. Less remembered is his 2009 vote to prop up the housing market with $192 billion in stimulus spending, and if you’re into predetermined outcomes you can find more evidence of impurities, but that’s basically it. The bailout and the you-Cruz-you-lose tactic are essentially the whole case for taking on Cornyn in a Republican primary.
Actually, that’s not true, is it? Look at him. He looks like the very model of a modern major pragmatist, someone who prefers compromise to benefit the greater good than someone who would enjoy building the party up by burning the capitol down. The conservative clerics sense his hidden sanity and distrust how phony his protestations strike their discerning ears. Basically, Cornyn looks like he’s faking it.
Take, for example, Cornyn’s reason for supporting a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage: “It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right.” The logic is unassailable. Your neighbor would be wrong to marry an animal. It would probably bring down the property values, though to be fair, your neighbor could legally consummate that union in Texas where bestiality is legal.
His courageous stand against zoophilia notwithstanding, Cornyn didn’t need to torture logic to convince the High Church of the Flat Earth that he was a true believer. To a real movement conservative, marriage is between a man and a woman, full stop. Simply put, Cornyn doth protest too much. When he strains to show his loyalty, the flop sweat of anxiety soaks his collar.
That’s weak evidence for an excommunication, and there’s precious little evidence in the record of his disloyalty. In 2012 BC (before Cruz), the National Journal ranked Cornyn as the second-most conservative senator for voting with conservatives 93.8 percent of the time. The Chamber of Commerce, the National Rifle Association, the Christian Coalition, and the National Right to Life Committee gave him 100 percent ratings.
In fact, you can’t find any room to Cornyn’s right on abortion. He voted to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program for unborn fetuses but against expanding healthcare coverage for children who were actually born. He voted to ban federal family planning grants to Planned Parenthood and against reducing teen pregnancy by funding birth control and education. He even thinks employers should be allowed to decide whether their employees get their contraceptives covered by insurance.
Therein lies the conundrum that is Cornyn. He speaks like a man smart enough to realize that birth control prevents unplanned pregnancies and thus reduce abortions. Despite all that, his voting record fails to convince the rightwing jihad that Cornyn shares their mission.
That’s why Cornyn was running scared even before Stockman’s announcement. Cornyn’s campaign ran an ad up touting that he’s “conservative — like you, like Texas,” a quality he demonstrates by shaking the hands of three people but never uttering a word other than “I’m John Cornyn, and I approve this message.”
This ad, like his voting record and his rhetorical excesses, did not appease the Tea Party mullahs who are thrilled Stockman is taking him on. For the next three months, Cornyn will trot out his conservative votes and increasingly reactionary opinions to convince the Tea Party that he’s one of them, but it won’t work. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they’ve made up their mind that Cornyn must be purified by the hellfires of a Republican Primary. It will be quite a show.
...............................................................................................................................................
“This is ridiculous." Boehner, that's what we've been telling you!
...............................................................................................................................................
Boehner slams conservative groups lining up against budget deal
By Michael A. Memoli, December 11, 2013
House Speaker John A. Boehner delivered an uncharacteristically forceful response to conservative groups lining up against the budget compromise announced Tuesday, accusing them of “using” people to advance their own goals rather than the GOP’s.
Speaking with reporters at the Capitol on Wednesday, the Ohio Republican mocked the powerful conservative forces that he said were staking out opposition to the deal even before its full details were public.
“They're using our members and they're using the American people for their own goals,” Boehner charged. “This is ridiculous.
“If you're for more deficit reduction, you're for this agreement,” he added.
The Club for Growth, one of the more prominent anti-tax groups, was the latest to come out against the deal forged by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), calling it “flawed.”
“Apparently, there are some Republicans who don’t have the stomach for even relatively small spending reductions that are devoid of budgetary smoke and mirrors,” the group’s president, former Rep. Chris Chocola, said Wednesday.
Another group, Heritage Action, said Wednesday it would urge Republicans to vote against the deal and factor the vote into its influential rating system.
The agreement would set spending levels for 2014 at $1.012 trillion, higher than the $967-billion level that would have taken effect under the sequester in January. It would restore some funding to military and domestic spending programs, paid for with new fees and cuts elsewhere in the budget.
The House is expected to vote on the measure Thursday.
Boehner’s blunt response stands in contrast to his tone during previous budget battles, when conservative groups such as the Club for Growth and Heritage Action were complicating leadership’s efforts to come to agreements with the Senate’s Democratic leaders by coming out against proposed compromises.
When asked about the groups’ influence on his members in late October, Boehner answered simply: “Pass.”
That shift could reflect his confidence that the deal could pass without the support of a block of conservatives, whose votes were needed in previous deals since Democrats were voting nearly unanimously against them.
As members left a closed-door conference meeting Wednesday morning, many expressed concerns with the deal but nonetheless indicated they could support it.
“There’s a lot of mixed feelings about it,” said Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.), who said he was still mulling over the proposal.
Responding to Boehner’s remarks, the Club for Growth issued a second statement from Chocola.
“We stand with Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Tom Coburn, Rand Paul, members of the Republican Study Committee and every other fiscal conservative who opposes the Ryan-Murray deal,” he said, adding that his organization did not comment until the deal was complete. “We support pro-growth proposals when they are considered by Congress. In our evaluation, this isn’t one of those.”
Rep. Raul R. Labrador (R-Idaho), one of at least a dozen of the more conservative Republicans who will vote against the deal, also defended the conservative groups.
"What is it that these outside groups said yesterday about this deal that is false today?" he asked. But he also downplayed their influence on his vote. “Anybody who thinks my vote is for sale to Heritage Action is sadly mistaken.”
...............................................................................................................................................
Boehner slams conservative groups lining up against budget deal
By Michael A. Memoli, December 11, 2013
House Speaker John A. Boehner delivered an uncharacteristically forceful response to conservative groups lining up against the budget compromise announced Tuesday, accusing them of “using” people to advance their own goals rather than the GOP’s.
Speaking with reporters at the Capitol on Wednesday, the Ohio Republican mocked the powerful conservative forces that he said were staking out opposition to the deal even before its full details were public.
“They're using our members and they're using the American people for their own goals,” Boehner charged. “This is ridiculous.
“If you're for more deficit reduction, you're for this agreement,” he added.
The Club for Growth, one of the more prominent anti-tax groups, was the latest to come out against the deal forged by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), calling it “flawed.”
“Apparently, there are some Republicans who don’t have the stomach for even relatively small spending reductions that are devoid of budgetary smoke and mirrors,” the group’s president, former Rep. Chris Chocola, said Wednesday.
Another group, Heritage Action, said Wednesday it would urge Republicans to vote against the deal and factor the vote into its influential rating system.
The agreement would set spending levels for 2014 at $1.012 trillion, higher than the $967-billion level that would have taken effect under the sequester in January. It would restore some funding to military and domestic spending programs, paid for with new fees and cuts elsewhere in the budget.
The House is expected to vote on the measure Thursday.
Boehner’s blunt response stands in contrast to his tone during previous budget battles, when conservative groups such as the Club for Growth and Heritage Action were complicating leadership’s efforts to come to agreements with the Senate’s Democratic leaders by coming out against proposed compromises.
When asked about the groups’ influence on his members in late October, Boehner answered simply: “Pass.”
That shift could reflect his confidence that the deal could pass without the support of a block of conservatives, whose votes were needed in previous deals since Democrats were voting nearly unanimously against them.
As members left a closed-door conference meeting Wednesday morning, many expressed concerns with the deal but nonetheless indicated they could support it.
“There’s a lot of mixed feelings about it,” said Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.), who said he was still mulling over the proposal.
Responding to Boehner’s remarks, the Club for Growth issued a second statement from Chocola.
“We stand with Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Tom Coburn, Rand Paul, members of the Republican Study Committee and every other fiscal conservative who opposes the Ryan-Murray deal,” he said, adding that his organization did not comment until the deal was complete. “We support pro-growth proposals when they are considered by Congress. In our evaluation, this isn’t one of those.”
Rep. Raul R. Labrador (R-Idaho), one of at least a dozen of the more conservative Republicans who will vote against the deal, also defended the conservative groups.
"What is it that these outside groups said yesterday about this deal that is false today?" he asked. But he also downplayed their influence on his vote. “Anybody who thinks my vote is for sale to Heritage Action is sadly mistaken.”
...............................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Compromise budget deal announced. Naturally the conservatives hate it!
...............................................................................................................................................
A sampling of the current articles on the compromise budget deal:
...............................................................................................................................................
Lawmakers announce compromise budget deal
"... a fiscal framework that would help eliminate the constant threat of a government shutdown under which lawmakers have worked for the better part of the last three years. ..."
...............................................................................................................................................
House, Senate Negotiators Announce Budget Deal
"... The agreement between Mr. Ryan and Ms. Murray is a small but marked step toward thawing icy relations between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. ..."
...............................................................................................................................................
Leaders in Congress unveil two-year budget deal
"... "This bill doesn't solve all of our problems, but I think it's an important step in helping to heal some of the wounds here in Congress, to rebuild some trust, and show that we can do something without a crisis right around the corner and demonstrate the value in making the government work for the people we represent," Murray said."
...............................................................................................................................................
Bipartisan negotiators reach modest budget pact
"... The same was not true of conservative organizations, which attacked the proposal as a betrayal of a hard-won 2011 agreement that reduced government spending and is counted as among the main accomplishments of tea party-aligned Republicans who came to power earlier the same year in the House. ..."
...............................................................................................................................................
U.S. Budget Fiasco Redux
"After almost six weeks of budget negotiations uncharacteristically devoid of histrionics and dire threats, a House-Senate conference committee appears to be close to giving birth — but only to a mouse. ..."
...............................................................................................................................................
A sampling of the current articles on the compromise budget deal:
...............................................................................................................................................
Lawmakers announce compromise budget deal
"... a fiscal framework that would help eliminate the constant threat of a government shutdown under which lawmakers have worked for the better part of the last three years. ..."
...............................................................................................................................................
House, Senate Negotiators Announce Budget Deal
"... The agreement between Mr. Ryan and Ms. Murray is a small but marked step toward thawing icy relations between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. ..."
...............................................................................................................................................
Leaders in Congress unveil two-year budget deal
"... "This bill doesn't solve all of our problems, but I think it's an important step in helping to heal some of the wounds here in Congress, to rebuild some trust, and show that we can do something without a crisis right around the corner and demonstrate the value in making the government work for the people we represent," Murray said."
...............................................................................................................................................
Bipartisan negotiators reach modest budget pact
"... The same was not true of conservative organizations, which attacked the proposal as a betrayal of a hard-won 2011 agreement that reduced government spending and is counted as among the main accomplishments of tea party-aligned Republicans who came to power earlier the same year in the House. ..."
...............................................................................................................................................
U.S. Budget Fiasco Redux
"After almost six weeks of budget negotiations uncharacteristically devoid of histrionics and dire threats, a House-Senate conference committee appears to be close to giving birth — but only to a mouse. ..."
...............................................................................................................................................
Finally the logjam has been broken
...............................................................................................................................................
Senate enforces 'nuclear option,' confirms long-stalled judicial nominee
Posted by CNN Political Unit, December 10, 2013
Senate Democrats on Tuesday began enforcing their politically explosive rules change on presidential appointments with the chamber confirming an appeals court justice and pushing aside Republican objections to another nominee.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and most other members of the majority party last month invoked the so-called "nuclear option" to speed consideration of most Presidential nominations by making it easier to break Republican filibusters.
They acted out of frustration in changing Senate rules, saying Republicans had long abused their powers to object to President Barack Obama's appointments, arguing that he had a right to fully staff his administration.
Democrats have pointed to figures showing 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations in Senate history, with about half occurring during Obama's nearly five years in office.
The new rules were designed to accelerate the process and that's what occurred on Tuesday.
The Senate confirmed Patricia Millett as a federal appeals court justice for the District of Columbia Circuit, an enormously prestigious post as it can be a stepping stone to the Supreme Court.
Republicans had long blocked Millett and two other Obama nominees to the panel to prevent what they fear would be a more liberal-leaning majority on the bench.
Obama said in a statement that he was pleased with the decision by all of the Senate's Democrats and two Republicans to finally fill a vacancy that has been open since 2005.
"Ms. Millett is a leading appellate lawyer who has made 32 arguments before the Supreme Court, the second-most by a female advocate. She has served in the Department of Justice for both Democratic and Republican Presidents. I'm confident she will serve with distinction on the federal bench." Obama said.
The Senate also voted on Tuesday to break a Republican filibuster of Rep. Mel Watt, D-North Carolina, to be the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Republicans had blocked Watt's nomination after complaining he lacked the technical skills to run the agency.
The move infuriated Democrats and influenced their decision when exercising the "nuclear option" to lower the threshold for breaking filibusters from 60 to 51 votes. Democrats control 55 seats in the Senate.
A final confirmation vote on Watt could come later in the day.
...............................................................................................................................................
Senate enforces 'nuclear option,' confirms long-stalled judicial nominee
Posted by CNN Political Unit, December 10, 2013
Senate Democrats on Tuesday began enforcing their politically explosive rules change on presidential appointments with the chamber confirming an appeals court justice and pushing aside Republican objections to another nominee.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and most other members of the majority party last month invoked the so-called "nuclear option" to speed consideration of most Presidential nominations by making it easier to break Republican filibusters.
They acted out of frustration in changing Senate rules, saying Republicans had long abused their powers to object to President Barack Obama's appointments, arguing that he had a right to fully staff his administration.
Democrats have pointed to figures showing 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations in Senate history, with about half occurring during Obama's nearly five years in office.
The new rules were designed to accelerate the process and that's what occurred on Tuesday.
The Senate confirmed Patricia Millett as a federal appeals court justice for the District of Columbia Circuit, an enormously prestigious post as it can be a stepping stone to the Supreme Court.
Republicans had long blocked Millett and two other Obama nominees to the panel to prevent what they fear would be a more liberal-leaning majority on the bench.
Obama said in a statement that he was pleased with the decision by all of the Senate's Democrats and two Republicans to finally fill a vacancy that has been open since 2005.
"Ms. Millett is a leading appellate lawyer who has made 32 arguments before the Supreme Court, the second-most by a female advocate. She has served in the Department of Justice for both Democratic and Republican Presidents. I'm confident she will serve with distinction on the federal bench." Obama said.
The Senate also voted on Tuesday to break a Republican filibuster of Rep. Mel Watt, D-North Carolina, to be the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Republicans had blocked Watt's nomination after complaining he lacked the technical skills to run the agency.
The move infuriated Democrats and influenced their decision when exercising the "nuclear option" to lower the threshold for breaking filibusters from 60 to 51 votes. Democrats control 55 seats in the Senate.
A final confirmation vote on Watt could come later in the day.
...............................................................................................................................................
Monday, December 9, 2013
It's time to dump a bunch of Republican Senators who won't cooperate
...............................................................................................................................................
With weakened filibuster, Senate Republicans deliver promised nomination blocks
By Ted Barrett, December 9, 2013
The partisan battle over presidential nominations heated up again in the Senate Monday and threatened to dominate the remaining days before the winter recess and crowd out legislation important to both parties.
Senate Republicans, still angry over filibuster changes Democrats made last month, blocked a series of largely non-controversial nominations Democrats tried to clear.
The move came as Democrats announced plans to push confirmation votes over the next two weeks on presidential nominees who were blocked under the old filibuster rules that required 60 votes to move a nominee forward. Under the new rules, which Democrats instituted over the objections of all Republicans and some Democrats, only 51 votes are required to break a filibuster.
A confirmation vote on the first stalled nominee - Patricia Millett, nominated to be a judge on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit - is scheduled for Tuesday morning after being postponed Monday because weather-related problems prevented several senators from reaching the Capitol.
Reid also set up key procedural votes for Tuesday to break a filibuster of Rep. Mel Watt, D-North Carolina, to a top housing post. When Reid asked for consent to clear roughly 75 nominations, many of them non-controversial, Tennessee Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander challenged him, complaining about the "tyranny of the majority" that had created a "Senate without rules."
The confrontation is a sign of the lack of cooperation Republicans warned of before Democrats changed the filibuster rules - known in Capitol Hill lingo as the "nuclear option" because it would so damage relations between the parties.
Reid also took procedural steps to overcome filibusters of 10 presidential appointees, including Jeh Johnson to be secretary of Homeland Security. An aide also said Reid was prepared to force votes to break the filibusters of two other appeals court nominees.
...............................................................................................................................................
With weakened filibuster, Senate Republicans deliver promised nomination blocks
By Ted Barrett, December 9, 2013
The partisan battle over presidential nominations heated up again in the Senate Monday and threatened to dominate the remaining days before the winter recess and crowd out legislation important to both parties.
Senate Republicans, still angry over filibuster changes Democrats made last month, blocked a series of largely non-controversial nominations Democrats tried to clear.
The move came as Democrats announced plans to push confirmation votes over the next two weeks on presidential nominees who were blocked under the old filibuster rules that required 60 votes to move a nominee forward. Under the new rules, which Democrats instituted over the objections of all Republicans and some Democrats, only 51 votes are required to break a filibuster.
A confirmation vote on the first stalled nominee - Patricia Millett, nominated to be a judge on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit - is scheduled for Tuesday morning after being postponed Monday because weather-related problems prevented several senators from reaching the Capitol.
Reid also set up key procedural votes for Tuesday to break a filibuster of Rep. Mel Watt, D-North Carolina, to a top housing post. When Reid asked for consent to clear roughly 75 nominations, many of them non-controversial, Tennessee Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander challenged him, complaining about the "tyranny of the majority" that had created a "Senate without rules."
The confrontation is a sign of the lack of cooperation Republicans warned of before Democrats changed the filibuster rules - known in Capitol Hill lingo as the "nuclear option" because it would so damage relations between the parties.
Reid also took procedural steps to overcome filibusters of 10 presidential appointees, including Jeh Johnson to be secretary of Homeland Security. An aide also said Reid was prepared to force votes to break the filibusters of two other appeals court nominees.
...............................................................................................................................................
"... this is about suppressing the free speech rights of kitchen table patriots.” Oh, really? How about the rights of citizens to know who the anonymous donors are who are "buying" campaigns?
...............................................................................................................................................
Tax-Exempt Political Groups Scrutinize New Rules
By Jeremy Hobson, Decembere 9, 2013
Tax-exempt groups, which can spend big money in politics, are reassessing what to do in the next election, now that the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service have proposed new rules to limit the political activity of groups that qualify as 501(c)4 tax-exempt status under the tax code.
To influence the 2012 election, groups such as the conservative Crossroads GPS and the liberal Priorities USA raised tens of millions of dollars from donors whose names they weren’t required to disclose. The IRS has been under investigation for inappropriately scrutinizing Tea Party groups in the last election.
Here & Now’s Jeremy Hobson speaks with Dean Clancy, who leads the public policy team of FreedomWorks, the tea-party aligned 501(c)4 that advocates for small government, and to Fred Wertheimer, founder and president of Democracy 21, the campaign finance watchdog group.
Interview Highlights
Fred Wertheimer on political donations in 2012
“We had more than $250 million spent in campaigns by 501(c)4 groups in the 2012 elections without a single dollar being disclosed of the people who were putting up the money to pay for those ads and expenditures. That’s wrong in our view; the American people are entitled to know who is financing campaign activity.”
Dean Clancy on why political donors should be anonymous
“Donor anonymity is part of our democratic process, similar to the secret ballot. And it’s true that the Supreme Court declined to knock down the disclosure provisions of McCain-Feingold in the Citizens United case, but we at Freedom Works would agree with Justice Thomas that they should have done so. Donor anonymity is an important principal for preventing intimidation of political speech.”
Clancy on what Freedom Works will do next to fight the proposed rules
“We are going to educate our members across the country that this is a direct threat and a continuation of the intimidation tactics that were used in the last election. This is not simply sunlight legislation; this is about suppressing the free speech rights of kitchen table patriots.”
Guests
Dean Clancy, leads the public policy team of FreedomWorks, the tea-party aligned 501(c)4 that advocates for small government.
Fred Wertheimer, is founder and president of Democracy 21, a campaign finance watchdog group.
Transcript
[snipped]
...............................................................................................................................................
Tax-Exempt Political Groups Scrutinize New Rules
By Jeremy Hobson, Decembere 9, 2013
Tax-exempt groups, which can spend big money in politics, are reassessing what to do in the next election, now that the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service have proposed new rules to limit the political activity of groups that qualify as 501(c)4 tax-exempt status under the tax code.
To influence the 2012 election, groups such as the conservative Crossroads GPS and the liberal Priorities USA raised tens of millions of dollars from donors whose names they weren’t required to disclose. The IRS has been under investigation for inappropriately scrutinizing Tea Party groups in the last election.
Here & Now’s Jeremy Hobson speaks with Dean Clancy, who leads the public policy team of FreedomWorks, the tea-party aligned 501(c)4 that advocates for small government, and to Fred Wertheimer, founder and president of Democracy 21, the campaign finance watchdog group.
Interview Highlights
Fred Wertheimer on political donations in 2012
“We had more than $250 million spent in campaigns by 501(c)4 groups in the 2012 elections without a single dollar being disclosed of the people who were putting up the money to pay for those ads and expenditures. That’s wrong in our view; the American people are entitled to know who is financing campaign activity.”
Dean Clancy on why political donors should be anonymous
“Donor anonymity is part of our democratic process, similar to the secret ballot. And it’s true that the Supreme Court declined to knock down the disclosure provisions of McCain-Feingold in the Citizens United case, but we at Freedom Works would agree with Justice Thomas that they should have done so. Donor anonymity is an important principal for preventing intimidation of political speech.”
Clancy on what Freedom Works will do next to fight the proposed rules
“We are going to educate our members across the country that this is a direct threat and a continuation of the intimidation tactics that were used in the last election. This is not simply sunlight legislation; this is about suppressing the free speech rights of kitchen table patriots.”
Guests
Dean Clancy, leads the public policy team of FreedomWorks, the tea-party aligned 501(c)4 that advocates for small government.
Fred Wertheimer, is founder and president of Democracy 21, a campaign finance watchdog group.
Transcript
[snipped]
...............................................................................................................................................
As long as Republicans continue to focus on lady parts instead of such things as jobs, education, crime, terrorism, traffic, the environment, retirement, etc., women will continue to vote against them
...............................................................................................................................................
Women and the GOP: Apologies Don’t Matter Without Change
By Jason Stanford, December 9, 2013
After losing the Virginia governor’s race because single women voted for the Democrat by a margin of 42 points, Republicans have found the solution. They will teach their candidates how to, in Speaker John Boehner’s words, “be a little more sensitive” to the ladies. But Republicans painting over policy differences with pretty words piles insult on top of offense and will do little to close the gender gap.
Their problem goes much deeper than calling Texas’ Wendy Davis “Abortion Barbie” or “Retard Barbie” and making sexualized attacks on Kentucky’s Alison Lundergan Grimes—though it would be nice if Republicans would stop using sex to minimize women.
Apologies without change matter little. In this case women are only getting flowers and a stated desire to move on without acknowledging, much less fixing, the real problem. Republicans aren’t saying they will change, only that they will use nicer-sounding words when proposing policies diametrically opposed to the way women choose to live their lives in the 21st Century.
For example, they don’t like it when Republicans express Paleozoic attitudes on sexual assault, such as Todd Akin’s infamous “legitimate rape” comment. Most recently, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-19th Century) theorized during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on military sexual assault that perhaps the young male soldiers just couldn’t help themselves around the opposite gender.
“Gee-whiz, the hormone level created by nature sets in place the possibility for these types of things to occur,” he said.
Here’s a tip for Republicans: The only proper opinion to hold on rape is that men should stop doing it. Sensitivity is not what is required here, but respect. To Sen. Chambliss’ comment, murder is also a possibility, but somehow a woman hasn’t shot him yet.
There is not a sensitive way to vote against equal pay for women, against funding to investigate and prosecute violent crimes against women, or for closing Planned Parenthood clinics where women receive annual exams and birth control pills.
There is not a sensitive way to lie to women that oral contraception causes abortions. There is no sensitive way to hold a congressional hearing on the birth control mandate in Obamacare and not allow women to testify. There is not a sensitive way to call Sandra Fluke a “slut” for wanting insurance to cover her birth control pills.
Here’s another tip for Republicans, just because it’s the holiday season: If a doctor prescribes it and insurance covers it, it is medicine. The Founding Fathers did not envision Louie Gohmert making medical decisions for women, though to be fair, they did not envision women voting either.
“Speaker Boehner thinks women continue to reject Republicans at the ballot box because of a lack of sensitivity? Think again. Women don’t need Republicans to patronize, condescend or be delicate about their feelings. They need them to represent the values important to them and their families. No softer language learned in media training will convince women that the party that opposes equal pay, pledges to defund Planned Parenthood and proposes bans on their health care choices is the one looking out for their best interests,” said Lily Adams with the Democratic National Committee.
Women care about things other than what directly affects their reproductive organs, such as jobs, education, crime, terrorism, traffic, the environment, and retirement. They’re really not that different from men in this regard, which is the last tip Republicans are getting today.
Regardless, Republicans seem singularly focused on lady parts, a habit that grates even on the top Republican elected woman in Texas, Comptroller Susan Combs.
“Tell me that you give a flip about women’s interests,” Combs said. “If all you want to talk about is my biology, ‘Gee what happened to my brain?’ That is my point. It is not all south of the waistline.”
The better question might be what happened to the party that venerates individual freedom but does not respect women enough to make their own health care decisions. They can have all the sensitivity seminars they want, but until Republicans learn there is not a nice way to insult women, women will continue to vote against them.
...............................................................................................................................................
Women and the GOP: Apologies Don’t Matter Without Change
By Jason Stanford, December 9, 2013
After losing the Virginia governor’s race because single women voted for the Democrat by a margin of 42 points, Republicans have found the solution. They will teach their candidates how to, in Speaker John Boehner’s words, “be a little more sensitive” to the ladies. But Republicans painting over policy differences with pretty words piles insult on top of offense and will do little to close the gender gap.
Their problem goes much deeper than calling Texas’ Wendy Davis “Abortion Barbie” or “Retard Barbie” and making sexualized attacks on Kentucky’s Alison Lundergan Grimes—though it would be nice if Republicans would stop using sex to minimize women.
Apologies without change matter little. In this case women are only getting flowers and a stated desire to move on without acknowledging, much less fixing, the real problem. Republicans aren’t saying they will change, only that they will use nicer-sounding words when proposing policies diametrically opposed to the way women choose to live their lives in the 21st Century.
For example, they don’t like it when Republicans express Paleozoic attitudes on sexual assault, such as Todd Akin’s infamous “legitimate rape” comment. Most recently, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-19th Century) theorized during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on military sexual assault that perhaps the young male soldiers just couldn’t help themselves around the opposite gender.
“Gee-whiz, the hormone level created by nature sets in place the possibility for these types of things to occur,” he said.
Here’s a tip for Republicans: The only proper opinion to hold on rape is that men should stop doing it. Sensitivity is not what is required here, but respect. To Sen. Chambliss’ comment, murder is also a possibility, but somehow a woman hasn’t shot him yet.
There is not a sensitive way to vote against equal pay for women, against funding to investigate and prosecute violent crimes against women, or for closing Planned Parenthood clinics where women receive annual exams and birth control pills.
There is not a sensitive way to lie to women that oral contraception causes abortions. There is no sensitive way to hold a congressional hearing on the birth control mandate in Obamacare and not allow women to testify. There is not a sensitive way to call Sandra Fluke a “slut” for wanting insurance to cover her birth control pills.
Here’s another tip for Republicans, just because it’s the holiday season: If a doctor prescribes it and insurance covers it, it is medicine. The Founding Fathers did not envision Louie Gohmert making medical decisions for women, though to be fair, they did not envision women voting either.
“Speaker Boehner thinks women continue to reject Republicans at the ballot box because of a lack of sensitivity? Think again. Women don’t need Republicans to patronize, condescend or be delicate about their feelings. They need them to represent the values important to them and their families. No softer language learned in media training will convince women that the party that opposes equal pay, pledges to defund Planned Parenthood and proposes bans on their health care choices is the one looking out for their best interests,” said Lily Adams with the Democratic National Committee.
Women care about things other than what directly affects their reproductive organs, such as jobs, education, crime, terrorism, traffic, the environment, and retirement. They’re really not that different from men in this regard, which is the last tip Republicans are getting today.
Regardless, Republicans seem singularly focused on lady parts, a habit that grates even on the top Republican elected woman in Texas, Comptroller Susan Combs.
“Tell me that you give a flip about women’s interests,” Combs said. “If all you want to talk about is my biology, ‘Gee what happened to my brain?’ That is my point. It is not all south of the waistline.”
The better question might be what happened to the party that venerates individual freedom but does not respect women enough to make their own health care decisions. They can have all the sensitivity seminars they want, but until Republicans learn there is not a nice way to insult women, women will continue to vote against them.
...............................................................................................................................................
Sunday, December 8, 2013
"Should you really be below poverty level if you work full time? ... Republicans are out of the argument; they have no answers."
...............................................................................................................................................
POLITICAL SCENE: THE POLITICS OF INCOME INEQUALITY
By Matthew McKnight, December 5, 2013
The rhetoric used to discuss income inequality, the Affordable Care Act, and the nascent push to raise the minimum wage may possibly be standing in the way of reducing America’s wealth gap. For one thing, we talk about them as though they are three distinct issues. “The biggest thing which Obama has done to reduce inequality, if it all goes through and works properly, will be Obamacare,” John Cassidy explains. “It’s not just a health-care initiative; it’s also a big redistributionary initiative.” Cassidy and George Packer join host Dorothy Wickenden on this week’s Political Scene podcast to assess President Obama’s recent speech on inequality and the politics of the wealth gap. Packer simplifies the issue in a way the President did not: “It’s a really profound moral as well as economic issue: Should you really be below poverty level if you work full time?”
“This is about political will, and political will is simply gone in Washington,” Packer says. Still, there may be hope yet. “I think the Republicans are out of the argument; they have no answers,” Packer continues. “But among Democrats I do think that this is going to be the battle of 2016.”
...............................................................................................................................................
POLITICAL SCENE: THE POLITICS OF INCOME INEQUALITY
By Matthew McKnight, December 5, 2013
The rhetoric used to discuss income inequality, the Affordable Care Act, and the nascent push to raise the minimum wage may possibly be standing in the way of reducing America’s wealth gap. For one thing, we talk about them as though they are three distinct issues. “The biggest thing which Obama has done to reduce inequality, if it all goes through and works properly, will be Obamacare,” John Cassidy explains. “It’s not just a health-care initiative; it’s also a big redistributionary initiative.” Cassidy and George Packer join host Dorothy Wickenden on this week’s Political Scene podcast to assess President Obama’s recent speech on inequality and the politics of the wealth gap. Packer simplifies the issue in a way the President did not: “It’s a really profound moral as well as economic issue: Should you really be below poverty level if you work full time?”
“This is about political will, and political will is simply gone in Washington,” Packer says. Still, there may be hope yet. “I think the Republicans are out of the argument; they have no answers,” Packer continues. “But among Democrats I do think that this is going to be the battle of 2016.”
...............................................................................................................................................
No missions accomplished, thanks to the stubbornness of the GOP
...............................................................................................................................................
Analysis: Dog of year in Congress whimpers to end
Barring uncharacteristically swift work by Congress, more than a million victims of the recession will lose long-term unemployment benefits over the holidays, the price of milk could shoot up in late winter and government payments might fall sharply for doctors who treat Medicare patients.
There's more — much more — as lawmakers grasp the tail end of a dog of a year.
Federal payments to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands will begin shrinking, at least temporarily, on Jan. 1. Tax breaks will expire temporarily for millions of people in states without an income tax, and also for the relatively few Americans who own racehorses.
They are routine deadlines gone unmet in a year more likely to be remembered for a tea party-inspired partial government shutdown, the stalling of President Barack Obama's agenda, repeated failed Republican attempts to eviscerate the health care law and a successful move by Senate Democrats to limit opposition to White House judicial nominees.
The blame game transcends all.
Republicans have "made good faith, serious efforts to Senate Democrats" to resolve differences on year-end issues, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said recently. "When will they learn to say 'yes' to common ground?"
The House Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, attacked Republicans for opposing an increase in the minimum wage, voting to cut $40 billion out of food stamps, and seeking reductions in school money and college aid for low-income families.
"I mean, how unconscionable can that be?" she asked at a meeting scripted to build support for extending unemployment benefits.
A much-ballyhooed year-end stab at bipartisanship is designed chiefly to ease the impact of across-the-board spending cuts that resulted from an earlier episode of gridlock.
Even a compromise probably would face strong opposition from tea party-aligned conservatives in the House whose tactics have opened a deep divide within the GOP.
Whatever the deal might be, Milton Wolf, a tea party-backed primary challenger to Republican Sen. Pat Roberts in Kansas, is against it.
It will "raise spending levels by billions of dollars and continue to provide funding for Obamacare," he said in a statement.
He's right that the health care law would survive because most Republicans have no interest in reprising a partial government shutdown that sent the party's approval ratings plummeting this fall.
But there is no deal yet, and officials in both parties say Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the chief Republican negotiator, is insisting that any eventual agreement push deficits lower than they would be if across-the-board cuts were left untouched.
With the House on track to adjourn for the year at the end of this coming week and the Senate hoping to file out a week later, much attention is focused on the talks between Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
But what might emerge from those discussions isn't expected to address a stack of routine unfinished business, some of which probably will carry over into 2014.
Lawmakers are at work drafting a three-month measure to prevent a 24 percent drop in Medicare payments to doctors, the residue of an ambitious plan for a permanent overhaul of the entire system. The cost is estimated at about $8 billion.
A similar extension, perhaps for as little as one month, is the alternative to a milk price fiasco.
The issue is hostage to a far broader disagreement about legislation to set spending levels for farm and feeding programs. A House measure that passed on a party-line vote calls for food stamp cuts totaling $40 billion over a decade. A Senate version, passed with bipartisan support, envisions reductions of $4 billion.
Failure to resolve the broader issues would return the nation to a Depression-era dairy law and set in motion a chain of events that would potentially quadruple the price of a gallon of milk.
If the prospect is for a one-month extension of farm programs, there has been virtually no public discussion about the dozens of tax provisions due to expire at year's end.
Some originally were placed into law only temporarily to mask their true impact on the deficit. Now, they are renewed periodically, and temporarily, because the cost of permanent extensions could be prohibitive.
Among the more obscure is a provision that allocates to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands the proceeds of a $13.25-per-gallon federal excise tax on imported rum. Without action by Congress, the amount to be turned over would fall to $10.50 per gallon.
Other items allow racehorse owners to write off their investments relatively quickly, and permit residents in nine states that have no income tax to claim a federal deduction for the state sales tax they pay.
Concern over milk prices, tax breaks and payments to doctors all cross party lines.
Not so unemployment benefits, a Democratic priority.
"I don't see much appetite on our side for continuing this extension of benefits," Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., told reporters.
Obama and Democrats do.
Benefits for 1.3 million workers unemployed for longer than six months expire Dec. 28, and that would be the case for 1.9 million more people in the first half of next year.
Boehner said he was waiting to review any proposal the White House would like to make. Pelosi announced that an extension would be a requirement for House Democrats to vote in favor of a budget deal.
Then there's the annual defense bill, which has passed Congress like clockwork each year since John F. Kennedy was in the White House.
This time, it's mission not yet accomplished.
...............................................................................................................................................
Analysis: Dog of year in Congress whimpers to end
Analysis: Routine deadlines unmet near end of year marked by congressional fights
By David Espo, December 7, 2013Barring uncharacteristically swift work by Congress, more than a million victims of the recession will lose long-term unemployment benefits over the holidays, the price of milk could shoot up in late winter and government payments might fall sharply for doctors who treat Medicare patients.
There's more — much more — as lawmakers grasp the tail end of a dog of a year.
Federal payments to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands will begin shrinking, at least temporarily, on Jan. 1. Tax breaks will expire temporarily for millions of people in states without an income tax, and also for the relatively few Americans who own racehorses.
They are routine deadlines gone unmet in a year more likely to be remembered for a tea party-inspired partial government shutdown, the stalling of President Barack Obama's agenda, repeated failed Republican attempts to eviscerate the health care law and a successful move by Senate Democrats to limit opposition to White House judicial nominees.
The blame game transcends all.
Republicans have "made good faith, serious efforts to Senate Democrats" to resolve differences on year-end issues, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said recently. "When will they learn to say 'yes' to common ground?"
The House Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, attacked Republicans for opposing an increase in the minimum wage, voting to cut $40 billion out of food stamps, and seeking reductions in school money and college aid for low-income families.
"I mean, how unconscionable can that be?" she asked at a meeting scripted to build support for extending unemployment benefits.
A much-ballyhooed year-end stab at bipartisanship is designed chiefly to ease the impact of across-the-board spending cuts that resulted from an earlier episode of gridlock.
Even a compromise probably would face strong opposition from tea party-aligned conservatives in the House whose tactics have opened a deep divide within the GOP.
Whatever the deal might be, Milton Wolf, a tea party-backed primary challenger to Republican Sen. Pat Roberts in Kansas, is against it.
It will "raise spending levels by billions of dollars and continue to provide funding for Obamacare," he said in a statement.
He's right that the health care law would survive because most Republicans have no interest in reprising a partial government shutdown that sent the party's approval ratings plummeting this fall.
But there is no deal yet, and officials in both parties say Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the chief Republican negotiator, is insisting that any eventual agreement push deficits lower than they would be if across-the-board cuts were left untouched.
With the House on track to adjourn for the year at the end of this coming week and the Senate hoping to file out a week later, much attention is focused on the talks between Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
But what might emerge from those discussions isn't expected to address a stack of routine unfinished business, some of which probably will carry over into 2014.
Lawmakers are at work drafting a three-month measure to prevent a 24 percent drop in Medicare payments to doctors, the residue of an ambitious plan for a permanent overhaul of the entire system. The cost is estimated at about $8 billion.
A similar extension, perhaps for as little as one month, is the alternative to a milk price fiasco.
The issue is hostage to a far broader disagreement about legislation to set spending levels for farm and feeding programs. A House measure that passed on a party-line vote calls for food stamp cuts totaling $40 billion over a decade. A Senate version, passed with bipartisan support, envisions reductions of $4 billion.
Failure to resolve the broader issues would return the nation to a Depression-era dairy law and set in motion a chain of events that would potentially quadruple the price of a gallon of milk.
If the prospect is for a one-month extension of farm programs, there has been virtually no public discussion about the dozens of tax provisions due to expire at year's end.
Some originally were placed into law only temporarily to mask their true impact on the deficit. Now, they are renewed periodically, and temporarily, because the cost of permanent extensions could be prohibitive.
Among the more obscure is a provision that allocates to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands the proceeds of a $13.25-per-gallon federal excise tax on imported rum. Without action by Congress, the amount to be turned over would fall to $10.50 per gallon.
Other items allow racehorse owners to write off their investments relatively quickly, and permit residents in nine states that have no income tax to claim a federal deduction for the state sales tax they pay.
Concern over milk prices, tax breaks and payments to doctors all cross party lines.
Not so unemployment benefits, a Democratic priority.
"I don't see much appetite on our side for continuing this extension of benefits," Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., told reporters.
Obama and Democrats do.
Benefits for 1.3 million workers unemployed for longer than six months expire Dec. 28, and that would be the case for 1.9 million more people in the first half of next year.
Boehner said he was waiting to review any proposal the White House would like to make. Pelosi announced that an extension would be a requirement for House Democrats to vote in favor of a budget deal.
Then there's the annual defense bill, which has passed Congress like clockwork each year since John F. Kennedy was in the White House.
This time, it's mission not yet accomplished.
...............................................................................................................................................
The Republicans are desperate to kill Obamacare because the more it takes effect, the more their hysteria will be proven to be a phony!
...............................................................................................................................................
What if Obamacare Is Popular?
By Robert Kuttner, December 6, 2013
It's beginning to look as if the Republican effort to hold the rest of the government hostage for the sacking of the Affordable Care Act just might backfire, big time. For starters, the effort has elicited something long missing on the part of this president -- some spine.
Ever since he stepped into the Rose Garden on October 1 to warn the Republicans that he simply wasn't prepared to negotiate while the government was shut down and default on the debt was threatened, we've seen a much tougher Obama. The split in the Republicans, meanwhile, continues to widen, with an ever-increasing backlash among party professionals against the nihilism of Ted Cruz and company. Poor John Boehner tacks back and forth between frantically trying to hold his coalition together and signaling that he'd be willing to suspend the Hastert Rule and allow pragmatic Republicans vote with Democrats to keep the government open.
Public opinion seems to be moving against the Republicans. The question is no longer whether they will continue their suicidal gambit but when they will cave and on what terms.
Weirdly, by threatening to shut the government unless Obama killed the Affordable Care act, they got the opposite of what they sought. The rest of the government is closed, and Obamacare is open for business.
And, while Republicans and movement conservatives have spent the better part of a year demonizing Obama's health reform, the more people become familiar with it, the more people will appreciate it -- leaving the Republican alarmism with no clothes. In that regard, the president and his strategists would do well to change one core piece of their rhetoric. In his Rose Garden remarks, the president said this:
In fact, that's profoundly wrong, and weakens the president's case. The statistically accurate contention that 85 percent of people will have no change in their insurance is a throwback to the early days of the health reform debate, when focus groups suggested that people who had employer-provided insurance and liked it needed to be reassured.
But a lot has changed since then. Employer coverage is eroding. People who lose jobs or change jobs typically lose their insurance. COBRA protection paid entirely by the former worker is only a temporary and largely unaffordable stopgap.
The fact is that the Affordable Care Act helps a lot more the 15 percent of the population. Young adults with no employer-provided insurance (and their parents) already know how valuable Obamacare is, for allowing people under age 26 to stay on their parents' insurance. People without jobs and at risk of losing jobs are also coming to value the Affordable Care Act.
There is an analogy here with the revolution in broad acceptance of sexual diversity. As more and more gays and lesbians came out, straight people were initially shocked, then surprisingly accepting, as they realized that they had a friend, co-worker, neighbor, or family member who turned out to be gay.
As more and more people sign up for affordable insurance thanks to Obama Care, many Americans who have insurance (and many who are worried about losing it) will hear heart-rending firsthand stories about friends, colleagues and relatives with medical worries, who finally get insurance. That coalition is a lot more than 15 percent.
Many of these people, incidentally, are in red states, where the percentage of the uninsured tends to be far higher than the national average. In several such states, Republican governors have broken ranks and signed their states up for the provision of the Affordable Care Act that has the Federal government finance nearly all the costs of expanded Medicaid.
No wonder the Republicans are so desperate to kill Obamacare in utero. The more it takes effect, the more their hysteria will be proven to be a phony. By 2014, when the Republican House majority will present itself for re-election, the Affordable Care Act could be quite popular. What then?
President Obama, increasingly, finds himself in the chips. Let's see if this time he can resist the impulse to fold a winning hand.
...............................................................................................................................................
What if Obamacare Is Popular?
By Robert Kuttner, December 6, 2013
It's beginning to look as if the Republican effort to hold the rest of the government hostage for the sacking of the Affordable Care Act just might backfire, big time. For starters, the effort has elicited something long missing on the part of this president -- some spine.
Ever since he stepped into the Rose Garden on October 1 to warn the Republicans that he simply wasn't prepared to negotiate while the government was shut down and default on the debt was threatened, we've seen a much tougher Obama. The split in the Republicans, meanwhile, continues to widen, with an ever-increasing backlash among party professionals against the nihilism of Ted Cruz and company. Poor John Boehner tacks back and forth between frantically trying to hold his coalition together and signaling that he'd be willing to suspend the Hastert Rule and allow pragmatic Republicans vote with Democrats to keep the government open.
Public opinion seems to be moving against the Republicans. The question is no longer whether they will continue their suicidal gambit but when they will cave and on what terms.
Weirdly, by threatening to shut the government unless Obama killed the Affordable Care act, they got the opposite of what they sought. The rest of the government is closed, and Obamacare is open for business.
And, while Republicans and movement conservatives have spent the better part of a year demonizing Obama's health reform, the more people become familiar with it, the more people will appreciate it -- leaving the Republican alarmism with no clothes. In that regard, the president and his strategists would do well to change one core piece of their rhetoric. In his Rose Garden remarks, the president said this:
Now, of course, if you're one of the 85 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, you don't need to do a thing. You're already benefiting from new benefits and protections that have been in place for some time under this law. But for the 15 percent of Americans who don't have health insurance, this opportunity is life-changing.
In fact, that's profoundly wrong, and weakens the president's case. The statistically accurate contention that 85 percent of people will have no change in their insurance is a throwback to the early days of the health reform debate, when focus groups suggested that people who had employer-provided insurance and liked it needed to be reassured.
But a lot has changed since then. Employer coverage is eroding. People who lose jobs or change jobs typically lose their insurance. COBRA protection paid entirely by the former worker is only a temporary and largely unaffordable stopgap.
The fact is that the Affordable Care Act helps a lot more the 15 percent of the population. Young adults with no employer-provided insurance (and their parents) already know how valuable Obamacare is, for allowing people under age 26 to stay on their parents' insurance. People without jobs and at risk of losing jobs are also coming to value the Affordable Care Act.
There is an analogy here with the revolution in broad acceptance of sexual diversity. As more and more gays and lesbians came out, straight people were initially shocked, then surprisingly accepting, as they realized that they had a friend, co-worker, neighbor, or family member who turned out to be gay.
As more and more people sign up for affordable insurance thanks to Obama Care, many Americans who have insurance (and many who are worried about losing it) will hear heart-rending firsthand stories about friends, colleagues and relatives with medical worries, who finally get insurance. That coalition is a lot more than 15 percent.
Many of these people, incidentally, are in red states, where the percentage of the uninsured tends to be far higher than the national average. In several such states, Republican governors have broken ranks and signed their states up for the provision of the Affordable Care Act that has the Federal government finance nearly all the costs of expanded Medicaid.
No wonder the Republicans are so desperate to kill Obamacare in utero. The more it takes effect, the more their hysteria will be proven to be a phony. By 2014, when the Republican House majority will present itself for re-election, the Affordable Care Act could be quite popular. What then?
President Obama, increasingly, finds himself in the chips. Let's see if this time he can resist the impulse to fold a winning hand.
...............................................................................................................................................
"... Republicans don't understand how their anti-outsider messages aggregate." They can just keep on shooting themselves in the foot-- that's fine with me!
...............................................................................................................................................
Republicans Had Better Get Comfortable With 'Happy Holidays'
By Josh Barro, December 8, 2013
Only 42% of Asian Americans are Christians. Only 24% of Asian American voters supported Mitt Romney in 2012.
So maybe Republicans, who are currently seeking ways to expand their non-white voter base, should stop demanding that people should say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays."
Here's a shirt recently sold by the National Republican Congressional Committee. It reads "'Happy Holidays' is what liberals say." An NRCC spokesperson told Buzzfeed the shirt has sold out.
The shirt is printed in Comic Sans, but that's not the biggest problem with it.
Here's the thing: Some people celebrate Christmas and some don't. It's fine to say "Merry Christmas." But sometimes, a speaker wants to be especially mindful of the fact that not all of his or her listeners celebrate Christmas, so he or she says "Happy Holidays."
Why should Republicans have a problem with that? When Republicans say they have a problem with it, what message are they sending to non-Christian voters?
Most voters are Christian, so a pro-Christmas position seems like it should be popular. But Republicans don't understand how their anti-outsider messages aggregate.
Most voters are straight, so opposition to gay marriage shouldn't be an electoral problem. Most voters aren't Mexican-Americans, so they shouldn't be too bothered by thinly-veiled (or unveiled) anti-Mexican messaging on immigration.
Add these things all together, and you get a political party that looks like it's engaged in interest group politics for straight non-Hispanic white Christians. That's not too appealing to the increasing share of voters who aren't straight non-Hispanic white Christians.
Mitt Romney took just 24% of the Asian vote in 2012, a worse performance than among Hispanics. That was even though Asians have higher family incomes and educational achievement than whites, and lower rates of out-of-wedlock birth.
Republicans' typical explanation of their poor performance with blacks and Hispanics (a policy platform that alienates groups disproportionately likely to depend on government services) can't explain Republicans' Asian gap. But the party's perceived hostility toward out-groups can.
If Republicans want to be a viable political party in an increasingly diverse country, they need to drop their opposition to pluralism. They can start by ending the whining about the "War on Christmas."
...............................................................................................................................................
Republicans Had Better Get Comfortable With 'Happy Holidays'
By Josh Barro, December 8, 2013
Only 42% of Asian Americans are Christians. Only 24% of Asian American voters supported Mitt Romney in 2012.
So maybe Republicans, who are currently seeking ways to expand their non-white voter base, should stop demanding that people should say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays."
Here's a shirt recently sold by the National Republican Congressional Committee. It reads "'Happy Holidays' is what liberals say." An NRCC spokesperson told Buzzfeed the shirt has sold out.
The shirt is printed in Comic Sans, but that's not the biggest problem with it.
Here's the thing: Some people celebrate Christmas and some don't. It's fine to say "Merry Christmas." But sometimes, a speaker wants to be especially mindful of the fact that not all of his or her listeners celebrate Christmas, so he or she says "Happy Holidays."
Why should Republicans have a problem with that? When Republicans say they have a problem with it, what message are they sending to non-Christian voters?
Most voters are Christian, so a pro-Christmas position seems like it should be popular. But Republicans don't understand how their anti-outsider messages aggregate.
Most voters are straight, so opposition to gay marriage shouldn't be an electoral problem. Most voters aren't Mexican-Americans, so they shouldn't be too bothered by thinly-veiled (or unveiled) anti-Mexican messaging on immigration.
Add these things all together, and you get a political party that looks like it's engaged in interest group politics for straight non-Hispanic white Christians. That's not too appealing to the increasing share of voters who aren't straight non-Hispanic white Christians.
Mitt Romney took just 24% of the Asian vote in 2012, a worse performance than among Hispanics. That was even though Asians have higher family incomes and educational achievement than whites, and lower rates of out-of-wedlock birth.
Republicans' typical explanation of their poor performance with blacks and Hispanics (a policy platform that alienates groups disproportionately likely to depend on government services) can't explain Republicans' Asian gap. But the party's perceived hostility toward out-groups can.
If Republicans want to be a viable political party in an increasingly diverse country, they need to drop their opposition to pluralism. They can start by ending the whining about the "War on Christmas."
...............................................................................................................................................
Tony Perkins says the GOP is selling its soul
...............................................................................................................................................
Boehner Urges GOP to Support Gay Candidates; Christian Political Leader Says Divide 'Distracting'
By Tyler O'Neil, December 6, 2013
Speaker of the House John Boehner, when asked if he supports "the Republican Party apparatus" bolstering openly gay candidates, said "I do," unleashing a storm of debate in the GOP. One conservative strategist denounced the episode as a diversion to the real story in politics, the fallout of the Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obamacare."
"Some of our members just aren't as sensitive as they ought to be," Boehner added, speaking at a press conference this week. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, denounced the move as an unnecessary distraction from the failings of ObamaCare. "What's the purpose of the Republican platform if the party isn't looking for candidates who uphold it?" Perkins asked.
In an email statement to The Christian Post, Perkins wrote that "the GOP's latest sideshow comes at the expense of the party's greatest opportunity: capitalizing on America's disgust for Obamacare." He criticized the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) for allegedly spending money to support "two activist homosexual candidates."
Virginia Congressman Randy Forbes attacked this move as a violation of NRCC donors' freedom. "Our goal is to make certain every individual has the right to express his or her belief, while no one is compelled to support financially or otherwise those who disagree with them," he wrote in an email statement to The Christian Post.
Forbes acknowledged that "the definition of marriage is an issue with widely divergent origins passionately held by both sides," and he accepted that division in the Republican Party as well as in America as a whole. His opposition to the NRCC's financial support of two gay candidates does not come from an attempt to ostracize them from the party, but to make sure donors don't end up giving to candidates they oppose. "We will continue to work to accomplish this goal," he declared.
While Perkins and Forbes disagreed with Boehner, Gregory T. Angelo, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, praised the House Speaker's attempt to include gay candidates. "Speaker Boehner gets it: He wants to win," Angelo proclaimed in an email statement to CP. "The only loser in all of this is Congressman Forbes, who has been smoked out as an out-of-touch, intra-party saboteur," he fired back.
Perkins, however, attacked Boehner's position as sabotage. "The real question isn't whether the GOP would support an openly homosexual candidate, but whether it would support an openly homosexual activist who has sought to redefine marriage and undermine religious freedom," the FRC president argued. "At the end of the day, conservatives and homosexual activists cannot coexist in a movement predicated on virtues that pre-date positive law."
According to Perkins, the GOP is selling its soul. "The GOP will throw its support behind any candidate they believe can win, even if it means throwing the party's stated principles overboard," he explained, in response to a statement by Oregon Congressman Greg Walden, chairman of the NRCC.
"Of all the differences between the two parties, this is one of the most significant," Perkins wrote. While Democrats "demand allegiance to their ideology, accepting nothing less than 100 percent devotion to their radical agenda," Republicans are willing to compromise on principle to win, the FRC president argued. "You can't build a bigger tent if someone is sawing down one of the polls."
Speaker Boehner's office did not respond to multiple requests for comment at the time of publication.
...............................................................................................................................................
Boehner Urges GOP to Support Gay Candidates; Christian Political Leader Says Divide 'Distracting'
By Tyler O'Neil, December 6, 2013
Speaker of the House John Boehner, when asked if he supports "the Republican Party apparatus" bolstering openly gay candidates, said "I do," unleashing a storm of debate in the GOP. One conservative strategist denounced the episode as a diversion to the real story in politics, the fallout of the Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obamacare."
"Some of our members just aren't as sensitive as they ought to be," Boehner added, speaking at a press conference this week. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, denounced the move as an unnecessary distraction from the failings of ObamaCare. "What's the purpose of the Republican platform if the party isn't looking for candidates who uphold it?" Perkins asked.
In an email statement to The Christian Post, Perkins wrote that "the GOP's latest sideshow comes at the expense of the party's greatest opportunity: capitalizing on America's disgust for Obamacare." He criticized the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) for allegedly spending money to support "two activist homosexual candidates."
Virginia Congressman Randy Forbes attacked this move as a violation of NRCC donors' freedom. "Our goal is to make certain every individual has the right to express his or her belief, while no one is compelled to support financially or otherwise those who disagree with them," he wrote in an email statement to The Christian Post.
Forbes acknowledged that "the definition of marriage is an issue with widely divergent origins passionately held by both sides," and he accepted that division in the Republican Party as well as in America as a whole. His opposition to the NRCC's financial support of two gay candidates does not come from an attempt to ostracize them from the party, but to make sure donors don't end up giving to candidates they oppose. "We will continue to work to accomplish this goal," he declared.
While Perkins and Forbes disagreed with Boehner, Gregory T. Angelo, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, praised the House Speaker's attempt to include gay candidates. "Speaker Boehner gets it: He wants to win," Angelo proclaimed in an email statement to CP. "The only loser in all of this is Congressman Forbes, who has been smoked out as an out-of-touch, intra-party saboteur," he fired back.
Perkins, however, attacked Boehner's position as sabotage. "The real question isn't whether the GOP would support an openly homosexual candidate, but whether it would support an openly homosexual activist who has sought to redefine marriage and undermine religious freedom," the FRC president argued. "At the end of the day, conservatives and homosexual activists cannot coexist in a movement predicated on virtues that pre-date positive law."
According to Perkins, the GOP is selling its soul. "The GOP will throw its support behind any candidate they believe can win, even if it means throwing the party's stated principles overboard," he explained, in response to a statement by Oregon Congressman Greg Walden, chairman of the NRCC.
"Of all the differences between the two parties, this is one of the most significant," Perkins wrote. While Democrats "demand allegiance to their ideology, accepting nothing less than 100 percent devotion to their radical agenda," Republicans are willing to compromise on principle to win, the FRC president argued. "You can't build a bigger tent if someone is sawing down one of the polls."
Speaker Boehner's office did not respond to multiple requests for comment at the time of publication.
...............................................................................................................................................
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Blame it on Tip, Newt, and Dennis
...............................................................................................................................................
Will the Congressional Stalemate Ever End?
By Brendan Greeley, December 5, 2013
“Enough is enough,” said President Obama at a press conference on Nov. 21, the day Senate Democrats weakened the filibuster to make it harder for Republicans to block judicial nominees. “The gears of government have to work.” The president allowed himself a moment of hope that tinkering with the Senate’s rules could help unseize Washington.
Elsewhere in D.C., a group called No Labels is urging passage of 12 pieces of legislation to “make Congress work.” They include bills requiring Democrats and Republicans to sit next to each other in the Capitol, attend “monthly bipartisan gatherings,” and pass a budget before they get paid. The group’s leaders, former Utah Governor and GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, say the bills will encourage members to work together.
The president’s comments, and No Labels’ fixes, rest on two assumptions: Democrats and Republicans don’t trust each other, and breaking down barriers between them can restore enough goodwill so that they can grudgingly start passing bills again. The view that leaders simply need to lead is widely shared by the public, and with Congress approaching a series of budget deadlines in coming weeks, it would be nice if it were true. Yet individual members have less power today than ever before. Over the past 30 years they’ve largely ceded authority to the political parties, which will continue the stalemate and discourage negotiations over the budget—or anything else.
For much of the 20th century, committee chairmen were the most powerful people in Congress. They could hold up bills or bring them to a vote. In the 1970s political scientists looking at how Congress worked didn’t believe parties much mattered, because each member had a vote and a unique set of incentives. Party discipline was less important because it was impossible to enforce; interests within parties were too varied. Since the early 1980s, however, political parties have become more homogenous. Once you can get a whole party to agree on something, discipline becomes possible. Once it’s possible, it can be wielded as a weapon.
That started to happen in the late ’70s and early ’80s. Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill forced the chairman of the House Committee on Rules to answer to the speaker’s office, a small change with far-reaching consequences. The speaker began writing the rules for debate on every piece of legislation. After the midterm elections of 1994, the new GOP speaker, Newt Gingrich, continued the work of asserting party control. Where committee chairs had been passed down by seniority, Gingrich appointed younger members loyal to him.
Dennis Hastert, the Republican speaker during most of George W. Bush’s presidency, took this demand for loyalty further. The Hastert Rule, an informal edict not codified in any book yet still followed, instructs the speaker not to bring any bill to the floor that doesn’t have the support of the majority of the majority. When Democrat Nancy Pelosi became speaker, she got rid of earmarks, giving up the power to bribe Republicans for their votes. John Boehner has largely upheld the principle that even a passable bill, if it can’t pass by a majority of his party, is not worthy of being brought to a vote. The recent stalemates are simply the logical result of a long-term trend: The party had become more important than the House’s business.
“You should be depressed,” says Keith Poole. “It’s going to get worse.” Poole, a political scientist at the University of Georgia, has spent three decades studying congressional votes that stretch back to 1879. With collaborators Howard Rosenthal of New York University and Princeton University’s Nolan McCarty, he’s found that members of Congress are now less likely to vote against their party than at any time since the first decade of the 20th century.
The small number of seats Democrats need to take the House (17) and Republicans to take the Senate (3) makes the problem worse, says Frances Lee of the University of Maryland. She argues a minority party with a plausible chance of reversing its fortunes in the next election has no incentive to cooperate with the majority to pass legislation. “They don’t want to cut deals that will blur the differences,” she says. From the 1950s to 1980, the Republicans couldn’t imagine a majority in Congress and settled for an ability to trade votes in exchange for altering Democrats’ bills. When Ronald Reagan won the White House, Republicans won the Senate and began to dream of the House, the beginning of an increasingly ruthless competition between the parties for control of the Capitol.
McCarty is at least somewhat encouraged by the weakened filibuster. It may only address the symptoms of the larger problems, he says, “but some people can live fulfilling lives with illnesses, as long as they have the right drugs.” Lee is less optimistic. She says only one thing can force Congress to get back to legislating: One of the political parties must suffer a crushing defeat.
...............................................................................................................................................
Will the Congressional Stalemate Ever End?
By Brendan Greeley, December 5, 2013
“Enough is enough,” said President Obama at a press conference on Nov. 21, the day Senate Democrats weakened the filibuster to make it harder for Republicans to block judicial nominees. “The gears of government have to work.” The president allowed himself a moment of hope that tinkering with the Senate’s rules could help unseize Washington.
Elsewhere in D.C., a group called No Labels is urging passage of 12 pieces of legislation to “make Congress work.” They include bills requiring Democrats and Republicans to sit next to each other in the Capitol, attend “monthly bipartisan gatherings,” and pass a budget before they get paid. The group’s leaders, former Utah Governor and GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, say the bills will encourage members to work together.
The president’s comments, and No Labels’ fixes, rest on two assumptions: Democrats and Republicans don’t trust each other, and breaking down barriers between them can restore enough goodwill so that they can grudgingly start passing bills again. The view that leaders simply need to lead is widely shared by the public, and with Congress approaching a series of budget deadlines in coming weeks, it would be nice if it were true. Yet individual members have less power today than ever before. Over the past 30 years they’ve largely ceded authority to the political parties, which will continue the stalemate and discourage negotiations over the budget—or anything else.
For much of the 20th century, committee chairmen were the most powerful people in Congress. They could hold up bills or bring them to a vote. In the 1970s political scientists looking at how Congress worked didn’t believe parties much mattered, because each member had a vote and a unique set of incentives. Party discipline was less important because it was impossible to enforce; interests within parties were too varied. Since the early 1980s, however, political parties have become more homogenous. Once you can get a whole party to agree on something, discipline becomes possible. Once it’s possible, it can be wielded as a weapon.
That started to happen in the late ’70s and early ’80s. Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill forced the chairman of the House Committee on Rules to answer to the speaker’s office, a small change with far-reaching consequences. The speaker began writing the rules for debate on every piece of legislation. After the midterm elections of 1994, the new GOP speaker, Newt Gingrich, continued the work of asserting party control. Where committee chairs had been passed down by seniority, Gingrich appointed younger members loyal to him.
Dennis Hastert, the Republican speaker during most of George W. Bush’s presidency, took this demand for loyalty further. The Hastert Rule, an informal edict not codified in any book yet still followed, instructs the speaker not to bring any bill to the floor that doesn’t have the support of the majority of the majority. When Democrat Nancy Pelosi became speaker, she got rid of earmarks, giving up the power to bribe Republicans for their votes. John Boehner has largely upheld the principle that even a passable bill, if it can’t pass by a majority of his party, is not worthy of being brought to a vote. The recent stalemates are simply the logical result of a long-term trend: The party had become more important than the House’s business.
“You should be depressed,” says Keith Poole. “It’s going to get worse.” Poole, a political scientist at the University of Georgia, has spent three decades studying congressional votes that stretch back to 1879. With collaborators Howard Rosenthal of New York University and Princeton University’s Nolan McCarty, he’s found that members of Congress are now less likely to vote against their party than at any time since the first decade of the 20th century.
The small number of seats Democrats need to take the House (17) and Republicans to take the Senate (3) makes the problem worse, says Frances Lee of the University of Maryland. She argues a minority party with a plausible chance of reversing its fortunes in the next election has no incentive to cooperate with the majority to pass legislation. “They don’t want to cut deals that will blur the differences,” she says. From the 1950s to 1980, the Republicans couldn’t imagine a majority in Congress and settled for an ability to trade votes in exchange for altering Democrats’ bills. When Ronald Reagan won the White House, Republicans won the Senate and began to dream of the House, the beginning of an increasingly ruthless competition between the parties for control of the Capitol.
McCarty is at least somewhat encouraged by the weakened filibuster. It may only address the symptoms of the larger problems, he says, “but some people can live fulfilling lives with illnesses, as long as they have the right drugs.” Lee is less optimistic. She says only one thing can force Congress to get back to legislating: One of the political parties must suffer a crushing defeat.
...............................................................................................................................................
Keep saying "no", Ms. Paul
...............................................................................................................................................
Is Paul running for president? Ask his wife
By Leigh Ann Caldwell, December 6, 2013
Republican Sen. Rand Paul said he needs a heavy dose of political persuasion if he is to run for president in 2016.
Paul was asked about higher political aspirations on Friday. He said his wife owns both available votes in his family. “Both of them are ‘no’ votes right now,” he told the audience.
Paul was speaking at the Detroit Economic Club where he laid out a newly formulated economic plan to revitalize the city that is proceeding through largest municipal bankruptcy in the country's history.
Paul’s staff said he took his message to Detroit because he was in town to open a new Republican Party office there and because he thinks the city could be a model for other struggling areas around the country, including his home state of Kentucky.
But Paul has worked to strategically broaden his message beyond the Senate and his home state, which has added speculation to a possible presidential run.
The Detroit Economic Club is a fitting venue for a potential presidential candidate in the battleground state as it has “hosted every U.S. President since Richard Nixon,” its website says.
Paul proposed “Economic Freedom Zones” to “free up Detroit to bail themselves out.” He plans to introduce a bill on the economic zones in the Senate next week.
In his plan for parts of the country with unemployment at 1.5% higher than the national average, income taxes would be reduced to 5% and capital gains taxes would be eliminated. The payroll tax would also go down for both the employee and the employer, he said.
“The money would simply be left with its rightful owner,” Paul said.
Paul criticized the President Barack Obama for employing “traditional government stimulus” totaling $1 trillion during the recession that he said “hasn’t worked.”
After his speech, Paul was asked by an audience member about the auto bailout, a politically tricky topic for aspiring national Republicans. It is popular in Detroit and largely considered successful there.
While he hedged slightly by saying there are “debatable parts on both sides” of the issue, he said he would “prefer” a market-based approach opposed to “the direct bailout of any industry,” noting that that position “may not be popular in Detroit.”
During the 2012 presidential campaign, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who had roots in Michigan, was pounded by the Obama campaign for not supporting the government bailout of the American auto industry. Romney lost the state.
Paul expanded beyond his economic plan to discuss the problems facing the Republican Party, saying it’s important to be more inclusive and embrace all types of people. He said the GOP needs more people with “tattoos” and “pony tails.”
He also said the Republican message can appeal to African-Americans, noting that only a small percentage of blacks supported Romney in 2012. According to CNN exit polls, Romney won 6% of the African-American vote last year.
“That’s not very good,” Paul said.
He said he could make inroads with minorities by talking about issues that directly and disproportionately have an impact on minority communities, including what he called the “out of control War on Drugs.”
Minority communities are “easy targets” for bad policies, Paul said, highlighting that Africa-Americans are four times more likely to be arrested for smoking marijuana. It’s not because “white kids in the suburbs” aren’t smoking pot, Paul said.
...............................................................................................................................................
Is Paul running for president? Ask his wife
By Leigh Ann Caldwell, December 6, 2013
Republican Sen. Rand Paul said he needs a heavy dose of political persuasion if he is to run for president in 2016.
Paul was asked about higher political aspirations on Friday. He said his wife owns both available votes in his family. “Both of them are ‘no’ votes right now,” he told the audience.
Paul was speaking at the Detroit Economic Club where he laid out a newly formulated economic plan to revitalize the city that is proceeding through largest municipal bankruptcy in the country's history.
Paul’s staff said he took his message to Detroit because he was in town to open a new Republican Party office there and because he thinks the city could be a model for other struggling areas around the country, including his home state of Kentucky.
But Paul has worked to strategically broaden his message beyond the Senate and his home state, which has added speculation to a possible presidential run.
The Detroit Economic Club is a fitting venue for a potential presidential candidate in the battleground state as it has “hosted every U.S. President since Richard Nixon,” its website says.
Paul proposed “Economic Freedom Zones” to “free up Detroit to bail themselves out.” He plans to introduce a bill on the economic zones in the Senate next week.
In his plan for parts of the country with unemployment at 1.5% higher than the national average, income taxes would be reduced to 5% and capital gains taxes would be eliminated. The payroll tax would also go down for both the employee and the employer, he said.
“The money would simply be left with its rightful owner,” Paul said.
Paul criticized the President Barack Obama for employing “traditional government stimulus” totaling $1 trillion during the recession that he said “hasn’t worked.”
After his speech, Paul was asked by an audience member about the auto bailout, a politically tricky topic for aspiring national Republicans. It is popular in Detroit and largely considered successful there.
While he hedged slightly by saying there are “debatable parts on both sides” of the issue, he said he would “prefer” a market-based approach opposed to “the direct bailout of any industry,” noting that that position “may not be popular in Detroit.”
During the 2012 presidential campaign, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who had roots in Michigan, was pounded by the Obama campaign for not supporting the government bailout of the American auto industry. Romney lost the state.
Paul expanded beyond his economic plan to discuss the problems facing the Republican Party, saying it’s important to be more inclusive and embrace all types of people. He said the GOP needs more people with “tattoos” and “pony tails.”
He also said the Republican message can appeal to African-Americans, noting that only a small percentage of blacks supported Romney in 2012. According to CNN exit polls, Romney won 6% of the African-American vote last year.
“That’s not very good,” Paul said.
He said he could make inroads with minorities by talking about issues that directly and disproportionately have an impact on minority communities, including what he called the “out of control War on Drugs.”
Minority communities are “easy targets” for bad policies, Paul said, highlighting that Africa-Americans are four times more likely to be arrested for smoking marijuana. It’s not because “white kids in the suburbs” aren’t smoking pot, Paul said.
...............................................................................................................................................
Friday, December 6, 2013
Hey, don't blame the GOP's failings on the Democrats!
...............................................................................................................................................
Are Democrats backing the GOP into another government shutdown?
By Jon Terbush, December 6, 2013
After spending two months on the defensive over ObamaCare, Democrats are back on the attack. And with another budget deadline looming early in the new year, they're signaling that they're not about to let up — even it it means pushing Republicans toward another government shutdown.
Senate and House negotiators are working toward a reportedly small budget deal that would undo some of the sequester, across-the-board spending cuts that have taken a bite out of the economic recovery. But believing the odds are tilted in their favor, Democratic leaders have suggested they may insist that an extension of emergency unemployment benefits also be part of a final deal.
"We cannot, cannot support a budget agreement that does not include unemployment insurance," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said at a Thursday hearing. "It would undermine who we are as a country."
Pelosi later walked back her firm stance, saying that though she would prefer unemployment insurance to be part of the deal, "it could be separate from that." But the hard line, and the actions of other leading Democrats, nevertheless stoked the notion that the party is willing to play hard ball.
On the same day, the White House released a report touting the economic benefits of an unemployment benefits extension, and President Obama said the same in his big income inequality speech one day prior. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the party's ranking member on the House Budget Committee, directly compared the cost of an extension to the estimated $24 billion the economy lost during the last shutdown — hardly a subtle message.
A senior Democratic aide, meanwhile, told The Nation's George Zornick that the issue was "still very much in the mix" of the budget talks between Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.).
Congress authorized the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program in 2008, and has repeatedly extended it with steadily decreasing benefits. It's due to expire at the end of the year though, hence Democrats' concerted push now. And even though the House isn't known for passing Democratic-friendly legislation, Democrats think they have enough leverage to force the issue.
For one, any deal that raises spending above sequester-mandated levels would likely lose a swath of GOP support, which means Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would have to seek out Democratic votes anyway. And the more Boehner needs to rely on Democratic votes, the thinking goes, the more concessions Democrats can demand.
Plus, Republicans are eager to undo the deep cuts scheduled to hit the Defense Department next year. Though pro-defense GOPers have quietly accepted the past cuts, the next round will cut deeper, so they're now "openly itching for a budget deal," wrote New York's Jonathan Chait, "as are the Republicans who have to actually draw up the cuts to domestic spending required by sequestration."
"The Republican dissidents, combined with Democrats, form a potential majority in the House in favor of undoing sequestration," he added.
Then there's recent history. Republicans ruined their party's approval rating by forcing the October government shutdown, and they're loath to repeat that catastrophe.
"A government shutdown is off the table," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in October. "We're not going to do it."
Still, if the Democrats push too hard, Republicans could simply walk away, paving the way for another shutdown.
However, Boehner has said he would "surely entertain taking a looking at" a benefits extension, so there is at least a chance Republicans could go along with such an effort.
And there's always the possibility that all this noise will "turn out to be kabuki," wrote the Washington Post's Greg Sargent.
House Democrats are on record talking extensively about how the sequester is dragging down the recovery. So if Senate Democrats do reach a deal with Paul Ryan to replace it, and Republican leaders adamantly refuse to extend unemployment benefits, it could prove difficult for House Democrats to stand in the way of passing something easing the sequester. This would put House Dems in the position of making a very difficult choice. [Washington Post]
Democrats think they have an edge in the budget talks. We'll soon see if they truly intend to use it.
...............................................................................................................................................
Are Democrats backing the GOP into another government shutdown?
By Jon Terbush, December 6, 2013
After spending two months on the defensive over ObamaCare, Democrats are back on the attack. And with another budget deadline looming early in the new year, they're signaling that they're not about to let up — even it it means pushing Republicans toward another government shutdown.
Senate and House negotiators are working toward a reportedly small budget deal that would undo some of the sequester, across-the-board spending cuts that have taken a bite out of the economic recovery. But believing the odds are tilted in their favor, Democratic leaders have suggested they may insist that an extension of emergency unemployment benefits also be part of a final deal.
"We cannot, cannot support a budget agreement that does not include unemployment insurance," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said at a Thursday hearing. "It would undermine who we are as a country."
Pelosi later walked back her firm stance, saying that though she would prefer unemployment insurance to be part of the deal, "it could be separate from that." But the hard line, and the actions of other leading Democrats, nevertheless stoked the notion that the party is willing to play hard ball.
On the same day, the White House released a report touting the economic benefits of an unemployment benefits extension, and President Obama said the same in his big income inequality speech one day prior. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the party's ranking member on the House Budget Committee, directly compared the cost of an extension to the estimated $24 billion the economy lost during the last shutdown — hardly a subtle message.
A senior Democratic aide, meanwhile, told The Nation's George Zornick that the issue was "still very much in the mix" of the budget talks between Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.).
Congress authorized the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program in 2008, and has repeatedly extended it with steadily decreasing benefits. It's due to expire at the end of the year though, hence Democrats' concerted push now. And even though the House isn't known for passing Democratic-friendly legislation, Democrats think they have enough leverage to force the issue.
For one, any deal that raises spending above sequester-mandated levels would likely lose a swath of GOP support, which means Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would have to seek out Democratic votes anyway. And the more Boehner needs to rely on Democratic votes, the thinking goes, the more concessions Democrats can demand.
Plus, Republicans are eager to undo the deep cuts scheduled to hit the Defense Department next year. Though pro-defense GOPers have quietly accepted the past cuts, the next round will cut deeper, so they're now "openly itching for a budget deal," wrote New York's Jonathan Chait, "as are the Republicans who have to actually draw up the cuts to domestic spending required by sequestration."
"The Republican dissidents, combined with Democrats, form a potential majority in the House in favor of undoing sequestration," he added.
Then there's recent history. Republicans ruined their party's approval rating by forcing the October government shutdown, and they're loath to repeat that catastrophe.
"A government shutdown is off the table," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in October. "We're not going to do it."
Still, if the Democrats push too hard, Republicans could simply walk away, paving the way for another shutdown.
However, Boehner has said he would "surely entertain taking a looking at" a benefits extension, so there is at least a chance Republicans could go along with such an effort.
And there's always the possibility that all this noise will "turn out to be kabuki," wrote the Washington Post's Greg Sargent.
House Democrats are on record talking extensively about how the sequester is dragging down the recovery. So if Senate Democrats do reach a deal with Paul Ryan to replace it, and Republican leaders adamantly refuse to extend unemployment benefits, it could prove difficult for House Democrats to stand in the way of passing something easing the sequester. This would put House Dems in the position of making a very difficult choice. [Washington Post]
Democrats think they have an edge in the budget talks. We'll soon see if they truly intend to use it.
...............................................................................................................................................
An improvement on this cartoon would be having the Wall St. tycoon getting into his limousine while the poor wait for the bus (which may not even be coming)!
.....................................................................................
Tea Party Republicans going after non-TP Republicans
...............................................................................................................................................
The Tea Party’s top political targets in 2014
By Judson Phillips, December 5, 2013
2014 is shaping up as an epic battle for the Tea Party. This will not be 2010, where the fight was primarily against the Democrats. The Tea Party will have to fight the Democrats in the general election, but the Tea Party must also fight establishment Republicans who have declared war on the Tea Party.
Who are the Tea Party’s top Democratic political targets? There are three on their naughty list, but lets first start with a couple of honorable mentions:
Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins - Maine
Maine used to be known as the home of the “sell out sisters.” Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins crossed over the aisle so often to vote with the Democrats, the deserved honorary DNC memberships.
In 2012, Snowe retired and now Collins is up for reelection. Polling by liberal Public Policy Polling shows an interesting spilt among Maine Republicans. They are almost evenly divided between wanting Collins or wanting someone more conservative.
Under most circumstances that would not be good news for Collins, but at the moment she faces no serious competition in the primary.
The Tea Party is also looking for the political defeat of:
John Cornyn - Texas
Texas is a deep red state and you would expect both of its Senators to be Tea Party favorites. Ted Cruz certainly is. John Cornyn is not. Cornyn is a part of the Republican Establishment and he was one of the leaders who stabbed Cruz in the back when he led the charge against Obamacare.
While Cornyn did not get a kick back like Mitch McConnell did, he did earn the ire of conservatives, real Republicans and Tea Party activists. Unfortunately, at least for the moment he has no really serious competition. He also does not have Ted Cruz’s endorsement for reelection either.
Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander - Tennessee
Tennessee is a solidly red state. In the last decade it went from purple to solidly red. The Democrat Party, which only ten years ago controlled state government is now in a super minority. In 2012, the only Democrat who would run against “Bail Out” Bob Corker was so bad the Democrat Party disowned him.
Lamar Alexander has a voting record that would probably put him in the Democrat Party, if he were not from East Tennessee where being a Democrat is almost as much of a sin as wearing white before Memorial Day.
Alexander is a Tennessee fixture, being a former governor and now two term Senator. He has a massive war chest but also has the ire of Tea Party activists in his state. He has one competitor, Joe Carr. Carr is a Tennessee State Representative and he has a solid and impressive conservative record. He also has a grass roots group supporting him that will be working hard on the ground and getting out the vote.
Alexander has managed to fly below the radar nationally on a lot of issues, even though his voting record is much worse that more recognizable “moderate” Republicans like Lindsay Graham.
Lindsay Graham - South Carolina
South Carolina. The Establishment Republican conservatives love to hate, other than John McCain is Lindsay Graham. Graham is in such a lock step with McCain, Washington insiders jokingly call him, “the Senator from McCain.” A couple of years ago, Graham fired the first shots in the Republican Establishment war against the Tea Party. While other establishment Republicans, like Orrin Hatch, tried to make an accommodation with the Tea Party, Graham made it clear he would not.
A year ago, Graham looked unbeatable. But his favorability ratings have tanked in South Carolina and he has multiple challengers. Ordinarily, multiple challengers would not be a good thing, as the opposition vote would be split, but in South Carolina, it is a good thing. South Carolina is a run-off state so if no candidate gets a majority of the vote cast, the top to candidates go to a run-off.
Graham is now panicked and has gone into full pander mode, including recently sponsoring a fetal pain law.
The Tea Party’s top 2014 target in 2014 is none other than:
Mitch McConnell
McConnell started off his reelection effort, trying to avoid the fates of Utah Senator Bob Bennett and Indiana Senator Richard Lugar. He secured Rand Paul’s endorsement. He supported Rand Paul when he did his filibuster over drones. McConnell reached out to Tea Party groups and even secured the endorsements of a couple of national Tea Party groups.
Then he stabbed Ted Cruz in the back.
Ted Cruz stood and fought against Obamacare. That is something McConnell kept talking about but would not do. McConnell demonstrates the worst of Washington. He is the consummate dealmaker on the inside. When the fiscal cliff happened in 2011, McConnell reached out to Joe Biden and the deal the struck resulted in more government spending and higher taxes. When he sold out conservatives on the Harry Reid/Barack Obama shutdown, he got his payday in the form of a $3 billion earmark for a Kentucky damn.
McConnell has started a scorched earth policy against groups who oppose him, like the Senate Conservatives Fund. His actions have cost him the endorsement of at least one of the groups that had previously endorsed him.
For conservatives, knocking off Mitch McConnell will send a message to the Republican Party.
For the Tea Party, 2014 is a year of doing things it has never done before.
Including taking over the Republican Party.
...............................................................................................................................................
The Tea Party’s top political targets in 2014
By Judson Phillips, December 5, 2013
2014 is shaping up as an epic battle for the Tea Party. This will not be 2010, where the fight was primarily against the Democrats. The Tea Party will have to fight the Democrats in the general election, but the Tea Party must also fight establishment Republicans who have declared war on the Tea Party.
Who are the Tea Party’s top Democratic political targets? There are three on their naughty list, but lets first start with a couple of honorable mentions:
Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins - Maine
Maine used to be known as the home of the “sell out sisters.” Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins crossed over the aisle so often to vote with the Democrats, the deserved honorary DNC memberships.
In 2012, Snowe retired and now Collins is up for reelection. Polling by liberal Public Policy Polling shows an interesting spilt among Maine Republicans. They are almost evenly divided between wanting Collins or wanting someone more conservative.
Under most circumstances that would not be good news for Collins, but at the moment she faces no serious competition in the primary.
The Tea Party is also looking for the political defeat of:
John Cornyn - Texas
Texas is a deep red state and you would expect both of its Senators to be Tea Party favorites. Ted Cruz certainly is. John Cornyn is not. Cornyn is a part of the Republican Establishment and he was one of the leaders who stabbed Cruz in the back when he led the charge against Obamacare.
While Cornyn did not get a kick back like Mitch McConnell did, he did earn the ire of conservatives, real Republicans and Tea Party activists. Unfortunately, at least for the moment he has no really serious competition. He also does not have Ted Cruz’s endorsement for reelection either.
Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander - Tennessee
Tennessee is a solidly red state. In the last decade it went from purple to solidly red. The Democrat Party, which only ten years ago controlled state government is now in a super minority. In 2012, the only Democrat who would run against “Bail Out” Bob Corker was so bad the Democrat Party disowned him.
Lamar Alexander has a voting record that would probably put him in the Democrat Party, if he were not from East Tennessee where being a Democrat is almost as much of a sin as wearing white before Memorial Day.
Alexander is a Tennessee fixture, being a former governor and now two term Senator. He has a massive war chest but also has the ire of Tea Party activists in his state. He has one competitor, Joe Carr. Carr is a Tennessee State Representative and he has a solid and impressive conservative record. He also has a grass roots group supporting him that will be working hard on the ground and getting out the vote.
Alexander has managed to fly below the radar nationally on a lot of issues, even though his voting record is much worse that more recognizable “moderate” Republicans like Lindsay Graham.
Lindsay Graham - South Carolina
South Carolina. The Establishment Republican conservatives love to hate, other than John McCain is Lindsay Graham. Graham is in such a lock step with McCain, Washington insiders jokingly call him, “the Senator from McCain.” A couple of years ago, Graham fired the first shots in the Republican Establishment war against the Tea Party. While other establishment Republicans, like Orrin Hatch, tried to make an accommodation with the Tea Party, Graham made it clear he would not.
A year ago, Graham looked unbeatable. But his favorability ratings have tanked in South Carolina and he has multiple challengers. Ordinarily, multiple challengers would not be a good thing, as the opposition vote would be split, but in South Carolina, it is a good thing. South Carolina is a run-off state so if no candidate gets a majority of the vote cast, the top to candidates go to a run-off.
Graham is now panicked and has gone into full pander mode, including recently sponsoring a fetal pain law.
The Tea Party’s top 2014 target in 2014 is none other than:
Mitch McConnell
McConnell started off his reelection effort, trying to avoid the fates of Utah Senator Bob Bennett and Indiana Senator Richard Lugar. He secured Rand Paul’s endorsement. He supported Rand Paul when he did his filibuster over drones. McConnell reached out to Tea Party groups and even secured the endorsements of a couple of national Tea Party groups.
Then he stabbed Ted Cruz in the back.
Ted Cruz stood and fought against Obamacare. That is something McConnell kept talking about but would not do. McConnell demonstrates the worst of Washington. He is the consummate dealmaker on the inside. When the fiscal cliff happened in 2011, McConnell reached out to Joe Biden and the deal the struck resulted in more government spending and higher taxes. When he sold out conservatives on the Harry Reid/Barack Obama shutdown, he got his payday in the form of a $3 billion earmark for a Kentucky damn.
McConnell has started a scorched earth policy against groups who oppose him, like the Senate Conservatives Fund. His actions have cost him the endorsement of at least one of the groups that had previously endorsed him.
For conservatives, knocking off Mitch McConnell will send a message to the Republican Party.
For the Tea Party, 2014 is a year of doing things it has never done before.
Including taking over the Republican Party.
...............................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)