;)
The Commentariat -- Oct. 8, 2013
Steve Erlanger of the New York Times: "Five years after the financial crisis in the United States helped spread a deep global recession, policy makers around the world again fear collateral damage, this time with their nations becoming victims not of Wall Street's excesses but of a political system in Washington that to many foreign eyes no longer seems to be able to function efficiently." ...
... David Lauter of the Los Angeles Times: "The standoff over the government shutdown continues to damage the public's opinion of congressional Republicans, two new surveys indicate, a finding likely to deepen concern among GOP leaders about the impact the stalemate is having on their party.... Disapproval of the way congressional Republicans are 'handling negotiations over the federal budget' has jumped to 70%, a Washington Post-ABC News poll shows. The poll, taken Wednesday through Sunday, found 24% approving of the congressional GOP. The ratings have worsened significantly over the last week. A Post-ABC poll taken just before the shutdown began showed 63% of Americans disapproving of the GOP position. The reverse is true for President Obama. While approval of his handling of the budget negotiations remains tepid, it has improved since last week, the poll showed." ...
... Zachary Goldfarb of the Washington Post: "President Obama and Senate Democrats on Monday decided to try to break a political logjam that threatens the U.S. economy by advancing legislation to raise the federal debt ceiling as soon as possible.... While the White House and Senate Democrats said they would push a $1 trillion bill that would authorize borrowing for a year or longer, they suggested they would accept a short-term bill, perhaps lasting only weeks, if necessary to avoid a default.... In a separate development on the seventh day of the shutdown, a bill to retroactively pay furloughed federal employees once it ends hit a snag in the Senate, where some Republicans may seek to amend the legislation with other proposals thus far ignored by the Democratic majority." ...
... Joan McCarter of Daily Kos: "A clean debt ceiling hike by the Senate ... would be a critical 'put up or shut up' moment for Senate Republicans. Would they really filibuster a debt ceiling hike? Sen. John Cornyn [R-Texas] is suggesting they might by saying a clean hike would never get through the Senate. That's after he said, back in January, 'You sometimes try to inject a little doubt in your negotiating partner about where you're going to go, but I would tell you unequivocally that we're not going to default.' That's pretty unequivocally showing your cards." ...
... "Dem Cracks Open in Debt Limit Fight." Manu Raju of Politico: "Just as top Senate Democrats began to lay the groundwork to raise the U.S. government's borrowing limit through 2014, senior White House officials refused to rule out a short-term increase. The divergent messages caused major heartburn for top Senate Democrats and gave Republicans fresh hope that they could defeat a yearlong debt ceiling hike and win concessions from President Barack Obama in this fall's fiscal battles." MAG & I discussed this briefly in yesterday's thread. ...
... Sahil Kapur of TPM: "White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that lifting the debt ceiling will be non-negotiable for as long as Barack Obama is president":
Whether it's today, or a number of weeks from now, or a number of months from now, or a number of years from now, it will always be Congress's responsibility to raise our debt ceiling so that the United States can pay the bills that Congress has incurred. It will always be, as long as he's president, President Obama's position that that responsibility is not negotiable. That there's not a game of trading for political priorities or agenda items that Republicans have not been able to achieve through legislation or the ballot box. -- Jay Carney
... Paul Waldman of American Prospect: "So far all the demanding has been done on the GOP side. Carney's assertion is "a good start, but how about this. As part of the resolution to the crisis, Obama should demand that whatever agreement they come to include eliminating the debt ceiling. Not raise it, blast it to oblivion." CW: The President can't possibly do this until after the GOP ends the shutdown & raises the debt ceiling. For the President to make any demands would be hypocritical. The President's whole point is that keeping the government open is non-negotiable. Waldman ignores that fundamental principle. ...
... Bob Cusack of the Hill: "House Republicans who have said they are open to supporting a 'clean' government funding bill are not interested in forcing a vote on such a measure.... House GOP leaders strongly discourage their members to sign discharge petitions, which is seen as undercutting their authority. CW: So Boehner is not giving Republicans a wink & a nod, tacitly okaying their signing the Democratic discharge petition, as I thought he very well might. He's dumber than I thought. Krugman is right about the Incompetent Party. ...
... "'House of Indecision.'" Jonathan Strong & Robert Costa of the National Review: "House Republican leaders met today at the Capitol, but they made little progress toward solving the fiscal crisis, or calming the GOP's growing tensions. They remain undecided on the contours of a potential deal, and on how to sell one, especially to the conference's bloc of skeptical conservatives. 'It's the House of indecision,' says a weary Republican aide.... 'We don't have the votes for a big deal, small deal, or short-term deal.'" ...
... AND. Robert Costa: "Speaker John Boehner may be trying to finalize a plan to raise the debt limit, but House conservatives are already skeptical of his efforts. In interviews, several of them tell me they're unlikely to support any deal that may emerge." ...
... John Stanton of BuzzFeed has one of the plans House Republicans are considering -- they will tie non-furloughed federal employee paychecks to a demand for negotiations with Democrats. CW: That's right; they are holding hostage the paychecks of federal employees who are working during the shutdown -- a shutdown the GOP caused. "Dear FEMA Worker: Thanks for your heroic service during the floods & fires & all. Unless you can get President Obama to do everything we want -- including cutting your future benefits -- we're holding your paycheck. Love, John & Eric & the Other Guy." In-fucking-credible. ...
... Digby: "The lunatics are running the asylum now, the revanchist movement is in full swing, and the Lost Cause is the name of the game.... Nothing less than a full-on attack on Fort Sumpter will do." ...
I think we need to have that moment where we realize [we're] going broke. I think, personally, it would bring stability to the world markets. -- Ted Yoho (RTP-Fla.)
Ted Yoho of Florida ... is quickly replacing Steve King and Louie Gohmert as the congressman to whom reporters flock for the jaw-dropping quotes so beloved by Twitter. -- David Firestone of the New York Times
** David Firestone: "That the very people who are causing the crisis are dismissing it shows the double game that's being played here. Republicans don't want the country to understand how big a threat they are posing to its well-being.... If people truly understood how bad a default would be -- if they understood credit markets and interest rates, and how they would be affected by the global loss of faith in Treasury bonds -- the anger would be much greater, and Republican control of the House would be threatened. In the cynical game of spin and messaging that this crisis has become, the goal is to scare Washington Democrats while keeping ordinary people calm." ...
... ** Jonathan Bernstein: "... Republicans are essentially charging admission -- that is, policy concessions -- as a price for beginning negotiations on the budget. Democrats are right to refuse." CW: Think about that. House Republicans are saying, "We won't negotiate until you give us everything we want." ...
... Washington Post Editors: "What have House Republicans managed to accomplish in a week of government shutdown? Damage the livelihood of millions of Americans? Check.... Waste billions of taxpayer dollars? Check.... Interfere with key government operations? Check.... Rattle the markets, slow an economy in recovery, interrupt potentially lifesaving research at the National Institutes of Health? Check, check and check. Derail the hated Obamacare? Ch... -- oh, no, wait a minute.... At some point, Mr. Obama and the Democrats will have to throw the speaker a lifeline.... But throwing a lifeline is pointless until the victim realizes he may be drowning." ...
... CW: The WashPo is still the WashPo, even when the editors are better than half-right. Since when did etiquette demand that hostages toss little gifts to kidnappers as they are making their escape? House Democrats already did send Republicans two lifelines: they agreed to a Republican-drawn CR & they are now floating a discharge petition. Republicans prefer to drown unless the lifeline is made of golden braid. ...
... Ezra Klein: "The 13 reasons Washington Is Failing." CW: Quite a good list, with explanations. (I don't agree with Klein's premise that Democrats have moved left -- I think he'd have a hard time supporting it.) Maybe you'd like to add to it. ...
... CW: This Politico story by Eric Isenstadt is interesting because it shows how a slick winger can get away with talking out of two sides of his mouth. It seems Appalachian Trail Guy -- who is among the Tea Party hardliners who precipitated the shutdown -- also represents a district that is heavily dependent upon federal funds. So at a Saturday townhall, the natives were restless. Sanford "tried to assuage constituents' concerns, saying that no one liked the idea of shutting down the government. And criticized his own party, saying that he thought House Republicans had overplayed their hand when it came to their push to defund Obamacare.... But Sanford also held firm on his opposition to a 'clean' budget measure that does not try to defund or weaken the Affordable Care Act. [Emphasis added.] He argued that the budget debate gave Republicans a forum to express concerns about the implementation of Obamacare.... And, more importantly, he said it gave them an opportunity to raise broader questions about government spending. Passing a short-term continuing resolution, he said, wouldn't address the country's long-term fiscal problems." ...
... Jane Perlez & Joe Cochrane of the New York Times: "Secretary of State John Kerry replaced President Obama at the opening of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting on Monday, leaving China's president, Xi Jinping, as the dominant leader at a gathering devoted to achieving greater economic integration." ... The absence of Mr. Obama, who canceled to try to resolve the government shutdown in Washington, was repeatedly noted at the conference.... 'In 2004, obviously, I worked very, very hard to replace a president,' Mr. Kerry told his audience, referring to his unsuccessful campaign against President George W. Bush. 'This is not what I had in mind.' ... Mr. Obama had planned to use personal persuasion to push forward negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade bloc that is led by the United States and that excludes China." ...
... Eric Wemple of the Washington Post: "Fox & Friends" "journalist" Anna Kooiman repeats as true a satirical story that President Obama was paying out of his own pocket to keep a Muslim museum open. CW: This obviously was a spoof on Prince Rebus, who held up a big RNC check which was to cover keeping the WWII Memorial open. If you work for Fox "News," you don't see anything ridiculous about the RNC's publicity stunt, so it doesn't occur to you that anyone would make fun of it. Also, you might be too fucking stoopid to grasp the concept of satire. On that same note, see P. D. Pepe's comment late in yesterday's thread on Ted Cruz's supposed come-to-Jesus moment. Lefties like Chris Hedges can be stoopid, too. One of the many downsides of extremism is that it causes you to lose your sense of humor.
Michael Shear & Robert Pear of the New York Times: "The technical problems that have hampered enrollment in the online health insurance exchanges resulted from the failure of a major software component, designed by private contractors, that crashed under the weight of millions of users last week, federal officials said Monday." CW: See also SNL Weekend Update in the October 6 Commentariat. ...
... Jon Stewart challenges HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on the ObamaCare rollout:
Max Rivlin-Nadler of Gawker: "... while our congress is busy shutting itself down because it's run by soulless opportunists, the Swiss people have gathered enough signatures to force a referendum on whether they should guarantee $2800 in monthly income for all adults." Thanks to Kate M. for the lead.
Nina Totenberg of NPR: "The U.S. Supreme Court returns to the campaign finance fray on Tuesday, hearing arguments in a case that could undercut most of the remaining rules that limit big money in politics." ...
... Lee Fang of the Nation of the right's more far-reaching goal in the campaign finance case -- to dismantle "a whole host of anti-bribery
Adam Liptak of the New York Times: "On the first day of its new term, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case arising from one of the most brazen frauds in recent history, the $7 billion Ponzi scheme orchestrated by R. Allen Stanford.... The question for the justices was whether ... state suits were proper in light of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, a 1998 federal law that was meant to stop end runs around the protections offered to defendants under federal law. The 1998 law bars many state-law class actions based on asserted fraud 'in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security.'" ...
... Here's Robert Barnes' explanation of the issue, which is perhaps a little clearer. Also this from Barnes's WashPo story: "Among the cases the justices declined to hear was a request from Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) that it revive the commonwealth's anti-sodomy law, which was struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit." The AP has more. CW: The case involved an adult male soliticing oral sex from a 17-year-old girl, not -- as I presumed before reading the AP report -- gay sex.
U.S. News: "Tractor-trailer drivers will intentionally clog the inner loop of the Washington, D.C., beltway beginning on the morning of Oct. 11, according to a coordinator of the upcoming "Truckers Ride for the Constitution" rally. Organizers of the three-day ride want to call attention to a litany of trucker frustrations and express their disapproval of national political leaders." CW: No, these truckers aren't upset about the government shutdown & looming debt crisis; they're more into arresting President Obama & Leader Pelosi & Sen. Feinstein for "treason." It sounds as if they have plans to take MOCs by force. ...
... Hunter of Daily Kos: "Nothing screams conservatism quite like trying to cripple various parts of America in order to make an incoherent point you heard from some delusional radio shitstain...." ...
... Charles Pierce: "I was just saying the other day that the one thing that American politics needs these days is a bunch of nutballs in really big vehicles." AND Pierce calls our attention to this blogpost from one of the mothertruckers' chief organizers:
Reply by Earl Conlon yesterday: i've always believed Obama to be the Anti Christ from the day i first laid eyes one him.. not to mention the dreams i have had for the past 15 years showing me a man in office who i've never heard of before. then comes 2008 and the dreams get more detailed and intense... you figure it out..maybe i am crazy?
Local News
Jennifer Medina of the New York Times: "Breaking with Democrats in the State Legislature, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill on Monday that would have made California the first state to allow immigrants who are not citizens to serve on juries, saying that the responsibility should come only with citizenship."
Share Article
Reader Comments (18)
Had a thought about Republican incompetence yesterday, which I sent on to the Times, in which I suggested the incompetent party might not be as dysfunctional as Krugman claimed (for purposes of a catchy column only perhaps?). For incompetents, the R's seem pretty good at getting much of what they want, despite their minority status. Previous negotiations (the sequester now designates the current budget baseline, remember?) have worked our pretty well for them, after all.
Tonight Chris Hayes and J. Chait of the New Yorker posited that our constitution, which enshrines divided government, might be the problem. Certainly it's part of it; it at least makes today's D.C. theater possible. But the bigger factor at work here is the current R's disdain for government. They, or least their gun-toting, God-fearing, plutocrat masters don't like it much and strongly believe that the parts of it they don't like--everything from the ACA to Social Security to environmental or gun regulation, to worker and voter rights--should be snuffed out of existence. That's why they believe they were elected.
The mistake many pundits make is to think the R's really want to govern, when in fact, those who harbor the view that government is the source of all evil might well find shutting down the government the most effective governance of all. When we attempt to make "sense" of their behavior, we are likely missing the point. You don't have to make sense in the way most of us would define it to be a good Republican; my guess, in fact, is that making sense gets in the way.
And if the House R's don't toe the nonsensical line, they know their masters will spend as much as they need to replace them in the next election, only a little more than one year away. With elections every two years, a House R. always feels his or her possible replacement breathing down his neck. In those circumstances, it's hard to break ranks.
I hope it doesn't, but this silly drama could go on for a long time.
Anyone scanning reader comments—whether on HuffPost, NYT, WaPo, et al—will see that a common theme is "2014, Vote the @#$%'s Out" and let's all return to sanity!
I also see comments decrying the potential voters who-don't-know/don't-care/likely don't-vote/ and/or appear to vote against what is in their best interest. Yes, it is frustrating, BUT...if you don't get out the vote what recently happened in Ireland will be repeated here.
On October 4th, it appeared a shoe-in according to the IRISH INDEPENDENT: "Latest opinion polls suggest a majority of voters will back Taoiseach Enda Kenny's call to get rid of the Seanad, or Senate, in a historic move that would hand power exclusively to the Dail."
October 5 (ABCNews): "Ireland Voters Reject Plan to Abolish Senate" [DUBLIN October 5, 2013 (AP)]
October 6 (WSJOnline) "Irish Vote Saves Senate, Puts Cuts at Risk, Poll Is a Rebuff to Prime Minister Ahead of Budget Rollout"
If voters don't show up (which the 'majority' didn't), it doesn't matter what the polls show.
@Ken Winkes: Maybe you should have thought thru that thought before you shared it. If you read Krugman's column closely &/or the related blogpost I linked earlier, you'd have realized he was serious, not writing a "catchy column," & that he provided evidence for his POV.
Republicans do want to govern: they want to tell women what they can & cannot do with their own bodies; they want to tell gays what they can & cannot do & with whom they can & cannot do it; they want to introduce Christianity into every law in our "Christian nation," blah-blah.
What they don't want to do is help lazy moochers, although they reluctantly help the lazy old moochers who are their base (tho of course they continually try to trick the lazy old moochers into giving up their moocher benefits). They do want to help the lazy moochers who are their lobbyist enablers, whether bankers or government contractors or other big corporations. They do want to help themselves -- bloviating lazy moochers all.
Yes, they have been successful in cutting back government since the 2010 elections, & that success is partly the result of the election itself & partly the result of Democrats (as well as the GOP leadership) of badly reading how wacko the tiny faction is & how sick & selfish their base is. It took awhile, but finally everybody but Dan Balz (& probably Judy Woodruff -- haven't watched PBS News lately) & the most die-hard bipartisany news "analysts" get it. In some districts, GOP candidates are coming forward to challenge the wacko birds from the left, just as Lisa Murkowski successfully did in a write-in campaign in Alaska.
Also see the Chait post linked here a few days ago.
Marie
It occurred to me this morning as I opened my newspaper that I have not seen a headline citing Nancy Pelosi in the past few weeks. On reflection I think that her absence from the news must reflect her considered judgment that, in the current climate, an active visible role on her part would be counterproductive, given the visceral public dislike many right-wing spinners can generate from anything she says or does.
When she was elected Speaker at the beginning of the Obama administration, I believed that the D's had made a big strategic mistake -- precisely because she was such a flak-catcher symbol of "bleeding heart liberalism," feminism (whatever that means to the right), California values, etc. And, over the course of the next two years, the right wing did push every stereotype button to demonize her, and run against her, and it worked. We certainly can't have a female Speaker and a black President!
But ... during her Speakership, the list of legislative accomplishments is long and meaningful -- and her successor's is either zero or negative, depending on how you count.
I think her current silence indicates how smart and capable she is, and that she knows that her visible engagement in the current madness would just hand the whackos more poo to fling.
So ... I guess I am commenting on a story that isn't there! But I am really impressed by her ability to govern, even by strategically keeping quiet. Too bad that she is not really a potential candidate for 2016.
@Patrick: Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House for 4 years. He was never Minority Leader. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker for 4 years; she has been Minority Leader since January 2011. She is the first woman to hold either post.
Newt Gingrich was on the cover of Time magazine 4 times during his speakership, including the cover in which Time named him "Man of the Year." (Yes, as late as 1995, Time was still naming a Man of the Year.)
Nancy Pelosi has been on the cover of Time zero times. She was never their person of the year in spite of her status as the country's most powerful woman.
Pelosi has been in the news recently, if not on the front page. Her discharge petition has made headlines & I've seen her frequently quoted. But the stars of this sorry show are Boehner, (co-Speaker Cruz,) Obama & Reid.
As you say, Pelosi is just doing her job, herding nearly her full 200-member caucus into agreeing to vote for a CR that none of them likes. The contrast between the rudderless, leaderless House GOP & the cohesive House Democrats is a major reason Krugman & others can call out Republicans for their utter incompetence.
The only way Boehner & his team can get House Republicans to agree is by picking fights with Obama -- they're in near-100-percent agreement that if Obama has anything to do with a bill, they're against it. (Hey, let's take another vote to abolish ObamaCare!) Pelosi, by contrast, can get Democrats to agree to vote for something, even when they don't particularly like it.
Marie
Marie,
It struck me, while reading your response to Patrick's post about Pelosi, that the dynamic we're seeing now used to be reversed somewhat. It used to be the Democrats who appeared disorganized and rather undisciplined with their message(s) and the Republicans who marched in rigid totalitarian lock step, efficiently dispatching any member who didn't toe the line.
Today it's the Republicans who are running like rats around a maze and the Democrats who are carefully crafting their message and biding their time (at least they better be!). The major difference, of course, is that a decade ago many Democrats were working toward different goals not simply looking for a way to blow shit up.
They weren't influenced by a psychotic minority as much as they were by the pathology of a group that tended to see many different points of view. The current GOP sees only one thing: they cannot, under pain of death to the country, allow that despised nee-groe to "win".
It doesn't matter that what the president is doing is right, that his is the only constitutionally valid position, and that a "win" for that position is a win for the nation as a going concern; nor does it matter that "win" for them could mean enormous pain and suffering for millions, recession, job losses, defaulting on debt repayments, crashing of domestic markets along with the detonation of markets and money centers around the globe.
Nope. That shit don't matter to these yo-yos.
And to pick up on Ken's point, they have no interest in governing. They HATE government (yet another gift from the Gipper--hey, let's let people who detest government run it! Great idea!) and so don't see the value in learning the finer points of governance. This is why terrorists like Cruz and Lil' Randy have been able to force their issues after just a few months on the job. The "job" for them isn't running the government. It's running it into the ground.
And it IS a game for them. And one they mean to win no matter what. Their leaders, Cruz, Paul, Boehner, the house 'baggers, all subscribe to the image of what a rather stunted and immature 12 year old has of a rugged he-man. Someone who never backs down, even if his enemies burn his house, kill his wife, shoot his neighbors, stab his dog, torture his kids, and piss on their graves. Nope. He is NOT gonna turn that TV down, no matter what. FREEDOM! U-S-A, baby!
This sort of mindset--and hate, of course--is what is driving those moronic truckers who think they have to demonstrate their manliness by doing something. Even something stupid. I mean, if your image of a stand-up person is a talk radio drooler, than you have a lot more problems than what to do about the ACA.
This is comic book stuff. No, wait. I take that back. Comic books are far more sophisticated and realistic in their depiction of what it means to be brave and wise.
And it looks nothing the current adolescent teabagging jerks.
So even though the stand-off is still being portrayed in some quarters as both sides holding their breath until they turn blue, the discipline of the current crop of Democrats under the leadership of the president, Reid, and Pelosi, is prompting them to hold fast for the best reason possible. To prevent the evil kiddies from the Lord of the Flies from blowing up the island.
The other day some outlet, I think it may have been Salon or maybe Esquire, published a rogues' gallery of the dirty thirty who are holding the country hostage at the point of a toy gun. I already knew this, on some level, but I was struck again by how many of them are from the South.
I think part of the reason for their hatred of the guvmint might be a remnant from the Civil War. Anyone who's driven through the South sees plenty of stars and bars, a symbol, for many, of intransigence, fierce resentment, and of holding fast to the past.
I wonder how much of the current teabagger mindset is influenced by their desire to fight that war again, and this time to "win". And beating that uppity nee-groe in the White House would be a sweet deal into the bargain, wouldn't it?
Sean Wilentz, one of my favorite historians, has a piece in the NYT today. "The White House, along with Tribe [Lawrence Tribe, Obama's former professor and noted one of the best constitutional lawyers] has rightly pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not give the president the power to raise the debt limit summarily."
"But arguing that the president lacks authority under the amendment to halt a default does not mean the executive lacks any authority in the matter. As Abraham Lincoln well knew, the executive, in times of national crisis, can invoke emergency powers to protect the Constitution."
The link to this interesting piece is below
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/opinion/obamas-options.html?ref=todayspaper
Who else finds it amusing that the Post, the Washington fucking Post, is now railing, in an editorial, about the ill effects of the Republican Shutdown? These guys have had opportunities galore, I mean, like you read about (or not), over the last three or four years to pull the curtain back on these poltroons. They're just now getting it? Hey guys, here's some coffee. Finally woke up, eh?
But I see now why Nino (ready for the rocking chair) Scalia derides the Post--retirement home for failed neo-con charlatans and former Bush lie writers--as a hotbed of furious liberal whackos.
I guess if you, every few years or so, run a piece that makes sense, you're nothing but a dirty commie traitor by Scalia's lights.
Good thing he believes in Satan. That way, the next time he fucks over millions of Americans, he can say the devil made him do it.
He says he didn't know? This might explain his heartlessness.
Recovering from quadruple bypass surgery, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla) said, "The discovery shocked me as I had no visible symptoms that something was wrong,"
His spokesperson explained, "Two of Inhofe's arteries were 100 percent blocked, a second was at 90 percent, and a fourth had 75 percent blockage..."
Now if they find blockage of his brain at the next checkup, it could explain his obtuseness!
Agree, CW, there was more to Krugman's piece than a desire to write a catchy column (tho' with his twice a week deadline, sometimes I wonder), but for all of us the bare bones of argument remain evidence and definition.
To make a case, we define terms and select evidence to support the position we have in mind. In a rational world, if we hope to be persuasive, both the definition we choose and evidence we select must match reality. In the Krugman case, I chose to define "govern" in a way I thought closer to the reality and intent of the R's behavior. On the one hand we have their evident distaste for and inability to grapple with the challenges of making the mechanisms of our democracy work. We can call that incompetence, as Krugman did, if we will. But on the other hand, we have all their accomplished negatives of their cynical disregard for the common good--you named some--that suggest to me they're doing a pretty good job of meeting many of their goals by appearing to be incapable of doing anything.
I would go even further to suggest that part of their "not governing" is active and deliberate. They know that in a functioning democracy their mean minority views don't stand a chance, so they do not hesitate to gum up the works in any way they can. All the "Tenther" and secession talk is no accident; nor is the Right's extreme gerrymandering or the backlash they are encouraging against direct election of senators. I would put their mindless anti-tax movement in the same category. The R's would like to "starve the beast" for a reason.
Maybe the mild difference between the way we looked at Krugman's column about Republican "competence," was in what the word "govern" called to mind. Krugman thought of governing more in the sense of managing the national government's vast mechanisms; I thought of it as the R's getting what they wanted, even if they often seemed to be boobs while doing it; you properly suggest a series of people and things these authoritarian dimwits would dearly like to control. I can't see that any one of us is "wrong."
And on your observation that folks are finally beginning to see how sick and wacko so many of the Right's base are and--from pundits to voters-- are beginning to do something about it, God knows, I hope you're "right."
Of course Scalia believes in Satan. He is the leader of doing Satan's bidding. However, Scalia knows him by his other name, Pluto, the Prince of Darkness. This is why secrecy ,deception, anonymity in political finance and manipulation are so dear to him.
Interesting piece about peoples' political beliefs and feelings of superiority.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131007112113.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A
Carl Hiassen in the "Miami Herald" on Boehner's Empty Suit:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/05/3670263/carl-hiaasen-boehners-empty-suit.html
It seems the Tea Party just doesn't understand the ramifications of a default. Maybe we need to explain it to them in terms they can understand:
"You don't pay your Visa bill on time, Your interest rate goes up."
A Lot!
This comment is from Unwashed:
With today’s conversation mentioning the continuing budget impasse, Lincoln, Reagan, the South I thought I’d jump in for a change.
I missed an opportunity last night to see the Master Ratfucker (dba Karl Rove) spew the Repugnican lies to the base base. He was the keynote speaker at – get this – The Tuscaloosa County Republican Lincoln-Reagan Dinner. How they can use Lincoln and Reagan in the same title is beyond me. It must be some other Lincoln, surely not the same one that let their property loose and started the Civil War. This dinner was held in a member’s-only lounge that’s part of the stadium at the University of Alabama, home of the SEC champion football team, the Crimson Tide.
It’s a good thing that I didn’t go after all. I don’t think my Linda Blair imitation would have been well received, projectile vomiting and head spinning after every utterance from the Ratfucker about our President’s lack of leadership, unwillingness to negotiate, blah, blah, blah. Here’s the link from this morning’s paper about the mendacious event: Here's the link. Party pictures are available in the sidebar window.
As a Yankee who has a weekly commute down here to work, I’ve gained a perspective on the hypocrisy of peoples’ positions about the guvvamint infringing on the personnel freedom. (At least I’m not a damn Yankee because they’re the ones that don’t leave.) When it’s in their favor, they’re all for stretching their hands out for federal help and dollars. Case in point – In April of 2011 there was a tornado that went through the middle of the city cutting a huge swath of destruction and killing 40-some people in the city. Naturally, the nasty guvvamint was called upon to help bailout the freedom-lovers. How much? Only a measly $16.6M portion of FEMA’s 2011 available funds PLUS $43.9M from HUD from the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 signed into law by the hated knee-grow president after Hurricane Sandy.
“In the last two years, many communities have had to deal with the reality of our changing climate and the increasing severity of natural disasters,” said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan in a news release announcing the funds. “HUD is continuing to work closely with state and local partners to help them realize a locally driven vision for restoring and rebuilding housing, infrastructure and businesses that have been affected.”
Climate change? Who is he fuckin’ trying to kid? There’s no such thing! Here's the link. Funny there’s no problem having another black guy handing out the money in the picture. Read the comments to the article for further enlightenment. Definitely not on par with RC.
Oh yea, back to football, the raison d'être besides huntin’, fishin’, and pickup truckin’ down he-yah. How much profit did the Tide make last year? Coincidently, $45.1M out of $82M in revenue. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jan/06/football-revenue-has-rocketed-since/
Who says hypocrisy doesn’t pay?
Unwashed
The attorney arguing for deregulation of campaign financing says, "That's just a scare tactic, replies Bopp. They can't point to a single instance where this has ever happened. That tells you that this is just rank speculation." (from Totenberg link) The "this" being the relationship between campaign money and corruption. See Governors Blagojevich and Ryan, not too mention McDonnell.
So the argument is based on the absence of fraud and corruption linked to campaign contributions.
Similarly, the argument that was embraced by the Court majority to gut the Civil Rights Act was based on the absence of minority voter suppression.
The facts do not support either assertion. Since facts have no place in the decisions of the Court majority, they will likely be eager to lift any regulations for campaign finance limits and finish the job begun with Citizens United.
The conservative activism is breathtaking. There is no limitations on these pathetic pukes, either internally or externally. The bedrock of the democracy, one man-one vote, lies in the hands of Kennedy, a self aggrandizing not-so-bright Justice, who landed in this position as the result of an addled 3rd rate actor.