Republicans In crisis and a Nation and a Democracy on the Sacrificial Alter

Will Republicans Cause a Debt Default?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 40.0%
  • No

    Votes: 6 60.0%

  • Total voters
    10
  • Poll closed .
All the old Republican lies and some new ones about Obamacare are surfacing as part of the Republican effort to end healthcare insurance for millions of Americans. Last week I kept hearing Republicans say that multibillionaire and legendary investor and businessman Warren Buffet said Obamacare should be scraped. And Joe Scarborough repeated it this morning on his morning show. Well that just didn’t sound like Warren Buffet so I did a little investigating. It turns out; this is just another Republican Obamcare lie. Politifact gives it a “Pants on Fire” classification.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...rs-say-warren-buffett-recently-turned-agains/

Given all of the persistent and repeated Republican lies regarding Obamacare it is little wonder so many people are confused and that is why Republicans and their financial sponsors have and continue to spend so much money into lying and keeping people confused. But their days are numbered. People will soon learn the truth about Obamacare much to the chagrin of Republicans and their financial sponsors.
 
Beltway Cowboys

It's a Showdown in the No Man's Land

A skeleton outline of a drama.

Niels Lesniewski reports on the Senate GOP response to Sens. Cruz (R-TX) and Lee (R-UT) pushing for what would amount to a filibuster of the House Republican Continuing Resolution to keep the federal government open for business.

Cruz has been calling on fellow Republicans to block the House-passed stopgap spending bill that defunds the president’s 2010 health care law because he sees the vote as a way to prevent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., from stripping out the Obamacare funding blockade.

But a GOP-led filibuster puts many Republicans in the tough spot of opposing a bill they actually support while also likely causing a government shutdown. Any vote to filibuster is likely to come before Reid moves to strike the Obamacare defunding language.

“Sen. McConnell supports the House Republicans’ bill and will not vote to block it, since it defunds Obamacare and funds the government without increasing spending by a penny. He will also vote against any amendment that attempts to add Obamacare funding back into the House Republicans’ bill,” said Don Stewart, spokesman for the Kentucky Republican. “If and when the Majority Leader goes down that path, Washington Democrats will have to decide — without hiding behind a procedural vote — whether or not to split with their leadership and join Republicans and their constituents in opposing the re-insertion of Obamacare funding into the House-passed bill.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is up for re-election and faces a tea party challenge, didn’t mince words about the problem with the tactics being employed by his fellow GOP senators.

“I think we’ll take up the House bill because it’s a good bill. I can’t imagine filibustering the bill that I like from the House. There will be a vote to take out the defunding of Obamacare. It will be a majority vote,” Graham said Monday on Fox News. “And I’m hoping some Democrats will side with all Republicans to keep the defunding in place, but I doubt it” ....

.... Some Senate Republicans do not support the underlying House bill but may vote with Democrats against a filibuster — a situation that has made the expected test vote harder to predict.

For example, Sen. Tom Coburn, who has argued that Republicans should insist on a post-sequester spending level of $967 billion for the next fiscal year, said Sunday that Cruz and his colleagues are distracting from what should be “the real focus.”

“So the real issue is we’re not talking about something that Republicans can win on, which is, for the first time since the end of the Korean War we will have actually decreased discretionary spending in this country two years in a row, which is a real achievement, and we haven’t even touched the surface of the waste and fraud that is out there,” the Oklahoma Republican said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Coburn has an assortment of like-minded lawmakers on the funding question. Six senators joined with Coburn and Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., on a letter calling on Reid to put a CR at the $967 billion level.

What has frustrated some dedicated fiscal conservatives is that a few tea-party-affiliated groups have conceded in private correspondence with other conservatives that they’re less concerned with spending levels than about cutting funding for Obamacare. Tea Party Patriots is one such group, demonstrating a commitment to the defunding effort at the expense of having the broader spending debate.

There are groups siding with Coburn and company, however. The National Taxpayers Union, for instance, sent a letter to senators last week highlighting what they view as the importance of the $967 billion spending level.

“Attempts by Congress to peg spending above this level would result in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issuing a sequester order within 15 days of the end of the current session. While it is true that taxpayers might yet achieve the savings they so urgently need, temporarily postponing the cuts and relying on the sequestration mechanism would give government agencies less time to adjust to the spending limits imposed by the law,” NTU Vice President Brandon Arnold wrote.

On a related note, Sen. Mike Lee Lee invoked the Revolutionary War earlier this evening. "I would remind your listeners out there that the Revolutionary War was fought and won with the support from what was initially a minority within a minority of Americans," the Utah Republican told radio host Mark Levin before asserting a popular majority against Obamacare.

Meanwhile, the inevitable suggestion arose last week:

This morning's House vote notwithstanding, we have a reasonably good sense of what's expected to happen in Washington over the next 10 days. But if Democrats were prepared to play a little hardball, the story could take an interesting turn or two.

House Republicans have sent over their stop-gap measure, which defunds the Affordable Care Act while keeping government spending at sequestration levels. Senate Democrats are expected to fix the Obamacare provision, leave the rest of the bill intact, and send it back with very little time left on the clock. At that point, House Republicans will either grudgingly pass the Senate version and renew their crusade during a debt-ceiling crisis, or shut down the government.

But Senate Democrats could, if they wanted to, pursue a better deal for themselves -- and for the country.

There are no rules binding the upper chamber to the House GOP's continuing resolution. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could just as easily throw the House bill in the trash or bring to the Senate floor, watch it fail, and then throw it in the trash. The focus for months has been on the provisions related to defunding the federal health care law, but there are other elements of the House bill the Senate majority could reject, too.

Indeed, there's a case to be made that Dems are missing an opportunity here.

Senate Democrats could, for example, push for a spending measure that scraps the House GOP's Obamacare plan and simultaneously fixes the sequestration policy that's hurting the country. No one can defend the sequester -- it was designed, after all, to impose mindless hardship nationwide -- so some Senate Republicans might even go along.

If the Senate minority balked and mounted a filibuster, they'd be responsible for a government shutdown. If Senate Republicans backed off, Democrats could pass a better bill -- better for economic growth, better for job creation, better for struggling families, better for law enforcement, better for medical research, better for firefighters, etc.

And at that point, House Republicans would face an interesting dilemma.


(Benen)

To say the least, but come on, these are Democrats we're talking about, right?

Right?

Senate Democrats are urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to be aggressive in the standoff over a government shutdown with House Republicans.

They say Reid should counter the House Republican government funding bill by not only stripping language defunding ObamaCare, but by increasing funding for the rest of the government.

Democrats say Reid can afford to go on offense against Republicans given their division, and polls that show most voters would blame them if the government shuts down.

“We’re going to try to get as high a CR level as we can get,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking member of the Democratic caucus, referring to the stop-gap spending measure. “We are not going to be held hostage.

“We think it should be higher than the $988 [billion] level, absolutely. But we’re not going to have a negotiation that deals with extraneous issues,” he added. “We’re going to negotiate to get as a high a level as possible.”

But the first step for Democrats, Schumer said, is to remove the ObamaCare issue from the government funding resolution ....

.... Democrats want the Senate to adopt a higher number because it would serve as a precedent for boosting government funding levels for the rest of fiscal year 2014.

House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters earlier this month that he could not support the funding level set by the House-passed continuing resolution.

“I am not going to vote to continue the sequester,” he said. “I believe it is inimical to the interests of the United States of America — to our government, to our economy and to our national security.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said Congress must take action to reverse the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration.

“Sequestration is an absolute disaster. It’s causing enormous harm right now. It will continue to cause enormous harm,” he said.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said “sequestration is stupidity on steroids.”

He says the longer the sequester stays in effect, the worse the impact will be on military readiness and medical research.

A Senate Republican aide minimized the importance of the funding level in the continuing resolution, arguing that the 2011 Budget Control Act takes precedence.


(Bolton)

And there you are; the discussion suddenly moves to including a paragraph in the CR that undoes the BCA.

Really. I mean, if Republicans are willing to write an entire anti-abortion wish list into a state budget, why not simply undo the sequester in the CR and then try to have an intelligent discussion?

Oh, right. Cruz. Lee. Tea Party. Speaker In Name Only. GOP. Intelligent discussion appears to have been excluded from the platform.
____________________

Notes:

Lesniewski, Niels. "Senate GOP Prepares to Shoot Down Cruz’s Obamacare Strategy". #WGDB. September 23, 2013. RollCall.com. September 23, 2013. http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/senate-gop-prepares-rebuke-cruz-obamacare-strategy/

—————. "Mike Lee Likens Obamacare Fight to Revolutionary War". #WGDB. September 23, 2013. RollCall.com. September 23, 2013. http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/mike-lee-likens-obamacare-fight-to-revolutionary-war/

Benen, Steve. "If Dems wanted to play hardball, they could". The Maddow Blog. September 20, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. September 23, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/09/20/20604020-if-dems-wanted-to-play-hardball-they-could

Bolton, Alexander. "Democrats push Reid to get more aggressive in shutdown battle". The Hill. September 21, 2013. TheHill.com. September 23, 2013. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/323803-democrats-push-reid-to-get-aggressive-in-shutdown-fight-
 
All Wars are Started by the Defenders?

Cruz von Clausewitz

The thing about legislatures is that, even when something interesting does actually happen, it's still boring to watch. To the other, though, as the real drama happens in the narratives, perhaps that's the reason Republicans are having such trouble communicating their vision, although when I say it's a matter of literacy, I mean something far more complex than whether or not one "knows how to read". Functional literacy is one thing, but we can save ourselves the anasethetic limbo-state of actually watching C-SPAN by attending Dave Weigel's sketch of yesterday's posturing:

So: This afternoon, the Senate opened with a series of votes to tee up the cloture on the CR. Under normal Senate rules (Rule 22, if you want to check), after 60 votes are secured for cloture, amendments can be passed by a simple majority.

Knowing this, Cruz asked for unanimous consent on the House's CR. You read that right: He asked every senator to agree that the House's CR, the one that defunded Obamacare, was hereby approved. Every senator did not agree with this. Harry Reid objected. Strike one for Cruz.

Next, Cruz asked for unanimous consent for a 60-vote threshold on amendments to the CR. Once again, Reid objected. Strike two.

Cruz's failure, which was predestined, means that the next vote on the CR will be cloture on the House's CR as-is. Because Democrats need only 51 votes to amend it, Cruz et al. are attempting to convince Republicans to oppose cloture. They need to filibuster the bill to save the bill—although "save," in this context, means that the bill would hang in limbo. Not even Cruz's colleague from Texas [Minority Whip Sen. John Cornyn] is on board ....

.... Left with no good options, Cruz just used the rest of his time today to insist that Democrats were now responsible for a shutdown. If only they had agreed to the House CR, he said, "there would be no government shutdown. A government shutdown would be taken off the table."

It's kind of funny, in a way; some speculate this is more about Cruz trying to run for president in 2016, but the thing there is that in an atmosphere humid with complaints about imperial presidency, the would-be insurgent probably shouldn't get so Prussian.
____________________

Notes:

Weigel, Dave. "Ted Cruz Loses First Round of Potemkin Obamacare War". Slate. September 23, 2013. Slate.com. September 24, 2013. http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...es_first_round_of_potemkin_obamacare_war.html
 
Cruz von Clausewitz

The thing about legislatures is that, even when something interesting does actually happen, it's still boring to watch. To the other, though, as the real drama happens in the narratives, perhaps that's the reason Republicans are having such trouble communicating their vision, although when I say it's a matter of literacy, I mean something far more complex than whether or not one "knows how to read". Functional literacy is one thing, but we can save ourselves the anasethetic limbo-state of actually watching C-SPAN by attending Dave Weigel's sketch of yesterday's posturing:

So: This afternoon, the Senate opened with a series of votes to tee up the cloture on the CR. Under normal Senate rules (Rule 22, if you want to check), after 60 votes are secured for cloture, amendments can be passed by a simple majority.

Knowing this, Cruz asked for unanimous consent on the House's CR. You read that right: He asked every senator to agree that the House's CR, the one that defunded Obamacare, was hereby approved. Every senator did not agree with this. Harry Reid objected. Strike one for Cruz.

Next, Cruz asked for unanimous consent for a 60-vote threshold on amendments to the CR. Once again, Reid objected. Strike two.

Cruz's failure, which was predestined, means that the next vote on the CR will be cloture on the House's CR as-is. Because Democrats need only 51 votes to amend it, Cruz et al. are attempting to convince Republicans to oppose cloture. They need to filibuster the bill to save the bill—although "save," in this context, means that the bill would hang in limbo. Not even Cruz's colleague from Texas [Minority Whip Sen. John Cornyn] is on board ....

.... Left with no good options, Cruz just used the rest of his time today to insist that Democrats were now responsible for a shutdown. If only they had agreed to the House CR, he said, "there would be no government shutdown. A government shutdown would be taken off the table."

It's kind of funny, in a way; some speculate this is more about Cruz trying to run for president in 2016, but the thing there is that in an atmosphere humid with complaints about imperial presidency, the would-be insurgent probably shouldn't get so Prussian.
____________________

Notes:

Weigel, Dave. "Ted Cruz Loses First Round of Potemkin Obamacare War". Slate. September 23, 2013. Slate.com. September 24, 2013. http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...es_first_round_of_potemkin_obamacare_war.html


LOL, you have to admit if it were not so tragic it would be funny. I hear Cruz is now filibustering the House bill, the very bill he taunted Republicans in the House to pass. I mean, you really have to appreciate the humor. Cruz intends to use the entire 36 hours allowed for debate.

At lunch a few minutes ago, I heard Fox anchors complain and ponder why Republicans always get blamed for the government shut downs. That warranted a little chuckle too. Oh, I don’t know. When you threaten to shut down government and default the government if you don’t get everything you want and then carry out the threat, that is probably why you (i.e. Republicans) get blamed. This time around Republicans are nuancing their threat with, “we don’t want a government shutdown, but we will”, thinking that will help deflect the blame which will come should they once again shut down the government or drive it into default as they once again are threatening to do.

Poor Republicans they cannot understand why most people blame them for the things that they do. A word of advice to Republicans if you don't want to get blamed for shutting down the government, stop shutting down the government and threatening to force it into default. It really is just that simple.
 
Last edited:
LOL, you have to admit if it were not so tragic it would be funny. I hear Cruz is now filibustering the House bill, the very bill he taunted Republicans in the House to pass. I mean, you really have to appreciate the humor. Cruz intends to use the entire 36 hours allowed for debate.

At lunch a few minutes ago, I heard Fox anchors complain and ponder why Republicans always get blamed for the government shut downs. That warranted a little chuckle too. Oh, I don’t know. When you threaten to shut down government and default the government if you don’t get everything you want and then carry out the threat, which is probably why you (i.e. Republicans) get blamed. This time around Republicans are nuancing their threat with, “we don’t want a government shutdown, but we will”, thinking that will help deflect the blame which will come should they once again shut down the government or drive it into default as they once again are threatening to do.

Poor Republicans they cannot understand why most people blame them for the things that they do.

I am beginning to think that Electric Fetus and Billy T are right, an Electronic legislature is looking real good about now.
 
What we know, we know that given Cruz and company has decided to do everything they can to stall and delay a vote on the House bill in the Senate. Therefore, the Senate will not vote on the bill until Sunday. It will pass the Senate with the full funding and minus the Obamacare subversions. So what will the House do? Will they pass it? The money runs out on Tuesday. So they don’t have long.

Cruz has said the next step is to send funding to the Senate piecemeal, which means government will shut down on Tuesday of next week.
 
Post-Policy Surprise?

The Only Surprise Is That You're Surprised?

No, really, it's one of those things. Color me shocked, you know? Right?

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is an advocate of the big-tent approach to grow the GOP, but apparently he isn’t above grabbing onto Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s coattails if it can help fundraising.

An RNC fundraising email dated today at 4:06 p.m., titled “I Stand with Ted” and coming from Priebus, invokes Cruz’s name and his “fight to defund ObamaCare.” Cruz was on the floor at the time advocating the repeal of the president’s key legislative accomplishment.

“Join me and stand with Ted today,” says the email, which asks recipients to sign up and “tell Harry Reid to defund ObamaCare immediately.” And of course, at the end of the email is a “Contribute Now” button.


(Rothenberg)

That is to say, it might be widely acknowledged on that side of the aisle to be a lost cause, but the RNC will still raise funds off it.

Post-policy profiteering? Maybe. But it's hardly any matter of principle, it would seem.
____________________

Notes:

Rothenberg, Stuart. "RNC Fundraises Off Ted Cruz". RothenBlog. September 24, 2013. Blogs.RollCall.com. September 24, 2013. http://blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/rnc-fundraises-off-ted-cruz/
 
The Only Surprise Is That You're Surprised?

No, really, it's one of those things. Color me shocked, you know? Right?

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is an advocate of the big-tent approach to grow the GOP, but apparently he isn’t above grabbing onto Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s coattails if it can help fundraising.

An RNC fundraising email dated today at 4:06 p.m., titled “I Stand with Ted” and coming from Priebus, invokes Cruz’s name and his “fight to defund ObamaCare.” Cruz was on the floor at the time advocating the repeal of the president’s key legislative accomplishment.

“Join me and stand with Ted today,” says the email, which asks recipients to sign up and “tell Harry Reid to defund ObamaCare immediately.” And of course, at the end of the email is a “Contribute Now” button.


(Rothenberg)

That is to say, it might be widely acknowledged on that side of the aisle to be a lost cause, but the RNC will still raise funds off it.

Post-policy profiteering? Maybe. But it's hardly any matter of principle, it would seem.
____________________

Notes:

Rothenberg, Stuart. "RNC Fundraises Off Ted Cruz". RothenBlog. September 24, 2013. Blogs.RollCall.com. September 24, 2013. http://blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/rnc-fundraises-off-ted-cruz/

It is certainly about Republican fundraising. It is also about the greater glory of Cruz setting him up for a presidential run in 2016 with the radical right.
 
I am beginning to think that Electric Fetus and Billy T are right, an Electronic legislature is looking real good about now.
thanks. here is link to the OP of now 7 pages long thread suggesting elimination of the House of Representatives. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...presentation&p=2770368&viewfull=1#post2770368

Post 38 has a concise list of nine different benefits to be expected, but we can make it an even 10 with:
(10) No silly 36 hour long talks / reading of Dr Zuss's Green Eggs & Ham on the House floor, etc. covered by CNN etc.

Hell it getting serious - CNN bumped the re-run of Lucy stuffing her mouth trying to keep up with the cookie production line to put that jerk on - you know the one who needed his mouth stuffed.
 
A hint: He had to use toilet paper to avoid touching it with his fingers.

Of course it works. Everything works better in Australia because it is a smaller country. You have fewer levels of government than we do, therefore fewer nooks and crannies that breed entire new species of bureaucrats to squander our tax money.

Come back in another century when there are three hundred million of you and we'll see just how efficient and effective your government is then!

The biggest problem with health care in America actually is not a problem with health care but with the legal profession. We have a glut of attorneys, all aggressively looking for someone's life they can screw up in order to make some money. Naturally they target the most prosperous among us, and so they quickly selected our doctors. Whenever anything goes wrong in a surgery, a predatory attorney will instantly appear at the victim's family's front door, assuring them that he can get them a million-dollar judgment against the "incompetent" surgeon. (Of course he'll get 75% of that money in fees, but he doesn't tell the grieving widow that.)

As a result, whenever you prepare for surgery, your surgeon orders a dozen expensive, irrelevant lab tests to prove that he hasn't overlooked anything. In other words, covering his ass so he can't be sued. These tests often cost as much as the surgery. And indeed, a typical surgical procedure in the USA costs about twice as much as in Europe.

This is what's wrong with the medical sector in the USA. We have too damn many lawyers! And this is why medical care will continue to be outrageously expensive, whether it's paid for by the government or by the patient.

Irrelevant. There's no way it would run so efficiently over here. I'm sure that in Australia it's legal to shoot a lawyer if he becomes unruly. Here they ride around in limousines and contribute tons of money to the political campaigns of the legislators who expand their business with new sources of income like Obamacare.

Another version of this (and I don't have the attribution):

It is not the zeal with which we protect the things we love that displays our character. It is how zealously we protect the things we hate.

In other words, you'd pretty much expect the USA to be really good about "freedom of religion" when the religion in question is Christianity. But let's see how well we do with Islam!

A certain amount of this is inevitable as life becomes more complex. When there was no written language, 99.99% of the population worked 100-hour weeks as subsistence farmers, and the average citizen never traveled more than 20 miles from his birthplace, governing was not too difficult. Now that people have almost as much leisure as the time they spend at work, and they can communicate with people on the other side of the planet, a lot more organization is needed and some of it simply has to be provided by the government.

What works for smaller populations does not work for larger populations. By the time a decent, capable citizen climbs up the political ladder from head of the facilities department in a town of 10,000 people, to the school board, to the town council, to the county council, to a post in one of the governor's cabinet departments, to the secretary of that department, to the state assembly, to the state senate, to the U.S. Congress, he has undergone a dozen selection processes. That process selects for only two things:

  • He loves having power.
  • He knows how to win an election.
Note that "He knows how to do a really good job and wants to make things better" is NOT on this very short list.

Well this is rich in conservative mythology, but that is about it. Republicans/conservatives like to think that smaller is better. But that goes against a very basic fundamental of business. It’s called “economies of scale”.

“In microeconomics, economies of scale are the cost advantages that enterprises obtain due to size, with cost per unit of output generally decreasing with increasing scale as fixed costs are spread out over more units of output. Often operational efficiency is also greater with increasing scale, leading to lower variable cost as well.” - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
 
The Conservative Density Effect, and Other Notes

As A Matter of Principle ....

It's one of those points that is too hard to ignore:

A few days ago, after House Republicans approved their "defund Obamacare" spending bill, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) came up with a plan. It wasn't a good plan, but Cruz hoped to find allies to help block the House bill—which they support—until Democrats agreed in advance to let the GOP win.

Indeed, just last night during his excruciatingly long, inconsequential speech, Cruz made the case that a vote to advance the House bill is a vote for the Affordable Care Act.

How'd that work out?

The Senate voted Wednesday to take up the legislation to keep the government open past Sept. 30 following a marathon speech by Sen. Ted Cruz that did little to slow or affect that vote's outcome.

Though the freshman senator from Texas spent more than 21 hours on his feet speaking throughout the night to urge colleagues against voting to take up House-passed spending legislation, the Senate did just the opposite. The chamber will next hold a series of votes to approve its own version of the bill and send it back to the House.​

The vote, oddly enough, was 100 to 0. That's not a typo—Cruz voted for cloture after saying he'd vote against cloture and urging his colleagues to do the same.


(Benen)

Actually, that detail stuck out in the All Things Considered report I was listening to on the way home, but something about narratives goes here.

Yes, Cruz chastised his fellows that procedural votes to move forward were effectively votes to fund Obamacare, and then he cast a procedural vote to move forward.

Think about this, though:

• This wasn't a real filibuster.

• This talking session had absolutely no procedural impact or implication other than to tie House Speaker Boehner's hands more tightly.

• Despite the alleged disdain congressional Republicans showed Cruz's tactics, the RNC is willing to use this stunt to raise funds.

• This performance is all about providing sound bites and B-roll for Ted Cruz's 2016 presidential ambitions.​

As a side note, then, it's worth pointing out that Dylan Byers' whine about how the media isn't as enamored by Cruz's performance as the drama in the Texas legislature when state Sen. Wendy Davis won a real filibuster with real policy implications is very much worth the time. The two takeaways there are that anyone who thinks the mainstream media is in the tank for Democrats really needs to read this piece in order to understand that sometimes reality is just biased against some ideas, and what it looks like when a media figure deliberately tanks a story for Republicans in order "be fair" by deliberately softening the facts:

Yes, the difference between filibustering and grandstanding plays a part. Equally important is the fact that Cruz's theatrics are frustrating members of his own party. But, part of the disparity in coverage is due to the fact that the mainstream media, generally speaking, don't admire Cruz the way they admired Davis — or rather, they admire him only insofar as he makes for tragicomic theater, whereas they admired her on the merits.

Um, Mr. Byers? That's exactly the difference. Are you going to complain next that pole-sitting isn't given its rightful place alongside Ted Cruz's "demonstration of physical will"? Oh, right: "The point is to show one's opposition to something through a demonstration of physical will." And, well, pole-sitting isn't explicitly political.

See, in order to be fair to Republicans, we have to throw out the idea of actually getting anything done.

This is the Conservative Density Effect, in which reality warps around the political gravity of the increasing mass and energy required to accommodate right-wing politics in our society. The fact that Sen. Davis actually accomplished a political goal? That is beside the point, according to Byers.

One can easily say, "Holy shit!" and just leave it at that, but I think it's more important to reiterate: This is what it takes to be "fair" to Republicans.

No, seriously, does anyone remember the argument about schools, and how it was unfair to lower the bar in order to make inferior students feel better about themselves? As I commented elsewhere, today:

I think this was one of those times in which a reporter tanked a story in order to offer an appearance of impartiality. That is to say: (A) We know news media often handicap themselves in order to look like they're being fair, and, (B) it is an extraordinary presupposition that Dylan Byers really is that dull. Of course, this raises a broader, albeit more vital question; when I was young, it was conservatives who complained about warm-fuzzy awards and feelgood social structures for children, so why is it that when it comes to issues that pertain to life, death, health, and livelihood we should "lower the bar", such as it is, on truth? Or is it not just me who finds it weird that the people who thought "citizenship" and "participation" ribbons were evil are now the ones who have such trouble understanding how to participate as a citizen of a society? But why must everyone else hurt reality in order to spare conservatives' feelings?​

So after all of this, let it be noted that when Sen. Ted Cruz was done with his fake filibuster, after admonishing his colleagues to not affirm procedural votes, he went ahead and affirmed a procedural vote.

Which, for those who, like Mr. Byers, just can't tell the difference, is kind of important—well, at least if we should argue or accept that Sen. Cruz's sideshow was actually about any decent manner of principle.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Cruz stops talking, watches his scheme collapse". The Maddow Blog. September 25, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. September 25, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/09/25/20694568-cruz-stops-talking-watches-his-scheme-collapse

Byers, Dylan. "Ted Cruz, Wendy Davis and media bias". Politico. September 25, 2013. Politico.com. September 25, 2013. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/09/ted-cruz-wendy-davis-and-media-bias-173483.html
 
Cruz is back at it today. He is yet again using his time to delay a vote and speak against a bill he has advocated for and will eventually vote for. Why? Cruz wants to stir up the base and collect some cash. And what will this cost the nation? Billions. But yet Cruz is supposed to be for less government spending and less government waste. What better way to waste less and spend more than by wasting more and spending more? That is the Cruz/Republican way.
 
One of the odd things about this self-induced fiscal crisis is that it is no longer about spending, probably because the deficit is falling faster now than at any time since the end of WWII. It is about implementing the Romney agenda…the agenda Republicans argued for and lost in the last election. What Republicans couldn’t win at the ballot box with enhanced voter suppression measures just a few months ago, they are now trying to achieve by holding the nation hostage to a fiscal crisis.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-debt-ceiling-fight-is-about-spending/280031/

Someone needs to tell these Constitution touting Republicans/conservatives/Libertarians or whatever other name they are calling themselves these days that this is a representative democracy. Perhaps they should read that Constitution once in a while instead of pounding on it. We have elections in this country and elections are supposed to mean something.
 
Two Birds, One Bullet

Joepistole said:

One of the odd things about this self-induced fiscal crisis is that it is no longer about spending, probably because the deficit is falling faster now than at any time since the end of WWII.

It's about two things:

• Proving that government just doesn't work by deliberately punching holes in our ship of state until it founders.

• Fleecing stupid people for money while drowning the government.​
 
Personally a small part of my wants us to default, I think the cataclysmic damage it will do will eventually cause massive changes to our political and economic systems that will benefit us in the long run, for one we might put people like Cruz up against the wall and shoot them.
 
Personally a small part of my wants us to default, I think the cataclysmic damage it will do will eventually cause massive changes to our political and economic systems that will benefit us in the long run, for one we might put people like Cruz up against the wall and shoot them.
The odds that cataclysmic damage would yield a positive result are quite low. We'd most likely end up under some form of outright authoritarian government (either from the left or right). As to putting people up against the wall and killing them, that could get very interesting with 300 million guns in private hands.
 
Personally a small part of my wants us to default, I think the cataclysmic damage it will do will eventually cause massive changes to our political and economic systems that will benefit us in the long run, for one we might put people like Cruz up against the wall and shoot them.

Well on the good side, I think it might be the death of the Republican Party as we know it. And the party intelligentsia (e.g. Karl Rove) seems to think so as well. But they are not running the show any more. Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Murdoch, et al. are and therein lies the problem.
 
Well it looks like government shut down time.

479x495xFan-copy.jpg.pagespeed.ic.DjwFJii6Sb.webp
 
Back
Top