October 13, 2013 at 12:29 pm #98113
As you spend this weekend with family and friends, don’t forget JJP at TWIB.
Drop those links. Engage in debate. Give us trivia and gossip too.
And always, have a peaceful day.October 13, 2013 at 12:30 pm #98114
Good Morning, EveryoneOctober 13, 2013 at 12:44 pm #98115
October 13, 2013 8:55 AM
A General Disarray
By Martin Longman
For a brief period, Rep. Paul Ryan emerged as a potential deal-maker who could solve the impasse in Congress before a catastrophic default on our country’s debts. But any hope of that ended yesterday when Ryan spoke against a Collins-Manchin proposal under consideration in the Senate and complained:
“They’re trying to cut the House out, and trying to jam us with the Senate. We’re not going to roll over and take that,” said House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
In truth, senators from both parties had no choice but to conclude that the House of Representatives is incapable of agreeing to anything acceptable to the president so long as they insist on adhering to the Hastert Rule (no bill will be brought to the House floor unless it has the support of the majority of the Republican caucus).
With such fervor still rampant among House Republicans, there was bipartisan agreement in the Senate that Boehner’s House had lost its ability to approve anything that could be signed by Obama into law. Republicans decided the Senate must act first, hoping that the pressure of the Thursday debt deadline would lead to the House passing the measure even if it meant just a small collection of the GOP’s House majority joined with the Democratic minority to approve a deal.
“At this point, they have dealt themselves out of this process. They cannot agree among themselves,” Durbin said. “And that makes it extremely difficult to take them seriously.”October 13, 2013 at 3:27 pm #98127
What Kentucky’s Obamacare Success Might Mean in 2014
By John Tozzi October 08, 2013
If you want to see how the success or failure of the Affordable Care Act might shape the nation’s future electoral battles, watch Kentucky.
The state’s health-insurance exchange, Kynect, stood out for having worked smoothly in the week after most other marketplaces opened around the country with glitches and delays. The Bluegrass State happens to be home to two Republicans who serve as some of Obamacare’s biggest foes in the U.S. Senate: Mitch McConnell, the minority leader up for reelection next year, and Rand Paul, the libertarian Tea Party ally eying a run for the White House.
Behind Kentucky’s exchange is Governor Steve Beshear, a second-term Democrat who decided to build the exchange over the objections of state Republicans. Beshear argued in a New York Times op-ed last month that Kentucky’s “horrendous” health status meant the state urgently needed the Affordable Care Act to help expand insurance coverage to 600,000 people. He also took a jab at “naysayers” who “pour time, money and energy into overturning or defunding the Affordable Care Act.” McConnell and Paul hit back last week, writing in their own op-ed, “Obamacare might sell in New York, but Kentuckians aren’t buying it.”
The problem for the Republicans, though, is that Kentuckians are buying it—in fact, the Kentucky exchange has, so far, enrolled more patients than any other. By Monday afternoon, 6,946 families had enrolled in plans through Kynect and the website had handled 3.1 million page views, according to the governor’s office. Soon after the launch, Beshear was talking to CNN’s Sanjay Gupta and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, making the red-state governor a visible public face of Obamacare.
Kentuckians aren’t particularly ideological, says Stephen Voss, an associate professor of political science at the University of Kentucky. Despite Rand Paul’s Tea Party ties, Voss says, the conservative movement hasn’t been strong in the state, and most voters are practical. “Moderate, technocratic Democrats have done very well here, and will continue to do so,” he says. Registered Democrats actually outnumber Republicans in the state, but Kentucky has gone red in every presidential race since 2000.October 13, 2013 at 3:31 pm #98128
The Boxer and the Baller: Reid and Obama’s Unlikely Bond
The relationship between the Senate majority leader and the president helps explain why Democrats have been so unified during the shutdown fight.
Perhaps the biggest disappointment about Barack Obama’s presidency has been his failure to build on relationships forged when he was a member of the Senate. In his fifth year in office, his legislative agenda has benefited little from his four years spent with other lawmakers in the Senate gym, at committee hearings, and on overseas trips. Almost forgotten is how high the hopes were when Obama became only the third president elevated to the Oval Office directly from a Senate seat, following Warren Harding and John Kennedy.
On Inauguration Day 2009, there was talk of friendships that crossed the aisle. Ninety-one of the senators had served with Obama. Today, after five years of struggle to push his agenda, the Senate stands as the Democratic bulwark on Capitol Hill against a hostile Republican House. But the hopes that the president could gain from personal ties dissipated almost as fast as his comrades fled Washington. Historic turnover means that almost half of today’s senators never served with Obama, 45 having been elected since he moved down Pennsylvania Avenue.
But today’s budget battle brings into surprising focus the one personal relationship formed when he was a senator that has endured and is key to understanding the president’s stance on the government shutdown and the showdown over the debt ceiling. The fight has cast a bright spotlight on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. While Vice President Joe Biden was the deal-maker in the last budget showdown, this time it is the pugnacious Reid who is calling the shots on the Democratic strategy to rebuff Republican calls for negotiation.
Without a doubt, the Obama-Reid pairing is an unlikely one—the president who always tries to avoid fights and the senator who always seems to look for them. Certainly, no one talked on that Inauguration Day about an Obama-Reid friendship. The two men are just so different in age, life experiences, and personality. But inside the Obama White House, they fully understand that the success of Obama’s second term may well be determined by the Nevada Democrat who has been majority leader since 2007. “They really are of the same mind on the major issues,” a senior White House official tells National Journal. “We are closer today than at any time in decades through different presidents and different majority leaders.October 13, 2013 at 3:36 pm #98129
Philly cops recorded in racially-abusive stop-and-frisk: ‘All you do is weaken the f—ing country’
By George Chidi
Saturday, October 12, 2013 19:40 ED
A video of two Philadelphia police officers racially abusing two pedestrians in a stop-and-frisk went viral Friday, drawing attention to problems with out of control cops from local media.
Officer Philip Nace and another officer from the city’s 25th District can be seen in the video, dated Sept. 27, as they stop two unidentified men, according to reports from the Philadelphia Daily News. The two officers stopped the men after one of the men said hi to another pedestrian in the North Philadelphia neighborhood.
“You don’t say ‘Hi’ to strangers,” Nace told him. “Not in this neighborhood,” his partner added.
During the 16-minute recording, Nace told one of the men: “We don’t want you here, anyway. All you do is weaken the f—ing country.”
“How do I weaken the country? By working?” the man asked.
“No, freeloading,” Nace replied.
Watch the complete video belowOctober 13, 2013 at 3:38 pm #98130
CNN host calls out Politico reporter who says fact checking isn’t her job: ‘You ignore that?’
By David Edwards
Sunday, October 13, 2013 14:57 EDT
Politico reporter Ginger Gibson shocked CNN guest media critic Frank Sesno on Sunday when she said that she didn’t bother to check facts if she was told that her sources were not telling the truth.
During a segment about the increasing role of fact checking organizations like PolitiFact, Sesno asked Gibson how members of Congress responded when they got a “pants on fire” rating.
“Their press secretaries, when it’s the other guy who’s called out, will blast out those as a press release,” Gibson explained
“And what do you do with that?” Sesno wondered.
“Most of the time, ignore them,” Gibson admitted.
“You ignore it!” Sesno exclaimed. “Wait, wait, wait. So if someone is called a liar or is exposed in a fact check and you’re the reporter of it, you ignore that?”
“Well, we ignore it when it becomes political fighting, right?” Gibson said.
“But if someone is objectively wrong,” Sesno pressed.
“As a reporter who covered the [Romney] campaign and covers the Hill now, these fact checks are great for us because sometimes when the claim keeps getting repeated, we can point to them in a story and say, look, they’ve been deemed untrue by multiple fact checkers,” Gibson insisted. “And I think that line is important, the multiple fact checkers. When it’s multiple fact checkers agreeing, we can go to that.”October 13, 2013 at 3:40 pm #98131
Krugman lectures Noonan on GOP hostage taking: ‘Nothing like this ever happened before’
By David Edwards
Sunday, October 13, 2013 12:33 EDT
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman on Sunday shot down Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan’s argument that the Republican Party’s tactic of shutting down the government and refusing to raise the debt ceiling was “business as usual.”
During panel discussion on ABC’s This Week, former White House Senior Adviser David Plouffe noted that he was “deeply concerned” that tea party Republicans in the House did not even have the capability to open the government or raise the debt ceiling before the Oct. 17 deadline.
“Republicans made a mistake, they picked a fight, they had no strategy, they had no endgame, they had no plan,” Noonan agreed. “That having been said, I think the president has made counter mistakes, not only in the famous stories of the things that were forcibly shut down in the shutdown and all that stuff, but his — the sense he has communicated that, ‘Hey, I’m not having a conversation, we’re not having negotiations.’ Presidents have to negotiate on debt limits. They have to own it.
We have all worked in White Houses, we’ve seen presidents do this,” she added. “You can call what the other side does to you extortion. What it really is, is an argument and a deal. And at the end, you trade some horses and do your best.”
“That never happened,” Krugman shot back. “Nothing like this has ever happened before. All of the the alleged former examples, if you actually look at them, they turn out to be either — there was a budget deal that included a debt ceiling raise but the debt ceiling was not a hostage. Or once — once — [former Speaker] Tip O’Neill held up the debt ceiling for one day more as symbolism.”
“There was never before a case where one party pushed the U.S. government to the edge of default demanding concessions in return,” the New York Times columnist insisted. “So, every attempt to make this sound like business as usual, it’s not. This is something completely out of the previous experience.”October 13, 2013 at 3:46 pm #98133
a comment from TOD:
October 13, 2013 at 11:08 am
I’m slowly starting to believe the old adage that says “follow the money.” I say that because the majority of the Republicans in office would barely make a living in the private sector. The only people that could thrive in a country without a functioning government are the billionaires i.e. Koch Brothers and the Warren Buffetts of the world. The Republicans that are in office have come to believe that they are just like the Koch Brothers, but they aren’t even close to being like them. They don’t even breathe the same air as the Koch Brothers. Oh sure the KB invite them to their homes and dine with them, and even let them fly on their private planes. But in the KB eyes, they are nothing more than the hired help, soon to be discarded like yesterday’s newspaper.
The working class Republicans are in the same boat, some of them live paycheck to paycheck like most people in this country. But in order for the working class Republicans to justify to themselves being Republicans, they have to find a reason for their lack of wealth or stature, which leads them to blaming immigration and or taxes. If only that man or woman didn’t come into this country illegally at the border some two thousand miles away from me I’d be rich.
And finally the Tea-Party, a group of government subsidized, government hating Neanderthals. The majority of which would get a semi hard-on at the thought of seeing this country default, as if a default wouldn’t harm them in any way…….Bar Rescue just came on, gotta go.October 13, 2013 at 3:51 pm #98134
How Racism Caused The Shutdown
By Zack Beauchamp on October 9, 2013 at 9:00 am
This isn’t an article about how Republicans shut down the government because they hate that the President is black. This is an article about how racism caused the government to shut down and the U.S. to teeter on the brink of an unprecedented and catastrophic default.
I understand if you’re confused. A lot of people think the only way that racism “causes” anything is when one person intentionally discriminates against another because of their color of their skin. But that’s wrong. And understanding the history of the forces that produced the current crisis will lay plain the more subtle, but fundamental, ways in which race and racism formed the scaffolding that structures American politics — even as explicit battles over race receded from our daily politics.
The roots of the current crisis began with the New Deal — but not in the way you might think. They grew gradually, with two big bursts in the 1960s and the 1980s reflecting decades of more graduated change. And the tree that grew out of them, the Tea Party and a radically polarized Republican Party, bore the shutdown as its fruits.
How The New Deal Drove The Racists Out
In 1938, Sen. Josiah W. Bailey (D-NC) filibustered his own party’s bill. Well, part of his party — Northern Democrats, together with Northern Republicans, were pushing an federal anti-lynching bill. Bailey promised that Southern Democrats would teach “a lesson which no political party will ever again forget” to their Northern co-partisans if they “come down to North Carolina and try to impose your will upon us about the Negro:”
Just as when the Republicans in the [1860s] undertook to impose the national will upon us with respect to the Negro, we resented it and hated that party with a hatred that has outlasted generations; we hated it beyond measure; we hated it more than was right for us and more than was just; we hated it because of what it had done to us, because of the wrong it undertook to put upon us; and just as that same policy destroyed the hope of the Republican party in the South, that same policy adopted by the Democratic party will destroy the Democratic party in the South.
Bailey’s rage at the affront to white supremacy was born of surprise. Until 1932, the South had dominated the Democratic Party, which had consistently stood for the South’s key regional regional interest — keeping blacks in literal or figurative fetters — since before the Civil War.
But the Depression-caused backlash against Republican incumbents that swept New Yorker Franklin Roosevelt into the White House and a vast Democratic majority into Congress also made Southerners a minority in the party for the first time in its history. The South still controlled the most influential committee leadership votes in Congress, exercising a “Southern Veto” on race policy. The veto forced FDR to stay out of the anti-lynching fight (“If I come out for the anti-lynching bill, [the southerners] will block every bill I ask Congress to pass to keep America from collapsing,” he lamented).
The veto also injected racism into the New Deal. Social Security was “established on a racially invidious, albeit officially race-neutral, basis by excluding from coverage agricultural and domestic workers, the categories that included nearly 90 percent of black workers at the time,” University of Pennsylvania political scientist Adolph Reed Jr. wrote in The Nation. “Others, like the [Civilian Conservation Corps], operated on Jim Crow principles. Roosevelt’s housing policy put the weight of federal support behind creating and reproducing an overtly racially exclusive residential housing industry.”
Yet, Reed notes, the New Deal not only benefited blacks, but brought them to a position of power in the Democratic Party. “The Social Security exclusions were overturned, and black people did participate in the WPA, Federal Writers’ Project, CCC and other classic New Deal initiatives, as well as federal income relief,” he reminds us. “Black Americans’ emergence as a significant constituency in the Democratic electoral coalition helped to alter the party’s center of gravity and was one of the factors–as was black presence in the union movement–contributing to the success of the postwar civil rights insurgency.”October 13, 2013 at 3:53 pm #98135
The Shady Trick Justice Scalia Plans To Use To Inject Even More Big Money Into Elections
By Ian Millhiser on October 8, 2013 at 1:49 pm
The Supreme Court’s consideration Tuesday of a bid by the Republican National Committee to make it easier for wealthy individuals to influence elections fixated on a series of related hypotheticals, all involving schemes enabling the very rich to lavish money on their favorite party or candidates. In Justice Elena Kagan’s version, activists set up literally hundreds of shell organizations, each of which promises to work to elect like-minded candidates in the five most contested U.S. Senate races. A donor then makes a maximum-dollar donation to each of these shell groups, effectively laundering hundreds of thousands of dollars to each of these five grateful candidates. Thus, although federal law bans massive dollar donations to individual candidates in order to prevent corruption, Kagan’s hypothetical offers a way around that law.
And if the Supreme Court gives the GOP what it is asking for, this money laundering scheme will almost certainly be legal.
The specific issue in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (a businessman named Shaun McCutcheon is also a plaintiff in the case, along with the RNC) is whether two limits on how much money wealthy individuals can give to parties and candidates will survive contact with the conservative Roberts Court. Current law limits the amount rich donors can give to individual candidates (currently, $2,600) as well as the amount that they can give to party organizations. Additionally, the law also limits how much the wealthy can give altogether to all candidates and to all party groups. Presently, these limits are $48,600 to candidates and $74,600 to PACs and party committees — for a total cap of $123,200. McCutcheon and the RNC challenge these final two caps. So they want people who have already given more than a hundred thousand dollars to Republican candidates and to GOP groups to be allowed to donate even more.October 13, 2013 at 4:03 pm #98136
Jeffrey Goldberg ✔ @JeffreyGoldberg
In many parts of America, waving a Confederate flag outside the home of a black family would be considered a very hostile act.
1:48 PM – 13 Oct 2013October 13, 2013 at 4:05 pm #98137
Nerdy Wonka @NerdyWonka
That moment the GOP proudly hold the Confederate flag (a banner of racism & slavery) outside the Black POTUS’s home.
1:50 PM – 13 Oct 2013
Nerdy Wonka @NerdyWonka
Yes Republicans, waving a Confederate flag outside the Black President’s home is a great way to convince America that you’re not racist.
1:58 PM – 13 Oct 2013October 13, 2013 at 4:08 pm #98139
John Boehner’s only choice: Throw the Tea Party overboard
By Greg Sargent
October 13 at 10:15 am
With House Republicans devolving into utter chaos, the prospects for any kind of deal to end the crisis has shifted over to the Senate, where Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell continue to negotiate over the terms of ending the government shutdown and lifting the debt ceiling. Senators had coalesced around a plan pushed by Susan Collins that would increase the debt limit into January and fund the government for six months, albeit at sequester levels, while delaying the medical device tax for two years.
Reid is insisting new revenues, and a higher spending level, must be part of these talks. After all, this Collins “compromise” contains zero concessions by Republicans, and only concessions by Dems. The Collins plan continues to define lifting the debt limit and funding the government at sequester levels as concessions by Republicans, but those are both outcomes Republicans want. John Boehner flatly admitted in March the debt limit must and will be raised to preserve the full faith and credit of the U.S. And funding the government at sequester levels for six months is a concession by Democrats to what Republicans themselves have described as a victory for them.
What’s really telling, though, is that House Republicans are furious at this emerging plan, explicitly because they think it requires them to give up the debt ceiling as leverage to force major Dem concessions on Obamacare. Buried in the Post’s account is this important anecdote describing Paul Ryan’s reaction to the Collins plan:October 13, 2013 at 4:09 pm #98140
Roger Simon ✔ @politicoroger
Racism comes out of closet (as if it were ever in) as protesters hoist Confederate flag outside WH today.
1:44 PM – 13 Oct 2013
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.