October 3, 2013 at 12:00 am #97475
Karen Tumulty, national political reporter for The Washington Post, talks with Rachel Maddow about House Republicans’ repeated, and ultimately successful, attempts to shut down the United States government, and what she describes as “governing by near death experience.”
As you make it through the day, 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 3, 2013 at 12:01 am #97476
Good Morning, EveryoneOctober 3, 2013 at 8:56 am #97477
Having a ‘grand’ old time
By Steve Benen
Thu Oct 3, 2013 8:00 AM EDT.
A few things about House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) have become clear in recent weeks. We’ve learned, for example, that he’ll take orders from far-right extremists in his caucus. We’ve also learned he’s willing to shut the federal government down in the hopes of taking away health care benefits from millions of Americans.
What’s been far less clear is where, exactly, the flailing House Speaker intends to go with all of this. Does he have an end-game in mind? Is there any strategy at all?
Following up on a segment from last night’s show, the answer is: maybe. Robert Costa reported late yesterday, Boehner apparently has a “grand” idea.
House Republicans tell me Speaker John Boehner wants to craft a “grand bargain” on fiscal issues as part of the debt-limit deliberations, and during a series of meetings on Wednesday, he urged colleagues to stick with him.
The revelation came quietly. Boehner called groups of members to his Capitol office all day, taking their temperature on the shutdown and the debt limit. It became clear, members say, that Boehner’s chief goal is conference unity as the debt limit nears, and he’s looking at potentially blending a government-spending deal and debt-limit agreement into a larger budget package.
“It’s the return of the grand bargain,” says one House Republican, who requested anonymity to speak freely.
As part of this process, Boehner has reportedly recruited leading Republican committee chairs, Paul Ryan and Dave Camp, to help persuade GOP lawmakers (who don’t seem especially interested in what the Speaker has to say).
Let’s pause to note the significance of this microcosm: there are budget discussions underway behind closed doors, with conservative Republicans hoping to reach an agreement with extremely conservative Republicans.October 3, 2013 at 8:58 am #97478
Damn so Reagan is better than Obama per white Chris Matthews because he ended the Cold War. Colbert no push back. They don’t fear Obama these right wingers I wonder why? Maybe y’all white folks enabled it. Damn interesting times… Accidentally watch tv. Interesting to see romanticized tip oneil and Reagan history with appaulse on liberal shows. I am convinced Obamas success kills these people to the debt of their soul. Chris, colbert no matter what you say his accomplishment outweighs all since Lincoln. Funny how he try to link Obama to carterOctober 3, 2013 at 9:02 am #97479
ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jon Karl spent several minutes repeatedly asking Jay Carney variations on the question of apportioning blame for the government shutdown to President Obama.
“Does the President bear any responsibility whatsoever for what’s going on, for this mess?” Karl began.
“Well, I’m not sure what you mean,” Carney replied. “I mean, the President..”
“Does he have any blame for the government shutdown? Any at all?” Karl repeated.
Carney replied, “Look, the President is President of the United States and it is his responsibility to try to work with Congress in a spirit of compromise…”
“And that hasn’t…” Karl began.
“Well, he’s… look, has he or has he not put forward a compromise budget proposal?” Carney asked. “The answer is yes.”
“But does he bear any responsibility?” Karl persisted. “It’s a simple question. Does he bear any responsibility for this mess?”
“He certainly did not vote to shut the government down,” Carney answered. “And if that’s what you’re asking, no, he did not vote to shut the government down. The Republicans did.”
“No, I’m asking if he bears any responsibility,” Karl repeated.
“Jon, he did not… Republicans in Congress chose to shut the government down,” Carney said. “The option to keep it open was available to them. It’s an option that a majority of the House of Representatives supports, a bipartisan majority…”
But hasn’t the President failed to create an environment where this stuff doesn’t happen?” Karl asked, adding “I mean, I’m asking.”
“No. He’s had multiple meetings and dinners…” Carney began.
“So he’s done nothing wrong in all of this?” Karl asked. “This is all the Republicans’ doing on their own, that the President…”
With impatient amusement, Carney said, “Well, Jon, you can do an essay, or decide for yourself, and make those judgments. What I’m telling you is that this year, the President, in a very public way, reported on by all of you, reached out to Republicans and offered to find common ground on budget issues — and didn’t just talk about it; put…”
“But…” Karl said.
“Hold on,” Carney continued, ”put those ideas in a concrete budget, causing a lot of consternation in his own party, because some of the choices he made and some of the decisions he was willing to embrace were not popular among all Democrats, or Democrat support groups. But he was willing to do it because he knew that that’s what it would take to reach a compromise with Republicans who are also willing to compromise. And he had very good conversations with a number of Republican senators and members of Congress. He had Paul Ryan in here at one point during that process.”
“What we haven’t seen, unfortunately, is a commensurate willingness by the Republicans to put on paper a proposal that represents a compromise, that moves off their insistence that — represented by the Ryan budget.,” Carney added. “But the President is open to doing that. He’s open to having those conversations.”October 3, 2013 at 9:12 am #97480
Wall Street and Chamber of Commerce Turn on the Tea Party
Wednesday, October 02, 2013 | Posted by Spandan C at 3:51 PM
Today, President Obama is meeting with Congressional leadership to tell them face-to-face what he has already said numerous times: you don’t get to exact a ransom for doing your job, keeping the government open and paying America’s bills. But that meeting follows another meeting the president had today – with CEOs of major financial institutions. And the captains of industry were none-too-pleased with the insanity their boys in Congress are displaying.
Shortly before the meeting Wednesday, JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said he “would love to see a resolution” to the shutdown. Afterward, Lloyd Blankfein, the head of Goldman Sachs, warned about the consequences of a failure to resolve the crisis. “We shouldn’t use the threat of causing the U.S. to fail on its obligations to repay its debt as a cudgel,” he told reporters outside the White House.
Bankers aren’t the only ones putting the squeeze on their pet project (sometimes known as Congressional Republicans). Today, the Chamber of Commerce sent House Republicans a letter telling them to get their sh.. act together.
But the Chamber and Wall Street created this monster. Big business and big banks – with money disclosed and undisclosed – funded the Tea Party insurgency. No one – not even the Tea Party itself – is as responsible for the extremist influence that is now controlling the Republican as Wall Street and the Chamber. This is their monster. They need to fix it.
The Republican party has always been the party of big business. But never before in modern history have they been so beholden to extremists. In their zeal to try to beat Obama (which they utterly failed at), the Republican party and its benefactors backed candidates who weren’t simply doing Wall Street’s bidding but were true believers in a vision of America that didn’t just go back on health care and financial regulations but on women’s rights, racial equality, gay rights and everything else the country was moving away from. They did it because they thought these true believers would do their bidding regardless of what else they were doing. They thought that hatred of Obama would drive them to do just thatOctober 3, 2013 at 9:15 am #97481
Marlin Stutzman and post-policy nihilism
By Steve Benen
Thu Oct 3, 2013 9:03 AM EDT.
For many of us, to remember the last time Republicans shut down the federal government is to think of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich. Specifically, the far-right Georgian admitted in November 1995 that he closed the government in part because President Clinton hurt his feelings on Air Force One — the president didn’t chat with Gingrich during an overseas flight and then made the Speaker exit at the rear of the plane.
It was a moment that captured the entire fiasco quite beautifully. A petulant, out-of-control Republican leader shut down the government largely to spite the president who made him feel bad.
We don’t yet know if a similar moment will come to define this Republican shutdown, but I’d like to nominate this gem as an early contender.
We’re not going to be disrespected,” conservative Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., added. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”
Go ahead, Republicans, tell us another one about how the shutdown is Democrats’ fault.
I’ve long argued that congressional Republicans are now defined by a post-policy nihilism, but even I’m surprised an elected GOP member of Congress would say this out loud, on purpose, and on the record.
The quote is just … perfect. “We’re not going to be disrespected” helps capture the extent to which Republican lawmakers are acting like a street gang, hurting the country deliberately out of some twisted sense of self-serving pride. “We have to get something out of this” reinforces the way in which GOP officials are holding the country hostage, expecting a ransom to be paid.October 3, 2013 at 9:16 am #97482
Just Where Is The Center of Gravity Here?
Josh Marshall – October 2, 2013, 2:30 PM EDT
Byron York and I don’t agree on many things politically. But he’s a rock solid reporter and simply essential at times like these when the real story is buried in the most conservative reaches of the House and Senate GOP caucuses. This article from this morning is a good example. It comes as little surprise that John Boehner could break through virtually all the stalemates if he brought, for instance, a clean ‘continuing resolution’ (aka CR) to the House floor and passed it mainly on Democratic votes.
Of course, he’d likely be ending his tenure as Speaker, or so the thinking goes. But what York suggests, on talking to Republican members in the House, is that he could probably put a lot of these bills up for votes and still get a majority of his own caucus to vote for them. Perhaps a large majority. In other words, the so-called Hastert Rule isn’t even the hold up.
Here’s a key part of York’s piece …
“I’ve been trying to figure this out,” says one House Republican of the current standoff over funding the government. “It seems to me that Boehner could do whatever he wants with Democrats on the floor and still get about 180 or 190 of us. So why doesn’t he do that?”
The lawmaker was referring to the fact that a large majority of the House’s 232 Republicans, plus a large majority of its 200 Democrats, would likely support a “clean” continuing resolution to fund the government but not defund, delay, or limit Obamacare. If House Speaker John Boehner were to bring such a bill to the floor, it would probably pass with a majority of Republican as well as Democratic votes. But Boehner doesn’t do it.
York and his interlocutor go on to suggest that there are likely only between 30 and 50 House members who are really committed to the current course – well under a quarter of the House GOP caucus. A high estimate is 80. By process of elimination, they think Boehner just thinks that if he crosses those folks they’ll trigger a Speaker election and unseat him.October 3, 2013 at 9:18 am #97483
Mastering the art of shiny objects
By Steve Benen
Thu Oct 3, 2013 8:36 AM EDT.
When there’s a major political fight underway, it’s wise to keep your eye on which side of the divide wants to talk about the substance and which side wants to shine a light on shiny objects. As a rule, it’s the latter that’s losing.
As Day 3 of the government shutdown gets underway, we’re now averaging one sideshow per day, which does not bode well for a protracted crisis. The first spectacle was watching the same Republicans who shut down the government express outrage over the closure of the World War II Memorial in D.C. The second was this.
CNN’s Dana Bash asked [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] during an October 2 press conference if Democrats would be supportive of a House bill that would reinstate funding to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). That funding, which includes a program that provides access to clinical trials for children with cancer, was halted after House Republicans refused to pass a bill to fund government operations in an effort to derail the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
Bash then asked, “If you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) replied to Bash, “Why pit one against the other?” and Reid, who was critical of the Republican idea that Congress could “pick and choose” which parts of the government to fund, added, “Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own.” Reid’s comments referenced his push for a bill that would fund the entire government, including the NIH.
The right could barely contain its glee. “OMG! Reid hates children with cancer! We knew it!”
This was unusually stupid for two main reasons. The first, obviously, has to do with context and the point Reid was trying to make. As Dylan Byers explained, “The problem with separating quotes from context is that the effort usually comes back to bite you. Before you know it, you end up being depicted as someone who has to invent controversy because you’re no longer capable of debating on substance.”
Quite right.October 3, 2013 at 9:18 am #97484
Poll Confirms Americans Blame GOP For Shutdown
Tom Kludt – October 3, 2013, 8:24 AM EDT
A poll released Thursday provided confirmation of what’s long been anticipated: more Americans blame Republicans — not President Barack Obama and Democrats — for the first government shutdown since 1996.
According to the latest CBS News poll, 44 percent said they blame the shutdown on Republicans in Congress, compared with 35 percent who said they blame Obama and Democrats. Seventeen percent said they blame both sides.
Those numbers mirror the findings in a CBS poll last week and are consistent with other pre-shutdown surveys.
A CNN/ORC International poll released on Monday showed that Americans would be more inclined to blame congressional Republicans for a shutdown than Obama.
The CBS poll showed that 72 percent of Americans disapprove of shutting down the government over differences related to the Affordable Care Act, comparable to findings in a Quinnipiac University poll on Tuesday.
But the gambit has plenty of support from the tea party.
Fifty-seven percent of supporters of the conservative movement said they support a shutdown over the health care law, according to the CBS survey. Republicans were split on the question — 48 percent said they approve a shutdown over the law, while 49 percent said they disapprove. Eighty-six percent of Democrats said they disapprove.October 3, 2013 at 9:24 am #97489
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Please Proceed, GOP
Posted by Zandar
The shutdown is already hurting the GOP and will continue to do so.
Republicans in Washington insist they have simply been upholding the wishes of the American people throughout their efforts to block the Affordable Care Act, but a poll released Tuesday tells a very different story.
In fact, the latest survey from Quinnipiac University contains a ton of bad news for the GOP. For starters, 72 percent of Americans said they are opposed to shutting down the government in an effort to block implemntation of the health care law. A poll last week also showed a wide majority opposed to shutting down the government over Obamacare.
The federal government shut down for the first time since 1996 on Tuesday morning amid Republican-led efforts to include policy concessions on the health care law in must-pass bills to fund the government.
While Quinnipiac’s poll showed that the Affordable Care Act remains polarizing — 45 percent support it while 47 percent are opposed — 58 percent said they are opposed to Congress cutting off funding for the law. Seventy-four percent said they disapprove of congressional Republicans while only 17 percent said they approve — their lowest score ever in Quinnipiac’s polling.
Democrats in Congress came out marginally better in the poll — 32 percent approve while 60 percent disapprove — but the party may enter next year’s midterm elections with an upper-hand over the GOP.
The poll showed that voters gave the nod to a generic Democrat over a generic Republican ahead of the 2014 congressional races, 43 percent to 34 percent. According to Quinnipiac, that’s the widest advantage enjoyed by Democrats on that particular question.
Voters will remember in 2014. But will they actually vote? A nine point generic ballot lead for the Dems would be a nightmare for the Republicans, and they know it. Stay tuned. Sanity may break out very, very quickly.October 3, 2013 at 9:59 am #97490
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Feeling The Heat, Boys?
Posted by Zandar
More and more increasingly vulnerable House Republicans are looking for the lifeboats to escape from the sinking ship that is the S.S. GOP Shutdown, and I’m thinking it’s not going to be too much longer before they team up with Democrats to deliver a clean CR back to the Senate, and throw the Tea Party overboard.
Some House Republicans facing perilous paths to reelection in 2014 are beginning to budge on the government shutdown, calling for the party to compromise and move on from its fight over defunding Obamacare.
“Republicans fought the good fight. The fight continues but is not advanced by a government shutdown that damages our economy and harms our military,” Virginia Rep. Scott Rigell said in a statement. “The time has come to pass a clean CR to reopen the government.”
And Pennsylvania Rep. Pat Meehan said: “I came to Washington to fix government, not shut it down. At this point, I believe it’s time for the House to vote for a clean, short-term funding bill to bring the Senate to the table and negotiate a responsible compromise.”
New Jersey Rep. Jon Runyan said: “Enough is enough. Put a clean (continuing resolution) on the floor and let’s gets on with the business we were sent to do.”
Of course these are the same House Republicans who voted for the shutdown in the first place and voted 40+ times to defund and repeal Obamacare. They want you to feel sorry for them, and they want your forgiveness. The only thing these opportunists care about is saving their own asses now that it’s quite possible that somebody other than those people might be the ones hurt by the GOP.
Don’t fall for it, folks. All the Republicans have to go. They own this disaster together, and together, they can be voted out in 2014.October 3, 2013 at 2:46 pm #97506
The Charter School Mistake
October 1, 2013.
Date of Source:
Tuesday, October 1, 2013.
Los Angeles Times
- See more at: http://portside.org/print/2013-10-01/charter-school-mistake#sthash.kWWpRlb5.ZhqyBXUs.dpuf
Los Angeles has more charter schools than any other school district in the nation, and it’s a very bad idea. Billionaires like privately managed schools. Parents are lured with glittering promises of getting their kids a sure ticket to college. Politicians want to appear to be champions of “school reform” with charters. But charters will not end the poverty at the root of low academic performance or transform our nation’s schools into a high-performing system. The world’s top-performing systems – Finland and Korea, for example – do not have charter schools. They have strong public school programs with well-prepared, experienced teachers and administrators. Charters and that other faux reform, vouchers, transform schooling into a consumer good, in which choice is the highest value. The original purpose of charters, when they first opened in 1990 (and when I was a charter proponent), was to collaborate with public schools, not to compete with them or undermine them. They were supposed to recruit the weakest students, the dropouts, and identify methods to help public schools do a better job with those who had lost interest in schooling. This should be their goal now as well. Instead, the charter industry is aggressive and entrepreneurial. Charters want high test scores, so many purposely enroll minimal numbers of English-language learners and students with disabilities. Some push out students who threaten their test averages. Last year, the federal General Accountability Office issued a report chastising charters for avoiding students with disabilities, and the ACLU is suing charters in New Orleans for that reason. Because they are loosely regulated, charter schools are often neither accountable nor transparent. In 2013, the founders of an L.A. charter with 1,200 students were convicted of misappropriating more than $200,000 in public funds. In Oakland, an audit at the highest-performing charter schools in the state found that $3.8 million may have been misused when the founder hired his other businesses to do work for his charters. Charter schools are “public” when it is time to claim public funding, but they have claimed in federal court and before the National Labor Relations Board to be private corporations when their employees seek the protection of state labor laws. In Los Altos, a group of wealthy people opened a boutique charter school for their own children. Parents are asked to donate $5,000 per child each year. Local public school parents consider the charter to be an elite private school, albeit one primarily funded with public dollars. Of course there are honorable, well-run charter schools that provide an excellent education. This newspaper’s editorial board cites independent research that shows students in L.A. charters do better than they would in L.A. Unified schools. But many other studies show that charters in general are no more successful at the task of educating children than public schools if they enroll the same kinds of students. As large as the gulf can be between charter cheerleading and charter reality, it doesn’t represent the greatest danger of these schools. They have become the leading edge of a long-cherished ideological crusade by the far right to turn education into a consumer choice rather than a civic obligation. Abandoning public schools for a free-market system eviscerates our basic obligation to support them whether our own children are in public schools, private schools or religious schools, and even if we have no children at all. The campaign to “reform” schools by turning public money over to private corporations is a great distraction from our system’s real problems: Academic performance is low where poverty and racial segregation are high. Sadly, the U.S. leads other advanced nations of the world in the proportion of children living in poverty. And income inequality in our nation is larger than at any point in the last century. We should do what works to strengthen our schools: Provide universal early childhood education (the U.S. ranks 24th among 45 nations, according to the Economist); make sure poor women get good prenatal care so their babies are healthy (we are 131st among 185 nations surveyed, according to the March of Dimes and the United Nations); reduce class size (to fewer than 20 students) in schools where students are struggling; insist that all schools have an excellent curriculum that includes the arts and daily physical education, as well as history, civics, science, mathematics and foreign languages; ensure that the schools attended by poor children have guidance counselors, libraries and librarians, social workers, psychologists, after-school programs and summer programs. Schools should abandon the use of annual standardized tests; we are the only nation that spends billions testing every child every year. We need high standards for those who enter teaching, and we need to trust them as professionals and let them teach and write their own tests to determine what their students have learned and what extra help they need. Our nation is heading in a perilous direction, toward privatization of education, which will increase social stratification and racial segregation. Our civic commitment to education for all is eroding. But like police protection, fire protection, public beaches, public parks and public roads, the public schools are a public responsibility, not a consumer good. –October 3, 2013 at 2:51 pm #97507
The Afro as a Natural Expression of Self
By RUTH LA FERLA
Published: October 2, 2013
Dante de Blasio’s towering Afro, a supporting player in his father’s mayoral campaign, riveted attention once more last week when it caught the eye of President Obama. Introducing Bill de Blasio at a Democratic fund-raiser in Midtown, Mr. Obama digressed to point out, “Dante has the same hairdo as I had in 1978. Although I have to confess my Afro was never that good.”
Nor was it as voluminous, or as apparently devoid of a political charge. As 16-year-old Dante implied in an interview with DNAInfo.com, an online local news source, hair is just hair. “Some people want to take photos and I’m really just happy,” he said. Others want to reach out and touch it, and some did at last week’s fund-raiser, their enthusiastic petting prompting the elder de Blasio to joke that he might have to call security.
The mayoral candidate was doubtless aware that Dante’s outsize hair placed him in a league with a current generation that has adopted what once was a badge of revolt as an emblem of style’s cutting edge. Resurgent in films and television and the streets, inspired by a galaxy of pop culture idols, the Afro today seems friendly enough, even downright disarming — a kinder, gentler “natural” pretty much shorn of its militancy.
Images like those of Halle Berry’s tightly coiled halo or Nicki Minaj’s poodly pink Glamfro on the cover of Allure last year have played a part in resurrecting the hallmark style. Hoping to stand apart from her more famous sister, Solange Knowles last year chopped her chemically processed hair to reveal the wedge-shaped Afro that has since become her signature. And the actress Viola Davis showed off her natural curls at the Oscar ceremonies a year ago after walking most of the red carpet season in a wig; Prince poses regally in his Afro on the August issue of V magazine.
Even the customarily conventional Oprah Winfrey stepped out to front the September issue of O, the Oprah magazine, in a 3.5-pound wig that spanned its cover nearly edge to edge above the cover line: “Let’s talk about HAIR!”October 3, 2013 at 2:51 pm #97508
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.