United States Congress of Fail (Part 3)

[Howl]

I came across a great comment in response to a Talking Points Memo article about the contents of the repeal ACA bill: "This is like watching the sausage factory operate in reverse. When it is all done, you've got a pile of intestines and all the parts of a carcass that nobody would touch if they were served as-is."  Another commenter responded: "That's offal!"

[GreyhoundFan]

"Senate Republicans have tolerated Trump’s controversies. His treatment of Sessions is different."

Spoiler

Sen. John Cornyn counts Attorney General Jeff Sessions as one of his best friends in Washington, and their wives are even closer, making the couples regular double-date partners.

“We occasionally get together to break bread,” the Senate majority whip said Wednesday. One of those double dates came recently enough that Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Sessions could not avoid the elephant in the room: President Trump’s public taunting of his attorney general, in a manner that suggests he wants Sessions to resign.

“We didn’t talk in any great detail about this, but obviously it’s in the news,” Cornyn said, reiterating his strong support of Sessions remaining in office.

Cornyn is not alone in rallying to the defense of Sessions, who, despite sometimes having waged lonely battles as one of the chamber’s most staunch conservatives, still has many friends among Senate Republicans. Most have issued statements of support, and several are making private calls to reassure Sessions that they are behind him.

But the tension over Trump’s treatment of Sessions goes beyond the senators defending a friend.

Unlike any other controversial move that Trump has pondered in his six months as president, Senate Republicans are sending preemptive signals that firing the attorney general or pressuring him to resign would be a terrible move.

Some have warned high-level White House officials that it would look as though Trump were making the move solely to shut down an investigation of his campaign and the White House, now overseen by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, while also making clear that they agree with Sessions’s decision to recuse himself from an investigation of the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia.

Replacing Sessions would be difficult, and the idea of Trump making a recess appointment during the planned four-week break in August is foolhardy. Democrats can indefinitely stall a resolution to fully adjourn the Senate, having already forced minute-long periods during even shorter breaks to prevent Trump from having the authority to make temporary appointments while the Senate is away.

Democrats may have vehemently opposed Sessions’s nomination, but they have no intention of allowing Trump to fire him and name a new attorney general with a recess appointment, and frankly, Republicans do not seem to want to give Trump that power either.

Beyond concerns about the controversy that firing Sessions would bring, Senate Republicans say, Trump’s behavior is unseemly toward someone they respect, given that Sessions went out on a limb for the first-time candidate, becoming the first senator to endorse Trump’s candidacy.

“I think Sessions deserves to be treated much more fairly. I mean, Jeff was there when no other senator was,” said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), the longest currently serving Republican in the Senate. Hatch spoke to Sessions last Thursday to declare his support, a message he conveyed to White House officials, and Hatch is trying to set up a call to Trump to deliver the same message.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made clear in a brief interview Wednesday that his backing of Sessions has gone up the chain of command. Asked if he told Trump of his support, McConnell smiled.

“I’ve conveyed that to the public and to others,” he said.

The support for Sessions runs deep across the Republican Party. Former senator Jim DeMint (S.C.), a conservative renegade who often clashed with McConnell, praised the attorney general Wednesday during a visit to the Capitol.

“One of the best guys I ever worked with,” he said. “I hope he and the president can work it out.”

The question, however, is how Senate Republicans will respond if Trump does force their friend out of the Justice Department — a move that might be followed by firing Mueller, setting off another crisis at least as big as the ouster of James B. Comey as FBI director in May.

Would there be any ramification beyond just expressing dismay?

That remains to be seen, but some are warning that the fallout would be devastating to the rest of Trump’s agenda.

“I think Jeff Sessions is doing a good job, and I think it would be in­cred­ibly disruptive and make it more difficult for the president to accomplish his agenda,” Cornyn told CNN early Wednesday.

By lunchtime, Cornyn declined to say what the ramifications would be, instead focusing on the attorney general’s decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. Sessions had served as an adviser to the Trump campaign, a high-profile surrogate who would travel with him and often introduce him at rallies. He also got caught up in a controversy by not fully revealing during his confirmation process all of his contacts with Russian officials.

That made it a by-the-book call to recuse, delegating the investigation to Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who then appointed Mueller shortly after he was involved in the Comey firing — which is now its own piece of the Mueller inquiry.

“I can’t imagine any future nominee would have decided the recusal issue any differently from Jeff Sessions,” Cornyn said.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who was elected along with Sessions in 1996, became visibly angry when discussing Trump’s treatment of his former colleague. “It’s very difficult, it’s disconcerting, it’s inexplicable,” he said. “I don’t know why you have to tweet with regards to your feelings about people in your own Cabinet.”

One fallout from Trump’s treatment of Sessions could be to guarantee that no Senate Republican will again be willing to give up a seat to accept a job with Trump.

“There are some well-qualified individuals, who otherwise would be inclined to serve, who might be discouraged from doing so given the rift that he has had with one of his most loyal supporters,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a moderate who became friends with Sessions as part of the 1996 class.

After Comey was fired, Sessions led the recruiting effort to get Cornyn the nomination to run the FBI. Their wives talked about the idea and Cornyn warmed to it, before other Republicans signaled that he would be too political a choice to run the independent investigative body.

Now, their double dates take on a different tone when they discuss working for Trump.

“He’s doing fine,” Cornyn said of Sessions. “He did the right thing, and I think he has the confidence that he did the right thing.”

Interesting, I wonder if Trumplethinskin is capable of listening to the warnings. Actually, no I don't -- he's incapable.

[Ali]

I predict that the buffoon will admit during a Twitter tantrum that he intended to fire Sessions and make a recess appointment that would have fired Mueller if the Senate does not go to recess.

[GreyhoundFan]

Okay, I can't pity Ryan, since he is the creator of so much misery,  but this is interesting: "Pity Paul Ryan: Moderates adopt Freedom Caucus tactics"

Spoiler

Moderate Republicans have watched for years as conservative hard-liners tanked legislation in the House — all while dutifully falling in line with leadership and being knocked as "squishes" by some of their colleagues.

But lately, some in the centrist Tuesday Group have started to adopt the power-in-numbers strategy of the Freedom Caucus. And the get-tough approach is yielding results.

Resistance from moderates almost torpedoed the House Obamacare replacement this spring, and resulted in billions in additional funding to help people with pre-existing conditions — a requirement for some centrists' support. Earlier this month, they banded with Democrats to sink two controversial amendments overwhelmingly supported by their GOP colleagues, including one barring the Pentagon from spending money on gender reassignment changes for troops.

Centrist Republicans have also told Speaker Paul Ryan they will not back a budget without a broader spending deal with Democrats. And this week, they helped crush a rank-and-file effort to pass a massive GOP appropriations package full of goodies for the base but that has no chance of passing the Senate. The spending bill was extremely popular with most of their Republican colleagues, infuriating those who supported the plan.

Tougher tactics from centrists will exacerbate Ryan’s already-difficult job of wrangling his fractious conference. The Wisconsin Republican and his leadership team find themselves twisted in knots trying to find 218 votes to pass almost anything of consequence. Now they’ll need to take more seriously the demands of vulnerable swing-district members as well as rabble-rousers on the right.

“I think there’s a lot of us who are like, ‘Don’t put us in a position of having to vote for something that has tremendous political risk to us and, substantively, is just done for negotiation purposes,’” said Rep. Thomas Reed, one of several centrists who told leadership he would not back the 12-bill spending package.

Lacking the votes, leadership is set to pass a slimmed-down, less controversial measure that funds the Pentagon and a few other agencies.

It’s quite a change for the House GOP. Tuesday Group members are typically leadership’s greatest sympathizers, always more eager than their ideologically driven colleagues to show that Republicans can govern.

Take Reed for example. By all accounts, the New York Republican has always been considered a leadership ally. He helps muscle votes as a deputy whip, and he boasts a prized panel post on the powerful Ways and Means Committee.

But when Ryan and his team came up short on votes for their GOP spending package, Reed told them to look elsewhere for help. The fourth-term centrist said he’s sick of taking tough votes for the team, then reeling from the political fallout back home — only to see the conservative plan die in the Senate.

“I think there is some frustration in a sense that we came here to govern," he said. "And to go through these exercises? … I don’t see a path to the finish line, and I don’t see the strategy."

The Tuesday Group hasn’t gone as far as the Freedom Caucus, of course. It’s not churning out official positions against legislation and certainly isn’t as vocal as the conservatives, who have nearly perfected their no-holds-barred tactics.

But GOP insiders said the change is notable, albeit subtler. For instance, most Republicans were shocked and furious when moderates sank the amendment on transgender troops during the defense authorization bill in early July. Moderates knew what was coming, whispering among themselves on the floor in a loosely laid plan to bring it down.

Before President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced a ban on transgender people serving in the military, some Republicans had been trying to persuade GOP leaders to do an end run around the moderates and tuck the amendment into the bill using a procedural loophole.

Sources say Tuesday Group leaders Elise Stefanik of New York and Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania were adamant that leaders better not go there. And centrists made it clear that if a ban on gender reassignment surgery was included, moderates wouldn’t hesitate to take down the entire “minibus” measure of spending increases for the Pentagon.

Moderates also recently sunk a controversial amendment on Islam from Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona. It would have instructed the Pentagon to, essentially, make a list of good and potentially bad Muslim thought leaders. Moderates, who worried about religious profiling, put their foot down, rejecting the proposal with Democrats in a defeat that stunned opponents of the text.

“I think a lot of members have learned from observing others,” said centrist Republican Carlos Curbelo of Florida, referring to the Freedom Caucus.

On the GOP spending package, Curbelo continued: “Everyone knows that at the end of the day we’re going to need a bipartisan deal and a bipartisan spending package, so let’s get it done and focus less on messaging.”

Rep. Dave Reichert, a centrist Republican from Washington, argued that moderates like him are the so-called Majority Makers. And since Republicans' hold on the House hinges entirely on them keeping their seats, they shouldn’t be subject to controversial votes that could haunt them on the ballot.

That, Reichert said, is already happening too often: “I think that there are some members who feel like a certain group of people within the conference are taking some votes that they don’t necessarily need to take… certain votes that might be bills that divide our constituency that we represent in our districts.”

At some level, moderates have a certain amount of leverage conservatives don’t — even if they’ve rarely used it. Leadership relies on them to support must-pass, often-controversial legislation that the far right refuses to back, including votes to avert government shutdowns.

This fall, House Republican leaders will look to these very members to help raise the debt ceiling since a majority of the GOP Conference likely won’t be on board.

“They rely on us to achieve outcomes that they can’t always advocate themselves, OK? And please, use that on the record,” said Dent, who’s often referred to as the ringleader of the GOP’s centrist flank.

Moderates say they'll be ready to support GOP leaders when they take steps toward bipartisan solutions. But until then, they can expect more resistance from the center.

 

[GrumpyGran]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Okay, I can't pity Ryan, since he is the creator of so much misery,  but this is interesting: "Pity Paul Ryan: Moderates adopt Freedom Caucus tactics"

  Reveal hidden contents

Moderate Republicans have watched for years as conservative hard-liners tanked legislation in the House — all while dutifully falling in line with leadership and being knocked as "squishes" by some of their colleagues.

But lately, some in the centrist Tuesday Group have started to adopt the power-in-numbers strategy of the Freedom Caucus. And the get-tough approach is yielding results.

Resistance from moderates almost torpedoed the House Obamacare replacement this spring, and resulted in billions in additional funding to help people with pre-existing conditions — a requirement for some centrists' support. Earlier this month, they banded with Democrats to sink two controversial amendments overwhelmingly supported by their GOP colleagues, including one barring the Pentagon from spending money on gender reassignment changes for troops.

Centrist Republicans have also told Speaker Paul Ryan they will not back a budget without a broader spending deal with Democrats. And this week, they helped crush a rank-and-file effort to pass a massive GOP appropriations package full of goodies for the base but that has no chance of passing the Senate. The spending bill was extremely popular with most of their Republican colleagues, infuriating those who supported the plan.

Tougher tactics from centrists will exacerbate Ryan’s already-difficult job of wrangling his fractious conference. The Wisconsin Republican and his leadership team find themselves twisted in knots trying to find 218 votes to pass almost anything of consequence. Now they’ll need to take more seriously the demands of vulnerable swing-district members as well as rabble-rousers on the right.

“I think there’s a lot of us who are like, ‘Don’t put us in a position of having to vote for something that has tremendous political risk to us and, substantively, is just done for negotiation purposes,’” said Rep. Thomas Reed, one of several centrists who told leadership he would not back the 12-bill spending package.

Lacking the votes, leadership is set to pass a slimmed-down, less controversial measure that funds the Pentagon and a few other agencies.

It’s quite a change for the House GOP. Tuesday Group members are typically leadership’s greatest sympathizers, always more eager than their ideologically driven colleagues to show that Republicans can govern.

Take Reed for example. By all accounts, the New York Republican has always been considered a leadership ally. He helps muscle votes as a deputy whip, and he boasts a prized panel post on the powerful Ways and Means Committee.

But when Ryan and his team came up short on votes for their GOP spending package, Reed told them to look elsewhere for help. The fourth-term centrist said he’s sick of taking tough votes for the team, then reeling from the political fallout back home — only to see the conservative plan die in the Senate.

“I think there is some frustration in a sense that we came here to govern," he said. "And to go through these exercises? … I don’t see a path to the finish line, and I don’t see the strategy."

The Tuesday Group hasn’t gone as far as the Freedom Caucus, of course. It’s not churning out official positions against legislation and certainly isn’t as vocal as the conservatives, who have nearly perfected their no-holds-barred tactics.

But GOP insiders said the change is notable, albeit subtler. For instance, most Republicans were shocked and furious when moderates sank the amendment on transgender troops during the defense authorization bill in early July. Moderates knew what was coming, whispering among themselves on the floor in a loosely laid plan to bring it down.

Before President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced a ban on transgender people serving in the military, some Republicans had been trying to persuade GOP leaders to do an end run around the moderates and tuck the amendment into the bill using a procedural loophole.

Sources say Tuesday Group leaders Elise Stefanik of New York and Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania were adamant that leaders better not go there. And centrists made it clear that if a ban on gender reassignment surgery was included, moderates wouldn’t hesitate to take down the entire “minibus” measure of spending increases for the Pentagon.

Moderates also recently sunk a controversial amendment on Islam from Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona. It would have instructed the Pentagon to, essentially, make a list of good and potentially bad Muslim thought leaders. Moderates, who worried about religious profiling, put their foot down, rejecting the proposal with Democrats in a defeat that stunned opponents of the text.

“I think a lot of members have learned from observing others,” said centrist Republican Carlos Curbelo of Florida, referring to the Freedom Caucus.

On the GOP spending package, Curbelo continued: “Everyone knows that at the end of the day we’re going to need a bipartisan deal and a bipartisan spending package, so let’s get it done and focus less on messaging.”

Rep. Dave Reichert, a centrist Republican from Washington, argued that moderates like him are the so-called Majority Makers. And since Republicans' hold on the House hinges entirely on them keeping their seats, they shouldn’t be subject to controversial votes that could haunt them on the ballot.

That, Reichert said, is already happening too often: “I think that there are some members who feel like a certain group of people within the conference are taking some votes that they don’t necessarily need to take… certain votes that might be bills that divide our constituency that we represent in our districts.”

At some level, moderates have a certain amount of leverage conservatives don’t — even if they’ve rarely used it. Leadership relies on them to support must-pass, often-controversial legislation that the far right refuses to back, including votes to avert government shutdowns.

This fall, House Republican leaders will look to these very members to help raise the debt ceiling since a majority of the GOP Conference likely won’t be on board.

“They rely on us to achieve outcomes that they can’t always advocate themselves, OK? And please, use that on the record,” said Dent, who’s often referred to as the ringleader of the GOP’s centrist flank.

Moderates say they'll be ready to support GOP leaders when they take steps toward bipartisan solutions. But until then, they can expect more resistance from the center.

 

This really causes heartburn for me. I want to believe that moderate Republicans can be trusted but why do I think that now they just don't want to be holding a big bag of stinking poo come November of next year? Then once they get re-elected, they are back on the Repub bandwagon, screwing the very people who vote for them.

I know a two-party system is good but in my soul I just want them all gone. Gone, gone, gone. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"The Daily 202: Growing GOP backlash to transgender troop ban underscores Trump’s political miscalculation"

Spoiler

THE BIG IDEA: President Trump tweets first and asks questions later.

His surprise announcement Wednesday that he will ban transgender people from serving in the military in any capacity, reversing an Obama administration decision to allow them to serve openly, caught the Pentagon and Capitol Hill off guard.

-- Reflecting how dramatically the national conversation on LGBTQ rights has shifted in recent years, the news drew swift rebukes from several leading Republicans in the Senate.

War hero John McCain, the preeminent Republican voice on national security, took a break from battling brain cancer to send this statement: “The President’s tweet … regarding transgender Americans in the military is yet another example of why major policy announcements should not be made via Twitter. … There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military — regardless of their gender identity. We should all be guided by the principle that any American who wants to serve our country and is able to meet the standards should have the opportunity to do so — and should be treated as the patriots they are.”

From Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), a former Army Reserve commander and the first female combat veteran elected to the Senate: “While she believes taxpayers shouldn’t cover the costs associated with a gender reassignment surgery, Americans who are qualified and can meet the standards to serve in the military should be afforded that opportunity,” spokeswoman Brook Hougesen told the Des Moines Register.

From Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who is up for reelection in one of the reddest and most socially conservative states in America:

...<Hatch's tweet in support of transgendered people>

From Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), who wields a lot of control over the Pentagon’s budget from his perch on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee: “You ought to treat everybody fairly and give everybody a chance to serve,” he said on CNN. In a follow-up statement to the Huntsville Times, he added: “The current policy is a big tent for people who want to serve. You've got to remember, our military force is a voluntary force.”

From Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “I would have significant objections to any proposal that calls for a specific group of American patriots currently serving in uniform to be removed from the military.”

From Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who served in the Marines: “I’m all about training standards. High, high standards for whoever joins the military,” he told HuffPost. “But my initial reaction is, if you can meet those standards, we shouldn’t care who you are. So, meet the standards, and you should be able to join the military.”

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), whose openly gay son prompted him to come out for gay rights in 2013: “The Secretary of Defense is conducting a study of this policy and Rob believes we should wait until that is complete before making any decisions,” a spokeswoman told in-state press.

-- Most Republicans in the Capitol tried hard to avoid reacting at all, and their silence spoke volumes about the degree to which they don’t think this is a political winner. One exception was Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), who praised Trump’s move. She recently offered an amendment to the annual defense policy bill that would have blocked the Pentagon from offering gender transition therapies to active-duty service members. Twenty-four Republicans joined all 190 Democrats to reject the measure, Mike DeBonis and Ed O’Keefe note.

-- The Pentagon referred all questions about Trump’s announcement to the White House, but the White House referred questions back to the Pentagon and falsely suggested that the decision had been made at the behest of the military. Because no thought was given to the details before Trump’s trio of tweets, White House incoming press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was unable to provide any clarity during her afternoon briefing. She couldn’t answer, for example, what will happen to the thousands of openly transgender troops who are already serving. A lot of lives hang in the balance, and folks whose careers could be destroyed are waiting with bated breath. But Sanders threatened to leave if reporters pressed her about it. “Guys, I really don’t have anything else to add on that topic,” she said. “As I do, I’ll keep you posted. But if those are the only questions we have, I’m going to call it a day.”

-- Some background on the review that had been underway: “Under former Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, the military lifted the ban on transgender troops and was given one year to determine how to implement a policy that would allow transgender service members to receive medical care and would ban the services from involuntarily separating people in the military who came out as transgender,” Abby Phillip, Thomas Gibbons-Neff and Dan Lamothe explain. “Trump's defense secretary, retired Gen. Jim Mattis, delayed implementation … by six months in order to study its impact. … That review was due by early December. Mattis cautioned at the time that the delay ‘in no way presupposes the outcome.’ … Thousands of troops currently serving in the military are transgender, and some estimates place the number as high as 11,000 in the reserves and active duty military, according to a Rand Corp. study commissioned by the Defense Department.”

-- The military was plainly caught off guard. As of this morning, the pro-transgender policy is still on the Defense Department's website.

From BuzzFeed News’s national security correspondent:

...

-- Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin said in a radio interview that he “was not aware” of the policy change until he learned about it from social media.

-- Trump’s tweets once again stomped on what could have been a good news cycle for him. Electronic manufacturer Foxconn announced plans to invest at least $7 billion in the United States and create between 30,000 and 50,000 jobs, with a huge factory in Wisconsin. But this story fell through the cracks because of Trump’s ban.

-- The timing was also bad from an optics standpoint: Trump banned transgender troops on the 69th anniversary of Harry Truman ordering the desegregation of the armed forces.

-- Could this be the civil rights issue of our time?

... <great tweet from John Lewis>

-- The real impetus behind Trump’s snap announcement, via Politico’s Rachael Bade and Josh Dawsey: “House Republicans were planning to pass a spending bill stacked with his campaign promises, including money to build his border wall with Mexico. But … insiders feared they might not have the votes to pass the legislation because defense hawks wanted a ban on Pentagon-funded sex reassignment operations — something GOP leaders wouldn’t give them. They turned to Trump, who didn’t hesitate. … (But) House Republicans were never debating expelling all transgender troops from the military. ‘This is like someone told the White House to light a candle on the table and the WH set the whole table on fire,’ a senior House Republican aide said in an email. The source said that although GOP leaders asked the White House for help on the taxpayer matter specifically, they weren’t expecting — and got no heads up on — Trump’s far-reaching directive.”

2004 CALLED. IT WANTS ITS WEDGE ISSUE BACK.

-- A Trump administration official boasted shortly after the announcement: “This forces Democrats in Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin to take complete ownership of this issue,” the unnamed official told Axios’s Jonathan Swan. “How will the blue collar voters in these states respond when senators up for re-election in 2018 like [Michigan Sen.] Debbie Stabenow are forced to make their opposition to this a key plank of their campaigns?”

Such a cravenly cynical quote — with its tacit acknowledgment that a major change in social policy was announced with partisan advantage in mind — is both breathtaking and scandalous. But even taken at face value, from a purely political perspective, it also reflects a remarkably unsophisticated view of our country circa 2017.

“What this official missed: Stabenow has a perfect 100% score from the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT organization, for the last session of Congress,” Time Magazine’s Phil Elliott writes from Cleveland. “In fact, Democrats here in the heartland — and beyond — have decided embracing LGBT rights is good politics. Younger voters overwhelmingly support the issue, have no issue with same-sex marriage and don’t really get the hullabaloo over transgender identities. Even in the most blue-collar towns, a neighbor's LGBT sexual orientation is less an issue than if they root for the wrong football team. Even as Democrats try to figure out their path forward, no one seriously questions whether they should retreat from the LGBT provisions in their platform.”

Look at how the 2018 Democrats in the other two states mentioned by the White House responded:

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio): “I have deep respect and gratitude for anyone who volunteers to serve in our military. We should not turn away anyone who is willing and able to serve this country and help keep America safe.”

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who is openly gay:

...

Even West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, the most conservative Democrat in the Senate (and up for reelection next year), spoke out against Trump’s ban. “I agree with Senator McCain that ‘any American who wants to serve our country and is able to meet the standards should have the opportunity to do so — and should be treated as the patriots they are,'” Manchin told West Virginia MetroNews.

North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, another Democrat up for reelection next year in a ruby red state, called Trump’s “cavalier” announcement “deeply unfortunate”: “If a service member can do the job and is willing, they should be able to serve — and they should be able to be open about who they are,” Heitkamp said in a statement to the Grand Forks Herald.

-- Seeing an opportunity to gin up their grass-roots base, national Democrats certainly didn’t equivocate either. “President Trump is a draft dodger and if he wants to talk about 2018, we’ve got dozens of veteran candidates who have already shown what it looks like to step up and serve our country to keep us safe, and are ready to do it again in Congress,” said Meredith Kelly, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee communications director.

There were lots of very fiery statements from members in this same vein: “When my Black Hawk helicopter was shot down in Iraq, I didn't care if the American troops risking their lives to help save me were gay, straight, transgender or anything else,” said Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.). “All that mattered was they didn't leave me behind.”

TRUMP HAS CHANGED:

-- “For decades leading up to [yesterday’s announcement], the businessman-turned-politician has approached the LGBT community on nonideological terms,” Robert Samuels and Jenna Johnson report. “Trump’s relationships with LGBT people, and his evolving positions on issues, have been transactional, according to people who have interacted with him, focused largely on how the community might affect his interests in the moment. Only a year ago, candidate Trump presented himself as a social liberal seeking to move the Republican Party left on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights. … But circumstances have been changing since Trump entered the White House. While his staff has met with LGBT advocates and he has hired several New Yorkers who have supported LGBT rights in the past, Trump’s administration has taken positions more in tune with the president’s social conservative base.”

THIS MORNING’S CLIPS ARE BRUTAL FOR THE WHITE HOUSE:

-- Elites up and down the Acela Corridor are predictably outraged, but local TV stations and newspapers — including in some of the reddest places in the country, humanized the issue by featuring transgender troops.

Perry Stein on The Post’s Local desk: “Protesters speak out against Trump’s transgender military ban in front of the White House.”

New Yorker Editor David Remnick: “The Cruelty and Cynicism of Trump’s Transgender Ban; The President’s tweets are a naked attempt to divert attention from his scandals.”

USA Today: “Trump's ban leaves transgender troops in limbo, and his White House and Pentagon scrambling.”

Stars and Stripes: “‘Fired by tweet:’ Troops, veterans react to transgender ban.”

Voice of America: “Transgender Soldiers, Veterans Shaken by Trump's Ban on Their Service.”

Deseret News (Salt Lake City): “Utahns denounce Trump's ban on transgender troops in U.S. military.”

Rapid City Journal (South Dakota): “Retired Ellsworth sergeant says transgender ban hurtful.”

ABC affiliate in Louisville: “Kentucky Guardsman faces uncertain future after Trump tweet.”

ABC affiliate in Charleston, S.C.: “Lowcountry transgender veteran ‘stunned’ by President Trump's transgender military ban.”

NBC News’s John Paul Brammer: “Trump’s Tweets May Leave Transgender Service Members ‘In Harm’s Way.’”

NBC affiliate in Las Vegas: “Trump's morning tweets have local LGBTQ vets asking, 'What's next?'”

In a sign of how much the news is breaking through, People Magazine is giving major billing to this story on its home page: “Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Is a ‘Political Tool’ to Stir Fears of His Base, Experts Say.”

WaPo op-ed by Col. Sheri Swokowski (ret.): “I served 34 years in the Army. I’m transgender. President Trump is wrong.”

Alex Horton on Checkpoint: “Trump called transgender troops a costly disruption. An expert who studied it says he’s wrong.”

Bustle: “This Trans Air Force Veteran Didn’t Serve For 20 Years To Have Trump Tear Her Down.”

Air Force Space Command veteran Carla Lewis on HuffPost: “I’m A Trans Veteran And I Fought For Your Right To Hate Me. For someone who claims to value loyalty, the president fails to comprehend the ultimate loyalty of our nation’s transgender service members.”

Vice: “What it’s like to be called a ‘burden.’ We talked to transgender military members about Trump’s plan to ban them.”

San Jose Mercury News: “Apple, Google and Facebook CEOs slam Trump’s transgender military ban.”

San Francisco Chronicle: “Transgender effort reopens culture wars.”

Albany Times Union (New York): “Firestorm erupts over ban of transgenders in military.”

Boston Globe Editorial: “Trump’s cruel, unnecessary transgender ban.”

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg penned a column for Bloomberg View: “Trump's Dishonorable Transgender Ban. It's an ill-considered decision that offends on moral and practical grounds.”

Chicago Tribune columnist Dahleen Glanton: “Donald Trump's ban on transgender people in the military is un-American.”

Washington Examiner: “Policy aside, Trump's Twitter announcement was a political disaster.”

I know this could have gone in the main manbaby thread, but I thought to put it here because of congressional reaction.

[GreyhoundFan]

OMFG, the Repugs are playing more games: "Republicans try to bait Democrats on single-payer vote"

Spoiler

A single-payer health care system may be the Holy Grail for many liberals, but a Republican plan to put Senate Democrats on the record voting for it isn’t going to get support even from Bernie Sanders.

Senate Republicans are trying to show that Democrats are just as divided over health care, so an amendment scheduled for a vote this afternoon proposing a completely government-run health care system isn’t a serious proposal — but designed to score political points against vulnerable red state Democrats.

It won’t get much, if any, Democratic support.

“I’m not going to support something that’s a sham, and that’s a sham,” Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said. “Not at the same time they’re planning to kick people off their health insurance. It’s a bait and switch.”

Still, the introduction of single-payer health care into a conversation about unwinding Obamacare offers an inflection point for Democrats who have long shied away from endorsing the universal coverage system. The reality is single-payer is gaining steam in the liberal base, and mainstream Democrats like Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) have taken up the cause in Congress. A majority of House Democrats support a “Medicare for All” bill in the House, which is the functional equivalent of a single-payer system.

Thursday’s amendment, though, isn’t going to be the moment for Democrats to throw down the gauntlet on single-payer.

Sanders, a Vermont independent who’s led the charge for single-payer, also vowed not to vote for the amendment from Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and is encouraging Democrats to also simply vote “present.”

“We don’t have legislation to amend, so how can you support an amendment when you don’t have legislation to amend?” he said.

Polling shows growing support among Democrats overall for a government-run health care system amid Republican efforts to tear down the 2010 Affordable Act. A Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll in June found 64 percent of Democrats backed a single-payer or national health plans, while the Pew Research Center that same month found a majority of Democrats support the idea for the first time in three years of polling.

Still, Democratic leaders have long resisted advocating for a massive expansion of the government’s role in health care, wary of alienating independent voters and hanging swing-state senators out to dry on what’s long been a divisive issue.

The party’s economic agenda released this week notably excluded single-payer, but Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the idea “is on the table” among other less divisive options for expanding government-sponsored coverage, such as allowing near retirees to buy into Medicare.

Senate Democrats face a tough electoral map in 2018, raising concerns that full-throated support for single-payer could bury the party deeper in the minority. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) — both running for reelection next year — are among those who have expressed skepticism about a single-payer system.

If Republicans’ Obamacare repeal effort collapses, liberal activists are hoping to seize the moment to push for single-payer. But Tester dismissed the idea as “just talk” earlier this month.

“In this environment, that’s all it’ll be,” Tester said.

 

[nvmbr02]

Looks like the skinny repeal is headed for a vote in a couple of hours. And it looks horrible. Supposedly Paul Ryan has agreed to put to conference but according to house rules they can vote on the bill without any changes in the house so If the Senate passes it it can go for a quick vote in the house and be ready to be signed into law as early as this weekend. Since Paul Ryan is a slimy weasel I doubt he will make any positive changes.

I am trying to remain hopeful, that even if this awful repeal becomes law it will just pave the way for a new and better system in (hopefully the near) future. But it is so damn hard to be positive. 

Read the Senate ‘Skinny Repeal’ Bill

[GreyhoundFan]

I was listening to the local newsradio station on the way home and they were talking about Ryan Zinke's pressure on Lisa Murkowski Freaking SOB.

"Female senators are increasingly on receiving end of insults from male officials"

Spoiler

Republican female senators whose disapproval of the GOP health-care effort has at times endangered its progress are facing an increasingly pointed backlash from men in their party, including a handful of comments that invoked physical retaliation.

In the past week, Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) has been challenged by a male lawmaker to a duel. She and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) were told that they and others deserve a physical reprimand for their decisions not to support Republican health-care proposals. Murkowski, who voted with Collins against starting the health-care debate this week, was specifically called out by President Trump on Twitter and told by a Cabinet official that Alaska could suffer for her choice, according to a colleague.

The language of retribution increasingly adopted by Republican men reflects Trump’s influence and underscores the challenges GOP women can face when opposing the consensus of their party, which remains dominated by men, outside experts said. A videotape of Trump surfaced during the campaign revealing him bragging in vulgar terms about groping women, and some believed that opened the gates for further insults and degrading behavior toward women.

“Masculine dominance in the Republican Party is not only in numbers but in culture,” said Kelly Dittmar, a scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University and the author of “Navigating Gendered Terrain: Stereotypes and Strategy in Political Campaigns.”

“When the person who is supposed to be the leader of the party shows it’s okay to use those sorts of attacks, whether they are specifically gendered or not, that is something that catches on at other levels,” Dittmar said. “We see it in the [elected officials] who feel it’s okay to say things like this.”

Collins and Murkowski have been among the Senate’s most consistently skeptical voices as Republicans accelerate their effort to amend the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA). In contrast with conservative critics such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), both women have criticized GOP health-care proposals because they would cut funding to Medicaid and Planned Parenthood, which provide medical care to hundreds of thousands of people in their states. Both have raised concerns about a lack of transparency in the crafting of GOP legislation.

They are not the only critics who have faced political attack over health-care legislation, but the backlash has not been as aggressive.

Notably, the pro-Trump political outfit America First Policies targeted Sen. Dean Heller (Nev.) with $1 million in TV and radio ads last month after he announced opposition to one ACA overhaul bill. The group canceled its campaign after senior Republicans intervened on Heller’s behalf.

Trump also has threatened electoral consequences against Republican senators who oppose the party consensus on health care. “Look, he wants to remain a senator, doesn’t he?” the president said recently of Heller, who was seated next to him at a lunch event. “I think the people of your state . . . [are] going to appreciate what you hopefully will do.”

Still, the most colorful and threatening comments have targeted Collins and Murkowski.

Rep. Blake Farenthold (Tex.), in an apparent reference to Collins, told a radio host Friday that if she were a “guy from south Texas, I might ask him to step outside and settle this Aaron Burr-style,” invoking the 1804 duel in which Alexander Hamilton was killed.

“Like the President, I am sick and tired of the left-wing biased media trying to make something out of nothing,” he said in a follow-up statement. “This was clearly tongue in cheek. That being said, I’m extremely frustrated with Senate Republicans who are breaking their promise to the American people to repeal and replace Obamacare.”

Collins was caught on a hot mic responding, when Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said she could beat Farenthold in such a duel. Collins called Fahrenthold “huge” and “extremely unattractive.” They later apologized to each other, CNN reported.

Rep. Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (R-Ga.) told MSNBC on Wednesday that someone should “go over there to that Senate and snatch a knot in their a--,” a regional phrase that refers to punishment, usually of disobedient children. MSNBC reporter Ali Velshi had asked Carter what he thought of Trump’s tweet chastising Murkowski for opposing the start of the health-care debate.

Carter later said the remark was directed at all those senators who, like Murkowski, stood in the way of easy victory for the legislation.

“Rep. Carter’s comment was in no way directed toward Senator Murkowski specifically,” Carter spokeswoman Mary Carpenter wrote in an email. “His words speak for themselves that he was not speaking about a single senator. This is a southern phrase used frequently throughout Rep. Carter’s lifetime which simply means get your act together.”

The comments are particularly poignant, given that Republican women in the Senate were excluded from the chamber’s original working group on health care.

“It’s too bad some folks are spending so much time creating cute catchy phrases in order to take potshots at colleagues,” Julie A. Conway, executive director of VIEW PAC, which recruits and trains Republican female candidates, wrote in an email.

“I wish they would spend as much time and energy sitting down with these women lawmakers to help find solutions and a strategy to get real health-care reform that Americans can feel good about.”

Dittmar argued that these kinds of comments undermine female leaders in the long run.

“The fact they call out specific women marks those women as outside of the norm. For those who may question women’s capacity to be just as qualified as elected officials, it mines that vein of doubt or underlying bias,” she said.

Trump’s rhetoric has been almost calm by comparison.

“Senator @lisamurkowski of the Great State of Alaska really let the Republicans, and our country, down yesterday. Too bad!” he tweeted Wednesday morning.

But later in the day, according to the Alaska Dispatch News, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke called Murkowski and Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) to say that Murkowski’s vote against opening the health-care debate could have repercussions for federal policy affecting Alaska.

“The message was pretty clear,” Sullivan told the news outlet.

The next day, a nominations markup in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee was postponed, leading some observers to speculate that Murkowski — the panel’s chairman — had deferred it in retaliation for Zinke’s call. A spokeswoman for the committee told The Washington Post that the meeting was postponed because of the uncertainty of the Senate schedule.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

The NYT has a good summary of where things are now. It was updated at 11:15PM Eastern.

Spoiler

• Senate Republicans unveiled a “skinny repeal,” a narrow measure to roll back parts of the Affordable Care Act. It would leave 15 million more Americans without insurance next year, the Congressional Budget Office said.

• Speaker Ryan tried to reassure senators balking at the narrow bill, but he left the door open for “skinny” passage.

• The health insurance lobby came off the sidelines Thursday to warn Republicans against repealing the individual mandate.

McConnell unveils narrow Obamacare repeal bill.

Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, pulled in his sails on repealing the Affordable Care Act, and unveiled a more narrow measure that would:

• REPEAL THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, which says that most Americans must have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.
• REPEAL THE EMPLOYER MANDATE, which requires large employers to offer health insurance to their workers.
• GIVE FLEXIBILITY TO STATES, making it much easier for them to waive federal requirements that health plans provide consumers with a minimum set of benefits like maternity care and prescription drugs.
• EXPAND HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, increasing the limit on contributions to such tax-favored accounts
• DELAY A TAX ON MEDICAL DEVICES.
• INCREASE FUNDS FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS.

C.B.O.: ‘Skinny’ bill would leave 15 million more uninsured.

The Congressional Budget Office said the latest, more narrow bill to dismantle the Affordable Care Act would leave 15 million more Americans without insurance next year and would raise insurance premiums by about 20 percent over the next decade.

The measure would decrease federal budget deficits by about $179 billion over a decade, according to the budget office.

Ryan tries to calm Senate nerves.

With senators pleading for reassurance, Speaker Paul D. Ryan did his best.

“If moving forward requires a conference committee, that’s something the House is willing to do. The reality, however, is that repealing and replacing Obamacare still ultimately requires the Senate to produce 51 votes for an actual plan.”

He then said whatever compromise comes out of the House-Senate conference would have to pass the Senate first before the House picks it up.

...

That might not be all that reassuring. If the Senate failed to pass that conference agreement, the House could still pass the Senate passed “skinny repeal” and send it to President Trump for the signing ceremony he desperately wants.

“Creepy Billionaires.”

That’s who Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, said were dictating the terms of the latest Republican health care bill. It does have a ring to it — could be a rock band.

Three Republicans: No ‘yes’ votes without assurances of a conference.

Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John McCain of Arizona and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin declared Thursday evening that they would not vote for a slimmed-down partial repeal of the Affordable Care Act that is being pushed by Senate leaders without ironclad guarantees that the House will negotiate a comprehensive measure.

The senators were unsparing in their criticism of the so-called skinny repeal, which would repeal the mandates that most individuals have health insurance and large employers cover their employees but leave most of the health law in place. Such a bill would crater the health insurance market and send premiums skyward, they said.

“The skinny bill as policy is a disaster,” Mr. Graham said. “The skinny bill as a replacement for Obamacare is a fraud.”

Senator Johnson said: “The skinny bill in the Senate doesn’t come close to meeting our promises.”

But they feared that House Republican leaders could just take the stripped-down bill, pass it and send it to President Trump.

“Right now, I am voting no,” Mr. McCain said.

Mr. Graham was emphatic.

“I need assurances from the speaker of the House and his team that if I vote for the skinny bill, then it will not be the final product,” Mr. Graham said. “I’m not going to vote for a pig in a poke.”

Mr. Ryan’s assurances may just win the night. For all his bluster, Mr. Graham said he would trust the speaker.

...

Sen. Johnson also looked like a yes.

But Mr. McCain was holding out.

...

Senate Republicans trim sails on ‘Repeal and Replace.’

The turmoil came as Senate Republicans, unable to reach consensus on broad legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, looked instead at chipping away at it.

Besides the mandates, Senator David Perdue, Republican of Georgia, said the other item under discussion for the so-called Skinny Repeal is rolling back a tax on medical devices imposed by the health law.

But to avoid a 60-vote threshold for passage, the bill must meet specific deficit reduction targets. It’s still not clear how those targets will be reached.

Then there’s the question of what would come next. Republican leaders are assuring senators that the narrow repeal would be merely a vehicle to begin negotiations with House Republicans on a broader compromise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. But some senators worry that they are being asked to vote for legislation they don’t like on a promise that it won’t become law — but they have no guarantee that the House won’t take it up and pass it.

...

This might not have helped.

As Republican senators seek assurances that the bill they are being asked to vote on won’t become law, the House majority leader, Kevin McCarthy of California, may have sent shivers down a spine or two in the upper chamber with this announcement.

“While last votes are currently scheduled to take place tomorrow, Members are advised that — pending Senate action on health care — the House schedule is subject to change. All Members should remain flexible in their travel plans over the next few days. Further information regarding potential additional items will be relayed as soon as possible.”

That doesn’t sound like a man preparing for lengthy House-Senate negotiations on a comprehensive health care bill. So maybe the “skinny repeal” could become law after all?

Parliamentarian takes another scalp.

Senate Republicans also would have liked the “skinny repeal” to include a measure that would make it much easier for states to waive federal requirements that health insurance plans provide consumers with a minimum set of benefits like maternity care and prescription drugs.

Then the Senate parliamentarian stepped in. The parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, objected on Thursday to the waiver provision, saying it appeared to violate Senate rules being used to speed passage of the bill to repeal much of the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans want to make it easier for states to get waivers for two reasons: State officials can regulate insurance better than federal officials, they say, and the federal standards established by the Affordable Care Act have driven up insurance costs.

But Republicans are learning the limits of the fast-track rules they are using. The Senate is considering the repeal bill under special procedures that preclude a Democratic filibuster, but the procedures also limit what can be included in the bill.

“The function of reconciliation is to adjust federal spending and revenue, not to enact major changes in social policy,” said Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont. “The parliamentarian’s latest decision reveals once again that Republicans have abused the reconciliation process in an attempt to radically change one-sixth of the American economy by repealing the Affordable Care Act.”

The Senate bill would give states sweeping new authority to opt out of federal insurance standards established by the Affordable Care Act. It builds on a section of the law that allows states to obtain waivers for innovative health programs. But it would relax many of the requirements for such waivers that Democrats put into the law, signed by President Barack Obama in 2010.

Insurers come off sidelines with warning.

The health insurance lobby, America’s Health Insurance Plans, came off the sidelines on Thursday to warn Senate leaders against repealing the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that most Americans have insurance without approving some mechanism to pressure people to maintain their coverage.

“We would oppose an approach that eliminates the individual coverage requirement, does not offer continuous coverage solutions, and does not include measures to immediately stabilize the individual market,” the group wrote.

AHIP played a major role in getting the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010 but has been reluctant to intervene in the fight over its repeal. On Wednesday, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, a narrower insurance lobby, weighed in with a similar warning.

Both groups were pulled into the fray by expectations that the Senate could end up voting in the early morning hours of Friday on a narrow bill that repeals a few important parts of the Affordable Care Act but leaves much of the law in place. Two of the pieces that would be repealed are the mandates that individuals have health insurance and that large employers cover their employees. The Senate had intended to repeal those mandates but create a new rule that anyone who allows coverage to lapse would have to wait six months before getting a new policy.

That lock out period was supposed to be enough to convince people not to simply wait until they were sick to buy insurance, a prospect that could send insurance markets into a tailspin, since only sick people would have insurance.

But it looks certain that any bill that can emerge from the Senate would not have the lock out provision, a deep concern to insurers who say that without it, insurance premiums would soar.

The American Medical Association piles on.

The American Medical Association, by far the largest physicians’ advocacy group, has stood firmly against each of the bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Now the A.M.A. has come out against the “skinny repeal.”

“There has been considerable speculation regarding a so-called ‘skinny package’ that would primarily eliminate penalties related to the individual and employer mandates and provide tax cuts to device manufactures and the health insurance industry. Eliminating the mandate to obtain coverage only exacerbates the affordability problem that critics say they want to address. Instead, it leads to adverse selection that would increase premiums and destabilize the individual market.

“We again urge the Senate to engage in a bipartisan process – through regular order – to address the shortcomings of the Affordable Care Act and achieve the goal of providing access to quality, affordable health care coverage to more Americans.”

Oh, and so does AARP.

Protesters make their voices known.

...

Across the Capitol on Thursday, supporters of the Affordable Care Act tried to reach out to senators, sometimes through mass protests, sometimes through their stories.

...

“I had epilepsy as a kid. I would not have been able to be covered under what you’re proposing,” one man told Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama.

The senator replied: “I think we need to have — not just for you but for any group that is underserved medically — we ought to protect them.”

Vigils broke out throughout the Capitol and around lawmakers’ offices.

Protesters in the Senate gallery chanting “kill the bill” disrupted proceedings on Tuesday just before the Senate voted, 51-50, to begin the health care debate. Democrats, including Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, spoke to crowds on the steps of the building. Hundreds of protesters flooded the lawns outside the Capitol.

“The message was: we are not backing down,” Nora Franco, campaign organizer at Planned Parenthood, said in the Capitol. She added, “Now is not the time to throw in the towel. Now is the time to literally be harassing your senators.”

Seven years ago, similar scenes unfolded before the votes on the Affordable Care Act, but then, the passion came from the opponents. Those voices now are little in evidence.

Has Alaska’s delegation crossed Trump?

President Trump went after Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who was one of only two Republicans to vote against starting debate on health care this week, with a Twitter post on Wednesday.

But that might not be the end of it.

Ryan Zinke, the Interior secretary, called both Ms. Murkowski and Alaska’s other senator, Dan Sullivan, “letting them know the vote had put Alaska’s future with the administration in jeopardy,” The Alaska Dispatch News reported. Mr. Sullivan, also a Republican, voted in favor of beginning debate.

“I’m not going to go into the details, but I fear that the strong economic growth, pro-energy, pro-mining, pro-jobs and personnel from Alaska who are part of those policies are going to stop,” Mr. Sullivan said, according to the newspaper.

But the leverage goes both ways.

Ms. Murkowski is the chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has oversight of the Interior Department. She is also the chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the department.

She likely can do more to Mr. Zinke than he can do to her.

...

Tracked down by reporters on Capitol Hill, Mr. Sullivan called for the administration and Alaska’s small but powerful congressional delegation to “get back to cooperation.”

...

No word yet from Ms. Murkowski.

...

The CBO score is dismal. It looks like they'll be voting around midnight Eastern.

[candygirl200413]

I am just so nauseous and feeling so horrible watching this go down. I keep thinking about the poor children/adults who lives depend on things like medicaid and people who have finally gotten insurance only for it to be taken away so quickly. Plus cutting funds to PP and CDC?

[GreyhoundFan]

I'm watching too. I should go to bed, but I can't turn away. They're voting on Patty Murray's motion to send the bill to the appropriate committee, which would be part of the "regular order" suggested by McCain. It failed along party lines. Supposedly the next vote is the "skinny repeal." Sigh.

Oh, and I started shouting at the TV when John Cornyn went on and on about how the Dems didn't want to participate in the process. Um, WTDH? McTurtle cut out most of his own freaking party, so it's not like he was asking Dem advice. What a freaking tool.

[GreyhoundFan]

They're voting on the skinny repeal. McCain actually voted no. There was an audible gasp and some applause. I couldn't hear many of the others. They are doing the roll call now. Collins, Murkowski, and McCain voted no, which I'm hoping means it is defeated. However, McTurtle keeps bringing this zombie shit back to life.

[nvmbr02]

Just now, GreyhoundFan said:

They're voting on the skinny repeal. McCain actually voted no. There was an audible gasp and some applause. I couldn't hear many of the others. They are doing the roll call now. Collins, Murkowski, and McCain voted no, which I'm hoping means it is defeated. However, McTurtle keeps bringing this zombie shit back to life.

I just saw this same thing. I was trying to turn away/watch my my eyes closed while holding my breath.  I don't think this is the end of this...not by a long shot but hopefully people will be able to rest easy for tonight. 

[GreyhoundFan]

On CNN, they have advised that voting is still going on, so until the gavel goes down, one or more senators can change his or her vote. I don't think Collins, McCain, or Murkowski will, but I just have to hear that gavel hit. The CNN hosts are talking about what McTurtle is going to do next. I can't imagine it will be pretty.

 

Edited to add: the gavel came down and it is official. McTurtle is being extra-pissy. He's snarking on the Repugs who voted no.

 

 

OH NO HE DIDN'T -- McTurtle just said something to the effect of the White House has been such a great support. Now he's being really shitty about "our friends on the other side".  He just freaking bitched about Dems "holding up" nominations. Um, FUCKFACE, you stole a SCOTUS nomination. What an ass.

...going to toss a lot of money in the swear jar.

[nvmbr02]

This may be my favorite tweet

 

[GreyhoundFan]

@nvmbr02 -- that is awesome!!

 

I shudder to think of the tweetstorm from twitler in the next few hours. I'm sure it will be epic.

[nvmbr02]

@GreyhoundFan I just posted about the upcoming twitter storm in the Trump thread, haha!

 

I'll likely be asleep when it starts but I am looking forward to waking up to that mess for once.

[GreyhoundFan]

I just looked up #skinnyrepeal on Twitter. Here are my favorites:

 

[nvmbr02]

Another winner on Twitter

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Okay, I have to turn off the TV and go to bed. Ted Cruz on on, whining, acting like he actually cares about American people. He is just such a jerk. He's saying that "Democrats are going to crow about hurting millions of Americans." Oh yeah, right. Also, he got a slam in against the ebil media. Now he's saying that senators are going to have to face their constituents. Um, yeah, they are. Then he whined, saying that the Dems are happy for people to pay more every year for insurance. Well, slimeball, I'd rather pay more and have insurance than not have insurance at all.

[nvmbr02]

3 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Then he whined, saying that the Dems are happy for people to pay more every year for insurance. Well, slimeball, I'd rather pay more and have insurance than not have insurance at all.

I can't stand him. And really, healthcare premiums were going to go up with the skinny repeal and all the other bills too. Just like they were going up before the ACA was passed. We do need a better solution but for now the ACA is better than anything else that has been proposed by the GOP.

[fraurosena]

Senate ‘Skinny’ Repeal Vote Was All About John McCain

Spoiler

The tension surrounding the overnight debate that saw the defeat of Senate Republicans’ health push rose when Sen. John McCain headed onto the Senate floor without saying how he was going to vote.

Senate Democrats had been giving speeches for hours urging Mr. McCain (R., Ariz.), who had given an emotional talk about bipartisanship on the Senate floor Tuesday, to resist his party leaders’ entreaties and vote against their latest plan to partially repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. McCain, who had returned to the Capitol recently from a surgery related to a brain tumor, had urged his colleagues in his speech to trust each other, aim for collaboration and pull back from a climate that he said was more partisan and tribal than any other he could remember.

As Mr. McCain entered the chamber, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) was urging his colleagues to find common ground. From a corner of the Senate chamber, Mr. McCain quietly clapped. It would be one of his most visible final gestures before Mr. McCain, at about 1:27 a.m., stuck his thumb down and formally registered himself as the vote that would block the GOP health plan from advancing.

That vote took a long time to come. For almost an hour, the Senate clerks refrained from gaveling the previous vote to a close as Republicans clustered around Mr. McCain. First, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska) squeezed him on the shoulder. Then, Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine) joined them, laughing.

Those were to be the only three Republican senators to vote against the GOP “skinny repeal” proposal, just enough to derail it—and with it the broader GOP effort to repeal and replace the ACA.

From a distance, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) gazed at Mr. McCain. Sen. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) was dispatched to intervene, and sat down next to Mr. McCain. Mr. McCain ignored the polite Mr. Flake. Mr. Flake leaned in and over, but he couldn’t break into the conversation of the trio who would bring down the health bill. At one point, Mr. McCain was positioned so that Mr. Flake was practically facing Mr. McCain’s back.

Finally, at 12:45 a.m., Vice President Mike Pence ambled over. Relaxed and easy, he put his hand on Mr. McCain’s desk. For 20 minutes they talked, Mr. McCain gesturing repeatedly and emphatically. Mr. Pence listened.

Mr. McConnell, joined by Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, stole glances at Mr. McCain. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) shuttled between the two groups.

Eventually Mr. Pence left, and Mr. McCain headed to a cluster of Democrats. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) pumped his fist. Mr. McCain hugged Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.).

Mr. Pence returned to the Senate floor and spoke briefly to Mr. McCain, who headed to the cloakroom. After several minutes, Mr. Pence followed him. It was looking increasingly like Republicans wouldn’t have the votes.

After Messrs. McCain and Pence, now joined by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R., La.), emerged from the cloakroom, the vice president and the Arizonan walked into a backroom.

The roll call began. Ms. Collins voted no. A gasp went up as Ms. Murkowski—who some thought might vote yes—stated that she too was a no. Then Mr. McCain’s thumb went down. Reporters rushed out of the press gallery.

Republicans left the floor, many too despondent to speak. “Obviously, I’m disappointed,” said Mr. Cassidy, who had been working on his own healthcare plan. “I had actually been told that he might be a yes, so I was a little surprised.”

Ms. Collins declined to talk to reporters. “I’m just going to allow my vote speak for itself,” Ms. Murkowski said. “Very difficult.”

Mr. McCain wasn’t in much of a mood to talk, either.

Why did you vote no? “Because I thought it was the right thing to do,” Mr. McCain said.

A crowd outside cheered. One man shouted, “I love you.”

Did it feel good? “Please,” Mr. McCain said, as headed to his car.

I wonder. Has his diagnosis influenced McCain's voting? Does he now think, "Who cares, I'm dying anyway, so I'll do what ever suits me and my constituents, even if it goes against the party's wishes?" Has his conscience begun playing up, now he might be meeting his maker sooner rather than later and he doesn't want to be held accountable for the deaths of thousands, just in case that feather may weigh heavier than his heart?

[fraurosena]

Aww. Putin's not happy with the new sanctions.

Russia seizes American property in Moscow and expels US diplomats in retaliation to fresh sanctions

Quote

Russia has ordered America to cut the number of diplomatic staff it has in the country and has seized a dacha compound and warehouse used by diplomats in retaliation for new US sanctions against Moscow.

I wonder how the presidunce will try to spin this...

[nvmbr02]

39 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

I wonder. Has his diagnosis influenced McCain's voting? Does he now think, "Who cares, I'm dying anyway, so I'll do what ever suits me and my constituents, even if it goes against the party's wishes?" Has his conscience begun playing up, now he might be meeting his maker sooner rather than later and he doesn't want to be held accountable for the deaths of thousands, just in case that feather may weigh heavier than his heart?

I've wondered the same thing. I also wonder if he dislike of the TT influenced him. In any case he did the right thing. 

Let's not forget Senators Collins and Murkowski. They held strong through the whole process. I personally hope the threats the administration made against the state of Alaska played a role in Murkowski holding on to he No vote.