United States Congress of Fail (Part 2)

[sawasdee]

OK. It's taken me several days to assimilate the House version of AHCA.

Have I got it right? These defenders of the foetus are cutting off pre natal and delivery care for those who do not have the money to afford it - it will no longer be a part of compulsory coverage. So bad luck if you don't get the care that could save your and your baby's life - the foetus is only important if you try to abort it.

Birth control will not be covered. Just hold that aspirin between your knees, ladies! If you get pregnant, it's YOUR FAULT - no male intervention required. Rape is not an excuse.

But erectile dysfunction WILL be covered? You'd almost think this had been made up by a group of elderly, impotent men - oh, wait......

It reads like a Monty Python comedy skit  - there is no logic, humanity or sense in the provisions for women's issues - but plenty for men!

I truly feel that the US is losing touch with the rest of the so called 'first world' - this couldn't fly in any other developed country - and many 'developing' countries where ante natal care and delivery care, birth control and abortion are freely available. (That means, in most cases, that you don't have to bankrupt yourself to buy it. It's part of a national system of health care.....) Welcome to the Dark Ages, US!

[GreyhoundFan]

This is wonderful: "A congressman said making a man get maternity insurance was ‘crazy.’ A woman’s reply went viral."

Spoiler

Between rounds of jeering that interrupted his every sentence, Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) took a little more than two minutes to explain what else he'd like to change about the Obama-era health-care law now that he has voted for the GOP's partial repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

“Get rid of some of these crazy regulations that Obamacare puts in,” Blum suggested at an Iowa town hall meeting Monday, “such as a 62-year-old male having to have pregnancy insurance.” The crowd yelled all the louder.

The gathering in a Dubuque high school gym went on for more than an hour like that: angry questions, political explanations, boos from the bleachers.

Barbara Rank, a retired special education teacher, did not get up from her seat like many of her neighbors did. “I did not have a question to ask,” she told The Washington Post. But the next day, on her morning walk past a boulevard of government-maintained flowers, Rank realized she had a response to Blum. She wrote it down in 96 words and sent it to her local newspaper — and since then, more than 100,000 people have offered a fair critique.

... (there is a screen cap of her reply here)

Rank, 63, has an AOL email account but no Facebook account. She learned what Reddit was only on Friday, she said, when her daughter informed her that someone had posted a snapshot of her letter under the headline, “This is democracy manifest,” and that tens of thousands of people were voting it onto the website's front page.

“It makes me laugh,” Rank said. “It's such a silly little piece.”

Tell that to the Daily Kos, where a writer thanks her “for calling out ignorant so-called public servants like Rod Blum of Iowa.”

Or to thousands of like-minded commenters on Reddit and Twitter.

...

So on Monday morning, a week after the town hall meeting, Rank helped her grandson off to school and explained her writing process to The Post.

She hasn't been politically active since college, she said. But as she taught in schools around the United States, she has made a point of reading the local newspaper in each city — writing in whenever “I get fired up.”

And sure enough, Blum's town hall gathering got her fired her up, even if she didn't say so that evening.

Rank wakes up before 7 a.m. every day, she said, and walks four miles through Dubuque to get the first cup of coffee from a bakery. “That's my thinking time,” she said. On Tuesday, she was thinking about what Blum had said — about men being forced to pay for maternity insurance.

“Come on,” she said. “Didn't we learn this in fifth-grade social studies?”

Her walk parallels the Mississippi River and the great public bridges that span it into other states. Thus her question in the letter: “Why should I pay for a bridge …”

“Then I thought about the sidewalk,” she said. “There's a neighboring town where two months ago a big issue was people didn't want to pay for sidewalks.”

And she'd heard of another town that had a dust-up over a library. A day after Rank's letter to the editor ran, the New York Times wrote about a small city in Oregon whose libraries are all closing amid an anti-tax movement.

“Then the flowers,” Rank said. She walks along Grandview Avenue, which veers away from the Mississippi, leading her toward the bakery along a mile and a half of gardened boulevards and parks she's still discovering after three years in Dubuque.

Rank returned to Iowa after her father died, to be closer to her daughters and help raise her grandson. She went to college in the state many years ago, she said, “when there was a big controversy about paying to have this piece of art put up on campus.”

“I just thought it looked like a piece of metal,” she said. “Some people appreciate some things; other people don't.”

She wrote one of her first letters to the editor about that artwork, she said, and referred to it in her reply to Blum: “Why should I pay for a flower I won’t smell, a park I don’t visit, or art I can’t appreciate?”

Rank finished her tiny essay in about half an hour and sent it off.

“The conclusion is something I always end up saying,” she said. “Every argument I've ever had with somebody, friends or relative: Don't you want to live in a civil society? Government is the structure of the country we live in. It's not as bad as people make it out to be.”

She didn't expect many people to read it. She expected criticism, like a few early comments on the Telegraph Herald's website:

“Did you ever consider personal responsibility?” someone wrote Friday before the letter spread much wider.

A spokesman for Blum said his remarks about maternity insurance where taken out of context. “He was referring to the idea of patients being able to choose health insurance policies that fit their needs, rather than one size fits all policies filled with government mandates,” the spokesman wrote. “Obviously he understands that taxes pay for things that not everybody uses. "

Ranks said she's fine with criticism, varying opinions and all.

“I got a text from one of my nieces,” she said. “She put it really well: 'Whatever. To 60,000 people, you just said what they think.'”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I know it will never happen, but wouldn't it be nice?

[apple1]

9 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I know it will never happen, but wouldn't it be nice?

I wish.

[sawasdee]

Well, he IS  a specialist in Constitutional Law.....wouldn't that be a plus in his interview?

[bashfulpixie]

Oh man.  Can you imagine the absolute meltdown that Trumpers would have if Obama was picked to prosecute their overlord?

[Cartmann99]

I said last week I'd do a post about the town hall I attended. The quick and dirty, is that Congressman Michael Conaway is an older, more overtly religious Paul Ryan. 

For those who want more details, click on the spoiler tag below. Warning, it's long:

Spoiler

I live in a congressional district that covers 27 counties and portions of two other counties. Since my congressman holds town halls in every county of the district, it can take over a year for my town's turn to come up.

I've set a goal of 90 miles for this year. If Conaway has a town hall within 90 miles of me, I will try my best to attend it. Last week was his first town hall since Trump's inauguration that was close enough, so my husband and I made plans to attend.

When we pulled up in the parking lot, we knew we were in for something unexpected. The car next to us had a bumpersticker that identified its owner as a Democrat, and then we passed three other hybrid cars before we got to the door of the building.  Obviously, the bat signal went out across the district, as this was highly unusual!

We walked inside, were warmly greeted by a member of Conaway's staff, and found some seats. About 50 people showed up which filled all of the available seats. Conaway went around and shook everybody's hand, and I told him that I appreciated him doing a town hall. I meant it. I obviously don't support the man, but only 16 Republican House members had town halls for their constituents last week, and I will give him credit for holding regular town halls in his district.

The topics went back and forth as people raised their hand to speak on whatever topic they were interested in, but for the sake of clarity, I'm going to try and keep all of the comments on the same topic together. 

Healthcare:

Conaway started out with his talking points on the ACA, and how while AHCA is not perfect, in his opinion, it is miles above the "Unaffordable Care Act". Some of the attendees had these red and green pieces of poster board that they would hold up while he was speaking to quietly signify whether they agreed or disagreed with his remarks. He stopped and asked what was happening, and one of them explained that green meant they agreed, and red meant they disagreed. He said okay and continued speaking. 

The people with the red and green cards disagreed with Conaway's talking points, and had brought notes from home to help them when it was their turn to speak. A group of current and retired healthcare professionals had come to the town hall together, and asked pointed questions like why didn't the Republicans wait for the CBO to score the bill, before the House voted on it? Conaway talked about how their estimate wasn't perfectly correct when they issued their report on the ACA, so we shouldn't worry too much about their numbers.  

The healthcare professionals also talked about the challenges of rural hospitals, and issues related to Texas not accepting the Medicaid expansion. Conaway then says we are wrong about Texas not accepting the Medicaid expansion while a group of us stare at him blankly. He then finishes his thought by explaining that Texas chose not to be encumbered by the Medicaid expansion or some such rot, and yapped about how block granting Medicaid will actually help more poor Texans receive care . Um, no.

One of the attendees who had obviously attended a town hall Conaway had held in January, asked if he remembered her friend whom he had met and spoke with at that previous town hall. He said no, and she reminded him that her friend is a cancer patient, and she was unable to attend this town hall because she is receiving chemotherapy.

The friend had told Conaway in January that she was very concerned about what was going to happen to her if the ACA was repealed, and begged him to remember people like her when it was time to vote. The woman asked Conaway if he had thought about her friend when he voted to repeal the ACA. Conaway said no, he hadn't thought about anyone when he voted. I was like  when he said that, because he's usually too skilled of a politician to shove both feet in his mouth like that. 

Reaction from local residents:

The locals let us know that they were unhappy that outsiders had shown up at "their" town hall. One man said he regularly comes to town hall meetings, and he had never seen any of "those people" with the red and green cards before, and didn't recognize some of the other attendees. A guy sitting near him leaned over and said something about how all of us are voters from this district, which made the first man shut up.

One of the locals got upset during the Russia questions, and demanded that Conway hurry up and finish his investigation into Trump's ties to Russia, so he could start a new one about Hillary Clinton. 

I had a woman sitting near me who seethed with anger throughout the town hall. She complained bitterly whenever someone voiced an opinion different than her own, and during a time when questions about healthcare were being discussed,  she yelled out that she knows someone who has "that Obamacare" and how awful it is.

A man near me attempted to politely engage her by trying to explain that you don't get a health insurance policy from "Obamacare", you buy a policy from a health insurance provider like Blue Cross, Blue Shield or whatever through the ACA exchanges. She refused to listen to him. I was pleading with him with my eyes to not engage this woman, as her body language was that of of someone desperate for a fight. Also, I knew that if a screaming match or fist fight had broken out, the story would have been that we outsiders were to blame.  

Trump/Russia:

Since Conaway is now the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee that is supposed to be investigating Trump's ties to Russia, people had questions for him about how the investigation was proceeding. As I said in the main Trump thread a few days ago, Conaway claims that the investigation is continuing behind closed doors and that he only wants the truth to come out. People asked him to please put country before party, and he said that he would. *fingers crossed*

 

Social Security/Medicare

 Attendees also asked questions about Social Security and Medicare, and what plans did Conaway have to protect these programs. One man asked about raising the cap on earnings for Social Security, so that people who currently have income in excess of the cap, are paying in the same percentage of their income as those whose entire salaries are below the cap.

Conaway said we can't raise the cap on earnings, as that would turn Social Security into a welfare program where the wealthy are taxed to support poorer Americans. He is opposed to any solutions that raise taxes, and thinks we should raise the eligibility age and reduce benefits, while encouraging Americans to save more on their own.

Conaway doesn't believe the government should be involved with these sorts of programs in the first place, so it's foolish to look to him for solutions to save these programs. He's a multimillionaire who believes that government should only be big enough to provide defense to its citizens, and to enforce the socially conservative views of his church, aka the faux libertarian type.

Climate Change:

One of the women brought her teenage son with her to ask questions about climate change, and he asked Conaway if he thought humans are responsible for it. Conaway said something about how the climate is always changing, and how this area was underwater at one time, and now its not. He then talked about how the science isn't settled, and told the story about Galileo being persecuted because of his heliocentric theory of the universe.

In Galileo's day, conservatives were the ones doing the persecuting.  Are conservatives being held under house arrest somewhere in the United States for not believing that people are contributing to climate change?! The talking point about Galileo always annoys me.

Jesus Time

Since my Donald Trump supporting congressman is also a deacon in the Baptist church, he closed with a condensed version of the immortality sermon. You know, the United States is uniquely blessed by God, but if Americans don't quit having abortions and living immoral lives in general, God will remove his blessing upon the United States, and smite us all into next week. 

People were welcome to stick around if they wanted to speak with him privately, but we were ready to go by then, so we bailed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

@Cartmann99 -- thank you for your report on your representative's town hall. It sounded pretty civilized. Sorry that you have a dyed-in-the-wool Repub.

[Flossie]

I liked the red and green cards.  What an excellent way to disagree (or agree) without screaming and yelling.

[fraurosena]

8 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

Since my Donald Trump supporting congressman is also a deacon in the Baptist church, he closed with a condensed version of the immortality sermon. You know, the United States is uniquely blessed by God, but if Americans don't quit having abortions and living immoral lives in general, God will remove his blessing upon the United States, and smite us all into next week. 

Thanks for your post, @Cartmann99! Very insightful for a foreigner like me.

As to the bolded:

What is it with is assertion that god has somehow uniquely blessed America? I am not regligious in the slightest, but even I know that Israel and the jewish people are the uniquely blessed ones, at least according to the bible. Although I have to say one might think god's blessing was a curse, given what has happened to the Jewsish throughout history - but I digress.

Where does this blessed America belief stem from? And if this miraculous blessing happened, when exactly did it occur? Where was it recorded what the special conditions attached to this blessing were, and who recorded it? Where there stone tablets involved? A mountain?An American Moses? 

[Cartmann99]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

What is it with is assertion that god has somehow uniquely blessed America? 

America introduced the world to spray cheese and those awful Kardashian people, can't you tell that we are uniquely blessed? 

[fraurosena]

9 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

America introduced the world to spray cheese and those awful Kardashian people, can't you tell that we are uniquely blessed? 

 

Sorry... but that's my reaction to both of those things... yuk.

But I have to admit, they are unique. 

 

[sawasdee]

A Republican congressman wrote to a bank to inform them that an employee was lobbying for a Democrat PAC....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/15/p-s-an-anti-trump-activist-works-for-your-bank-ethics-experts-say-this-congressmans-fundraising-letter-sounds-like-a-threat/?utm_term=.50cc4943cf09

Spoiler

Quote

An attorney in New Jersey, as well as ethics experts back in Washington, are in shock after one of the most powerful members of Congress — Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) — sent a fundraising letter to a woman's employer describing her as a “ring leader” in a local activist group.

Saily Avelenda resigned from her job as a senior vice president at the local bank soon after, saying the letter was part of the reason she left her job. “When it first came to my attention, I thought: ‘No. No one would do that,’” she told The Fix on Monday. “But the more I think about it, the more I could tell this was a concerted, directed effort to target me.”

Here's the operative paragraph in the March letter that Frelinghuysen, chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, wrote to the bank's director:

Let's be clear that there are organized forces — both national and local* — who are already hard at work to put a stop to the agenda of limited government, economic growth and stronger national security

The “local” was starred in blue ink, a flag to jump down to the bottom of the letter, where, next to the congressman's hand-signed signature, there is a handwritten note:

*P.S.: One of the ring leaders works in your bank!”

 

It's worth reading the whole article.

She resigned.

[GreyhoundFan]

@sawasdee, Frelinghuysen is an ass. Sadly, I can see that crap being right up his alley. He needs to lose his job in 2018, if not before.

[AnywhereButHere]

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Sorry... but that's my reaction to both of those things... yuk.

But I have to admit, they are unique. 

 

And that is exactly what spray cheese looks like!

[GreyhoundFan]

Spineless weasels: "A GOP senator’s guide to a Trump scandal: 1) Say you’re ‘troubled.’ 2) Keep walking."

Spoiler

On Capitol Hill, Republican senators were troubled.

Troubled, on Tuesday, as they deboarded their little underground trams, which run underneath U.S. Capitol grounds, and as they scurried between their office buildings. Concerned, as they slipped onto their private senator elevators. Re-troubled, as they re-boarded their trams, all while being stalked by a roving mass of news reporters seeking statements about the latest borscht-scented scandal — Mr. Trump, in the Oval Office, running his mouth — to plop out of the White House.

“Obviously, this is concerning,” said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) as he settled into a tram seat. “If the reports are accurate, they’re concerning.”

“It is unquestionably important to protect the sources and methods used to collect intelligence,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), clasping his hands together and casting his eyes downward, as if lost in thought, as if he had not already been asked the same question by several other masses of reporters.

“I’m troubled when [Russian Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov is in the Oval Office,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), waiting for his elevator in the Russell building. “I can’t imagine why he’d ever be allowed in the Oval Office.”

So. . . do you think should there be consequences, senator?

“What consequences do you think that I have?” McCain snapped, clearly frustrated. “You tell me. You are asking me what the consequences could be when you aren’t even telling me what consequences there could be. I can’t answer your question. I can’t and no one else can. I’ve been around here a long time, my friend, and if someone asked me a rational question, I would be more than happy to try to answer it.”

Later, he apologized. “I’m sorry if I’m short with you.”

So troubled. Lawmakers — particularly those in the party controlling the White House and both houses of Congress — have spent the majority of this administration in a state of being so achingly, tenderly troubled.

Last week, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) was “troubled” by former FBI director James B. Comey’s abrupt firing, as was Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.). Back in January, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was “troubled” by allegations that then-national security adviser Michael Flynn had inappropriate discussions with a Russian contact during the transition.

The contact in question? Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, who resurfaced this week as one of the Russian visitors — along with Lavrov — who were recipients of Trump’s Oval Office intelligence-dishing, a man whose repeated cameos in the American political drama will surely turn into an assignment for a regular SNL cast member.

Being “troubled” is a measured reaction — a grown-up, politically safe one. If you say you’re “troubled,” no one can say you approached the situation with too much glibness. Nobody can accuse you of histrionics. Being troubled in times of politically charged scandal is the equivalent of sending “thoughts and prayers” in times of politically fraught tragedy.

The phrase is always appropriate. The phrase is eventually meaningless.

“I’m glad that they’re troubled,” sighed Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) as he, too, navigated the Capitol grounds on Tuesday. “Saying you’re troubled is pretty empty if you’re not willing to do anything about it.”

The troubling trouble, on Tuesday, seemed to be that nobody was exactly sure what to do about it, at least not yet. “You want to let the dust settle,” Flake said.

“I’m going to wait and withhold judgment,” said Cruz.

“I don’t know what the consequences are going to be except for the decision of the American people,” McCain said. (Can the American people appoint a special prosecutor? Can the American people issue subpoenas?)

At one point early Tuesday morning — the usual twitching hour for President Trump — Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) launched his own Twitter blitz, sharing biblical phrases with his followers, in an apparent attempt to seek guidance from a higher power than the U. S. Congress.

“Commit to the Lord whatever you do,” he wrote, quoting a verse from the book of Proverbs in one tweet. “Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid,” he wrote in another, quoting the book of John.

Do not let your hearts be troubled? Was this a tweet mean to calm his fellow senators? (What 140-character guidance might he have for the rest of the American public? “Do not let your heart have a heart attack, and hold onto your butts, folks”?)

Back at the Capitol, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) was actually not troubled.

“I don’t use that word,” he said as he disembarked from a tram. He noted that he is a man who pilots small airplanes, sometimes upside down, and therefore does not trouble easily. Besides, he said, he trusts the account of national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who told reporters in a news conference Tuesday that Trump didn’t do anything untoward.

“I trust him more than I trust the media,” Inhofe said of McMaster. “I think we have all the information we need.”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"For 101 members of Congress, life might soon get very awkward"

Spoiler

On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate cast two historic votes, weighing in on whether or not President Bill Clinton had, in violation of his constitutional oath, “willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process” by lying during sworn testimony and “impeded the administration of justice” by seeking to “delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony” in a lawsuit against him.

The House Judiciary Committee brought four articles of impeachment to the floor for a vote; only those two were agreed upon. The Senate ultimately failed to find Clinton guilty by a majority vote on either, allowing him to remain in office for the final two years of his presidency.

Talk of impeachment is again burbling on Capitol Hill, thanks to a pair of newspaper stories this week. The Post reported Monday that President Trump revealed classified information in a private conversation with Russian officials. A day later the New York Times reported that James B. Comey, while still FBI director, had memorialized a conversation with Trump in which the president asked him to drop an investigation into Trump’s then-national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and his ties to Russia.

While details are still sketchy on that latter story, the possibility looms that Trump’s actions constitute obstruction of justice — one of the two charges for which Clinton faced removal.

And if that’s the case, life for 101 Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill may be about to get rather sticky. Those Republicans, you see, voted to impeach Clinton for obstruction of justice 17 years ago, and they would need to decide whether to cast a similar vote against Trump. The Democrats declined to impeach Clinton on that charge — and would similarly need to develop a new rationale.

There are, in total, 116 current members of the House and Senate who also served in the 105th or 106th Congresses. Since the House vote on the articles of impeachment was taken at the end of the 105th and the Senate vote at the beginning of the 106th, there are a number of current members of Congress who were freshmen in the 106th House, and therefore simply observed what was going on over in the other chamber as the House prosecuted its case against Clinton for the Senate’s final verdict. (Among those freshman? A fellow named Paul D. Ryan.)

Excluding those freshmen, 54 Democrats (six of whom are now senators) voted on the articles of impeachment in the House — all opposing all four articles. Another five cast votes on guilt in the Senate — all voting “not guilty” on both counts. Another 35 Republicans (eight of whom are now senators) voted in the House and nine voted in the Senate. Among the Republicans, views were split — but 42 of them cast votes to impeach Clinton on the grounds of obstruction of justice or to declare him guilty of that charge.

,,,

A full list of the current members of Congress who voted on Clinton’s obstruction charge is at the bottom of this article. Two Republicans — Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) — voted against impeaching Clinton for obstruction of justice, as did Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), then in the House.

Of those 42 Republicans, three were included among the group of House members who served as managers of the impeachment process, helping to prosecute the case against Clinton in the Senate. Those three were Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who is now a senator.

Unsurprisingly, all three spent a lot of time back then talking to the news media about the need to press forward with the impeachment process.

“The President engaged in a conspiracy of crimes to prevent justice from being served,” Sensenbrenner said in December 1998. “These are impeachable offenses for which the President should be convicted.” Graham came under fire for sending out a fundraising letter about the process, in which he warned that, “[a]s visibility increases for many Republicans due to the impeachment process, the likelihood for opposition in the next election also increases.”

Chabot argued that Clinton had “lied so many times in so many forums it’s really hard to keep track of it all.”

“For the children of this nation,” he added, “this president has to be impeached.”

Other Republicans still in office offered similarly strong warnings.

“The American people can no longer trust word,” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) said that same month. “We believe he is a shameless liar.”

“Having to make a choice, I choose to be on the side that says no person is above the law; that this is a nation of laws, not men; that telling the truth matters; and that we should expect our public officials to conduct themselves in compliance with the highest ethical standards,” Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), then a House member, said in announcing his support for the process.

“Either he has a reckless contempt for the truth, or he can’t discern the truth from lies,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), then also a House member. “In either case, that’s a miserable commentary on the elected leader of the free world.”

We are, of course, getting well ahead of ourselves here. Talk about an impeachment of Trump has been limited to his political opponents, and in each of the three serious attempts to impeach a president — Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Clinton — the House was controlled by members of the opposing party. (Johnson was a Democrat; Republicans controlled the House in 1868.)

Should the issue proceed to the point at which these members of Congress are once again asked to weigh in on whether a president obstructed justice, the rhetoric used by these 101 will be fascinating to watch. How is 2017 different than 1998 and 1999? Why was Clinton worth letting off the hook but Trump prosecuting — or vice versa. King and Collins, meanwhile — the Republicans who declined to vote against Clinton — will be the happiest people on the Hill.

Two others who cast votes to condemn Clinton for obstruction of justice will get to weigh in from outside any similar process for Trump. Those two? Attorney General Jeff Sessions and MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough.

 

Yeah, they won't see the irony.

[nvmbr02]

The House may be forced to hold yet another vote on the AHCA when the CBO comes back. It still has not been sent to the Senate. If there isn't a estimated savings of at least $2 billion they need to go back to the drawing board.  Hm, maybe they shouldn't have voted before having the CBO score in the first place.

Sadly, I do not see the GOP coming up with anything better than what they have come up with at this point. But it does speak to their level of incompetence. 

House May Be Forced to Vote Again on GOP's Obamacare Repeal Bill

[GreyhoundFan]

"Paul Ryan says House’s work will continue despite Trump controversies"

Spoiler

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the many layers of controversy facing President Trump will not impede House Republicans from pursuing their agenda, the day after the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to investigate possible collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials.

Ryan sought to project an aura of calm while speaking with reporters Thursday as a growing sense of scandal engulfs the White House.

“It’s always nice to have less drama,” he acknowledged during a news conference. “I realize there’s a lot in the media these days. That doesn’t seize up Congress. That doesn’t stop us from doing our jobs.”

He cited tax reform, a major GOP priority, as an example, vowing it would not slip into next year.

“Drama is not helpful in getting things done,” Ryan said, “but we’re still getting things done. . . . I feel very comfortable we’ll meet this goal.”

The comments came amid a second chaotic week on Capitol Hill in the wake of Trump’s dismissal of FBI Director James B. Comey. New revelations about Trump — including his disclosure of highly classified information to Russian officials and his attempt to pressure Comey to drop an investigation of Trump’s former White House national security adviser — have left Republicans reeling and increasingly frustrated by the president’s behavior.

Asked about private chatter among some Republicans that Vice President Pence would be a better chief executive than Trump, Ryan projected disgust.

“I’m not going to give credence to that,” he said. “I’m not even going to comment on that. There’s not even a point making a comment on that.”

Attention on Capitol Hill quickly returned Thursday to Comey’s firing, as committees awaited a response to invitations for him to testify and senators prepared to receive a briefing from Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein.

“Mr. Comey was central to the events of the past few weeks,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday morning on the Senate floor. “We still need to hear from him.”

Comey has received invitations to testify from the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He has not stated publicly whether he will appear.

Meanwhile, the House Intelligence Committee announced that former CIA director John O. Brennan will testify Tuesday in both open and closed sessions about Russia’s election interference.

The appointment of Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel took the pressure off many lawmakers, who felt increasingly pressed in the past month to support an independent commission or a special prosecutor to look into the Russia matter. Still, Mueller’s appointment will not end the investigations already taking place on Capitol Hill, and lawmakers expressed a firm commitment to continuing their efforts.

The House Intelligence Committee on Thursday became the latest panel to request documents from the Justice Department about the Russia investigation and Comey’s conversations with Trump. The Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have already made similar requests.

“We’re going to keep doing our jobs — keep our Russia investigations going,” said Ryan, who had rejected calls for a special counsel.

Those efforts are taking place against a continually shifting backdrop of news and controversy involving the Trump White House. Earlier this week, The Washington Post revealed that Trump disclosed highly classified information to Russian officials during a meeting in the Oval Office. A day later, the New York Times reported that Trump had pressured Comey to drop an investigation of former White House national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, based on a memo Comey wrote summarizing their meeting.

The Senate Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena last week to force Flynn to turn over documents relevant to its Russia investigation. Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said Thursday that Flynn’s attorneys had not yet “indicated their intentions,” but he expressed hope that they will cooperate.

“Michael Flynn has not cooperated with the committee up to this point,” Burr told reporters on Capitol Hill. “We have not gotten the definitive answer.”

Congressional committees have sent multiple requests to the FBI and the White House to obtain any records of Trump’s conversations with Comey, as well as other Russia-related documents.

Among them was the House Oversight Committee, whose chairman appeared on television Wednesday night and disputed whether the Comey memo actually exists.

“I’m not even sure these memos exist,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said in an interview with Fox News Channel. “I’m not even sure they’re real. I just don’t know. . . . I do think it’s worthy of investigation. I think they should pursue it.”

Partisan differences also began to emerge on the matter of the special counsel.

While praising Mueller for being “as good as it gets,” Chaffetz said he ultimately disagreed with the Justice Department’s decision.

“They shouldn’t have actually appointed somebody,” he told Fox News. “They’re feeling the political heat. Maybe they’re watching a little too much television and reading too many newspapers and whatnot.”

He added that he had not seen “any evidence of actual collusion” between Trump associates and the Russian government.

“Where is the actual crime they think they need a special prosecutor to investigate?” Chaffetz said. “I haven’t seen that.”

In a separate Fox News interview, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) cast doubt on the report that Trump had disclosed classified information to Russian officials, saying he spoke with someone who was in the meeting who had denied it.

“They vehemently and repeatedly denied that the president said or did anything that would have compromised U.S. intelligence, its sources, its methods or our intelligence relationships around the world,” Rubio said on “Fox & Friends.”

“Before we form opinions . . . we need to know what the facts are,” he said.

The Senate and House intelligence committees are the primary centers of investigation on Capitol Hill of the Russia matter, and Chaffetz has been criticized for not using his power to investigative Trump.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), the ranking Democrat on the oversight panel, called on Chaffetz to subpoena documents from the White House after the New York Times reported that Trump’s presidential transition team was aware of investigations of Flynn before naming him national security adviser.

“There is no longer any excuse to allow the White House to continue stonewalling,” Cummings said Thursday in a statement. “The Chairman either needs to subpoena the White House or let the Committee take a vote.”

Cummings elaborated in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“We need to look at the vetting process and how it takes place in the new administrations, whether they’re Democratic or Republican,” he said. “I’m hoping Chairman Chaffetz and I can work together to get some things done.”

Outside of the issue of Congress’s investigations, Democrats are expressing concerns about the possibility of improper influence by the Trump administration on Mueller’s investigation. Several members of the party, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), said Mueller’s appointment must be followed by an independent commission to oversee its own Russia inquiry.

“A special prosecutor cannot take the place of a truly independent commission,” she said. “There’s reason to believe that the president was engaged in some very inappropriate activities.”

Asked if U.S. allies should be nervous about information being leaked by the president, Pelosi said the answer is obvious. “Wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you be nervous?” she said.

Democrats’ other pressing concern is the search for Comey’s replacement.

“The next FBI director must be someone who is nonpartisan, independent, fearless and unimpeachable,” Schumer said Thursday, ruling out a politician for the role. “Anyone who suggests a lack of impartiality should not be considered.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) did not mention any of these issues during his morning remarks on the Senate floor, focusing instead on health care.

“The entire Senate Republican conference has been at work debating ideas and making progress,” McConnell said. “I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will join us in bringing some relief to all these families who desperately need it.”

 

[nvmbr02]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Paul Ryan says House’s work will continue despite Trump controversies"

  Reveal hidden contents

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the many layers of controversy facing President Trump will not impede House Republicans from pursuing their agenda, the day after the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to investigate possible collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials.

Ryan sought to project an aura of calm while speaking with reporters Thursday as a growing sense of scandal engulfs the White House.

“It’s always nice to have less drama,” he acknowledged during a news conference. “I realize there’s a lot in the media these days. That doesn’t seize up Congress. That doesn’t stop us from doing our jobs.”

He cited tax reform, a major GOP priority, as an example, vowing it would not slip into next year.

“Drama is not helpful in getting things done,” Ryan said, “but we’re still getting things done. . . . I feel very comfortable we’ll meet this goal.”

The comments came amid a second chaotic week on Capitol Hill in the wake of Trump’s dismissal of FBI Director James B. Comey. New revelations about Trump — including his disclosure of highly classified information to Russian officials and his attempt to pressure Comey to drop an investigation of Trump’s former White House national security adviser — have left Republicans reeling and increasingly frustrated by the president’s behavior.

Asked about private chatter among some Republicans that Vice President Pence would be a better chief executive than Trump, Ryan projected disgust.

“I’m not going to give credence to that,” he said. “I’m not even going to comment on that. There’s not even a point making a comment on that.”

Attention on Capitol Hill quickly returned Thursday to Comey’s firing, as committees awaited a response to invitations for him to testify and senators prepared to receive a briefing from Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein.

“Mr. Comey was central to the events of the past few weeks,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday morning on the Senate floor. “We still need to hear from him.”

Comey has received invitations to testify from the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He has not stated publicly whether he will appear.

Meanwhile, the House Intelligence Committee announced that former CIA director John O. Brennan will testify Tuesday in both open and closed sessions about Russia’s election interference.

The appointment of Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel took the pressure off many lawmakers, who felt increasingly pressed in the past month to support an independent commission or a special prosecutor to look into the Russia matter. Still, Mueller’s appointment will not end the investigations already taking place on Capitol Hill, and lawmakers expressed a firm commitment to continuing their efforts.

The House Intelligence Committee on Thursday became the latest panel to request documents from the Justice Department about the Russia investigation and Comey’s conversations with Trump. The Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have already made similar requests.

“We’re going to keep doing our jobs — keep our Russia investigations going,” said Ryan, who had rejected calls for a special counsel.

Those efforts are taking place against a continually shifting backdrop of news and controversy involving the Trump White House. Earlier this week, The Washington Post revealed that Trump disclosed highly classified information to Russian officials during a meeting in the Oval Office. A day later, the New York Times reported that Trump had pressured Comey to drop an investigation of former White House national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, based on a memo Comey wrote summarizing their meeting.

The Senate Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena last week to force Flynn to turn over documents relevant to its Russia investigation. Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said Thursday that Flynn’s attorneys had not yet “indicated their intentions,” but he expressed hope that they will cooperate.

“Michael Flynn has not cooperated with the committee up to this point,” Burr told reporters on Capitol Hill. “We have not gotten the definitive answer.”

Congressional committees have sent multiple requests to the FBI and the White House to obtain any records of Trump’s conversations with Comey, as well as other Russia-related documents.

Among them was the House Oversight Committee, whose chairman appeared on television Wednesday night and disputed whether the Comey memo actually exists.

“I’m not even sure these memos exist,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said in an interview with Fox News Channel. “I’m not even sure they’re real. I just don’t know. . . . I do think it’s worthy of investigation. I think they should pursue it.”

Partisan differences also began to emerge on the matter of the special counsel.

While praising Mueller for being “as good as it gets,” Chaffetz said he ultimately disagreed with the Justice Department’s decision.

“They shouldn’t have actually appointed somebody,” he told Fox News. “They’re feeling the political heat. Maybe they’re watching a little too much television and reading too many newspapers and whatnot.”

He added that he had not seen “any evidence of actual collusion” between Trump associates and the Russian government.

“Where is the actual crime they think they need a special prosecutor to investigate?” Chaffetz said. “I haven’t seen that.”

In a separate Fox News interview, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) cast doubt on the report that Trump had disclosed classified information to Russian officials, saying he spoke with someone who was in the meeting who had denied it.

“They vehemently and repeatedly denied that the president said or did anything that would have compromised U.S. intelligence, its sources, its methods or our intelligence relationships around the world,” Rubio said on “Fox & Friends.”

“Before we form opinions . . . we need to know what the facts are,” he said.

The Senate and House intelligence committees are the primary centers of investigation on Capitol Hill of the Russia matter, and Chaffetz has been criticized for not using his power to investigative Trump.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), the ranking Democrat on the oversight panel, called on Chaffetz to subpoena documents from the White House after the New York Times reported that Trump’s presidential transition team was aware of investigations of Flynn before naming him national security adviser.

“There is no longer any excuse to allow the White House to continue stonewalling,” Cummings said Thursday in a statement. “The Chairman either needs to subpoena the White House or let the Committee take a vote.”

Cummings elaborated in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“We need to look at the vetting process and how it takes place in the new administrations, whether they’re Democratic or Republican,” he said. “I’m hoping Chairman Chaffetz and I can work together to get some things done.”

Outside of the issue of Congress’s investigations, Democrats are expressing concerns about the possibility of improper influence by the Trump administration on Mueller’s investigation. Several members of the party, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), said Mueller’s appointment must be followed by an independent commission to oversee its own Russia inquiry.

“A special prosecutor cannot take the place of a truly independent commission,” she said. “There’s reason to believe that the president was engaged in some very inappropriate activities.”

Asked if U.S. allies should be nervous about information being leaked by the president, Pelosi said the answer is obvious. “Wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you be nervous?” she said.

Democrats’ other pressing concern is the search for Comey’s replacement.

“The next FBI director must be someone who is nonpartisan, independent, fearless and unimpeachable,” Schumer said Thursday, ruling out a politician for the role. “Anyone who suggests a lack of impartiality should not be considered.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) did not mention any of these issues during his morning remarks on the Senate floor, focusing instead on health care.

“The entire Senate Republican conference has been at work debating ideas and making progress,” McConnell said. “I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will join us in bringing some relief to all these families who desperately need it.”

 

Can't let anything get in the way of taking healthcare from the sick and the poor!

 

I am personally rooting for more leaks. It is time for the GOP to have some of its dirty laundry aired. 
House leaders worry more meetings secretly recorded

Quote

The most widespread theory in House leadership is that the secret recorder and the leaker was Evan McMullin, who as a former leadership aide participated in the June 15 conversation and confirmed the private conversation to the Washington Post. (I am told that the Post, in their back-and-forth with leadership over the story, privately said that the source wasn't McMullin. There's no evidence that he was the leaker and I've reached out to him for comment.)

Evidence or not, leadership sources are privately worried that McMullin had a tape on while he sat silently through all of their confidential meetings. They're concerned about what leaks could come next.

 

[formergothardite]

13 minutes ago, nvmbr02 said:

They're concerned about what leaks could come next

I hope they are all losing sleep at night. They want to screw over everyone who isn't mega-rich so I'm ok with them being publicly humiliated. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Great article: "Why Republicans Are Always Looking Over Their Shoulders"

Spoiler

The sudden appointment of Robert S. Mueller as a special counsel for the federal investigation into the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russia highlights a key question: Which choice poses the greater risk for Republicans in Congress, to support a potential impeachment or to close ranks behind the president? To defy Trump or to defend him? To provoke anger among the legions of Trump loyalists back home or to run the risk of turning the 2018 midterms into a Democratic wave election?

In his classic 1974 study, “Congress: The Electoral Connection,” David Mayhew, a political scientist at Yale, based his analysis on a simple but profoundly illuminating premise: that members of the House and Senate are “single-minded seekers of re-election.”

For that reason, for congressmen trying to titrate their response to the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation as it unfolds, the most important development on the Republican side of the aisle is the rise in recent years of primary challenges from the right.

Highly conservative insurgents have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to defeat Congressional incumbents who fail to toe the line.

Being “primaried” from the right dates back at least to 1978. That year, Clifford Case, a pro-civil rights Republican senator from New Jersey — first elected to Congress in 1944 — was defeated in the primary by Jeff Bell, a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan’s 1976 presidential campaign, an opponent of affirmative action, a defender of “pre-birth personhood” and a supporter of applying “the 14th Amendment to the unborn.” (Bell ended up losing to Bill Bradley in the general election.)

Case’s primary defeat marked the onset of a purge of moderate Republicans from Congress. As a 1978 Times editorial pointed out, from the day Case arrived in Washington he was under attack from conservative elements of his own party. In 1954, when others were cowed by the late Senator Joseph McCarthy, Senator Case was openly critical. In contrast to other Republicans, he has been a steadfast supporter of social and civil rights legislation.

The threat to centrist Republicans — a lineage that includes President Eisenhower, Governor Nelson Rockefeller, President Gerald Ford and two Senate Majority Leaders, Howard Baker and Bob Dole — intensified in 2010 when Tea Party-backed candidates on the far right of the conservative spectrum defeated 22 sitting members and establishment-backed candidates in primaries from New York to Nevada.

Seth Masket, a professor of political science at the University of Denver, summarized the quandary facing members of Congress in a polarized nation:

Republicans in particular represent much more conservative districts than they used to, and they risk offending a much more active and ideologically demanding group of activists in primary elections should they be seen working with Democrats or undermining President Trump. Relatedly, the policy differences between the two parties are much greater than they used to be, so doing anything that could lead to the other party being in power is a potentially very costly exercise. Bipartisanship is just riskier and potentially costlier behavior than it used to be.

The success of right-wing challengers to centrist Republican members of the House and Senate stems from a set of mutually reinforcing trends.

These trends include growing ideological consistency in the electorate, geographic sorting, gerrymandered districts, the perception of partisan opponents as mortal enemies and the emotional intensity underpinning issues of race and sex.

For a Republican senator or representative who is considering a break with the Trump administration, these developments in the electorate pose a hazard. Defection risks inflaming primary voters in 2018.

According to American National Election Studies, 45 percent of Republican voters described themselves as conservative in 1974. By 2012, 70 percent said they were conservative.

The Pew Research Center has shown that turnout in Republican primaries tilts even farther to the right. To give one example, in 2012 Pew found that 75 percent of Republican primary voters — whom Pew describes as “high engagement Republicans” — described themselves as conservative, more than triple the 23 percent of self-described liberals and moderates.

These voters view the Democratic Party not only as the opposition, but as imperiling the national welfare (a view shared in reverse by “high engagement” Democrats). Under these circumstances, bipartisan cooperation can seem positively dangerous.

The accompanying chart, which is based on data from Pew, shows that 62 percent of engaged Republicans — those most likely to cast primary votes — say the Democratic Party makes them feel “afraid,” 58 percent say it makes them “angry” and 58 percent say it makes them “frustrated.”

...

At the same time, according to Pew, the percentage of Republican voters whose view of the Democratic Party is unfavorable grew from 74 percent in 1994 to 91 percent in 2016. Equally important, the percentage with “very unfavorable” views has nearly tripled, from 21 percent in 1994 to 58 in 2016.

The increase in safe House seats from 1992 to 2012 is the driving force behind the growing significance of primary elections and the declining salience of general elections. For Republicans, safe districts — where the potential threat to an incumbent is in the primary and not in the general election — rose from 136 in 1992 to 191 in 2012. For Democrats, the number of safe districts grew from 111 in 1992 to 156 in 2012.

Republicans focused on self-interest — or self-preservation — are under pressure from all directions.

Nolan McCarty, a political scientist at Princeton, made the point in an email that, given the current level of polarization, a Republican who challenges his party by taking on President Trump and still survives the primary may not be rewarded in the general election because there is “much less opportunity for offsetting support from Democrats and Independents.”

Another factor elected Republicans must consider in calculating their positions is an upsurge in straight ticket voting since 1992.

Marc Hetherington, a political scientist at Vanderbilt, argues that voting patterns in states and districts are making it increasingly hazardous for a politician to break ranks:

Consider voting behavior in the 2016 election. For the first time in history, every state that voted Democratic voted for a Democrat for Senate. Every state that voted Republican voted for a Republican for Senate. As for congressional districts, the number of split voting districts between the presidential and House elections reached a minimum since such records have been kept, which dates to 1920.

In the current political climate, Hetherington said:

Republicans hate the Democratic Party so much and Democrats hate the Republican Party so much that they do not view the other side as a viable option.

In the past, when the electorate was less partisan, Republicans would have to worry about what Democrats in the electorate thought because they counted on getting votes from Democrats when they had to face the voters in the fall. Now, they do not.

Along similar lines, Martin Gilens, a political scientist at Princeton, noted:

Compromise and bipartisanship are increasingly viewed as betrayal. In recent years, challenges to party leadership have come only from extremist factions like the Tea Party, not from centrists concerned with maintaining institutional norms or adopting policies with widespread appeal.

In her 2016 book, “Insecure Majorities,” Frances Lee, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, describes some of the forces that contribute to the rejection of compromise and bipartisanship.

Lee points out that when control of the House and Senate is up for grabs — as it has been since 1980 — the pressure on members to maintain strict partisan loyalty intensifies. She argues that

Intense party competition for institutional control focuses members of Congress on the quest for partisan political advantage. When party control seemingly hangs in the balance, members and leaders of both parties invest more effort in enterprises to promote their own party’s image and undercut that of the opposition.

Partisan calculations, Lee writes, “will weigh more heavily on political decision making under more party-competitive conditions.” And when majority status is in play, members of out parties tend to think in terms of winning the long game of institutional control rather than the short game of wielding influence by cooperating in policy making.

Chris Cillizza, a political commentator at CNN, recently wrote that Trump’s series of self-inflicted wounds has congressional Republicans mystified and scared, desperately trying to figure out what Trump will do next and, as importantly, what it all means for their own political prospects. To date, Republicans have stood by Trump or at least stayed silent in the face of his many foibles.

While a great danger facing Republicans — one with vast consequences going forward — is that they will wait to act longer than their voters are prepared to tolerate, there are clear signs that Republican willingness to stand behind Trump has begun to fray.

On Wednesday, before Mueller’s appointment was announced, two Republican Senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine had already suggested that it might well be time for the appointment of a special prosecutor. Other Republican senators who have publicly criticized Trump include Ben Sasse of Nebraska, John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

From Trump’s vantage point, support in Washington, and in the electorate as a whole, is falling off. He will continue to try to make a political virtue of this, arguing, as he did in his commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy on Wednesday, that “the people understand what I’m doing and that’s the most important thing” and that “I didn’t get elected to serve the Washington media — I got elected to serve the forgotten men and women and that’s exactly what I’m doing.”

The question now is what this reckless president with little regard for the law will do as the challenge to his legitimacy deepens.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

No, having to share the earth with him is misery: "Misery is being Paul Ryan"

Spoiler

Lately, we suspect that Paul Ryan must spend every day in a state of exquisite agony. Each day brings new agonizing things, and some more than others. At times, the speaker of the House, must wake up and already sense impending doom, such as the morning after news has broken that Ryan and other Republicans were caught on tape speculating that Donald Trump might be paid by the Russians.

Thursday was one of those days.

“There have been some members who have said, ‘We might be better with Vice President Pence,’ ” said a reporter at Ryan’s regularly scheduled news conference in the Capitol basement, implying a President Trump impeachment scenario.

“Oh, good grief,” Ryan said, appearing pained.

“What’s your take on that?”

“I-I-I. We shouldn’t even — I’m not even going to give credence to that. I’m not even going to comment on that. That’s — well, there’s not even a point making a comment on that.”

Another question: “Earlier this week, Senator McConnell said, ‘We could do with a little less drama from the White House on a lot of things.’ ” the reporter asked. “Do you agree with that assessment?”

“Well, yeah,” said Ryan. “It’s always nice to have less drama.”

Did anyone want to ask questions about tax reform? Ryan asked. Did anyone want to talk about the technology-related bills that had passed that week, including one that would “bring the government into the age of cloud computing”?

The press seemed only mildly interested in cloud computing.

The night before, the deputy attorney general’s office announced the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the Trump campaign’s potential Russia ties. Just a few hours earlier, Ryan had been publicly asked whether he retained full confidence in the president.

“I do,” he had said, in the tone of a bridegroom who knows that it’s too late to return the tuxedo.

Then came the year-old recordings of Ryan and his colleagues, in which Ryan had told everyone else in the room to keep their mouths shut with their Russia-pays-Donald speculating. “No leaks,” he had said, following up with a sad et tu, Brute plea: “This is how we know we’re a real family.”

His communications staff spent Thursday morning tweeting that Ryan had been joking — “Obviously a joke. Media needs to get a grip.” — in between trying to get Ryan’s followers stoked about taxes: “Who’s up for a big-time hearing on TAX REFORM at Ways and Means?”

Ryan tweeted, too. He tweeted about NAFTA. He tweeted a photo of himself shaking hands with the president of Colombia.

Earlier this week, some data analytics people analyzed several politicians’ Twitter accounts. They determined that Ryan was scientifically the most detested person in the survey. They determined this by calculating his ratio of retweets by other people (which are usually positive) to replies from other people (which are usually negative).

Ryan had a worse ratio than Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Mike Huckabee or Donald Trump.

The agony of Paul Ryan!

Five years ago he was wonky hope of the Republican Party, the would-be boy wonder to Mitt Romney’s would-be president. Less than two years ago, the man was fervently courted into his current job by colleagues who were certain he could unite the GOP. He hated Trump back then. You could just tell.

And now, just this week: The New York Post’s Page Six was reporting that cooking celebrity Sandra Lee would not appear on a “Fox & Friends” segment with him because he literally made her feel nauseated. “What occurred to me is that we are both from Wisconsin,” she told the column. “And I realized he is the one thing from Wisconsin that I cannot tolerate or stomach.”

A newspaper from his home state published an editorial, “House Speaker Paul Ryan needs to be replaced with an adult.”

The congressman from the next district over remarked that Ryan “seems to roll over and want his belly rubbed by the president.”

“Saturday Night Live” had a go: Ryan was portrayed this week as a bootlicking soda jerk who exists only to bring Trump his nightly two scoops of ice cream. “He feeds me dog food,” the character remarked cheerfully.

Ryan had fallen into a pit of Trump-by-association, a pit that ever widens, a pit that defines our times.

“One more question,” one of his staff members warned reporters at Thursday’s news conference. Ryan called on a reporter from PBS. She asked a policy question, about health care: assuming it passed, would changes take effect next year, or in 2018?

Ryan appeared in his element. He told her the Department of Health and Human Services would be the best place to answer her question, and went out into the rest of his crappy day.

I like the title of the editorial from WI.

[nvmbr02]

9 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

No, having to share the earth with him is misery: "Misery is being Paul Ryan"

  Reveal hidden contents

Lately, we suspect that Paul Ryan must spend every day in a state of exquisite agony. Each day brings new agonizing things, and some more than others. At times, the speaker of the House, must wake up and already sense impending doom, such as the morning after news has broken that Ryan and other Republicans were caught on tape speculating that Donald Trump might be paid by the Russians.

Thursday was one of those days.

“There have been some members who have said, ‘We might be better with Vice President Pence,’ ” said a reporter at Ryan’s regularly scheduled news conference in the Capitol basement, implying a President Trump impeachment scenario.

“Oh, good grief,” Ryan said, appearing pained.

“What’s your take on that?”

“I-I-I. We shouldn’t even — I’m not even going to give credence to that. I’m not even going to comment on that. That’s — well, there’s not even a point making a comment on that.”

Another question: “Earlier this week, Senator McConnell said, ‘We could do with a little less drama from the White House on a lot of things.’ ” the reporter asked. “Do you agree with that assessment?”

“Well, yeah,” said Ryan. “It’s always nice to have less drama.”

Did anyone want to ask questions about tax reform? Ryan asked. Did anyone want to talk about the technology-related bills that had passed that week, including one that would “bring the government into the age of cloud computing”?

The press seemed only mildly interested in cloud computing.

The night before, the deputy attorney general’s office announced the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the Trump campaign’s potential Russia ties. Just a few hours earlier, Ryan had been publicly asked whether he retained full confidence in the president.

“I do,” he had said, in the tone of a bridegroom who knows that it’s too late to return the tuxedo.

Then came the year-old recordings of Ryan and his colleagues, in which Ryan had told everyone else in the room to keep their mouths shut with their Russia-pays-Donald speculating. “No leaks,” he had said, following up with a sad et tu, Brute plea: “This is how we know we’re a real family.”

His communications staff spent Thursday morning tweeting that Ryan had been joking — “Obviously a joke. Media needs to get a grip.” — in between trying to get Ryan’s followers stoked about taxes: “Who’s up for a big-time hearing on TAX REFORM at Ways and Means?”

Ryan tweeted, too. He tweeted about NAFTA. He tweeted a photo of himself shaking hands with the president of Colombia.

Earlier this week, some data analytics people analyzed several politicians’ Twitter accounts. They determined that Ryan was scientifically the most detested person in the survey. They determined this by calculating his ratio of retweets by other people (which are usually positive) to replies from other people (which are usually negative).

Ryan had a worse ratio than Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Mike Huckabee or Donald Trump.

The agony of Paul Ryan!

Five years ago he was wonky hope of the Republican Party, the would-be boy wonder to Mitt Romney’s would-be president. Less than two years ago, the man was fervently courted into his current job by colleagues who were certain he could unite the GOP. He hated Trump back then. You could just tell.

And now, just this week: The New York Post’s Page Six was reporting that cooking celebrity Sandra Lee would not appear on a “Fox & Friends” segment with him because he literally made her feel nauseated. “What occurred to me is that we are both from Wisconsin,” she told the column. “And I realized he is the one thing from Wisconsin that I cannot tolerate or stomach.”

A newspaper from his home state published an editorial, “House Speaker Paul Ryan needs to be replaced with an adult.”

The congressman from the next district over remarked that Ryan “seems to roll over and want his belly rubbed by the president.”

“Saturday Night Live” had a go: Ryan was portrayed this week as a bootlicking soda jerk who exists only to bring Trump his nightly two scoops of ice cream. “He feeds me dog food,” the character remarked cheerfully.

Ryan had fallen into a pit of Trump-by-association, a pit that ever widens, a pit that defines our times.

“One more question,” one of his staff members warned reporters at Thursday’s news conference. Ryan called on a reporter from PBS. She asked a policy question, about health care: assuming it passed, would changes take effect next year, or in 2018?

Ryan appeared in his element. He told her the Department of Health and Human Services would be the best place to answer her question, and went out into the rest of his crappy day.

I like the title of the editorial from WI.

I found it amusing that Sandra Lee has a mess she can't tolerate/stomach. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Here's an excellent analysis: "What’s the Matter With Republicans?"

Spoiler

On Wednesday, Paul Ryan held a press conference just after the revelation that Donald Trump had pushed James Comey to kill the investigation into Michael Flynn — you know, the guy Trump appointed as national security adviser even though his team knew that Flynn’s highly suspicious foreign ties were under investigation.

Faced with questions about the Flynn scandal and the Comey firing, Ryan waved them away: “I don’t worry about things that are outside my control.”

This might sound like a reasonable philosophy — unless you realize that Ryan is speaker of the House of Representatives, a legislative body with the power to issue subpoenas, compel testimony and, yes, impeach the president. In fact, under the Constitution, Ryan and his congressional colleagues are effectively the only check on a rogue chief executive.

It has become painfully clear, however, that Republicans have no intention of exercising any real oversight over a president who is obviously emotionally unstable, seems to have cognitive issues and is doing a very good imitation of being an agent of a hostile foreign power.

They may make a few gestures toward accountability in the face of bad poll numbers, but there is not a hint that any important figures in the party care enough about the Constitution or the national interest to take a stand.

And the big question we should be asking is how that happened. At this point we know who and what Trump is, and have a pretty good idea of what he has been doing. If we had two patriotic parties in the country, impeachment proceedings would already be underway. But we don’t. What’s the matter with Republicans?

Obviously I can’t offer a full theory here, but there’s a lot we do know about the larger picture.

First, Republicans are professional politicians. Yes, so are most Democrats. But the parties are not the same.

The Democratic Party is a coalition of interest groups, with some shared views but also a lot of conflicts, and politicians get ahead through their success in striking compromises and finding acceptable solutions.

The G.O.P., by contrast, is one branch of a monolithic structure, movement conservatism, with a rigid ideology — tax cuts for the rich above all else. Other branches of the structure include a captive media that parrots the party line every step of the way. Compare the coverage of recent political developments on Fox News with almost everywhere else; we’re talking North Korea levels of alternative reality.

And this monolithic structure — lavishly supported by a small number of very, very wealthy families — rewards, indeed insists on, absolute fealty. Furthermore, the structure has been in place for a long time: It has been 36 years since Reagan was elected, 22 years since the Gingrich takeover of Congress. What this means is that nearly all Republicans in today’s Congress are apparatchiks, political creatures with no higher principle beyond party loyalty.

The fact that the G.O.P. is a party of apparatchiks was one crucial factor in last year’s election. Why did Marine Le Pen, often portrayed as the French equivalent of Trump, lose by a huge margin? Because France’s conservatives were only willing to go so far; they simply would not support a candidate whose motives and qualifications they distrusted. Republicans, however, went all in behind Trump, knowing full well that he was totally unqualified, strongly suspecting that he was corrupt and even speculating that he might be in Russian pay, simply because there was an “R” after his name on the ballot.

And even now, with the Trump/Flynn/Comey story getting worse by the hour, there has been no significant breaking of ranks. If you’re waiting to find the modern version of Howard Baker, the Republican senator who asked “What did the president know, and when did he know it?” you’re wasting your time. Men like that left the G.O.P. a long time ago.

Does this mean that Trump will be able to hold on despite his multiple scandals and abuses of power? Actually, yes, he might. The answer probably hinges on the next few special elections: Republicans won’t turn on Trump unless he has become such a political liability that he must be dumped.

And even if Trump goes, one way or another, the threat to the Republic will be far from over.

In a perverse way, we should count ourselves lucky that Trump is as terrible as he is. Think of what it has taken to get us to this point — his Twitter addiction, his bizarre loyalty to Flynn and affection for Putin, the raw exploitation of his office to enrich his family, the business dealings, whatever they were, he’s evidently trying to cover up by refusing to release his taxes.

The point is that given the character of the Republican Party, we’d be well on the way to autocracy if the man in the White House had even slightly more self-control. Trump may have done himself in; but it can still happen here.

More than ever, I think it's time for the Republican party to die off.