United States Congress of Fail (Part 3)

[GreyhoundFan]

"Freedom Caucus leaders vent to Paul Ryan after talks with Steve Bannon"

Spoiler

Leaders of the Freedom Caucus met with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) on Wednesday to candidly express their frustrations with his leadership and his handling of the Republican legislative agenda, according to two people familiar with the discussion.

The exchange comes as former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon is having conversations with hard-line GOP lawmakers about how they should exert greater influence in the fall’s political fights and pressure congressional Republican leaders.

Ryan heard out three members of the influential conservative group: Reps. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), and Scott Perry (R-Pa.), the people said. Meadows is the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, which counts about three dozen members, and he has been a friend and ally of Bannon for years.

While the trio personally like Ryan, who remains popular throughout the House, one of the people familiar with the discussion said the three members were “frank” about their mounting concerns and warned Ryan that they and others in the House Republican conference could desert him in the coming months if the leadership fails to enact conservative policies.

Several people close to Bannon and Meadows said on Wednesday that the two men, who met on Monday on Capitol Hill, have begun to discuss who could replace Ryan as speaker, should conservatives rebel against him. But they stressed that those discussions remain speculative and informal, with no plan yet for action.

Meadows led the effort in 2015 to unseat then speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). Boehner stepped down months later.

Wednesday’s meeting with Ryan, which took place at the Capitol, is the latest example of the agitation within the House Freedom Caucus about the speaker’s approach to pending matters such as extending the federal borrowing limit, passing a federal budget, and crafting tax-reform legislation.

Allies of Ryan shrugged off the Freedom Caucus huddle as just another example of how he is listening to his members and engaging with his critics on strategy and policy, which they said is a routine practice for him.

One Republican lawmaker who is close to Ryan said upon hearing of the meeting that “those guys are always unhappy. God bless Paul for sitting there and listening to them.”

Ashlee Strong, Ryan’s spokeswoman, said in a statement that, “Every single day the speaker talks to members about their concerns, ideas, and anything else they’d like to discuss. Being accessible to members is part of the job and one he makes a priority.”

A spokesperson for the House Freedom Caucus declined to comment.

But a conservative lawmaker who is close to the Freedom Caucus did provide a statement to The Washington Post.

“I’ve talked to countless Americans who are fed up with Congress’s inability to get anything done. They see Mitch McConnell and Speaker Ryan as the biggest impediments to enacting President Trump’s agenda,” wrote the lawmaker, who requested anonymity due to sensitivity about directly speaking out against Ryan. “If things don’t change — and fast — the American people will demand new leadership in Congress.”

I LOLed at the line "those guys are always unhappy." It's true.

[GreyhoundFan]

OH FUCK NO (sorry for shouting): "Gingrich or Santorum as speaker? House conservatives plot mischief for the fall."

Spoiler

Several influential House conservatives are privately plotting ways to use the legislative calendar this fall to push their hard-line agenda — including quiet discussions about possibly mounting a leadership challenge to House Speaker Paul D. Ryan.

The group has gone so far as to float the idea of recruiting former House speaker Newt Gingrich or former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum as potential replacements for Ryan (R-Wis.) should there be a rebellion. The Constitution does not require that an elected member of the House serve as speaker.

While the chances that a non-House member could mount a credible threat to Ryan are exceedingly slim, the fact that the group has even toyed with the idea underscores their desire to create trouble for GOP leaders if they believe their demands are not being addressed.

The closed-door conversations are being led by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, in consultation with his allies on the right, in particular Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist who recently returned to his perch as executive chairman of the Breitbart News website. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and other Freedom Caucus members are also involved in the talks to varying degrees, according to nearly a dozen people with knowledge of the discussions.

On Wednesday, Meadows, Jordan and Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) took their concerns directly to Ryan, telling him in a private meeting in the Capitol that his failure to enact conservative priorities could diminish his support among conservatives.

Even so, the group of more than 30 conservative House lawmakers is unlikely to stage a successful coup to push out Ryan and has so far shown unease about translating their grievances into action. But the mere fact that they are discussing the prospect — and strategizing with Bannon — underscores both their desire and ability to disrupt an already daunting legislative schedule.

Rep. David Brat (R-Va.), who toppled then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a 2014 primary race, channeled the concerns of some of his colleagues in an interview Tuesday, saying many House conservatives are unhappy about the way the Republican leadership is handling the party’s legislative check list this month.

“I don’t want to go there yet,” Brat said of the discussions of a possible leadership shake-up. “But it’s up to the leadership, right now, to get it straight.”

Brat added: “The big picture is that we’ve failed on Obamacare, we didn’t do what we said we’d do. What’s it going to look like on tax? What about the debt ceiling? No one is really sure. We said we’d do all of these different things and we have to follow through.”

Brat’s remarks came before Trump further upended Republican politics Wednesday by siding with Democrats on favoring a short-term debt-limit increase, giving Democrats more leverage in the months to come.

Bannon and Meadows have been talking for weeks and huddled Monday afternoon at the “Breitbart Embassy” — a Capitol Hill townhouse that houses Bannon’s office and the website’s offices. Matthew Boyle, Breitbart’s Washington editor, also joined the conversation.

In conversations with friends and associates, Bannon has described the potential move against Ryan, should tensions escalate, as the beginning of a “war” against the Republican establishment.

Kurt Bardella, a former spokesman for Breitbart News, said working in tandem with the website and a potentially receptive president could allow the Freedom Caucus to wield outsize influence over Republican leadership. 

“The core difference is before you didn’t have an occupant in the Oval Office who would have signed any of this into law under any scenario, and certainly wouldn’t have cheered them on under any circumstances,” he said. “You have this perfect storm of a very condensed legislative calendar, a number of quote unquote must-pass vehicles — from the debt ceiling to storm relief — and they’re in the enviable position of having everything to gain and nothing to lose.”

Breitbart, Bardella said, “exists to provide Trump with who is to blame, and it’s always Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.”

But Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) said the president’s deal with Democrats raises the possibility that Trump is willing to defy the Freedom Caucus, right as they’re preparing to ramp up their demands.

“He showed the Freedom Caucus that he doesn’t have to cater to them and won’t cater to them when it comes to the debt ceiling and how it all plays out — that sets them back,” King said. “They weren’t elected to run the country and they can’t be going on suicide missions. Yet they continue to do that because a lot of them live in silos, these echo chambers where they can have their own way.”

Still, should conservative lawmakers ultimately turn their ire on their party’s leadership and rebel against Ryan, they could further imperil Trump’s stalled legislative goals.

“I can’t imagine anything more counterproductive to Republicans’ shared vision of conservative reform,” said Michael Steel, who served as press secretary to former House speaker John A. Boehner. “There is no imaginable scenario where anyone other than Paul Ryan could get the voters necessary to be speaker of the House.”

As speaker, Ryan has built strong relationships with his party’s members on all sides of the House, who see him as a stable presence and appreciate his willingness to step in as speaker after Boehner resigned two years ago.

He remains close to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). McCarthy has long ties to Ryan that go back to their shared public profile as “young guns” during former president Barack Obama’s administration and as allies in the emerging Republican leadership.

Some frustrated House Republicans have nonetheless been mapping out hypothetical options should Ryan be pressured to resign, including demands for more conservative voices to hold leadership posts and possibly drafting an outside political figure.

Two preferred options for speaker, according to the people familiar with the discussions, are elevating McCarthy or Scalise, who is still recovering from gunshot wounds after an assailant opened fire on a Republican congressional baseball practice in June. Conservative lawmakers have privately said they would only consider McCarthy and Scalise, both current members of leadership who are close with Ryan, if they were able to install one of their own members as a No. 2 — someone like Meadows or Jordan, or one of their allies.

Someone close to McCarthy described the idea that the majority leader would replace Ryan in a conservative revolt as “nonsense.”

Meadows and Bannon have also discussed far less plausible options, such as replacing Ryan with Gingrich or Santorum.

When reached earlier this week by phone, Gingrich laughed at the possibility of returning as speaker. But he acknowledged that some House Republicans have “vented” to him over the course of the past year.

“It would be a joke to have anyone not serving in the House or who’s familiar with the members to lead the body,” he said. “That’s antithetical to what it means to be speaker and I know what it takes to be speaker.” 

Similarly, when reached by phone Wednesday, Santorum said: “To be honest with you, I don’t really know anything about it. I don’t really have any comment.”

Okay, I despise Ryan with the fire of a thousand suns, but the idea of bringing Gingivitis back makes my head ache.

[candygirl200413]

*reads @GreyhoundFan article*

*proceeds to pokeboth eyes in order to not see this come true*

[Cartmann99]

5 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

OH FUCK NO (sorry for shouting): "Gingrich or Santorum as speaker? House conservatives plot mischief for the fall."

Damn, the fundies are right! We really are living in the End Times! 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"The Daily 202: Leading moderate announces retirement from House with parting shot at direction of GOP"

Spoiler

THE BIG IDEA: Exhausted from his ideological battles with the House Freedom Caucus and clashes with Donald Trump’s White House, Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) has decided to retire.

“As a member of the governing wing of the Republican Party, I've worked to instill stability, certainty and predictability in Washington,” Dent said in a statement last night announcing that he will not seek an eighth term. “I've fought to fulfill the basic functions of government, like keeping the lights on and preventing default. Regrettably, that has not been easy given the disruptive outside influences that profit from increased polarization and ideological rigidity that leads to dysfunction, disorder and chaos.”

Dent is the co-chairman of the moderate Tuesday Group, which has about 50 center-right members. That’s more than the three dozen or so guys in the Freedom Caucus, but the tea partyers punch above their weight because they mostly vote as a bloc.

-- The retirement gives Democrats a prime pickup opportunity, and some veteran GOP strategists are increasingly nervous that a stream of others will follow – especially if the House fails to put more legislative points on the board (e.g. overhauling the tax code) and the political winds continue to suggest major Democratic gains in the 2018 midterms.

-- Dent has increasingly drawn the wrath of the Trumpist movement for his willingness to publicly express concerns about Trump that many of his House GOP colleagues are still only willing to say on background. The congressman called for Trump to drop out when the “Access Hollywood” tape emerged last October and then voted for independent Evan McMullin. Since January, he’s spoken out against the president’s travel ban, his firing of James Comey as FBI director and his false moral equivalency after Charlottesville.

Breitbart, again under Steve Bannon’s leadership, played up a story last Friday about an anti-Dent rally in Allentown that drew more than 100 conservative activists.

Pennsylvania state Rep. Justin Simmons announced on Wednesday that he would challenge Dent in a primary next year, emphasizing the incumbent’s lack of support for Trump. “Like many Republicans, I used to support Charlie Dent,” Simmons said in the news release kicking off his campaign. “But in the past year, Charlie Dent has completely gone off the rails.”

Dismissing the challenger as an opportunistic “phony,” Dent released embarrassing text messages that he received from him last year. One asked him to host a fundraiser to help in a contested primary. Another asked, “Do you think there’s any chance the party can replace Trump on the top of the ticket?”

Instead of facing off with Simmons, though, Dent is now stepping aside.

-- That surprise news came just one day after another seven-term moderate announced he will retire. Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), who represents a suburban Seattle district that Hillary Clinton carried, is chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on trade. Breaking with the protectionist president, Reichert wrote a goodbye statement emphasizing the importance of free trade to the Pacific Northwest. “From serving on President Obama’s Export Council to battling to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank to leading the fight to pass the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement, I have always fought to give our exporters the chance to sell their goods and services around the world,” he wrote.

-- A third moderate, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), also expressed concern about the direction of the party when she revealed her plan to step down this spring. The first Cuban American elected to Congress expressed confidence she’d get reelected, even though Clinton won her Miami district by 20 points, but she said the prospect of two more years in the current environment just didn’t appeal to her. “It was just a realization that I could keep getting elected — but it's not about getting elected,” she told the Miami Herald in April.

Ros-Lehtinen, the former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has spoken out loudly against Trump since then, on issues like deportations (including DACA this week), transgender rights (her son is transgender) and budget cuts. “I'm not one of those name-callers that think the Democrats don’t have a single good idea,” she said. “Too many people think that way, and I think that's to the detriment to civility and of good government.”

-- Even as relations continue to fray between Republican congressional leaders and Trump, Democrats say these retirements are just the latest proof points that the Trumpists have completed their hostile takeover of the GOP. “With Trump in charge of the GOP, they might as well have a sign on the door that says ‘Moderates need not apply,’ ” said Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson, who previously ran the independent expenditure arm of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “The last cellblock has fallen and now Trump's rabble of inmates are running the asylum. Dare to stand up to Trumpism by thinking people should be able to keep their health care or by opposing white supremacists, and you'll find there is no home for you in the Republican party anymore. That's dangerous for the next two years and for the next 20. Whether it's in Seattle, Miami or now Allentown, the GOP is pushing out the only leaders who could convince suburban voters there was a way to get a home in the Republican Party that wasn't Trump-owned.”

-- A close ally of GOP leadership, Dent also serves as chairman of the House Ethics Committee and is a powerful “cardinal,” which in congressional parlance means that he chairs an Appropriations subcommittee. (He controls tens of billions in annual spending related to veterans’ affairs and military construction.)

-- While acknowledging that Trump is a factor, Dent says that the trends driving him to give up this immense power predate the current president.

The ideological makeup of the House Republican conference has changed markedly since Newt Gingrich seized the majority in 1994. When the party won back the lower chamber in the 2010 midterms, after four years in the wilderness, the success of the tea party movement meant that there were relatively fewer moderates than before.

Republicans dominated the decennial redistricting process and drew lots of safely red districts. This meant that many House members became more vulnerable to a primary challenge from their right than a general election challenge from a Democrat. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor went down in a 2014 primary, and the Freedom Caucus formed the next year.

This created additional incentives for members to become part of the unofficial “vote no, hope yes” caucus. This is a group of Republicans who want spending bills and debt-ceiling increases to pass but won’t support them because they fear retaliation from outside conservative groups. The departure of Barack Obama from the Oval Office has lessened some of the reflexive, knee-jerk partisanship (it’s harder to tell Trump no), but “vote no, hope yes” remains a powerful force that House Speaker Paul Ryan must contend with every day.

Perversely, these “no” votes force Republican leaders to turn to Democrats for the necessary votes to pass key bills. That has given House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) more leverage than she would have otherwise had. The result is that final deals are often less conservative than they might be otherwise.

People like Dent, who considers himself a conservative, constantly bang their heads against the wall because of this dynamic. He explained last night that solving problems requires “negotiation, cooperation and, inevitably, compromise.”

The 57-year-old said he has been having “periodic discussions” with his wife and three kids about whether to stay in Congress ever “since the government shutdown in 2013.” He said discussions about retiring “increased in frequency” earlier this year, and that he made the decision to step down “in midsummer” — before he drew the primary challenger. “Accomplishing the most basic fundamental tasks of governance is becoming far too difficult,” Dent explained to The Washington Post's Mike DeBonis in an interview last night. “It shouldn’t be, but that’s reality.”

-- The nonpartisan Cook Political Report plans to move Pennsylvania’s 15th District – which covers Allentown, Bethlehem and much of the Lehigh Valley – from “Solid Republican” to “Lean Republican” in ratings that will publish later Friday.

Trump carried the district by eight points last November, while Dent won reelection by 20 points. Obama won the 15th in 2008 and narrowly lost it in 2012.

Democrats see a great pickup opportunity. “After nine months of utter failure to get even the most basic things done for hardworking families, it’s no surprise that Dent is as sick and tired of the Republican party as the American people,” said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Evan Lukaske.

The National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, Rep. Steve Stivers, expressed confidence Republicans will hold the seat. “From reforming the broken VA to ensuring every child has access to a high-quality education, Congressman Dent has championed conservative values since taking office in 2005," said Stivers (R-Ohio). “While his leadership in Congress will be sorely missed, I wish him the very best in the next chapter of his life.”

-- Dent is the 13th Republican to leave the House since the start of 2017. Four accepted jobs in the Trump administration, and three more are running for governor. Dent is the sixth to retire without another position in mind.

As a point of comparison, seven Democrats have announced plans to leave the House. All but one (Rep. Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts) did so to run for higher office. Only one represents a district Trump won: Rep. Tim Walz, who is now a front-runner to become the next governor of Minnesota.

-- To be fair, though, the current number of House members who are retiring remains far below the historical norm. Going back to 1976, an average of 22 House members have retired in each cycle without seeking a higher office. With Dent, we’re at just seven for this term. Contrary to some of the liberal commentary on places like Twitter and cable news, Trump has not opened the floodgates. At least not yet.

Oh Rufus, please let the Dems win at least one of the soon-to-be vacant seats. Of course, I'd prefer the Dems to win them all.

[LeftCoastLurker]

Nearly 9 million children are set to lose their health insurance at the end of this month. Its time to start making phone calls, send emails and mobilize our senators and reps on this one FJers. This one has been on my radar for a couple of weeks since my sister actually ran this program for one of our 50 states for many years. She alerted me a couple of weeks ago on this.

9 million children could lose their health insurance

[GreyhoundFan]

Another good one from Jennifer Rubin: "What is wrong with this picture of the GOP?'

Spoiler

Let’s consider three recent developments that encapsulate what has happened of late to the GOP.

First, three moderate Republican members of the House, all well-respected and seasoned legislators, have announced their retirements. Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), Dave Reichert (Wash.) and Charlie Dent (Pa.) won’t be running for reelection in 2018. Dent says:

I have done my best to make a meaningful, positive impact. As a member of the governing wing of the Republican Party, I’ve worked to instill stability, certainty and predictability in Washington. I’ve fought to fulfill the basic functions of Government, like keeping the lights on and preventing default. Regrettably, that has not been easy given the disruptive outside influences that profit from increased polarization and ideological rigidity that leads to dysfunction, disorder and chaos.

In other words, there is no place for a reasonable legislative craftsman.

Second, Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s ex-chief strategist and leader of the so-called alt-right, attacks the Catholic Church for defending “dreamers” who have been protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. (You know, “You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt …” Exodus 23:9.) He accuses the Catholic Church of defending innocent children brought here by their parents because “they need illegal aliens, they need illegal aliens to fill the churches.” He declares, “It’s obvious on the face of it.” Actually, what’s obvious is that this crowd’s claim to be defenders of the Judeo-Christian tradition is as phony as Trump’s foundation. With corrupt motives and disdain for those people who act according to a moral and/or religious tradition, they declare “winning” and wealth to be the means by which we judge our fellow man. This is now the spirit that animates the so-called values voters — the right-wing evangelical crowd that dominates the GOP. Instead of self-reliance, work ethic and concern for the most vulnerable, they preach the gospel of white grievance.

And finally, Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich goes on TV this week to explain how bizarre it is that it should take Congress six months to fix the DACA problem. “Congress has six months, it should take six hours to get this done, and the way I think they need to do it, they need reasonable Republicans and Democrats from the middle and build out a solution to this,” Kasich said on CBS. He added, “We’re putting kids, young people in jeopardy, this is not the America that we all love, this is a melting pot. If the dreamers want to go somewhere and live, come to Ohio, we want all the immigrants to come to Ohio, we know how much immigrants contribute.” Kasich is now considered an outlier (while Bannon reigns over the Trump base!), but of course he is right. If the Dream Act were placed on the floor of each house, it would pass overwhelmingly, but that cannot happen because the xenophobic contingent in the GOP wants either to extract onerous concessions or bury DACA in endless negotiations that never achieve immigration reform.

In short, the sane grown-ups are leaving (or have already left) Congress. Republican governors such as Kasich, Charlie Baker of Massachusetts and Larry Hogan of Maryland, who push for sensible health-care fixes and a DACA solution, are treated as heretics. The inmates are running the prison (apologies to inmates), so even with GOP majorities in both houses and a GOP president, they cannot set the agenda. Republicans wind up acting as though they are back in the minority and allow Democrats to wield power. Meanwhile, the “constitutional conservatives” try to run interference for Trump on everything from emoluments violations to the Russia investigation.

Trump’s party is convinced that climate change isn’t real but that massive, unproven voter fraud is. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) wants to talk about evidence-based policymaking. No, really. The party that makes up a crime wave, denies environmental science, lies about immigrants stealing jobs and murdering our children, and thinks trillions in tax cuts will pay for themselves wants evidence-based policymaking? The gall takes one’s breath away.

The GOP is a party gone off the rails morally, intellectually and politically. Not conservative or even coherent, it relies on state TV (Fox News) and Russia bots to echo its nonsense. The question is not why people like Dent, Ros-Lehtinen and Reichert are leaving but why any reasonable adult would remain in the GOP.

 

[GrumpyGran]

On 9/7/2017 at 2:18 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

“I’ve talked to countless Americans who are fed up with Congress’s inability to get anything done. They see Mitch McConnell and Speaker Ryan as the biggest impediments to enacting President Trump’s agenda,”

Bullshit. You've heard repeatedly from those twelve nutjob constituents of yours who are always bitching about something.

17 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

OH FUCK NO (sorry for shouting): "Gingrich or Santorum as speaker? House conservatives plot mischief for the fall."

  Reveal hidden contents

Several influential House conservatives are privately plotting ways to use the legislative calendar this fall to push their hard-line agenda — including quiet discussions about possibly mounting a leadership challenge to House Speaker Paul D. Ryan.

The group has gone so far as to float the idea of recruiting former House speaker Newt Gingrich or former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum as potential replacements for Ryan (R-Wis.) should there be a rebellion. The Constitution does not require that an elected member of the House serve as speaker.

While the chances that a non-House member could mount a credible threat to Ryan are exceedingly slim, the fact that the group has even toyed with the idea underscores their desire to create trouble for GOP leaders if they believe their demands are not being addressed.

The closed-door conversations are being led by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, in consultation with his allies on the right, in particular Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist who recently returned to his perch as executive chairman of the Breitbart News website. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and other Freedom Caucus members are also involved in the talks to varying degrees, according to nearly a dozen people with knowledge of the discussions.

On Wednesday, Meadows, Jordan and Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) took their concerns directly to Ryan, telling him in a private meeting in the Capitol that his failure to enact conservative priorities could diminish his support among conservatives.

Even so, the group of more than 30 conservative House lawmakers is unlikely to stage a successful coup to push out Ryan and has so far shown unease about translating their grievances into action. But the mere fact that they are discussing the prospect — and strategizing with Bannon — underscores both their desire and ability to disrupt an already daunting legislative schedule.

Rep. David Brat (R-Va.), who toppled then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a 2014 primary race, channeled the concerns of some of his colleagues in an interview Tuesday, saying many House conservatives are unhappy about the way the Republican leadership is handling the party’s legislative check list this month.

“I don’t want to go there yet,” Brat said of the discussions of a possible leadership shake-up. “But it’s up to the leadership, right now, to get it straight.”

Brat added: “The big picture is that we’ve failed on Obamacare, we didn’t do what we said we’d do. What’s it going to look like on tax? What about the debt ceiling? No one is really sure. We said we’d do all of these different things and we have to follow through.”

Brat’s remarks came before Trump further upended Republican politics Wednesday by siding with Democrats on favoring a short-term debt-limit increase, giving Democrats more leverage in the months to come.

Bannon and Meadows have been talking for weeks and huddled Monday afternoon at the “Breitbart Embassy” — a Capitol Hill townhouse that houses Bannon’s office and the website’s offices. Matthew Boyle, Breitbart’s Washington editor, also joined the conversation.

In conversations with friends and associates, Bannon has described the potential move against Ryan, should tensions escalate, as the beginning of a “war” against the Republican establishment.

Kurt Bardella, a former spokesman for Breitbart News, said working in tandem with the website and a potentially receptive president could allow the Freedom Caucus to wield outsize influence over Republican leadership. 

“The core difference is before you didn’t have an occupant in the Oval Office who would have signed any of this into law under any scenario, and certainly wouldn’t have cheered them on under any circumstances,” he said. “You have this perfect storm of a very condensed legislative calendar, a number of quote unquote must-pass vehicles — from the debt ceiling to storm relief — and they’re in the enviable position of having everything to gain and nothing to lose.”

Breitbart, Bardella said, “exists to provide Trump with who is to blame, and it’s always Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.”

But Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) said the president’s deal with Democrats raises the possibility that Trump is willing to defy the Freedom Caucus, right as they’re preparing to ramp up their demands.

“He showed the Freedom Caucus that he doesn’t have to cater to them and won’t cater to them when it comes to the debt ceiling and how it all plays out — that sets them back,” King said. “They weren’t elected to run the country and they can’t be going on suicide missions. Yet they continue to do that because a lot of them live in silos, these echo chambers where they can have their own way.”

Still, should conservative lawmakers ultimately turn their ire on their party’s leadership and rebel against Ryan, they could further imperil Trump’s stalled legislative goals.

“I can’t imagine anything more counterproductive to Republicans’ shared vision of conservative reform,” said Michael Steel, who served as press secretary to former House speaker John A. Boehner. “There is no imaginable scenario where anyone other than Paul Ryan could get the voters necessary to be speaker of the House.”

As speaker, Ryan has built strong relationships with his party’s members on all sides of the House, who see him as a stable presence and appreciate his willingness to step in as speaker after Boehner resigned two years ago.

He remains close to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). McCarthy has long ties to Ryan that go back to their shared public profile as “young guns” during former president Barack Obama’s administration and as allies in the emerging Republican leadership.

Some frustrated House Republicans have nonetheless been mapping out hypothetical options should Ryan be pressured to resign, including demands for more conservative voices to hold leadership posts and possibly drafting an outside political figure.

Two preferred options for speaker, according to the people familiar with the discussions, are elevating McCarthy or Scalise, who is still recovering from gunshot wounds after an assailant opened fire on a Republican congressional baseball practice in June. Conservative lawmakers have privately said they would only consider McCarthy and Scalise, both current members of leadership who are close with Ryan, if they were able to install one of their own members as a No. 2 — someone like Meadows or Jordan, or one of their allies.

Someone close to McCarthy described the idea that the majority leader would replace Ryan in a conservative revolt as “nonsense.”

Meadows and Bannon have also discussed far less plausible options, such as replacing Ryan with Gingrich or Santorum.

When reached earlier this week by phone, Gingrich laughed at the possibility of returning as speaker. But he acknowledged that some House Republicans have “vented” to him over the course of the past year.

“It would be a joke to have anyone not serving in the House or who’s familiar with the members to lead the body,” he said. “That’s antithetical to what it means to be speaker and I know what it takes to be speaker.” 

Similarly, when reached by phone Wednesday, Santorum said: “To be honest with you, I don’t really know anything about it. I don’t really have any comment.”

Okay, I despise Ryan with the fire of a thousand suns, but the idea of bringing Gingivitis back makes my head ache.

I know Pennywise is busy right now and Charles Manson is still in jail so I guess this was the best they could come up with. Hilarious that Gingrich's response was "You idiots, NO. Not appropriate!"

[47of74]

I know Pennywise is busy right now and Charles Manson is still in jail so I guess this was the best they could come up with. Hilarious that Gingrich's response was "You idiots, NO. Not appropriate!"

Speaker Man on Dog Santorum: Oh God No!

Speaker Newt: Oh FUCK No!

Anyone Republican who thinks either would be s good idea ought to go fuck themselves in traffic.

[GreyhoundFan]

I'm sure the Repugs in congress would fight this to their last breath: "The dam is breaking on Democrats’ embrace of single-payer"

Spoiler

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) became the fourth co-sponsor of Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-Vt.) “Medicare for all” health-care bill Monday. In doing so, he joined Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.).

What do those four senators have in common? Well, they just happen to constitute four of the eight most likely 2020 Democratic presidential nominees, according to the handy list I put out Friday. And another senator in my top 8, Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), last month came out in favor of the idea of “Medicare for all” — though not this specific bill (yet).

This is about as far from a coincidence as you can get. And it suggests the dam is breaking when it comes to the Democratic Party embracing government-run health care, also known as single-payer.

There are 48 members of the Democratic caucus in the Senate. That four of the first five to come out in support of Sanders's bill all came from a relatively small universe of top presidential hopefuls suggests that this will be a litmus test issue in 2020. And any hopeful that doesn't support it is going to stand out like a sore thumb. (The fifth was Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, and Oregon's Jeff Merkley joined the growing group shortly after Booker on Monday afternoon. Merkley and Whitehouse have also been mentioned as dark-horse 2020 hopefuls.)

...

It also seems to confirm that these senators have clear designs on running. The last thing any of them want is to see another candidate get to their left on this, so each of them are quick to go on-record — much quicker than their not-eyeing-2020 colleagues who can afford to be more judicious and deliberate. The bill hasn't even been introduced yet; that'll come Wednesday.

That's not to say single-payer isn't gaining support elsewhere in the Senate Democratic caucus. Notably, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said last week that Congress should take a “solid look” at single-payer. Activists hailed even those cautious words given Tester represents a red state and has previously been dismissive of the idea that single-payer's time has come. Tester said “we are so far away” from that debate in both March and June.

Tester is hardly the only Democrat to resist this debate. Just last year, Hillary Clinton dismissed single-payer as “a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass.” Fast-forward a year, and it's leading Democratic presidential hopefuls like Clinton that are spearheading this.

And polls certainly suggest its time has come — at least on the left. I argued back in July that the biggest winner of the Obamacare repeal debate was single-payer. And polls have repeatedly shown an increase in support for both single-payer and the idea that government should guarantee health care, even among Republicans.

A Pew poll in January showed 60 percent of Americans said the government had a responsibility to provide health-care coverage for all, up from 51 percent the year before. The poll showed just 33 percent overall favored single-payer specifically — versus a “mix of government and private programs” — but among Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters, 52 percent wanted single-payer. And among self-described liberals, it was 64 percent.

... < interesting graphic >

In other words: The writing is on the wall. The GOP's failed efforts to repeal and/or replace the Affordable Care Act have cemented government's increased role in health care, and not even Republicans are really arguing for a big rollback on that. Meantime, Sanders's stronger-than-expected challenge to Clinton in 2016 showed the power that a base-energizing, single-payer-supporting candidate can have.

There are about 18 months, give or take, until the first Democratic debates of 2020, and the trend line is clear enough that Democratic hopefuls know in which direction this will go. They also have the added benefit of knowing they probably won't actually have to vote on this anytime soon. But if a Democrat wins the White House in 2020, it now seems very likely he or she will have promised to pursue single-payer as president.

Expect this to continue apace in the days and weeks ahead.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"GOP leaders made a huge wager — and they’re losing"

Spoiler

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) promised Obamacare repeal, funding for the wall and tax reform, all by the end of August. For the GOP, it is now September, both literally and metaphorically.

In the spring of their hopes, Republican leaders placed a bet — which seemed reasonable at the time — that they could contain President Trump and pass legislation despite him. This required looking away from the uglier aspects of Trump’s appeal — his Twitter transgressions, his appallingly frenzied rallies, his rule by ridicule. All this was worth swallowing because Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would pass their conservative agenda.

The wager was large and lost. The attempt to revive a health-care alternative in the Senate seems halfhearted and doomed by the same ideological dynamics that killed the legislation the first time. Republican enthusiasm for the Mexican border wall is limited by the fact that it is among the most wasteful, impractical and useless ideas ever spouted by an American president. And ambitious tax reform has been tabled in favor of a few tax cuts that are likely to reaffirm public impressions that the “P” in GOP stands for “plutocracy.”

In the process, Republican leaders have been made to look hapless and pathetic, not least because Trump has taken to taunting them. A president incapable of legislative leadership mocks the ineffectiveness of Republican legislators, publicly humiliates them on the debt-limit deal, then revels in the (very temporary) friendship of “Chuck and Nancy” — Democratic leaders Schumer and Pelosi.

Those Republicans who believe that Trump is being cynical, disloyal or politically calculating continue to misunderstand the man. The president has no discernible political philosophy or strong policy views to betray. His leadership consists mainly of instincts, reflexes and prejudices, which often have nothing to do with self-interest. He has a genius for fame, which usually involves attention-attracting unpredictability and transgressiveness. Trump reads events moment by moment, making him a cork on the waves of cable coverage. Any choice he makes is correct by definition, because he has made it. And any person — on his staff or on Capitol Hill — who does not precisely mimic his political gyrations is disloyal and should be punished.

Most public officials have never worked with anyone like this before. Among other things, it means that any vocal conviction politician — any leader, such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who regularly heeds the whisper of duty and conscience — will be Trump’s enemy. With a little patience.

What have Republican leaders who bet the other way — on accommodation — lost in the process?

The wager has been a disaster in the realm of policy. During legislative debates on issues such as health care, Trump has been erratic, unfocused, impatient and frighteningly ignorant. His White House policy staff — some of whom are responsible and talented — try to work with Capitol Hill, but always under the threat that their efforts will be destroyed by a tweet. Congressional Republicans see the White House as a basket case, don’t think that any administration official speaks authoritatively for the president and increasingly fear entering the midterm elections entirely naked of accomplishment.

The wager has been a disaster in the realm of politics. The president takes it as an accomplishment to secure the support of about 35 percent of the public. This leaves Republicans in the worst of political worlds, where the intensity of Trump’s base is increased by words and policies that alienate the majority — making Trump a powerful force within the party and a scary, galvanizing figure beyond it. The damage is broad, profound and generational. A recent Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll recorded 26 percent approval for the president among those aged 18 to 34.

The wager has been a moral disaster. News accounts following Trump’s betrayal of Republican leaders on the debt limit reported them to be “livid.” What does it tell us about Republican politicians that they were livid about a three-month debt-limit extension but not so much about misogyny, nativism and flirtation with racism? Or maybe they were, but they still thought the wager might work. Such lack of wisdom and proportion is an indictment as well.

All Republican efforts — at least in the traditional wing of the party — must now be bent toward one, difficult end: establishing a GOP identity apart from Trump. And that will require Republican leaders to cease being complicit in their own humiliation and irrelevance.

Yeah, I'm sure McTurtle and Lyan are miserable. Fine, they make most of us miserable.

[sawasdee]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

All Republican efforts — at least in the traditional wing of the party — must now be bent toward one, difficult end: establishing a GOP identity apart from Trump. And that will require Republican leaders to cease being complicit in their own humiliation and irrelevance.

I don't think they have the spine to oppose him - and the Freedom Caucus want to move against McTurtle and Lyan, which will split the party even more. 

I think the GOP as known today is doomed.

[fraurosena]

Speaking of the amorality of the GOP:

Ted Cruz just liked a very NSFW tweet and the internet is melting

Warning: The following article is of a NSFW nature, obviously.

Spoiler

This isn't just a big deal because the Texas Senator once tried, and failed, to get his party's nomination for the 2016 president election. It's a big deal because Mr Cruz once waged a legal campaign against dildos and sex toys, arguing that members of the public have no right...

...to stimulate one’s genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship...

He's also supported banning forms of birth control in the past.

His puritanical leg to stand on is gone.

Despite the website being 11-years-old now, it seems many people still don't realise that everyone else on Twitter can see your likes. They're a very public thing. 

So when he decided to like a tweet by @SexuallPosts (who now proudly boast the tagline "Follow for the porn Ted Cruz watches"), pretty much the entire internet saw.

>some hilarious tweets<

 

I've embedded the liked tweet under this spoiler. Remember, it's NSFW.

Spoiler

 

 

[fraurosena]

Of course, the fun with the Cruz porn-video tweet-like is not going to end anytime soon. 

Don’t worry, senator. Here’s a handy list of explanations you can use.

The link is full of tweets, so I won't quote them here, but they're hilarious.

Here are the top three excuses people are assuming he will give:

1. I was hacked (by Russians)
2. An intern did it
3. I did NOT have sexual relations with my hand

[47of74]

Yeah I was just coming here to post about the newest diamond level member of the GOP Hypocrites Club.

I think this was my favorite tweet.

Of course, don't visualize Ted Cruze pounding off.  There ain't enough eye bleach in the world for that. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"This nifty GOP trick will punish the poor and increase the deficit — at the same time!"

Spoiler

Never accuse Republicans of being uncreative. Once again, they’ve found an innovative way to punish the poor and simultaneously increase budget deficits — all with one nifty trick!

To pull off this impressive twofer, they would put every American applying for the earned-income tax credit (EITC) through a sort of mini-audit before getting their refund. This would both place huge new burdens on the working poor and divert scarce Internal Revenue Service resources away from other audit targets, such as big corporations, that offer a much higher return on investment.

For those not familiar, the EITC is basically a way to top up low- and moderate-income people’s pay through a tax refund, to give them a bigger payoff from working.

The EITC has an excellent track record both economically and politically. Lots of studies have found that it increases workforce participation, for example. Since its introduction in 1975, it has also received bipartisan support, given its dual purpose as both an anti-poverty and a pro-work program. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have overseen major EITC expansions.

Thanks to a combination of innocent mistakes and outright fraud, though, some EITC money is disbursed erroneously. And so in 2015 Congress passed a bipartisan law to improve the program’s integrity. The changes that went into effect this year include a several-week delay in issuing EITC refunds so the IRS can match basic documents such as W-2s and 1099s to tax filers’ reported income.

The IRS hasn’t yet analyzed the full effect of these changes, though early numbers look promising.

Before the full results are in, however, House Republicans have decided to do something far more drastic.

Sometime in the next few weeks, the House is expected to vote on the fiscal 2018 budget resolution, a procedural step that’s designed to pave the way for tax cuts. That’s gotten a fair amount of coverage, of course. Less publicized is troubling language in the budget resolution committee report, which proposes decreasing “improper” EITC payments by requiring verification of all income before benefits go out.

The language is vague but appears to refer to a Heritage Foundation proposal that would require the IRS to “fully verify income through a review of Form W-2, Form 1099, business licensing or registration, and relevant invoices” before dispensing any refunds. So, a mini-audit.

As noted in a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, conducting mini-audits of all 28 million EITC claimants would be an astonishingly laborious task, both for tax filers and for the IRS.

It would impose huge administrative burdens on low-income workers, many of whom cobble together a living through multiple jobs and part-time “gig economy” positions, from which they may not earn enough money to require a 1099.

At a time when Republicans are flogging tax simplification, this would make tax preparation infinitely more complicated. Unless, of course, the goal is to discourage poor people from applying for the EITC in the first place.

Even for those who persisted in applying for the refund, EITC payments might be delayed for many months, causing great hardship. The vast majority of recipients use their refund checks for rent, utilities, mortgage payments and other necessities, as well as to pay down debt.

But the proposal is more than just cruel. It’s also likely to cost the government a lot of money.

Recall that Republicans have been steadily cutting the IRS’s budget, which is a silly thing to do if you’re truly a fiscal conservative who believes in “law and order.” The IRS brings in far more money than it receives, particularly in its work going after tax cheats.

And cutting the IRS budget is an especially silly thing to do if you’re also giving the agency an enormous new mandate likely to crowd out other enforcement activities — including those that bring in much bigger paydays.

The amounts at stake in EITC audits are relatively small. Overclaim errors are often just a few hundred dollars, compared with the hundreds of thousands or even millions that can be recovered from deep-pocketed corporations and individuals.

Arguably the IRS already devotes too many resources to these small-potatoes cases; EITC audits represent about 39 percent of all individual income-tax audits, despite accounting for just 7 percent of additional taxes that audits find to be owed.

If Republicans actually cared about reducing EITC tax cheating, there are more effective and compassionate things they could pursue, such as regulating the fly-by-night unlicensed tax preparers responsible for a disproportionate share of EITC fraud. Both the Trump and Obama administrations have asked Congress for authority to do this, to no avail.

President Trump said he’d help America win again. He can start by persuading his fellow Republicans to ditch this lose-lose proposition.

This sounds like Lyan's wet dream -- screwing poor people AND the government.

[sawasdee]

Every time you think they can't blatantly go lower - they do.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Michigan Rep. Dave Trott won't run for reelection"

Spoiler

Michigan Rep. Dave Trott said Monday that he would not seek reelection, making him the third Republican incumbent in the last week to vacate a potential battleground district ahead of the 2018 midterm elections.

"Representing the Eleventh District has been an honor, but I have decided not to seek reelection in 2018," Trott said in a statement. "This was not an easy decision, but after careful consideration, I have decided that the best course for me is to spend more time with my family and return to the private sector."

Trott's decision — along with retirements by Pennsylvania Rep. Charlie Dent and Washington Rep. Dave Reichert last week — opens another competitive House seat, as the House GOP tries to hold on to its 24-seat majority. President Donald Trump carried Trott's seat in suburban Detroit by just under 5 points in 2016.

Before Trott's announcement, Democrats were already eyeing his seat. Democrat Haley Stevens, a digital manufacturing executive who served as chief of staff to then-President Barack Obama’s Auto Task Force, decided to challenge Trott in April.

Republicans in the state said they expect a bloody primary to replace Trott. "It would be very difficult for someone to clear the field because of the various factions here,” said Dennis Lennox, a Republican consultant in Michigan. “But if there is an A-list candidate in the race, we should know by next week.”

Republicans floated several potential candidates, including state Rep. Klint Kesto, state Rep. Laura Cox and Mike Bouchard, who ran for Senate in 2006.

The GOP is bullish about their chances to keep the seat in their column. “The NRCC is looking forward to keeping his seat red in 2018,” NRCC Chairman Steve Stivers said in a statement. “We will not let [Trott’s] hard work go to waste, and are confident this seat will remain under Republican control.”

But Democrats plan to fight hard for the seat, which was briefly represented by Democrat David Curson at the end of 2012 after he won an unusual, late special election to fill the remainder of former Rep. Thad McCotter's term.

“Congressman Trott’s retirement opens up a competitive seat that is trending toward Democrats and we’re confident that a strong candidate will be ready [to] represent the people of Southeast Michigan in Congress in 2018,” said DCCC spokeswoman Rachel Irwin.

C'mon Dems, we need to turn these seats blue.

[GreyhoundFan]

Another good one from Jennifer Rubin: "Republicans’ tax-cut myth is about to crumble"

Spoiler

Tax cuts have become the GOP’s MacGuffin. A MacGuffin is defined as “an object, event, or character in a film or story that serves to set and keep the plot in motion despite usually lacking intrinsic importance.” (Think of the “letters of transit” in “Casablanca” or the black sand in the champagne bottles in “Notorious.”)

Ask Republicans how to turn things around and they will intone, “Tax cuts.” What does the White House expect will turn around President Trump’s fortunes? Tax cuts. Ask donors or GOP activists how they can hold the party together in the Trump era and they will knowingly tell you, “Tax cuts, of course.” It’s not at all clear what would be in the tax cuts, for we have yet to see an actual plan, nor is it clear that the GOP will have the benefit of a reconciliation process that requires only 51 votes in the Senate. For that, they’d need a budget resolution to attach the reconciliation instructions and meet the so-called Byrd Rule, which among other things prohibits any increase in the deficit beyond the 10-year window.

Before Trump’s deal on the debt ceiling last week, I didn’t think a substantial tax-reform bill with the big cuts Republicans like to dream about was going to get done. The numbers are too difficult; the health-care fight revealed moderate senators’ squeamishness about tax cuts for the rich; they have a math problem regarding the Byrd Rule (i.e. deficits beyond the budget window); and frankly, House and Senate dysfunction is so great that I thought the idea of proceeding on something as complex as tax reform was always a stretch.

In the wake of the debt-ceiling deal, others are starting to get the idea that tax reform is not in the cards. CNBC reports:

“The extension of debt ceiling and government funding debates into fourth-quarter 2017 may limit Congress’ ability to pass tax reform,” wrote Moody’s analysts Sarah Carlson and Matt Kulakovskyi. “If the agreement goes through, negotiations on raising the currently binding debt ceiling will start again in only a few months,” suggesting that other items on the agenda may have to take a back seat to debt debate.

Moody’s analysis also said that any further tax cuts would “exacerbate” projected increases in government debt, thereby contributing to the already-tense political discussion.

“The agreement has no effect on our assessment of the government’s fiscal dynamics because it does not include any provisions for additional revenue or offsetting expenditure cuts to fund the proposed disaster relief spending or, more generally, affect the budget balance,” added the analysts.

So what happens if the GOP’s MacGuffin gets written out of the script? One option would be to work on some small subset of tax reform, such as a revenue-neutral corporate tax reform (not cut). That would be logical, but in the “all or nothing” mentality that permeates the GOP, it doesn’t seem likely to attract much interest. The GOP could turn to other things that might be doable — infrastructure, a fix for the Obamacare exchanges, etc. But those in and of themselves are divisive within the GOP (as is a fix for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, of course); moreover, these are not the sort of things that animate the whole party, bringing disparate strains of the party together and producing a kumbaya moment for a party at war with itself. You see, given that the GOP has devoted so much energy to the prospect of tax cuts, failure to attain that prize in all likelihood will leave the party more divided and dispirited than ever before.

The idea that House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) is somehow better off after the debt-ceiling deal or that the debt deal “cleared the decks” so tax reform could get done strikes me as rather delusional. If Republicans don’t get their save-their-skins-and-the-party tax plan, I suspect you’ll see a bunch more congressional retirements, a whole lot of alt-right challengers and a really angry GOP donor community. At some point they might even begin to ask: What good is Trump if he can’t get us anything we really want?

From the last paragraph, yes, I think Lyan is delusional. Hopefully he'll delude himself out of office.

[47of74]

Question.  Since Lord High Ray Burke is the Ted Cruz of the College of Cardinals should we be keeping an eye on his social media stuff to see if a "staff member" "inadvertently" likes something at 2:00am? 

[onekidanddone]

7 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Of course, the fun with the Cruz porn-video tweet-like is not going to end anytime soon. 

Don’t worry, senator. Here’s a handy list of explanations you can use.

The link is full of tweets, so I won't quote them here, but they're hilarious.

Here are the top three excuses people are assuming he will give:

1. I was hacked (by Russians)
2. An intern did it
3. I did NOT have sexual relations with my hand

Why was a staff 'member' (oh the double entendre makes me giggle like I'm a 10 year old) in charge of his phone?

 

[fraurosena]

Well gosh-darn-it! He went with option number 2. 

Ted Cruz blames staffer for 'liking' porn tweet

Spoiler

Sen. Ted Cruz said Tuesday that a staff member of his was responsible for "liking" a pornographic Twitter post with the Texas lawmaker's account, chalking up the social media snafu to a "mistake."

"There are a number of people on the team who have access on the account. It appears that someone inadvertently hit the like button. When we discovered the post, which was I guess an hour or two later, we pulled it down," Cruz (R-Texas) said of the incident. "It was a staffing issue. And it was inadvertent, it was a mistake. It was not a deliberate act. We're dealing with it internally, but it was a mistake. It was not malicious."

Cruz told reporters Tuesday that it was "still being discussed" whether the staff member in question would retain access to the senator's social media account.

Earlier Tuesday, a spokeswoman for Cruz announced via her own Twitter account that the "like" had been undone and that the post had been reported to Twitter.

“The offensive tweet posted on @tedcruz account earlier has been removed by staff and reported to Twitter,” Catherine Frazier, Cruz’s senior communications adviser, wrote on her Twitter account at 2:16 a.m. Tuesday morning.

On Twitter, users can "like" posts by clicking on a heart beneath them, which causes those posts to populate on the user's profile under the "liked" section. The pornographic post in question had initially been shared by an account using the handle @SexuallPosts, and screen shots of the post from Cruz's page show a graphic sexual video.

Although the “like” has since been undone, screen shots of the post have circulated widely online and @SexuallPosts updated its bio to urge users to “follow the same porn @TedCruz watches.”

And I was so hoping it would be number three. Sigh.

[GrumpyGran]

39 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Well gosh-darn-it! He went with option number 2. 

Ted Cruz blames staffer for 'liking' porn tweet

  Hide contents

Sen. Ted Cruz said Tuesday that a staff member of his was responsible for "liking" a pornographic Twitter post with the Texas lawmaker's account, chalking up the social media snafu to a "mistake."

"There are a number of people on the team who have access on the account. It appears that someone inadvertently hit the like button. When we discovered the post, which was I guess an hour or two later, we pulled it down," Cruz (R-Texas) said of the incident. "It was a staffing issue. And it was inadvertent, it was a mistake. It was not a deliberate act. We're dealing with it internally, but it was a mistake. It was not malicious."

Cruz told reporters Tuesday that it was "still being discussed" whether the staff member in question would retain access to the senator's social media account.

Earlier Tuesday, a spokeswoman for Cruz announced via her own Twitter account that the "like" had been undone and that the post had been reported to Twitter.

“The offensive tweet posted on @tedcruz account earlier has been removed by staff and reported to Twitter,” Catherine Frazier, Cruz’s senior communications adviser, wrote on her Twitter account at 2:16 a.m. Tuesday morning.

On Twitter, users can "like" posts by clicking on a heart beneath them, which causes those posts to populate on the user's profile under the "liked" section. The pornographic post in question had initially been shared by an account using the handle @SexuallPosts, and screen shots of the post from Cruz's page show a graphic sexual video.

Although the “like” has since been undone, screen shots of the post have circulated widely online and @SexuallPosts updated its bio to urge users to “follow the same porn @TedCruz watches.”

And I was so hoping it would be number three. Sigh.

I thought he would go with hacked. That way he could keep using that excuse going forward. It would probably be good for at least six or seven more visits to evil porn sites.

[fraurosena]

McTurtle pours cold water on Trump-Schumer effort to repeal debt ceiling

Spoiler

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday positioned himself in opposition to President Trump and Democratic leaders in Congress on the nation’s borrowing authority when he expressed no enthusiasm for repealing Congress’s oversight of the debt ceiling.

It marked the latest sign of division between Trump and Republicans on Capitol Hill, a divide that has been growing in recent weeks.

“Getting Congress to give up the tool like that would probably be quite a challenge,” he said.

McConnell predicted that the debt ceiling “will continue and we’ll have to decide when these intervals come along the best way to handle it.”

Trump and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) agreed last week to pursue an agreement to permanently do away with the requirement that Congress periodically raise the debt ceiling.

Trump and Democrats also reached a deal to extend the debt limit until December, overruling McConnell and other GOP congressional leaders, who wanted a longer-term agreement that extended past the 2018 midterm elections.

McConnell said Tuesday that he does not expect to have to raise the debt ceiling again until “some time next year,” because of extraordinary measures the government can take to buy time, which he has said he pushed to include in last week’s package.

The United States spends more than it takes in and must therefore continually issue new debt, which is why government officials consistently push to rise the national limit.

From the article:

The United States spends more than it takes in and must therefore continually issue new debt, which is why government officials consistently push to rise the national limit.

So, you spend more than you get. Well, then I just don't understand why the GOP is so hellbent on tax reduction. You're spending too much so you're going to ensure you take in even less. Riiiiiiight.

[47of74]

LOL, saw this in The New Yorker.  (Disclaimer: Satire) 

Quote

The pornography industry has likely suffered permanent damage as a result of its unfortunate association with the Texas senator Ted Cruz, industry sources said on Tuesday.

Porn, which takes in annual profits of fifteen billion dollars, could see those revenues decimated if, as some industry experts fear, users begin to have intrusive thoughts involving Senator Cruz.

It's probably a lot truer than anyone realizes.