Jump to content
IGNORED

United States Congress of Fail - Part 4


Coconut Flan

Recommended Posts

On 12/21/2017 at 11:50 AM, fraurosena said:

Oh, about that Hillary/ Uranium One investigation? Turns out that the presidunce's current ambassador to Russia authorized Uranium One to do business in the US while Governor of Utah...

Is there anything in this administration that doesn't loop back to Russia? ANYTHING?  

On 12/21/2017 at 4:20 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

Wanna take bets on how fast McTurtle changes his tune? "McConnell: Entitlement reform is a nonstarter in the Senate in 2018"

If you want to see people rioting in the streets, just try to screw with MediCare and social security.  If we can't walk unassisted, we'll get someone to push our wheelchairs, or we'll grab our canes or our walkers, we'll protest digitally, we'll f**king vote you into well deserved oblivion.  Jerking around people on MediCare, Medicaid and social security is political suicide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 631
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The vultures are circling around McCain, vying with each other to take his place. Simply reprehensible and frankly disgusting behavior. So consumed by ambition and so hungry for power, they have left any sense of shame far, far behind.

Quiet jockeying for McCain seat angers Republicans

Quote

Ambitious Republicans anxious for a shot at a U.S. Senate seat have begun quietly jockeying to be appointed as the successor to Sen. John McCain (R), even as he battles an aggressive form of brain cancer.

The lobbying campaigns, described to The Hill by half a dozen GOP strategists and aides, have angered many Republicans, who see any public chatter as disrespectful to a senator who has helped shape modern Arizona.

Chief among those upset is the man who would make an appointment, Gov. Doug Ducey (R), who issued a brushback pitch during a radio appearance last week.

“I have found it a little bit off color, some of the prognosticators and pundits who have been making these predictions as to the senator's outcome. I think people should be praying for him and rooting for him,” Ducey told KTAR radio. “To the politicians out there that have been openly lobbying for this position, they've basically disqualified themselves by showing their true character.”

Observers in Phoenix interpreted Ducey’s comments as a shot at three politicians who have been open about their interest in a Senate seat: Rep. Paul Gosar (R), former state Sen. Kelli Ward (R) and former Rep. Matt Salmon (R).

Gosar’s interest in serving in the Senate is hardly concealed, Republican operatives said.

He conducted polling measuring his standing in the race to replace retiring Sen. Jeff Flake (R) earlier this year, and his chief of staff has emailed a member of Ducey's staff about McCain's seat, according to three sources with knowledge of the conversation.

“At this time my prayers are with Sen. McCain. There will be a time and a place for any political discussion in due course,” Gosar said in a statement to The Hill.

Ward, who challenged McCain in the 2016 Republican primary, said shortly after McCain was diagnosed with cancer that he should resign — and that she should be considered to replace him. 

“We are laser focused is on winning Jeff Flake’s seat, which we are in prime position to do,” said Ed Rollins, Ward's campaign chairman. “If a situation arises where an appointment is needed, the governor should appoint another strong conservative, who can partner with Dr. Ward after she wins.”

Salmon, who is now the top lobbyist at Arizona State University, has made his interest in the seat known, though more tactfully than the others. Salmon had lunch with Ducey's chief of staff earlier this month — something his allies made known among top Republicans around the capital — though a source close to the former congressman said the appointment did not come up.

“He has an interest in serving in the Senate, yes, but he has no interest in lobbying for a vacancy that doesn't exist,” the source close to Salmon said. “He feels he has absolutely no role in that decision anyway.”

Former Rep. John Shadegg (R) is also said to be on the list of candidates who would be considered to fill a vacancy. McCain is close to Grant Woods, his chief of staff when McCain served in the House and later a two-term attorney general.

Shadegg did not respond to an email, and Woods could not be reached during the holidays.

After a health scare two weeks ago, McCain returned home to Arizona to spend the holidays with his family. He tweeted on Dec. 18 that he was “looking forward to returning to work after the holidays.”

McCain's spokeswoman declined to comment for this story. A spokesman in Ducey's office, too, declined to comment.

Several Republicans who have seen McCain lately say he remains in a wheelchair, a side effect of the treatment regimen he is undergoing, and that he is still engaged on issues that matter to him.

Cindy McCain is giving Ducey's office and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) office regular updates on her husband's progress, those Republicans said.

Arizona is already a key battleground in the war for control of the Senate. Flake's decision to retire, after polls showed him trailing Ward in the GOP primary, have given Democrats their best opportunity to compete for a Senate seat in the state since Dennis DeConcini retired in 1994. Even Republican stalwarts see Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D) as a strong contender.

Ward, who met with President Trump last week at his Mar-a-Lago estate, remains the Republican front-runner. She is likely to face a challenge from Rep. Martha McSally (R), who has told colleagues she will run but who has yet to make her bid official. In an interview last week, McConnell called McSally one of his top recruits.

Arizona state law allows the governor to appoint a replacement if a Senate seat becomes vacant. If the vacancy occurs at least six months before the next general election, voters would pick a candidate to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. That means Arizona could have two Senate seats on the ballot in November, a prospect some Republicans fear as political winds appear to shift toward Democrats. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

The vultures are circling around McCain, vying with each other to take his place. Simply reprehensible and frankly disgusting behavior. So consumed by ambition and so hungry for power, they have left any sense of shame far, far behind.

Quiet jockeying for McCain seat angers Republicans

I am not McCain's biggest fan, but that's just sick and sad. I'm surprised they haven't started measuring his office for new carpeting and drapes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"5 lessons from a Republican year of governing dangerously"

Spoiler

The Republican Congress ended its first year on a partisan high note by overhauling the tax code and undercutting the Affordable Care Act, setting up a trillion increase in the deficit in the process. Before the finale, the 115th Congress was buoyed by a strong economy, yet gridlocked by slim majorities, internal division and an erratic president. Over the course of the year, Republicans narrowed their agenda, abandoned fiscal orthodoxy, bent the rules, and kicked tough problems to next year and beyond.

Here are five takeaways from year one of all-Republican rule:

1. Congress veered to the right

Congress’s December achievements followed a mostly fallow legislative year: Republicans confirmed a Supreme Court justice, put a dozen conservative judges on the bench, overturned a handful of Obama-era regulations and cheered as Trump-led agencies targeted scores of environmental and consumer rules for repeal.

Except for imposing new sanctions on Russia and improving veterans’ health care, Republicans veered to the right. They exploited rules to box out Democrats and, at times, even ignored President Trump’s more populist legislative promises, such as reducing the cost of health care and addressing the opioid crisis.

2. A strong economy cannot heal partisan divisions

Even resurgent consumer confidence, record employment and booming stock prices could not facilitate bipartisan lawmaking. Instead, long-standing partisan rifts widened.

As we showed earlier this year, party polarization hit all-time highs in 2017. The two parties are now unrepentant ideological and electoral foes, and they have little common legislative ground. But even within their own party, Capitol Hill Republicans are remarkably divided. Led by a historically unpopular president, Republicans are fractured along nationalist, libertarian and ideological contours on the most visible issues. Voters might typically reward a congressional majority backed by a healthy economy, but antipathy toward an ineffective Congress and Trump’s dismal approval ratings put GOP control of Congress at risk in 2018.

3. Internal divisions narrowed the GOP agenda

Republicans finally united around tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. The tax-reform bill enacted just before year’s end will deliver four-fifths of its benefits to the extremely rich. In doing so, it breaks some of Trump’s more populist pledges, abandons the GOP’s past commitment to fiscal prudence and exacerbates income inequality. No wonder the law is unpopular.

To pass the tax-reform bill under strict budget reconciliation constraints, which required that the bill not add to the deficit, Senate Republicans made sure that the individual tax cuts would end within a decade. Had Republicans been able to woo a few Democrats into voting for the bill, senators could have waived the rule. But Democrats voted lockstep against the bill. And reports suggest that even within the GOP, consensus is fragile. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) argued that “if they brought in Democrats and began adjusting anything, it could cause the Republican side of this to fall apart.”

Despite their party’s control of government, Republicans’ internal divisions forced them to narrow their agenda. A deeply unpopular and unfocused president seemed incapable of uniting his divided party on salient legislative issues. Most dramatic, a seven-year campaign to repeal the ACA fell apart on the Senate floor — signaled with a dramatic thumbs down from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). GOP lawmakers failed to find 50 senators to agree to revoke widely popular health-care benefits.

Republicans also stalemated on resolving the fate of the “Dreamers,” even after three dozen House Republicans (mostly from Democratic-leaning districts) urged party leaders to advance a solution for undocumented migrants who brought into the country when they were children. And Trump’s promised infrastructure plan never materialized, as Republicans disagreed over whether and how to pay to fix the nation’s crumbling roads and bridges.

4. Republicans bent and broke rules where needed

Some key GOP achievements required bending and breaking the rules. Following the lead of the Democrats, who in 2013 revoked the filibuster on judicial nominations below the top court, Republicans changed Senate rules to prevent Democrats from filibustering Neil M. Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination. To secure confirmation votes on a record number of judicial nominees in a president’s first year, Republicans curtailed the “blue slip” practice that had for decades given senators the power to block appellate nominees from their home states. Next year, Republicans intend to speed up confirmation votes even more by reinstating modest filibuster reforms adopted temporarily by a bipartisan supermajority in 2013.

And Republicans cut corners by ignoring the long-standing practice of listening to Congress’s in-house experts while devising legislation. Republicans passed the tax bill, claiming it would pay for itself — despite nonpartisan congressional scorekeepers’ analysis to the contrary. Republicans disregarded other congressional experts when trying to replace the ACA, voting before the Congressional Budget Office could deliver its estimates.

But Senate GOP leaders did draw the line when some colleagues advocated dismantling the Byrd Rule, a parliamentary requirement that made it harder for senators to repeal the ACA. Why? Probably for two reasons: divisions among Republicans themselves about the policy, and uncertainty about how Democrats might exploit the change in the future.

5. GOP played a strong game of kick the can

Republicans avoided the most pressing problems by repeated can-kicking. They failed to negotiate a deal with Democrats to fund the government for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, punting a decision into January. They let the vital, popular and bipartisan-supported children’s health-care program known as CHIP lapse, promising to take that up next year as well. And to avoid blame for what used to be a partisan showdown under Obama, Republicans delayed an agreement to raise the nation’s debt limit until early spring.

Republican lawmakers also kicked the can in their signature tax law when they failed to make individual tax cuts permanent. Instead, key elements in the law — particularly benefits to the middle class — will expire in 2025, letting a future Congress handle that issue.

Finally, by reforming taxes in a way that increased the deficit, Republicans put future Congresses in a difficult position if an economic downturn requires new fiscal stimulus. Increasing debt levels and interest rates complicate an inevitable reckoning over national finances.

What’s next?

When Republicans return to Washington in January, they face the prospect of a government shutdown, an even slimmer Senate margin, and a volatile president often unable to lead Congress where he wants. Meanwhile, in the background, the special counsel’s investigation keeps simmering with possible complications.

Congress may find moderate solutions to fund children’s health care and protect the Dreamers. Bipartisan efforts could roll back some banking regulations and upgrade the nation’s infrastructure. Accomplishing these would require Trump and Republicans to set aside internal disagreements and tack to the center, engaging Democrats under the Senate’s normal, supermajority rules.

But can Republicans manage that to convince voters they can govern — without further demotivating their partisan base — before the midterm elections next fall? Republicans’ year-end gift to taxpayers should give the economy one more boost before lawmakers face the voters, but it will be hard to run on a signature legislative achievement that is so disliked.

I hope that at this time next year, we will be cheering for the newly-elected Dem majority in both houses of congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Republicans’ attack on conservation law would shock their conservative predecessors"

Spoiler

Lee Talbot is professor of environmental science, international affairs and public policy at George Mason University. He is former head of Environmental Sciences for the Smithsonian Institution and former chief scientist on the President’s Council on Environmental Quality for presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

When President Richard Nixon asked my old boss at the Smithsonian Institution to loan me, then the institution’s head of environmental sciences, to the White House, I took on what may seem like an impossible task: write and help enact one of the country’s most important environmental laws. But I did, and the bill passed in a remarkably bipartisan way.

Now that law, the Endangered Species Act, is under vicious attack in Congress by anti-conservation zealots uninterested in working with their counterparts from the other side of the aisle.

Such is the state of our national affairs. The political climate makes it difficult to imagine a Republican president recruiting and encouraging a scientist to author progressive environmental legislation and help push it through Congress.

But that is exactly what Nixon did. At the time, nearly everyone in government, Nixon included, was worried about air and water pollution and environmental degradation from agriculture and development. Everyone wanted to save our wildlife and our natural heritage. They wanted to do what was best for the country.

So in 1970, I was hired to help create the president’s Council on Environmental Quality and develop national environmental policy. Before this, I had dedicated much of my career to the study of endangered species, venturing through dense Javan jungles and arid Arabian deserts to observe some of the world’s most imperiled animals. When I entered the White House, I knew I had to make conserving endangered wildlife our priority.

The law in place at the time — the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 — did little to protect animals on the edge of extinction, and states did next to nothing for threatened wildlife. So I decided to create a new law to fill in the gaps.

When I unveiled my idea to Nixon’s chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, as a win-win initiative, he and Nixon’s advisors agreed. But Haldeman had a caveat.

The Republican Nixon administration was faced with a Congress wholly controlled by Democrats. I had friends on the Hill on both sides of the aisle. I told Haldeman that we needed the Democrats with us to get our legislative initiatives through.

I asked if it was all right to work with the Democrats. Haldeman’s reply: Yes, do whatever you need to do to get our agenda through. His only proviso? Don’t ever appear with a Democrat on the front page of The Post.

I found the rivalry amusing at the time, but in the past, even the inherent divisiveness of party politics seldom stood in the way of making the best decisions for the American people.

Now, the idea of putting national interests ahead of party politics doesn’t seem to even occur to the most anti-wildlife lawmakers in Congress, who launch attack after attack against the Endangered Species Act.

To date, the current Congress has introduced more than 63 bills that would weaken or gut the act. These efforts to undermine one of our bedrock environmental laws are entirely wrongheaded. The Endangered Species Act has saved 99 percent of all animals under its protection from extinction and has put hundreds more on the road to recovery. A report from the Center for Biological Diversity found that 85 percent of the North American birds listed under the Endangered Species Act have either increased in numbers or remained stable since being protected.

This is proof that our laws have preserved critical natural resources. But with a pro-fossil fuels and pro-development administration in the White House, and Republicans controlling Congress, this progress is under threat.

We cannot afford to have our crucial conservation laws weakened. Instead, we should hold politicians who would undermine environmental protections accountable, because, as Americans, we value our wildlife and wild places over short-term profits, and we want them preserved for future generations.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it seems like there will be nothing living once this administration is done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Run, Mitt, run"

Spoiler

Mitt Romney: Your country needs you.

The 2012 Republican presidential nominee has been reluctant to announce a primary challenge to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the longest-serving Republican senator in history. But America needs Romney to step up, to restore dignity to the Senate — and to save the country from the embarrassment Hatch has become.

Hatch, long the picture of conservative rectitude, was once a conscientious legislator, even partnering with Ted Kennedy when he thought poor kids were getting a raw deal. But Hatch, the Senate president pro tempore, has undergone a grotesque transformation this year, his 84th on earth and 42nd in the Senate. He has become chief enabler of and cheerleader for President Trump.

“You’re one heck of a leader,” Hatch gushed to Trump on the White House lawn this month, hailing “all the things that he’s been able to get done — by sheer will, in many ways.” Hatch, declaring Trump a man “I love and appreciate so much,” urged his colleagues to “get behind him every way we can” and vowed: “We’re going to make this the greatest presidency that we’ve seen, not only in generations, but maybe ever.”

Yep, that’s Trump: topping not just Ronald Reagan but Abraham Lincoln and George Washington.

And Hatch wants colleagues to “get behind him in every way we can.” That would include backing Trump’s defense of white supremacists, his vulgar tweets, his endless attacks on the rule of law and the institutions of democracy, and, yes, his embrace of a credibly accused child molester for the Senate. Hatch, after enjoying a ride on Air Force One this month, excused Trump’s endorsement of Roy Moore and said the alleged offenses “were decades ago.”

Trump will be Trump, and that won’t change. The nation’s fate depends on previously upstanding public servants such as Hatch insisting on some semblance of decency.

Hatch’s hometown Salt Lake Tribune called this week for Hatch to step aside, citing “his utter lack of integrity that rises from his unquenchable thirst for power.” Hatch, who saw that the paper had named him “Utahn of the Year” but apparently missed the explanatory editorial, tweeted that he was “grateful for this great Christmas honor.”

The paper’s editorial-page editor, George Pyle, cited the tax cut Hatch authored and other policy differences. But his problem with Hatch was more one of character. Romney would vote the way Hatch does most of the time, Pyle told MSNBC, but with Romney, “we would be spared the embarrassment of his sucking up to the president.”

Exactly. This isn’t about ideology. The trouble is Hatch’s slavish devotion to Trump, kowtowing even when the likes of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) express misgivings. Yes, Romney briefly had kind words for Trump when Trump was considering him for secretary of state. But Hatch’s nonstop adulation of Trump legitimizes the president’s vulgarity and attacks on democratic institutions.

Consider Hatch’s applause for Matthew Petersen, one of three Trump judicial nominees who withdrew this month amid doubts about their credentials. The patently unqualified Petersen, who has never prosecuted or defended a case, was humiliated during questioning by Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.), who exposed his ignorance of basic courtroom procedures. And Hatch? He scolded his fellow Judiciary Committee members for being “unfair.”

Contrast that with Hatch’s silence last year when Todd Edelman, nominated to the same seat as Petersen in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, waited eight months without even getting a hearing — an insult endured by many nominees, right on up to Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Edelman, whom I first met in college years ago, had spent six years presiding over some 400 cases as a judge on the D.C. Superior Court, served eight years as a public defender and taught law at Georgetown.

Hatch for many years has been the compassionate champion of the CHIP health-care program for poor kids and the importance of legislating protections for the “dreamers,” immigrants brought to the country illegally as children. But those sensibilities faded in the Trump era.

The lapsed CHIP program now hangs by a thread, and while Hatch says he favors renewing the program, he frets that “we don’t have money anymore.” This as he helped push through a $1.5 trillion tax cut paid for with debt. And the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for dreamers? He urged Trump not to end the program, and when the administration set in motion plans to do just that, Hatch didn’t join GOP Sen. Lindsey O. Graham’s (S.C.) bipartisan effort to codify it, instead signing on to a GOP-only alternative.

Hatch was preparing to retire, but Trump pushed him to go back on his promise not to seek another term. Trump obviously prefers the obsequious Hatch to Romney, who, though as conservative as Hatch, would be no puppet. That’s why Mitt must run.

I'm not the biggest Romney fan, but it would be hard to be worse than Hatch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting take: "Democrats think 2018 will be a good year, but are they realistic about their own problems?"

Spoiler

Thanks mostly to President Trump, Democrats believe they are poised for good things in 2018: the possibility of taking control of the House and gains elsewhere in the midterm elections. But planning victory laps would be premature. Whatever their prospects for the fall campaigns, the Democrats are still in need of renovation and renewal.

Many current indicators point to rough days ahead for the Republicans, unless passage of the tax bill somehow changes their fortunes. From the president’s low approval ratings to the high energy among rank-and-file Democrats, as well as recent polls showing that the public prefers Democratic candidates for the House by a sizable margin, there is ample evidence that the GOP faces a typically bad midterm election year, or possibly worse. One caveat to all that: In the era of Trump, traditional metrics should not be taken for granted.

The Democrats need a net gain of 24 seats to take control of the House and a net of two to secure the majority in the Senate. The Cook Political Report lists 17 Republican-held seats as toss-ups and one as leaning to the Democrats. Another 22 GOP seats are in the “lean Republican” category, meaning they are at risk next year. In contrast, Cook’s team lists just four Democratic seats as toss-ups and five as “lean Democrat.”

The Senate remains a heavier lift, largely because Democrats are defending far more seats and have only a few opportunities to take away GOP-held seats.

The ample availability of competitive House districts is one reason there is a growing consensus, or at least a rising chorus among the political class, proclaiming a tsunami-in-the-making across America. If that turns out to be the case, Democrats would have the power to frustrate Trump’s and the GOP’s agenda while putting the president himself under a microscope. Many Democrats salivate at the prospect.

A Democratic takeover of the House would transform the politics of Washington. But would it necessarily represent a transformation of the Democratic Party? As with all midterm elections, particularly those that take place in a president’s first term, such a result would say much more about perceptions of Trump and his party than being an affirmation of the Democratic Party.

Despite the positive indicators about the midterms, Democrats face questions about their future as a party that now controls nothing in Washington and far less in the states than they did at the beginning of Barack Obama’s presidency. Among those questions are such basics as their agenda, their geographic limitations and their leadership.

Democrats could assume they can push those vulnerabilities to the sidelines during a midterm election year with a campaign message that is almost exclusively anti-Trump. But as even many Democrats acknowledge, something more than that will be needed to regain widespread trust of voters across the country and begin the process of rebuilding the party in places where it suffered losses over the past decade.

Democrats stand for many things that are popular with a majority of Americans. They oppose cutting tax rates for the wealthiest taxpayers. They oppose changes to Medicare and Social Security that would reduce future benefits or notably alter the eligibility requirements. And they want some immigrants, known as “dreamers,” to be able to stay in this country and not face the threat of deportation over the fact that they were brought to the United States illegally by their parents.

But there are hard questions for the Democrats. What exactly is their health-care policy likely to be in the future? Stand pat with the 2010 Affordable Care Act after some modifications? Move toward a single-payer plan, as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and others now advocate?

What is their economic policy, other than rhetoric about helping working families? What is their response to concerns among many workers about the impact of globalization — more free trade or a rollback? What about cultural issues that are vitally important to a substantial portion of the party’s base but that play less well with others who have defected to the Republican Party?

Hillary Clinton learned in 2016 that a laundry list of programs does not necessarily translate into a compelling message. Democrats recoil at Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan as one that would take the country back to a time when women and minorities had fewer rights and opportunities, but Democrats also continue to struggle to enunciate a new America message that resonates powerfully, especially between the East and West coasts.

The party’s geographical challenges will be put to the test starting in 2018. One reason for Democrats’ optimism is that there are more than a dozen vulnerable House seats in blue states and several others in suburban areas in states Trump won but that have gone Democratic in the past. A fuller test of the party’s ability to rebuild will come in gubernatorial races in the Midwest.

Among states in that region with contests in 2018, Republicans hold the governorships in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa. The Democrats’ best opportunity will be in Illinois, their worst in Iowa. Democrats also must defend governorships in Pennsylvania and Minnesota. Those results, along with the outcome of legislative races in those industrial and Midwestern battlegrounds, will offer clues about the rebirth of the party.

The party’s leadership also is an issue of concern. In the House, the top three Democratic leaders are in their late 70s. In the Senate, the two top leaders are in their late 60s or early 70s. None shows signs of stepping back.

Among the party’s prospective presidential candidates, Sanders is 76, former vice president Joe Biden is 75, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is 68. Who among them will run in 2020 isn’t known, but one issue for Democratic voters that year will be whether they are prepared to look to a different generation.

Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont and former chair of the Democratic National Committee, has been a one-person chorus calling for a generational change in leadership for his party in 2020. He has said he would like to see his party nominate someone age 55 or younger, preferably 50 or younger. His argument is that the party needs a new-generation leader who can speak to the future more authentically than someone a decade or two older.

Dean noted that younger Americans — say, under 35 — are one of the most important constituencies for Democrats (those younger than 30 voted better than 2-to-1 for Virginia Gov.-elect Ralph Northam in November). But Dean recognizes that these younger voters are more loosely aligned to political parties than older generations, and organize and mobilize differently than past generations.

He believes it will be essential to find a presidential candidate who both reflects those attitudes and can energize those younger voters. “You’ve got to have a candidate who really turns people on, and I think somebody much closer to this generation would be this person,” Dean said in a telephone interview on Friday.

Democrats see a divided Republican Party led by Trump as an easy target for criticism. For now, that will remain the principal focus heading into the midterm elections. But as they begin what amounts to a three-year campaign cycle of midterm elections followed by a critically important 2020 presidential race, will Democrats be forthright in assessing and dealing with their own vulnerabilities?

I definitely agree that the aging Dem leadership needs to be actively and publicly mentoring younger colleagues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Congress will return to a full slate of difficult issues"

Spoiler

Congress faces a jam-packed to-do list this month with deadlines looming on difficult issues — including how to fund the government and avoid a shutdown, stabilizing the nation’s health-insurance program for poor children, and whether to shield young undocumented immigrants from deportation.

Fresh off a party-line vote in favor of legislation overhauling the tax code, the negotiations will test whether Congress and the White House still have the potential to craft any form of bipartisan agreement. If so, several of the year’s most contested issues might be resolved with months to spare before the 2018 midterm campaign heats up.

If not, the government could soon be on the verge of a shutdown, with pressing questions regarding health care, immigration and other policies left unresolved. Also on the agenda is emergency relief for regions upended by last year’s natural disasters, a key national security program and the fate of an agreement to stabilize health insurance markets under the Affordable Care Act.

A big unknown is whether the shortened timeline will prove an asset in addressing all the issues before Congress, or a hindrance.

“Some of these things they’re talking about are huge, contentious issues,” said Jane Calderwood, who served as chief of staff for then-Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). “ I can’t imagine it’s doable, and certainly not doable in a thoughtful way.”

Jim Manley, who served as an aide to then-Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), said, “I’m not sure I’ve seen anything like it, at least in recent years, where so much high-profile stuff has to be done right out of the gate,”

Officials in both parties hope to make progress by Jan. 19, when a short-term government funding bill that Congress passed last month expires. The Senate returns Wednesday, and the House returns next Monday.

On Wednesday, senior congressional leaders from both parties will meet at the Capitol with White House budget director Mick Mulvaney and legislative-affairs director Marc Short to renew talks on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which expires on March 5. In September, Trump decided to sunset the program — started under President Barack Obama — that protects 700,000 young immigrants, often called “dreamers,” from deportation.

Congressional Republicans and the White House have demanded that any deal to protect these immigrants include stronger border enforcement — but exactly what that looks like is expected to be a key sticking point in negotiations.

“The Democrats have been told, and fully understand, that there can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc.,” Trump said Thursday on Twitter. “Chain migration” refers to the policy that allows naturalized immigrants to petition for relatives to come to the United States.

Congressional Democrats express openness to finding additional funding for border security but have ruled out funding the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border that Trump promised during his presidential campaign.

“We’re not going to negotiate through the press and look forward to a serious negotiation at Wednesday’s meeting when we come back,” said Drew Hammill, an aide to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Democrats are under intense pressure from Hispanic lawmakers and liberal activists to reject any government funding deal that does not resolve the issue. Already, Democratic senators have helped pass multiple funding deals that did not include DACA protections, including one in December.

About 22,000 DACA recipients failed to renew their applications after the Trump administration gave them 30 days to do so this September, with reports emerging of some applications getting lost in the mail. At least 7,800 people in this group had lost their DACA status by December, and the rest will lose protection before March, according to the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank.

“If Democrats don’t hold the line and ensure dreamers get protected, the unity between the grass roots and the elected party will shatter,” said Ben Wikler, Washington director of the progressive group MoveOn.org. “Democrats and Republicans have already kicked this can down the road three times already. A fourth time is unacceptable.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last month he hopes a bipartisan working group led by Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) comes up with a deal the Senate can pass in January. But he didn’t commit to a specific timetable for a vote.

“We have been gridlocked on this issue for years,” McConnell told reporters last month. “We do not want to just spin our wheels and have nothing to show for it.”

But congressional Republicans face pressure from conservative lawmakers and activists not to find protections for dreamers. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), an immigration hawk, said last month that he urged Trump in a private phone call not to renew DACA.

“Granting amnesty rewards lawbreakers and destroys the rule of law,” King said.

Beyond DACA, lawmakers will also have to agree to new government funding levels or pass another short-term extension of spending limits — known as a continuing resolution — by Jan. 19. Failure to do so would cause a government shutdown, which would cost the economy about $6.5 billion every week it lasts.

Keeping the government funded at existing levels (or increasing government spending) would put Congress on track to trigger automatic spending cuts through what is called the sequester, because of a 2011 law that imposed caps on spending. Congress must raise these caps, as it did in 2013 and 2015, by February to avoid these across-the-board cuts to government programs.

But Democrats and Republicans have been unable to resolve an impasse over how to raise the caps. Republicans passed a bill in December to increase military funding alone by $650 billion through Sept. 30. Congressional Democrats have held firm to the line that every dollar increase in military spending must be met by an equal increase in domestic spending, in line with previous agreements in the past to avoid the sequester.

Lawmakers also will have to increase the debt ceiling by March, when the Treasury Department can no longer meet the federal government’s financial obligations without additional borrowing, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Similarly unresolved is the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which 9 million children use to help meet their medical costs. Right before the Christmas break, Congress plowed $3 billion into CHIP — money that will prevent 1.9 million children from losing coverage in January, according to the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute. But that temporary solution keeps CHIP funded for only three more months, and state health programs throughout the country have begun notifying families that funding could expire.

In November, House Republicans passed a bill to fund CHIP, but Democrats argued that the measure did so by removing money from a public-health preventive-care fund set up under the Affordable Care Act. Democrats want CHIP funded without cutting funding for other federal health programs.

The law authorizing the government to obtain communications of foreign intelligence targets without an individualized warrant — a process that also collects the emails and phone calls of any Americans in communication with the foreign targets — is set to expire on Jan. 19. The program, originally set to end on Jan. 1, was extended for three weeks at the last minute before the Christmas recess.

Intelligence officials have said that under the law, which is known as Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, existing court orders allowing surveillance will remain in effect until April. Security hawks and the intelligence community have defended it as an essential safeguard against terrorism and a valuable tool for gathering foreign intelligence, while civil-liberty advocates say without revisions it creates the potential for abuses of government power. A House aide predicted that the program would be put to a stand-alone vote shortly after Congress returns.

Before the Christmas break, the House approved an $81 billion relief package for victims of recent hurricanes and wildfires in California. Democrats criticized that plan as inadequate, particularly for the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, which are still struggling with widespread power outages. Democrats in the Senate rejected the House package right before the Christmas recess, but members of both parties agree on the imminent need to allocate emergency funding.

Disaster funding “may have to slip to next year,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said last month. “I think we can work it out in a bipartisan way. I certainly do. But just jamming it through without consulting us and not being fair to so many other parts of the country doesn’t make sense.”

Senate Republican leadership also had promised Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine.) passage of a bill to shore up the Affordable Care Act’s individual markets in exchange for her yes vote on the GOP tax package.

The Republican tax bill is expected to undercut the insurance markets by eliminating the individual mandate — a requirement under the ACA that Americans buy insurance or face a penalty.

Collins has backed one measure to give insurers $4.5 billion to compensate costs for the very sick and another that would restore “cost-sharing reductions” for poor people. (The Trump administration cut off these payments.) Either one would help offset at least some of the impact to the markets caused by the tax law and other administration actions.

But it is not clear that the measures can get through Congress. Republicans in the House have signaled they may refuse to let McConnell honor that agreement, to which they were not a party.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure little, if any, of this will actually get completed. Especially with McTurtle and Lyan in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with John Schindler. What kind of dirt does the presidunce hold over Grassley?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the presidunce's urging to remain in the Senate, Orrin Hatch is retiring.

 :evil-laugh:

 

As Orrin Hatch retires, here are six things to watch

Quote

The Post reports:

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) will retire from the Senate at the end of this term, he announced Tuesday, a decision that will bring a decades-long congressional career to an end early next year.

“After much prayer and discussion with family and friends, I’ve decided to retire at the end of this term,” Hatch, 83, said in a video posted on Twitter. Hatch is the president pro tempore of the Senate, as well as the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Hatch’s retirement means an open seat race in his Republican-leaning state in this year’s midterm election.

This might be the most consequential Senate retirement ever involving a seat that is highly unlikely to change parties. Here’s what to watch for:

First, the decision represents another Senate setback for President Trump, who wanted to keep Hatch, once a mainstream and practical Republican but more recently an unabashed apologist for Trump, in the Senate. After the announced retirements of Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) as well as the Alabama debacle, Trump may face a far more confrontational Senate, even if the GOP holds onto its majority.

Second, this clears the way for Trump nemesis and former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney to run. If elected, Romney would have instantaneous gravitas on a range of issues, including the Russia investigation. It’s no exaggeration to say that he would be the leader of the #NeverTrump Republicans in the Senate and maybe the country. Current GOP senators would, to their chagrin, likely be overshadowed by a new member.

Third, Romney represents a personal and political threat to the president, so Trump and Stephen K. Bannon may well try to persuade another crackpot lackey to run for the seat. That would make for an amusing spectacle, but in Utah, where Trump is less popular (largely due to strong opposition among Mormons) and Romney is beloved, it would likely be another defeat for Team Trump.

Fourth, Romney from the Senate perch may test whether there is a GOP worth defending. If he can organize a center-right opposition to Trump both on policy and character grounds (including financial conflicts), the GOP might still have a pulse, although he could well find himself friendless in a party that has become co-opted by Trump.

Fifth, while Romney is a strong conservative, it is very easy to see him playing deal-maker with Democrats on issues such as infrastructure, trade, job training, and research and development funding. He might even have the nerve to oppose unqualified nominees. In that regard, he can do what Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) never managed to do: create a viable center. (Romney, of course, would have an easier time dominating the body if he is the deciding vote, say, in a 50-50 Senate.)

Sixth, we should rethink the math. The conventional wisdom is that Democrats need to pick up a net two seats to win the Senate majority. That would be true even if Romney were elected, but in effect it does not guarantee Trump a majority to support his agenda. To the contrary, Romney would become not unlike Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote who matters most of all in a body divided into opposing ideological camps. On the most consequential matter — Trump’s misconduct and potential impeachment — Romney could well side with Democrats.

Romney has yet to announce that he will run, and it’s always possible that he could lose (although he would be the runaway favorite). However, just two days into the new year, 2018 has already become potentially as exciting and unpredictable as 2017.

1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/30/2017 at 8:38 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

"Run, Mitt, run"

  Hide contents

Mitt Romney: Your country needs you.

The 2012 Republican presidential nominee has been reluctant to announce a primary challenge to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the longest-serving Republican senator in history. But America needs Romney to step up, to restore dignity to the Senate — and to save the country from the embarrassment Hatch has become.

Hatch, long the picture of conservative rectitude, was once a conscientious legislator, even partnering with Ted Kennedy when he thought poor kids were getting a raw deal. But Hatch, the Senate president pro tempore, has undergone a grotesque transformation this year, his 84th on earth and 42nd in the Senate. He has become chief enabler of and cheerleader for President Trump.

“You’re one heck of a leader,” Hatch gushed to Trump on the White House lawn this month, hailing “all the things that he’s been able to get done — by sheer will, in many ways.” Hatch, declaring Trump a man “I love and appreciate so much,” urged his colleagues to “get behind him every way we can” and vowed: “We’re going to make this the greatest presidency that we’ve seen, not only in generations, but maybe ever.”

Yep, that’s Trump: topping not just Ronald Reagan but Abraham Lincoln and George Washington.

And Hatch wants colleagues to “get behind him in every way we can.” That would include backing Trump’s defense of white supremacists, his vulgar tweets, his endless attacks on the rule of law and the institutions of democracy, and, yes, his embrace of a credibly accused child molester for the Senate. Hatch, after enjoying a ride on Air Force One this month, excused Trump’s endorsement of Roy Moore and said the alleged offenses “were decades ago.”

Trump will be Trump, and that won’t change. The nation’s fate depends on previously upstanding public servants such as Hatch insisting on some semblance of decency.

Hatch’s hometown Salt Lake Tribune called this week for Hatch to step aside, citing “his utter lack of integrity that rises from his unquenchable thirst for power.” Hatch, who saw that the paper had named him “Utahn of the Year” but apparently missed the explanatory editorial, tweeted that he was “grateful for this great Christmas honor.”

The paper’s editorial-page editor, George Pyle, cited the tax cut Hatch authored and other policy differences. But his problem with Hatch was more one of character. Romney would vote the way Hatch does most of the time, Pyle told MSNBC, but with Romney, “we would be spared the embarrassment of his sucking up to the president.”

Exactly. This isn’t about ideology. The trouble is Hatch’s slavish devotion to Trump, kowtowing even when the likes of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) express misgivings. Yes, Romney briefly had kind words for Trump when Trump was considering him for secretary of state. But Hatch’s nonstop adulation of Trump legitimizes the president’s vulgarity and attacks on democratic institutions.

Consider Hatch’s applause for Matthew Petersen, one of three Trump judicial nominees who withdrew this month amid doubts about their credentials. The patently unqualified Petersen, who has never prosecuted or defended a case, was humiliated during questioning by Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.), who exposed his ignorance of basic courtroom procedures. And Hatch? He scolded his fellow Judiciary Committee members for being “unfair.”

Contrast that with Hatch’s silence last year when Todd Edelman, nominated to the same seat as Petersen in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, waited eight months without even getting a hearing — an insult endured by many nominees, right on up to Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Edelman, whom I first met in college years ago, had spent six years presiding over some 400 cases as a judge on the D.C. Superior Court, served eight years as a public defender and taught law at Georgetown.

Hatch for many years has been the compassionate champion of the CHIP health-care program for poor kids and the importance of legislating protections for the “dreamers,” immigrants brought to the country illegally as children. But those sensibilities faded in the Trump era.

The lapsed CHIP program now hangs by a thread, and while Hatch says he favors renewing the program, he frets that “we don’t have money anymore.” This as he helped push through a $1.5 trillion tax cut paid for with debt. And the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for dreamers? He urged Trump not to end the program, and when the administration set in motion plans to do just that, Hatch didn’t join GOP Sen. Lindsey O. Graham’s (S.C.) bipartisan effort to codify it, instead signing on to a GOP-only alternative.

Hatch was preparing to retire, but Trump pushed him to go back on his promise not to seek another term. Trump obviously prefers the obsequious Hatch to Romney, who, though as conservative as Hatch, would be no puppet. That’s why Mitt must run.

I'm not the biggest Romney fan, but it would be hard to be worse than Hatch.

And he doesn't like Trump!  This could be interesting!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/02/politics/orrin-hatch-donald-trump-analysis/index.html

Quote

"Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud," Romney said of Trump in March 2016. "His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like the rats are abandoning the sinking ship. 

Shuster to join GOP exodus

Quote

House Transportation Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) announced Tuesday that he’s stepping down at the end of his term, joining the fast-growing wave of GOP lawmakers to head for the exits.

Since he is term-limited out of the committee's chairmanship after three terms, many insiders had speculated that this would be Shuster’s last year in Congress.

With today’s announcement, Shuster joins a long list of Republicans stepping down in 2018, including Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey, T&I Committee Vice Chairman John Duncan of Tennessee and committee member Blake Farenthold of Texas.

The news of Shuster’s impending departure was overshadowed by the announcement that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the longest-serving GOP senator, would also be stepping down in 2018, opening the door to a juicy contest involving Trump’s nemesis, 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Shuster said he planned to devote his final year to pushing for an infrastructure bill, an initiative both parties have said was long overdue, but which has yet to gain momentum because of Congress' failure to identify politically viable funding options.

“Rather than focusing on a reelection campaign, I thought it wiser to spend my last year as Chairman focusing 100 percent on working with President Trump and my Republican and Democratic colleagues in both Chambers to pass a much needed infrastructure bill to rebuild America,” Shuster said in a statement sent by his personal office.

Shuster and Trump met last month and both were surprisingly tight-lipped afterward about what they discussed. A source close to Shuster says he won't be joining the administration.

Shuster hasn't faced a serious general election challenge for his southwestern Pennsylvania seat, winning reelection by wide margins in a district that backed Trump by 42 points. But in 2016, he squeaked by frequent primary challenger Art Halvorson by two points. Halverson went on to run against Shuster as a Democrat in the 2016 general election, losing by 26 points. Halverson said he planned to release a statement later Tuesday afternoon on his 2018 plans.

Republican operatives named state Sen. John Eichelberger Jr. as a potential candidate to replace Shuster, but other candidates are expected to jump into the race now that nine-term congressman formally confirmed his retirement. Despite the absence of any declared candidates, NRCC Chairman Steve Stivers (R-Ohio) already claimed victory for the party in a statement: “PA-09 is a solidly red district and we look forward to electing the next Republican leader to represent it.”

In 2015, POLITICO reported that Shuster was dating Shelley Rubino, a top lobbyist at Airlines for America, the trade group that at the time represented all of the major U.S. air carriers. Airlines for America spends millions of dollars lobbying Congress on behalf of the airlines, including the House Transportation Committee — which Shuster has led since 2012. In 2014, as Shuster and his wife were divorcing, the congressman filed paperwork to disclose the relationship to his committee. Shuster said Rubino would not lobby him or his staff.

But Shuster advanced some of Airline for America's priorities. In 2014, he muscled the Travel Transparency Act through the House. The legislation allowed airlines to advertise the price of tickets without including fees and taxes. In promoting the bill, Shuster and A4A used similar verbiage. GOP leaders stood by Shuster at the time, despite some internal Republican unease with Shuster's personal relationship with Rubino.

POLITICO also reported in 2015 that Shuster attempted to rewrite an obscure rule regulating the number of passengers on uninspected charter boats in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the congressman owns a timeshare. Later that month, he held a fundraiser on the island. Many of the donors said they gave him money because he worked to overturn the rule.

Finally, Shuster has campaigned relentlessly to separate the air traffic control system from the FAA, putting it under the authority of a nonprofit corporate board. General aviation interests, Democrats and appropriators of all stripes opposed the plan, which stymied passage of a long-term FAA reauthorization in 2016 and again in 2017.

Shuster’s assertion that he’s now throwing his full focus behind the infrastructure push is likely the nail in the coffin for his air traffic control plan, which already on life support since he failed to garner enough support in the GOP-controlled house to bring it to the floor. It’s the latest in a decades-long string of disappointments for proponents of the spin-off scheme.

The infrastructure plan will need all the help it can get from well-positioned lawmakers like Shuster. Though infrastructure spending is wildly popular with Democrats, it tends to be lower on the GOP priority list.

But so far, Democrats are recoiling from Trump’s plan. The details that have been floated so far involve no new spending, with a $200 billion down payment on the “trillion-dollar” infrastructure plan paid for by cutting other domestic programs. Proposals to make up the other $800 billion with private investment or state and local dollars have also turned off Democrats.

News of Shuster’s retirement was first reported in the Washington Examiner.

2

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aaron Blake offers this analysis: "Why likely Sen. Mitt Romney could be a real headache for Trump"

Spoiler

Mitt Romney's path to a U.S. Senate seat just cleared up, and now he's on a collision course for President Trump.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) announced Tuesday that he will not seek reelection in 2018, and Romney is expected to run to succeed him. After publicly weighing a repeat presidential bid in 2016, then publicly denouncing Trump, then unsuccessfully seeking to become Trump's secretary of state, Romney's interest in the Senate became apparent.

Romney, of course, served as governor of Massachusetts, not Utah. But his Utah bona fides are crystal clear -- starting with his stewardship of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics -- and he'd almost undoubtedly waltz into the Senate if he ran. While it's still early and other candidates could be tempted to give it a shot, this is a guy who won Utah by 48 points in the 2012 presidential election and polls show remains astoundingly popular there. A recent survey showed 71 percent of Utahns viewed him favorably.

But one person who should be watching this with particular concern is Trump.

Basically no Republican criticized Trump as harshly as Romney did on the 2016 campaign trail. Yes, Romney then sought to lead Trump's State Department and said some nice things about Trump, but he was turned down for that job, which may make the fire burn even hotter.

And most importantly, unlike other Republicans in red states, Romney wouldn't necessarily feel the need to temper his opposition to Trump in the Senate. Utah is about equally as anti-Trump as it is pro-Romney. Trump did win the state, but that victory owed almost entirely to the state's Republican lean. Polls there showed Trump's favorable rating as low as 19 percent and his unfavorable rating as high as 71 percent, largely thanks to Mormons disliking him.

GOP senators like John McCain (Ariz.), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Ben Sasse (Neb.) have certainly been willing to break with Trump publicly on certain things, but they also have pro-Trump constituencies back home to worry about. Most every Republican who has criticized Trump has seen his numbers tank with the GOP base.

And their criticisms have never really been of the sort that Romney offered in 2016. A sampling of what Romney offered:

  • “If we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished.”
  • “But you say, wait, wait, wait, isn’t he a huge business success? Doesn’t he know what he’s talking about? No, he isn’t and no he doesn’t.”
  • “Now, Donald Trump tells us that he is very, very smart. I’m afraid that when it comes to foreign policy he is very, very not smart.”
  • “Dishonesty is Donald Trump’s hallmark.”
  • “Think of Donald Trump’s personal qualities: The bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics.”

These comments were offered in the midst of a primary campaign in which Romney wanted someone else to win. And plenty of other Republicans said really bad things about Trump at the time before coming around, endorsing him and trying to make the most of their new Trump realities. But Romney never did — at least, not until he thought he could affect the Trump administration from within.

Trump's numbers in Utah have improved since the 2016 campaign, but they remain soft, and Romney's credibility with the GOP base there provides him a unique opportunity to go head-to-head with Trump, should he decide to do so. He would also do so in what is likely to be a pretty closely divided Senate, where one vote can matter greatly (as we've discovered frequently over the last year).

And in our highly partisan era, it could be a completely unusual and potentially must-see political dynamic.

I'm not that fond of Romney (he chose Lyan as a running mate), but I think he would be more likely to stand up to Agent Orange than any other Repug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

I agree with John Schindler. What kind of dirt does the presidunce hold over Grassley?

 

 

I'll say it again, I think the thing Dumpy is best at is getting dirt on people and using it against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

I'll say it again, I think the thing Dumpy is best at is getting dirt on people and using it against them.

That's probably Junior and Eric's REAL job -- acquiring dirt on friends and enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with John Schindler. What kind of dirt does the presidunce hold over Grassley?
 
 


Maybe it’s the Branch Trumpvidians in western Iowa leaning in on Senator Lawn Mower.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that Romney was WILLING to sell his soul to the orange bufffoon. I don't agree with Evan Mullin but I would totally rather have him that Romney at all. 

The Lindsey Graham thing makes me think Russia has something on him, because he originally didn't even vote for orange fuck face and he switched so fast over the year to his team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO: "Michele Bachmann eyeing run for Franken's Senate seat"

Spoiler

(CNN)Former GOP congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann says she is considering running for Democratic former Sen. Al Franken's Minnesota seat.

Bachmann, who was a member of Congress representing Minnesota until 2015, told "The Jim Bakker Show" in an interview that aired last week that she's mulling over whether she should run. Franken announced he would leave the Senate following accusations that he had groped several women, and his final day as a senator is Tuesday.

"I've had people contact me and urge me to run for that Senate seat," Bachmann said. "The only reason I would run is for the ability to take these principles into the United States Senate," she said, later adding, "The question is should it be me? Should it be now? But there's also a price you pay. And the price is bigger than ever because the swamp is so toxic."

"We're trying to be wise," Bachmann continued, suggesting that Franken was dropped by Democrats because the party wants to be able to hurl false accusations against Republicans in coming elections.

"I'm not saying that he didn't do some bad boy things. I think he did. But he didn't do what Harvey Weinstein did. ... But the Democrat party, they even admit they threw Al Franken under the bus because they wanted to look pure," she said.

Bachmann has been accused of employing gay conversion therapy at her Counseling Care clinics over the years, and the clinics have been hit with health inspector violations in 2005, 2009 and 2017, according to NBC News. In her interview with Bakker, she referenced the clinics, claiming that false allegations had left her clinics nearly bankrupt twice.

"My husband and I aren't money people," Bachmann said, suggesting that political candidates are now even larger targets for "frivolous lawsuits."

"If you're a billionaire, you can maybe defend yourself," she said, later adding, "If you're trying to go against the tide in DC, if you're trying to stand for biblical principles in DC and you stick your head up out of the hole ... the blades come whirring and they try to chop you off."

Franken's temporary replacement in the Senate is Lt. Gov. Tina Smith, D-Minnesota. She is expected to run in November's special election.

The last thing we need is this nutjob in the senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I moved this from the Russia thread, since it didn't end up being about Russia: 

This is a free association blathering incoherent rant:  The profound cynicism and simple lack of common sense and decency that it takes to tar the MSM, FBI and DoJ with the deep state brush has me concerned at a deep level about our legislators on the right. 

Seriously, WTAF is going on with these people?  My fear is that this is going to unleash even more primal rage and paranoia among the deplorables  that can't be controlled, I honestly don't know what's going to happen.   There is no magic want that will put this back in the bottle. 


But, there's another scenario. The first tremors felt from the dismantling of the safety net: CHIP, MediCaid and the relentless douchery of tax "reform" could also coincide with a rise in interest rates and if we are really lucky, inflation.  Banks unrestrained and now able to indulge in risky bad behavior, yada yada. 

Then somebody remembers that Trump said something about coal being king again and everybody getting cheaper, better health insurance and how EVERYTHING WOULD BE BETTER and they are still fucked with the opioid epidemic, unemployment, and even worse, more expensive options for health insurance. 

We all think there will be a tsunami of Democrats installed in Congress after the 2018 elections.  More and more Republican congress critters are rats jumping off a sinking ship, and announcing they won't run in the next election, so this could happen. 

So Democrats, the party of my people, get your fucking act together.  Get someone who knows how to orate like Bernie (or even Bernie!)ly, and do so with a consistent LOUD and incredibly inspiring message.  Capture millenials! Recapture those having Trump regrets!  Capitalize on the Vote or Death message that showed up in black neighborhoods in parts of Georgia. 

Go off the deep end, challenge everything that Trump says, tweet like a damn banshee, RULE social media, and stop letting Trump suck the air out of everything.  My concern is that the mid-term elections are TOMORROW.  We need Democrats or a really strong Independent doing this TODAY.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Howl said:

So Democrats, the party of my people, get your fucking act together.

Just capturing a little snippet of this to refer to because you and I rage at the same level, @Howl. It's time to get serious because if we don't make some REAL progress in November this could all be over. The Repubs are hard at work finding new ways to manipulate voting and that is what we have left. Why are we talking about Mitt taking Hatch's seat, what about a Democrat? I know it's Utah but let's leave the "we can't do that" attitude behind. Alabama, people, Alabama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Commander Ducky Pajamas still hasn't paid back the taxpayers for the sex harassment settlement...

Quote

Disgraced Rep. Blake Farenthold has not yet repaid $84,000 in taxpayer money for a settlement reached with a former aide who accused him of sexual harassment and other improper conduct, despite the Texas Republican's statement late last year saying he would do so.

Nearly one month after the initial statement, Farenthold's communications director, Stacey Daniels, tells CNN that he has not yet written a check, and on the advice of counsel is waiting to see what changes the House will make to the Congressional Accountability Act before repaying those funds.

On December 4, Farenthold told a local TV station, KRIS in Corpus Christi, Texas, "I'm ... going to hand a check over this week to probably Speaker Ryan or somebody and say, 'Look, here's the amount of my settlement. Give it back to the taxpayers. I want to be clear that I didn't do anything wrong, but I also don't want the taxpayers to be on the hook for this.'" But that check is on hold.

A spokeswoman for Speaker Paul Ryan's office told CNN on Wednesday that Ryan still wants Farenthold to pay back the money.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, 47of74 said:

Commander Ducky Pajamas still hasn't paid back the taxpayers for the sex harassment settlement...

 

Yeah, and Lyin' isn't going to even whisper about him resigning. They are terrified about what is going to happen in November and the thought of an election now probably causes Lyin' to break into a sweat.

Protect this scum at all cost. Must have Repub votes in the House. Even if they are votes by a overgrown frat boy with no sense of decency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Mitt Romney is very popular in Utah, but I'd like to see Evan McMullin on the ballot there.  I like McMullin personally because he's so damn smart, BUT he is a conservative.  He would quickly become a voice of sanity and reason. 

Mitt is a totally likable guy in that very nice Mormon family guy way, but the business practices that brought him great wealth are pretty damned horrible -- legal, mind you, but horrible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Howl said:

 Mitt Romney is very popular in Utah, but I'd like to see Evan McMullin on the ballot there.  I like McMullin personally because he's so damn smart, BUT he is a conservative.  He would quickly become a voice of sanity and reason. 

Mitt is a totally likable guy in that very nice Mormon family guy way, but the business practices that brought him great wealth are pretty damned horrible -- legal, mind you, but horrible. 

I feel like the atmosphere in Congress on the right is very punitive now. You either get on the bus or you pay the price. Moderation is not allowed.  That's why so many are throwing in the towel. So, I don't know if  TPTB will accept either McMullin or Romney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/367925-graham-i-no-longer-think-trump-is-a-race-baiting-religious-bigot


 

Quote

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), on Monday, said he no longer believes President Trump is a "xenophobic, race-baiting religious bigot," despite using those words to describe Trump during the 2016 campaign.

"He ran against 17 Republicans and crushed us all. He ran against the Clinton machine and won. So all I can say is you can say anything you want to say about the guy. I said he was a xenophobic, race-baiting, religious bigot. I ran out of things to say. He won,” Graham said on “The View.” 

When pressed by the show's hosts whether he still thought that about Trump, Graham responded: "No, I don't think he's a xenophobic, race-baiting, religious bigot — as president."

During the 2016 campaign, Graham called Trump “a kook,” “crazy” and “unfit for office.” He backed Jeb Bush during the Republican primary and said he ultimately cast his vote for independent Evan McMullin. 

In recent weeks, Graham has said he's come around to Trump and has gotten to know the president better. The two have played golf together at Trump's private clubs.

Graham has praised Trump’s foreign policy decisions, including the president's move to arm Ukraine as it fights pro-Russian separatists, his policies toward North Korea and his initial response to protests in Iran.

"I want to help him where I can because there's a lot on this man's plate, and we should all want to help him," Graham said last month on CBS.

 

He's right, you know. Trump is not a xenophobic, race baiting, religious bigot, he's just a xenophobic, race baiting garden variety bigot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Destiny locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.