United States Congress 5: Still Looking for a Spine

[GreyhoundFan]

More from the Google hearing: "Congresswoman to Google CEO: Why when I search ‘idiot’ do I get pictures of Trump?"

Spoiler

In an effort to understand how Google search algorithms work, a Democratic congresswoman asked the tech company’s chief executive a simple question: “If you Google the word ‘idiot' under images, a picture of Donald Trump comes up. How would that happen? How does search work so that that would occur?”

In the middle of a congressional hearing ostensibly about privacy and data collection, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) apparently performed that search from the dais. As it turns out, the image results for “idiot” reveals a page of mostly Trump photos.

Google chief executive Sundar Pichai, who was testifying Tuesday morning before the House Judiciary Committee, tried to explain to the roomful of mostly tech novices how the algorithms take into account some 200 factors — such as relevance, popularity, how others are using the search term — to determine how to best match a query with results.

[Google is now in the congressional spotlight as CEO Sundar Pichai testifies on Capitol Hill]

“So it’s not some little man sitting behind the curtain figuring out what we’re going to show the user. It’s basically a compilation of what users are generating, and trying to sort through that information?” Zofgren asked, facetiously.

Zofgren was reacting to Republicans' allegations that Google employees manipulate results for political reasons. The hearing mostly revealed lawmakers' rudimentary understanding of how the Internet works and provided a platform for them to complain about unfavorable search results.

In one exchange, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) asked Pichai whether he had ever directed an employee to manipulate search results. Pichai explained that it’s not possible for one person, or even a group of people, to do that because there are so many steps in the process.

But Smith did not accept that explanation, telling Pichai: “Let me just say, I disagree. I think humans can manipulate the process. It is a human process at its base.”

Republicans on the panel couldn’t get past the myth that some person(s) inside Google couldn’t arbitrarily change search algorithms for political gain.

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) complained that when he googled the Republican health-care bill or the GOP tax cuts the first several pages listed negative articles. “How do you explain this apparent bias on Google’s part against conservative points of view, against conservative policies? Is it just the algorithm, or is there more happening there?” Chabot asked.

“Congressman, I understand the frustration of seeing negative news, and, you know, I see it on me,” Pichai offered. “What is important here is we use the robust methodology to reflect what is being said about any given topic at any particular time. And we try to do it objectively, using a set of rubrics. It is in our interest to make sure we reflect what’s happening out there in the best objective manner possible. I can commit to you, and I can assure you, we do it without regards to political ideology. Our algorithms have no notion of political sentiment in it.”

But Chabot wasn’t having it. He told Pichai that conservatives believe Google is “picking winners and losers in political discourse.”

“There’s a lot of people that think what I’m saying here is happening,” Chabot said. “And I think it’s happening.”

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[47of74]

Unbelievable

Quote

Sen. Orrin Hatch offered a dire assessment of the upper chamber of Congress, as the retiring Utah Republican made his farewell remarks Wednesday.

“Since I first came to the Senate in 1978 — 1977, rather — the culture of this place has shifted fundamentally, and not for the better, in my opinion,” Hatch added on Wednesday.

Among current U.S. senators, only Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy has been on the job longer, having been in office since 1975.

“Like the humidity [in Washington, D.C.], partisanship permeates everything we do,” Hatch also said in his speech. “On both the left and the right, the bar of decency has been set so low that jumping over it is no longer the objective. Limbo is the new name of the game. How low can you go? The answer, it seems, is always lower.”

Go fuck yourself Orrin.  You and Bitch McFuckstick did so much damage to this country that I have no fucking interest in hearing what you think. 

I suppose when that fuck Bitch McFuckstick leaves he'll be whining about the lack of civility too.

[GreyhoundFan]

I hope the door smacks Hatch's backside so hard it knocks him over. Actually, I hope it hits him in the face when he opens it and then smacks him on the backside when he exits. I wish the same for Lyan.

[AmazonGrace]

 

Inhofe does corruption. 

[fraurosena]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Rubio is such an ass:

 

[Audrey2]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Rubio is such an ass:

 

Not to mention, everyone, except Congress and Trump, knew that the tax breaks would mean greater profit for corporations, not felt by workers.

[onekidanddone]

2 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

Not to mention, everyone, except Congress and Trump, knew that the tax breaks would mean greater profit for corporations, not felt by workers.

Trump and Congress knew, they just didn't care.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"The GOP majority’s last words: But her emails!"

Spoiler

Republicans, in the waning hours of their eight-year reign in the House, are using this precious time to do what they love best: investigating Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The House Oversight Committee had one last item on this year’s calendar — a hearing Thursday on the Clinton Foundation. But it didn’t stop there! Republicans and their witnesses used the hearing to reprise their greatest hits: her email server, Benghazi, George Soros, Sidney Blumenthal, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, James B. Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, IRS targeting the tea party, Uranium One and a QAnon conspiracy about the Justice Department swooping into Little Rock to seize Clinton documents.

Even the lock-her-up Trump administration had tired of these proceedings. The Justice Department — under the command of Trump loyalist and former hot-tub promoter Matthew G. Whitaker — refused to testify (leading one witness to suggest the administration had joined the cover up), and the IRS also sent regrets.

Instead, Republicans summoned conspiracy theorists, including “investigators” poised to make money as tipsters if the IRS brings a Clinton Foundation case. But even these witnesses refused to provide documents supporting their dubious claims.

“If you’re not going to share the information with this committee . . . my patience is running out,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), recently on the short list to be President Trump’s next chief of staff.

“Are you going to prosecute the Clintons?” one witness, John Moynihan, replied. “I don’t think you are.”

“Don’t get cute with me!” Meadows returned.

It was an ignominious end for a Republican majority that spent years in a vain quest to prove the guilt of Clinton and former president Barack Obama. But what they lack in evidence, they have in chutzpah. “It looks like what they’re going to focus on is just more investigations,” incoming House minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Monday of the Democrats. “I think America is too great of a nation to have such a small agenda.”

This same McCarthy was denied the speakership a few years ago when he boasted: “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today?”

If investigations are the mark of a “small agenda” unbefitting a “great nation,” the Republican majority should have governed Liechtenstein.

On Dec. 7, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee hauled in former FBI director Comey to talk more about Hillary’s emails. They plan to bring in former attorney general Loretta E. Lynch and bring back Comey for more private interviews about the same. This all follows scores of probes into the Benghazi attacks, Planned Parenthood (each merited a select committee), IRS targeting, Operation Fast and Furious, Clinton’s emails, Solyndra, Obamacare and more. In the first three years of GOP control, the oversight chairman issued more subpoenas (96) than had been issued in the previous eight years.

And now, this coda: On Thursday, unable to get the administration’s cooperation, the oversight committee brought in Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, whose investigations director was banned from Fox News after alleging the “Soros-occupied State Department” funded the migrant caravan. Later came Moynihan, who employs the man behind the false allegation in 2008 that a tape had Michelle Obama disparaging “whitey,” and who in 2013 used doctored audio to declare John F. Kerry a rapist.

On Thursday, Moynihan repeated a conspiracy theory that the Justice Department had “brought a 757 down and taken all the materials out of the Clinton Foundation in Little Rock.” (The FBI cited an unrelated drug-trafficking operation.)

Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (Va.), top Democrat on the subcommittee conducting the oversight hearing, asked why the panel, instead of examining what landed Michael Cohen a prison sentence or New York’s fraud prosecution of the Trump Foundation, was “regifting” its frustrated anti-Clinton efforts. Even the Trump administration, he surmised, has decided “there’s no there there.”

The Republicans couldn’t get their own witnesses to document the allegations they made against the Clintons. “I feel like you’re using us for your own benefit,” Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) told Moynihan.

“Excuse me, sir, you invited us,” Moynihan interjected.

“But you didn’t turn over the documents,” Hice protested.

“Then disinvite us,” Moynihan proposed.

Behind the Republicans on the dais, in a painting, a young Abraham Lincoln looked concerned.

Without new evidence or allegations, Republicans encouraged Fitton to speculate about the Clintons’ guilt. (Q: “Mr. Fitton, would you say that’s a quid pro quo?” A: “It certainly seems that way.”)

“Quid pro quo: Had to look it up,” announced Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa). “It’s Latin for ‘something for something.’ ” There was laughter in the gallery at the 63-year-old legislator’s new discovery. But Blum did know this: “If it looks like a pig, if it sounds like a pig, and if it smells like a pig, it’s probably a pig. And I think based on what I read today, something smells here.”

Yes, it does. But a House cleaning is coming.

 

[AmazonGrace]

Lindsey Graham okays Trump lying about sex, and everything else

 

[AmazonGrace]

The Republicans had a hearing with some Qanon Clinton conspiracy nutter. Meanwhile 

 

[fraurosena]

Ha, we've been saying this would be the case here on FJ for months!

 

[GreyhoundFan]

They're so courageous...NOT. "‘Stop,’ ‘I wasn’t there,’ ‘I don’t know anything about that’: Republicans dodge or dismiss Trump’s legal woes"

Spoiler

A reporter hadn’t even finished asking about President Trump and the sentencing of his former lawyer Michael Cohen when Republican Sen. James E. Risch indicated he would have none of it.

“Oh, I don’t do interviews on any of that stuff,” Risch said when questioned about Trump’s shifting explanations on efforts to buy the silence of women who claimed sexual dalliances with him.

Well, why not? 

“I don’t do any interviews on anything to do with Trump and that sort of thing, okay?” Risch (Idaho) responded curtly before quickly slipping into the Senate chamber. 

As Trump’s legal woes — rooted in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe and the Southern District of New York’s investigation into the hush payments — continued to spiral this past week with new revelations and fresh presidential denials, congressional Republicans found themselves in a familiar position: struggling to account for Trump’s behavior and not-so-consistent statements about his personal controversies. 

This week, Republicans responded to the latest chapter in Trump’s saga by rationalizing his actions of those of someone who didn’t know any better, carefully rebuking his Cohen-induced reactions while praising his policies, or putting full faith in his explanations — even as they’ve changed over time.

Or — as Risch showed — by not answering the question altogether. 

“Oh, I don’t know anything about that,” Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) said, as a reporter tried to ask him about Trump denying that he directed Cohen to pay women in exchange for keeping quiet about their sexual encounters with the now-president. “I don’t know anything except what I hear and read about all that.”

“Stop,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said. “I have not heard what you told me he said. Until I read, actually read, what the president said, I won’t comment on it.”

“Honestly, I don’t think that’s a fair question,” said Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.), when asked if he believed Trump’s explanation. “I wasn’t there. I don’t have any way of assessing that.”

Throughout his presidency, Trump has kept congressional Republicans on edge, throwing them off with a single tweet or surprise utterance at a news conference — be it on the legislative agenda, his executive decisions or the daily ups and downs of his chaotic administration. 

But particularly regarding the legal matters, which continue to unfold by the day in both New York and Washington, many senior Republicans have learned the best answer is one that just tells everyone: wait. Be patient. Let Mueller’s team — as well as the other investigators — finish their job. 

“Until we have a full picture, until the full evidence is presented by the Southern District or charges filed or that sort of thing, I just think it’s really hard to react or draw any hard and fast conclusions,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who will be the second-ranking Senate Republican come January, said in an interview this week.

Slightly chuckling, Thune continued: “I’m sure that he, again, coming out of his private life, sort of views this as not something that was done to impact or affect a campaign — that it’s something that he was trying to deal with in the way that he perhaps has dealt with those issues in the past.”

His fellow South Dakotan, Sen. Mike Rounds (R), was similarly gentle, acknowledging some sympathy for Trump wanting what he believes to be a private matter to be as obscured as possible.

“I think this president means very well. I think he has the best interests of our country at heart,” Rounds said. “Sometimes, I think many of us would probably approach and share messages in a different manner in which this president has.”

Does Rounds wish Trump would stop tweeting? 

“I really wish he’d stop tweeting,” Rounds responded. 

Indeed, Trump has been a veritable font of falsehoods, with dozens of his inaccurate claims spread through his Twitter account. As of Oct. 30, Trump has made 6,420 false or misleading claims since he took office, according to The Washington Post’s Fact Checker database.

Of those, 1,098 were delivered through Trump’s favorite social media platform.

Despite that very spotty track record, Trump’s closest allies on Capitol Hill still have put their trust in him. In particular, they say Cohen — who was sentenced Wednesday to three years in prison for a litany of offenses, including lying — is an untrustworthy source. 

When he was asked this week whether he believed Trump’s claims that he didn’t personally direct the hush-money payments, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) responded: “I’ll accept his word.” 

Hatch was more blunt in comments earlier this week, telling CNN, “I don’t care” about Trump potentially being implicated in crimes in documents from prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. On Friday, Hatch significantly walked back those remarks, calling them “irresponsible and a poor reflection on my lengthy record of dedication to the rule of law.”

Like many of his Republican colleagues, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) declined to comment much on Trump’s ever-evolving explanations of how much he knew — or directed — the hush payments to the women who have alleged sexual encounters with him: former Playboy playmate Karen McDougal and adult-film actress Stormy Daniels. 

But he did sound a warning — however gently delivered it was. 

“You know, I didn’t hear the president,” Moran said, asked how much stock he puts in Trump’s latest denial vis-a-vis Cohen. “I don’t have a comment to that question, other than it’s always important for everyone — to the best of their ability — to tell the truth.”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I didn't see this the other day when it was published. I truly despise the hypocritical asshole: "Ryan pushes for thousands of Irish visas before leaving office"

Spoiler

House Speaker Paul Ryan is leaving Congress with a grateful nod to his Irish ancestors.

A bill pushed by Ryan, whose family fled famine-ravaged Ireland in 1851, could provide Irish nationals with thousands of additional U.S. work visas each year.

The legislation cleared the House Nov. 28 on an uncontested voice vote and is increasingly likely to clear the Senate next week, a GOP aide told POLITICO.

But the measure has stirred opposition from the alt-right publication Breitbart, which dubbed the visa program “amnesty for Irish lobbies“ and said it would take jobs away from U.S. college graduates.

The bill would give the Irish access to unused E-3 visas, which currently are available only to Australians in "specialty occupations" that require a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent. In return, Ireland would offer additional work visas to Americans, among other concessions.

“The idea here is that this is going to be reciprocal,” said John Deasy, an Irish special envoy to the U.S. “We think it’s important that the flows in the workplace continue between the two countries.”

A single GOP senator is blocking the legislation, the GOP aide said. That represents apparent progress from earlier this month, when six Republicans had put a hold on the bill, according to an Irish-American news website.

Passage of the Irish visa bill would be an unexpected but not illogical conclusion to Paul Ryan’s speakership. He worked behind the scenes in 2013 and 2014 on a bill to overhaul the legal immigration system, an effort that eventually died under then-Speaker John Boehner.

Ryan maintains close ties with Irish officials, and the 48-year-old Wisconsinite said earlier this year that sometime after his 60th birthday he would like to become the U.S. ambassador to Ireland.

The next opportunity for the visa bill to clear the Senate will be Monday, when lawmakers return to grapple with a spending bill to prevent a partial government shutdown.

Even if the measure clears the Senate, though, it will need the support of President Donald Trump, whose position on the bill is unclear. A White House spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.

The bill would draw from the annual pool of 10,500 work visas in the E-3 program, which was created as part of a 2005 immigration law. Under the measure, Irish nationals would have access to any visas that remained unused by Australians in the preceding fiscal year.

The State Department issued 5,657 E-3 visas to Australians in fiscal year 2017. At that rate, nearly 5,000 visas would remain for Irish professionals.

The Irish government appears willing to offer more than just employment visas to cement the deal, according to a document circulated among Senate offices and obtained by POLITICO.

In addition to reciprocal work permits, the proposal suggests changes to make it easier for qualifying Americans to retire in Ireland.

The document also floats an expansion of academic exchange programs and an extension of a reciprocal “working holiday” visa available to U.S. and Irish nationals ages 18 to 30.

As part of the proposal, U.S. nationals on holiday visas could begin work immediately after entering Ireland, bypassing the current registration process, according to Deasy, the Irish envoy.

 

Here are a few of the reactions I thought were good:

Spoiler

 

 

[Audrey2]

12 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I didn't see this the other day when it was published. I truly despise the hypocritical asshole: "Ryan pushes for thousands of Irish visas before leaving office"

  Reveal hidden contents

House Speaker Paul Ryan is leaving Congress with a grateful nod to his Irish ancestors.

A bill pushed by Ryan, whose family fled famine-ravaged Ireland in 1851, could provide Irish nationals with thousands of additional U.S. work visas each year.

The legislation cleared the House Nov. 28 on an uncontested voice vote and is increasingly likely to clear the Senate next week, a GOP aide told POLITICO.

But the measure has stirred opposition from the alt-right publication Breitbart, which dubbed the visa program “amnesty for Irish lobbies“ and said it would take jobs away from U.S. college graduates.

The bill would give the Irish access to unused E-3 visas, which currently are available only to Australians in "specialty occupations" that require a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent. In return, Ireland would offer additional work visas to Americans, among other concessions.

“The idea here is that this is going to be reciprocal,” said John Deasy, an Irish special envoy to the U.S. “We think it’s important that the flows in the workplace continue between the two countries.”

A single GOP senator is blocking the legislation, the GOP aide said. That represents apparent progress from earlier this month, when six Republicans had put a hold on the bill, according to an Irish-American news website.

Passage of the Irish visa bill would be an unexpected but not illogical conclusion to Paul Ryan’s speakership. He worked behind the scenes in 2013 and 2014 on a bill to overhaul the legal immigration system, an effort that eventually died under then-Speaker John Boehner.

Ryan maintains close ties with Irish officials, and the 48-year-old Wisconsinite said earlier this year that sometime after his 60th birthday he would like to become the U.S. ambassador to Ireland.

The next opportunity for the visa bill to clear the Senate will be Monday, when lawmakers return to grapple with a spending bill to prevent a partial government shutdown.

Even if the measure clears the Senate, though, it will need the support of President Donald Trump, whose position on the bill is unclear. A White House spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.

The bill would draw from the annual pool of 10,500 work visas in the E-3 program, which was created as part of a 2005 immigration law. Under the measure, Irish nationals would have access to any visas that remained unused by Australians in the preceding fiscal year.

The State Department issued 5,657 E-3 visas to Australians in fiscal year 2017. At that rate, nearly 5,000 visas would remain for Irish professionals.

The Irish government appears willing to offer more than just employment visas to cement the deal, according to a document circulated among Senate offices and obtained by POLITICO.

In addition to reciprocal work permits, the proposal suggests changes to make it easier for qualifying Americans to retire in Ireland.

The document also floats an expansion of academic exchange programs and an extension of a reciprocal “working holiday” visa available to U.S. and Irish nationals ages 18 to 30.

As part of the proposal, U.S. nationals on holiday visas could begin work immediately after entering Ireland, bypassing the current registration process, according to Deasy, the Irish envoy.

 

Here are a few of the reactions I thought were good:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I've been trying to think of a way to respectfully and delicately bring this up. When Ryan's ancestors were coming over in the 1850's the Irish were the hated immigrants. Businesses would have signs up that said, in big letters, "Help wanted", with "No Irish need apply" in smaller letters. Primarily because of their Catholic faith, but also because of the difficulties, Irish were seen as possibly okay to work as maids or the lowest of the laborers (think building railroads or other really low paid, dangerous work), but not okay to hold jobs that others would want. The "Know Nothing" political party was formed because of their desire to keep the Irish out. The irony of Ryan denying the ability to try to better their lives to modern immigrants, the ability that was given to his ancestors almost makes my head explode.

[GreyhoundFan]

Other than their anti-Dumpy stance, I've rarely agreed with the authors and editors of the "Weekly Standard", but this is so true: "‘You are a foul, disgusting liar’: Weekly Standard editors blast Steve King for celebrating magazine’s demise"

Spoiler

When conservative magazine the Weekly Standard announced Friday that it was shutting down, writers from across the political spectrum bemoaned the loss. But two Republicans who recently found themselves in the Standard’s crosshairs weren’t waxing poetic about its demise.

After President Trump slammed the Standard as “pathetic and dishonest,” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) jumped in on Sunday, writing on Twitter that Trump was “right” and that “if the articles targeting me were redacted until only truth remained, there would not be much left to read,” an apparent reference to a recent Weekly Standard report that the congressman had compared immigrants to “dirt.”

King had claimed the quotes in that piece were misconstrued, but the magazine later produced audio of the exchange.

“The problem with this tweet is that you are a foul, disgusting liar and a stain on American public life,” John Podhoretz, a Weekly Standard contributing editor and one of the magazine’s co-founders, wrote in response to King’s tweet. “The stench of your deceit and your views pollutes your district, your state, your party, and the United States.”

The vituperative battle was the latest proof of the echoing divide between “never-Trump” Republicans, whose mantle the Weekly Standard had come to represent, and Trump loyalists like King, who loudly celebrated the magazine’s closure — and the implicit consolidation of conservative power under the president.

Founded in 1995 by Podhoretz, Bill Kristol, and Fred Barnes, the Weekly Standard became the de facto voice of the neoconservative movement under President George W. Bush as its writers lustily cheered on the Iraq War. But as Kristol emerged as one of the loudest conservative voices against Trump, the magazine he edited until 2016 likewise became a harsh critic of the populist president and his allies.

That’s what brought Adam Rubenstein, the Weekly Standard’s assistant opinion editor, to northeastern Iowa this fall to follow King before he was narrowly reelected to Congress. His piece, headlined “King of the Low Road,” recounted the congressman’s many recent controversies, like meeting with an Austrian party with historical ties to the Nazis and disparaging Hispanic immigrants as drug smugglers.

The story’s most headline-grabbing claim, though, was that King had “obliquely referred” to Mexican migrants as “dirt.” King and his staff furiously attacked the story, with the Iowa Republican tweeting that the magazine was “at the bottom of the lying journalistic gutter.”

But the Weekly Standard released audio of King’s exchange with supporters at a restaurant, which began with King joking about wanting some “dirt from Mexico” to make his homegrown peppers spicier and a supporter responding, “Trust me, it’s already on its way” — seemingly a reference to the migrant caravan moving across Mexico.

King played along, the audio showed, responding, “Well, yeah, there’s plenty of dirt. It’s coming from the West Coast, too. And a lot of other places, besides. This is the most dirt we’ve ever seen.”

After the audio was released, King’s staff continued to insist he’d been misquoted. His chief of staff told The Washington Post at the time that he believed the supporter was referring to “leftist media” as dirt, not immigrants.

Now, King’s tweet on Sunday reignited the controversy, even if it wasn’t totally clear which Weekly Standard stories he was referencing. A spokesman from King’s office didn’t immediately respond to a question from The Post about the tweet.

To Rubenstein, though, King’s intent was clear. And the writer quickly defended his work:

The Standard’s closure left 35 people on the editorial staff without a job. Clarity Media Group, which also owns the Washington Examiner, blamed falling circulation and called the move a “business decision.”

Writers on both sides of the political divide lamented the Weekly Standard’s loss, with many noting the magazine’s full-throated critiques of Trump just before its demise, even if insiders like Podhoretz insisted that ideological stance wasn’t behind declining fortunes at the magazine.

“I devoutly hope a new Standard will arise to lead the Republican Party out of the moral and political oblivion to which the president is consigning it,” wrote Washington Post columnist Max Boot, who was also a contributing editor at the Weekly Standard.

“The magazine has been critical of Trump, and so this is another example of the gradual hegemony of Trumpism over the conservative world,” wrote conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks, who nonetheless laid most of the blame for the magazine’s closure on “the commercial forces trying to dumb down the American media.”

Added Franklin Foer, an Atlantic staff writer, the magazine was shuttered “at the very moment it was enjoying newfound relevance as the house organ of the Never Trump wing of the Republican Party.”

That “newfound relevance” is why it surprised few when Trump jumped on Twitter to gleefully celebrate the Weekly Standard’s demise.

After first telling Trump to “get a grip,” Rubenstein offered a wider response to the president and his allies, like King, who are dancing on the Standard’s grave.

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Susan Collins and Republicans better have better answers on Obamacare"

Spoiler

Republicans ran in 2018 insisting they were committed to protecting people with preexisting conditions from being priced out of the health-insurance market. However, when a district court judge last week in Texas struck down the entire Affordable Care Act, including the protection for preexisting conditions, Trump celebrated:

Other Republicans, however, looked somewhere between uncomfortable and mortified by the result. None has more reason to be squeamish than Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who voted to strip out the individual mandate in the tax bill, providing the basis for Republican governors to sue and strike down (temporarily) Obamacare. Her performance on the talk shows was cringeworthy. On ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos, she insisted she had no regrets:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about health care. You heard Senator Durbin say that this judge's ruling is a real problem for Republicans now. What's your reaction to the judge's ruling?

COLLINS: The judge's ruling was far too sweeping. He could have taken a much more surgical approach and just struck down the individual mandate and kept the rest of the law intact. I believe that it will be overturned.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say it’s going to be overturned. He based his ruling, as you said, on last year's tax bill which brought the tax penalty for violating that mandate down to zero and then he said that invalidated the whole law. Any second thoughts on your vote for that bill because of this?

COLLINS: Not at all. I think it's important to keep in mind what the impact of the individual mandate was. Eighty percent of those who paid the penalty under the individual mandate earned less than $50,000 a year. So this disproportionately affected lower and middle income families. In addition, not one Democratic senator offered an amendment to strike the repeal of the individual mandate, although they had the opportunity to do so.

And that’s because it was probably the most unpopular and unfair provision of the Affordable Care Act. There are many good provisions of the law. Those should be retained.

Collins, of course, got an empty promise on other means to reduce health-care costs, but she really has no good defense for her vote eliminating the individual mandate without anything in its place. On CNN’s “State of the Union” with Jake Tapper, she again struggled to explain herself:

TAPPER: So, millions of Americans, including everyone covered by Medicaid expansion and many with preexisting conditions, are going to lose their health insurance if this ruling is upheld. 

You voted for the repeal of the individual mandate as part of the tax reform bill last December. That’s the basis of this judge’s decision. You heard President Trump call this — quote — “a great ruling for our country.”

Do you agree? 

COLLINS: I don’t. 

First of all, I would probably any doubt that this ruling is not going to affect people who are currently enrolled or in Obamacare policies, so — or their policies for 2019. 

There is widespread support for protecting people with preexisting conditions. There’s also widespread opposition to the individual mandate. And here’s why. The individual mandate penalties, 80 percent were paid by people — 80 percent of the people who paid the penalty earned under $50,000 a year.

So, this hurt low- and middle-income families who couldn't afford the cost of health insurance. And it's telling that, when the tax bill was on the floor, not a single Democratic senator offered an amendment to strike the repeal of the individual mandate. That's how unpopular it was.

I think this will be overturned on appeal.

TAPPER: You do?

COLLINS: I do.

TAPPER: In the Supreme Court or in the 5th Circuit, or — or where do you think it ...

COLLINS: I’m not sure where will occur, but there’s no reason why the individual mandate provision can’t be struck down and keep all of the good provisions of the Affordable Care Act, such as coverage for people with preexisting conditions, the mandated benefits for substance abuse and mental illness treatment, and also allowing young people to stay on their parents' policies until age 26.

The reason it very well might be eliminated is because her party’s governors brought the lawsuit, her party’s lawmakers never had an adequate replacement for Obamacare and the president, who is in her party, has attempted to undermine and disable the law. (It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court justices she voted to confirm will decide, if and when it reaches the court.) She’s making a great case that if Mainers want Obamacare or some variation thereof, they will need a Democratic Senate and president. (She didn’t help her reputation as an “independent” voice or promote her reelection by claiming not to have enough knowledge to comment on Trump’s hush payments to women. Really? Tapper sounded incredulous.)

On “Meet the Press,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) didn’t fare any better.

CHUCK TODD: But didn’t this federal judge act like a legislator? And he decided, on his own, what the law is going to be? Isn’t this a form of judicial activism? He said, “Well, I’ve decided that Congress said this is a zero tax. I’ve decided it’s no longer a tax.” That’s the definition of a judge writing legislation, is it not?

BLUNT: That doesn’t mean, that doesn’t mean that legislators can act like judges, just because, just because judges sometimes act like legislators.

TODD: So you acknowledge, in this case —

BLUNT: No —

TODD: — the judge has probably overstepped his bounds here?

BLUNT: You know, I think the, the thing to remember about the judge’s ruling is it has no immediate impact. There — nothing changes yesterday. Nothing changes tomorrow. This’ll have to go through a circuit court process. Who knows if the circuit court would uphold it or not. That will either be quickly dismissed, which is one option, or a long period of time, in my view, before the circuit court deals with it. This will be another area where — this — health care will be used as a political issue way beyond the ramifications of one district judge making a ruling that has no immediate impact.

TODD: Well, let me tell you what the president said. The president said this was “great news for America." That was his point. Do you agree with him?

BLUNT: I think it’s basically just, for America, it means we’re going to continue to debate this. Health care clearly matters to people. Some of, you know, what we had with Obamacare, as you’ve already called it today, was a, a poorly thought-out plan, really poorly, poorly implemented to start with, that’s had lots of negative impact on lots of families, who have insurance they don’t need with deductibles they can’t afford. We need to be —

TODD: Let me pause you there. If all of that is true, why have you guys failed to be able to come up with an alternative? You’ve had eight years, as a party, to come up with some alternative —

BLUNT: Well —

TODD: — that can pass.

BLUNT: We’ve had lots of alternatives. We had lots of alternatives when Obamacare passed. You know, the adding, letting children, people up until age 26 stay on their parents' insurance was a bill I filed. As far as I know, it’s the only, only Republican proposal that was filed during that process as an independent bill. It was four pages. And it probably insured more people than any other single part of the Affordable Care Act did. There were lots of ideas out there. It’s just the other side didn’t want to listen to those ideas.

TODD: But in fairness, your party can’t unite on any idea, though. I mean isn’t that, if you had one —

BLUNT: Well —

TODD: — wouldn’t you have a — more leverage at the table?

BLUNT: I, I wouldn’t say we couldn’t unite on any idea. But this is a very difficult issue and a closely divided Senate. You know, 49 senators, including me, voted to do something last year that a, that a couple of Republican senators couldn’t agree with. Trying to get — this is why the committee process matters. You know, the one thing I think we would be able to unite on is Medicare-for-all would wind up meaning Medicare for none. If Democrats want to take that view to the American people, and seniors, particularly, people who are now covered by Medicare, understand the ramifications of that. There is no way that will happen. And there’s no way voters will let it happen

TODD: Was this lawsuit necessary?

BLUNT: You know, I’m, I’m not in the job of questioning what state attorney generals decide they want to do.

Yikes. There’s a guy who needs an appellate court to reverse the ruling — as quickly as possible — to get him and his party out of this bind.

Republicans are the proverbial dog who caught the bus. They are to blame if the law, with no alternative, is not revived by a higher court; they are to blame if either by litigation or administrative action those with preexisting conditions are priced out of the market.

We just had an election that turned on this precise issue. Democrats overwhelmingly carried the day by accusing Republicans of seeking to sabotage protection for preexisting conditions. Now that Collins, Blunt and others have made a mess, it is up to them to fix it — or face the wrath of the voters in 2020.

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"‘He was the future of the party’: Ryan’s farewell triggers debate about his legacy"

Spoiler

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan is using his final weeks in Congress to leave a lasting image of a brainy conservative warrior for lower taxes, free markets and a more muscular America abroad — in public appearances, a taxpayer-funded online video series and a farewell address set for Wednesday.

But after two decades in the House and three years as speaker, the Wisconsin Republican’s long-term legacy is already a matter of fierce debate inside his own party.

While Ryan shepherded a broad GOP tax bill last year and negotiated major increases in military spending, his repeated promises to sweepingly address the solvency and growing costs of two mandatory government programs — Social Security and Medicare — never happened, even though Republicans controlled all levers of government for the past two years.

Ryan often spoke of the imperative of fiscal discipline, especially during the eight years of the Obama administration. But the nation’s red ink has grown since Ryan became speaker, soaring from $438 billion in 2015 to $779 billion this year. And many economists blame the tax cut as a culprit as next year’s deficit is projected to hit nearly $1 trillion.

Politically, the picture is just as bleak, according to a bloc of Ryan’s former fellow-travelers in the conservative intellectual sphere. His brand of aspirational conservatism has shown little currency in the face of President Trump’s brash populism, and November’s midterms put an exclamation point on Ryan’s efforts to insulate the GOP from Trump: Republicans lost 40 seats, their worst showing in 44 years, and relinquished the House majority.

The ensuing lame-duck session has offered only small succor: likely passage of a criminal justice overhaul that Ryan has championed, alongside another spending showdown — and potential government shutdown — emblematic of Congress’s rolling dysfunction. Big issues dear to Ryan such as immigration and poverty will remain for future lawmakers to solve.

“He was the future of the party, but it’s been a disappointing couple of years,” said William Kristol, a conservative commentator and Trump critic who has known Ryan for decades. “He was in a tough situation and didn’t make the best of it.”

Ryan and his allies are arguing the opposite in these final weeks, making the case that the pointed critiques ignore the political reality of the Trump era, in which traditional conservatives like Ryan have been forced to seek wins where they can and otherwise play defense against Trump’s bad impulses.

His farewell address, to be delivered in the Great Hall of the Library of Congress, will seek to highlight those victories and acknowledge how and why he fell short elsewhere, said an aide familiar with his planned remarks.

“Doing all of this helps build his stature and reminds people he’s a young guy with a great future,” said former GOP speaker Newt Gingrich. “This is a deeply divided party, and Paul Ryan has every right to communicate values and beliefs that led him to where he is.”

At a November event hosted by The Washington Post, Ryan said he was able to “build up the country’s resilience, its antibodies, its health, its strength” by passing the tax and military spending legislation while also expressing regret at not making more progress in rolling back entitlement spending or remaking the immigration system — two areas in which he and Trump were sharply at odds.

“I saw a chance of getting a lot of good policy done for the country that was a long time in coming, and we got a great deal of it done,” he said, adding, “I’m not one of these big-ego legacy guys. I like to think that I took the opportunity I was given and made a positive difference in people’s lives.”

Spencer Zwick, a senior political adviser and fundraiser for the outgoing speaker, said Ryan has been frustrated that his work “isn’t really fully reported.” Aides, for instance, are quick to point out that the House passed a health-care overhaul that, by restructuring Medicaid, represented the most significant entitlement rollback in decades, as well as bills that placed work requirements on food stamps and other welfare programs.

Those bills went nowhere in the Senate and fueled campaign attacks that Democratic leaders credited with helping to flip the House majority.

“People can criticize Paul if they want; people can always find a reason,” Zwick said. “The fact is, Paul leaves an enormous legacy as speaker for the country and the GOP. Not everyone has to love the guy, but if you peel back all the things he was able to get accomplished, there is a lot there.”

Yet the journey from beacon of the GOP’s future to emblem of its tumultuous present has Republicans — who, nearly to a person, say they like Ryan personally — grappling with whether he is responsible, alongside Trump, for the party’s drift.

Several longtime friends of Ryan declined to make public comments, citing their private disappointment in him and saying Ryan would be personally hurt if they shared their blunt assessments. “Paul doesn’t want to believe it’s all as bad as it is,” one said.

Ryan’s House colleagues tend to be more charitable in their assessments — seeing in him their own struggles with Trump’s takeover of Republican politics. And scores of rank-and-file GOP lawmakers have quietly appreciated Ryan’s willingness to step up and serve in a thankless job after predecessor John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) retired under pressure in 2015 — and stay in it after Trump’s victory.

Asked about Ryan’s farewell, Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) said the tax cuts and regulatory measures the House passed are “worth celebrating” and waved away the lack of progress on spending cuts. “It is what it is,” said MacArthur, who lost his reelection bid last month. “No speaker or president operates in a vacuum. There are a lot of things he wishes he could have done.”

Several current and former colleagues, including Boehner, testified to Ryan’s diligence in the six-part online video series that Ryan’s office published Tuesday. With dramatic music and images, the videos depict the making of the tax bill, starting from Ryan’s 1998 election to Congress at age 28 to the bill’s final passage late last year.

The videos highlight the tax bill’s short-term effects — including raises for some employees and a dipping unemployment — but gloss over the drastic fiscal effects of the bill. After pledging to pursue tax reform that was “revenue neutral” — that is, one that would not result in a net decrease in federal receipts — Republicans instead pursued one projected by the Congressional Budget Office to cost $1.5 trillion over its first 10 years.

Another area in which Ryan made only fitful progress was his much-trumpeted anti-poverty agenda, where he sought to follow in the footsteps of his mentor Jack Kemp — a conservative ideas man of a previous generation — to apply free-market principles to create opportunities in impoverished communities. The tax bill included a provision creating low-tax “opportunity zones,” but more ambitious ideas never made it into law.

“There wasn’t a lot at all on policy, but Paul did the best he could under the circumstances he faced,” said veteran anti-poverty organizer Robert Woodson, who has worked closely with Ryan and traveled with him to many urban churches. “You can’t blame him for Washington. He did what he could to elevate the profile of this issue. I just don’t think this is a priority for Washington like it should be.”

Ryan also had to battle critics to his right, including former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, who derided him as an establishment favorite who was “born in a petri dish at the Heritage Foundation,” the conservative think tank.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a conservative hard-liner and frequent critic of leadership, said he respects Ryan but said many of Trump’s core voters have associated him with a lack of progress on the president’s agenda — including the promised border wall at the center of the current standoff.

“Two years have gone by and not much has been done, and we’re sitting here looking at the necessity perhaps of a shutdown to get just $5 billion for something that the leadership should have done last year,” he said.

With Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — a gregarious politician and Trump ally — set to succeed him as top House GOP leader, Ryan’s departure has renewed questions about who will emerge as the party’s standard-bearer for traditional conservatism.

“While there is still not much of a distinctively Trumpist agenda, the pre-Trump conservative agenda has run out of steam, too,” National Review writer Ramesh Ponnuru wrote this year. “Republicans retain enormous power in Washington but have no particular uses for it. The party is out of ideas, and its ideas guy is retiring.”

Ryan’s own future remains largely unwritten. In the Post interview, Ryan said he had not made plans beyond taking his wife on vacation in the new year — though he did toy with the notion of serving someday at U.S. ambassador to Ireland.

Zwick said Ryan will pursue private-sector opportunities while remaining engaged in the same issues he promoted in his political career, including tax and entitlement reform and poverty policy.

Upon assuming the speakership, Ryan knew he was probably forgoing a future presidential run given the volatility of that job. But he has not publicly ruled out any political opportunity, he remains one of the party’s most skillful fundraisers, and he carries that network with him out the door.

“He’s a young guy with a lot of people who support him. A lot of folks, including many donors, are wondering how they can keep helping him,” Zwick said. “I certainly hope he doesn’t close any doors.”

Oh, Rufus, please don't let Lyan run for president...

[fraurosena]

Elijah Cummings means business. Bigly.

 

[onekidanddone]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Elijah Cummings means business. Bigly.

 

 Not my Rep, but still from my state. Go Elijah go.

[AmazonGrace]

Oh noes, an angry tweet! If only he knew some senators. 

 

[AmazonGrace]