GOP Obstructionism

Obama: ‘Nothing Works’ Because Republicans Are Willing ‘To Say No To Everything’

 

BARACK OBAMA

CENTURY CITY, CA – MAY 07: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at USC Shoah Foundation’s 20th Anniversary Gala at the Hyatt Regency Century Plaza on May 7, 2014 in Century City, California. (Photo by Jeff Kravitz/FilmMagic) | Jeff Kravitz via Getty Images

The Huffington Post

President Barack Obama railed against Republicans during an event in Los Angeles Wednesday night, saying the GOP’s willingness “to say no to everything” makes the upcoming midterm elections especially important.

“Their willingness to say no to everything — the fact that since 2007, they have filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation that would help the middle class just gives you a sense of how opposed they are to any progress — has actually led to an increase in cynicism and discouragement among the people who were counting on us to fight for them,” Obama said.

“The conclusion is, well, nothing works,” Obama continued. “And the problem is, is that for the folks worth fighting for — for the person who’s cleaning up that house or hotel, for the guy who used to work on construction but now has been laid off — they need us. Not because they want a handout, but because they know that government can serve an important function in unleashing the power of our private sector.”

Obama said a strong showing by Democrats in the midterm elections could help Washington “break out” of a vicious cycle.

“We’re not going to make good choices unless we break out of this cycle in which dysfunction breeds cynicism, and cynicism then breeds more dysfunction,” Obama said. “We’ve got to break out of it. And that happens during midterms.”

Red States Hatch Plans To Block Obamacare Even If Dems Take Over

Xckwihypelow6rogthkn

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback | AP Photo / Chris Neal

TPM DC

“Governor Brownback’s not always going to be the governor. It’s my fervent hope he’s going to be the governor for four more years after this one, but he may or may not be,” Rep. John Rubin (R) told the Wichita Eagle.

Georgia Republicans have been adamant in denying any political motivations, but the question has still been raised by the press.

“I’m totally confident that Nathan Deal is going to be re-elected governor. This is simply an opportunity for the Legislature to stake out the issue as policy,” House Speaker David Ralston told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in February. Deal hasn’t signed the bill yet, but he still has time to do so. If he doesn’t act, it would become law automatically. Deal has said that he approved of the policy.

Georgia and Kansas have left a combined 487,000 residents uncovered under Obamacare because they refused to expand Medicaid. And, though the law remains unpopular, a recent poll found that majorities of Georgians (54 percent) and Kansans (55 percent) support Medicaid expansion.

If Democrats end up stealing the gubernatorial seats in the fall, they might have moved quickly on Medicaid expansion without the new legislation, accepting the federal funding that fully covers the expansion through 2016. Paul Davis, the state representative challenging Brownback, has voiced unequivocal support for expansion. “It’s the right thing to do,” he told the Topeka Capital-Journal last month.

Jason Carter, state senator and grandson of President Jimmy Carter, has been more coy as he vies to unseat Deal, but he has pressed for a discussion on the issue. He also has said he believes Georgia’s bill was passed with the explicit intent of stopping him from expanding Medicaid if he’s elected.

“I think it’s essentially a political bill,” Carter told Georgia Health News last month. “If you examine the bill by looking at the problem that it’s attempting to solve, it’s very difficult to discern what the Legislature believes that problem to be, other than they’re worried that I’m going to get elected governor.”

For now, Davis and Carter look like long shots. The Cook Political Report categorizes Georgia as “Solid Republican” and Kansas as “Likely Republican.” The RealClearPolitics average of polling in the two races gives Brownback and Deal a few-point advantage. However, recent polls, taken by the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling, actually gave Davis and Carter the upper hand, suggesting they’re not wholly out of reach.

But under these new bills, even unlikely Democratic wins won’t be enough to deliver health coverage to low-income Georgians and Kansans.

The Obamacare sabotage campaign

The opposition was strategic from the start. | AP Photo

Politico - TODD S. PURDUM

“The GOP faithful then kept up their crusade past the president’s reelection, in a pattern of “massive resistance” not seen since the Southern states’ defiance of the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954.”

To the undisputed reasons for Obamacare’s rocky rollout — a balky website, muddied White House messaging and sudden sticker shock for individuals forced to buy more expensive health insurance — add a less acknowledged cause: calculated sabotage by Republicans at every step.

That may sound like a left-wing conspiracy theory — and the Obama administration itself is so busy defending the indefensible early failings of its signature program that it has barely tried to make this case. But there is a strong factual basis for such a charge.

From the moment the bill was introduced, Republican leaders in both houses of Congress announced their intention to kill it. Republican troops pressed this cause all the way to the Supreme Court — which upheld the law, but weakened a key part of it by giving states the option to reject an expansion of Medicaid. The GOP faithful then kept up their crusade past the president’s reelection, in a pattern of “massive resistance” not seen since the Southern states’ defiance of the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954.

The opposition was strategic from the start: Derail President Barack Obama’s biggest ambition, and derail Obama himself. Party leaders enforced discipline, withholding any support for the new law — which passed with only Democratic votes, thus undermining its acceptance. Partisan divisions also meant that Democrats could not pass legislation smoothing out some rough language in the draft bill that passed the Senate. That left the administration forced to fill far more gaps through regulation than it otherwise would have had to do, because attempts — usually routine — to re-open the bill for small changes could have led to wholesale debate in the Senate all over again.

But the bitter fight over passage was only the beginning of the war to stop Obamacare. Most Republican governors declined to create their own state insurance exchanges — an option inserted in the bill in the Senate to appeal to the classic conservative preference for local control — forcing the federal government to take at least partial responsibility for creating marketplaces serving 36 states — far more than ever intended.

Then congressional Republicans refused repeatedly to appropriate dedicated funds to do all that extra work, leaving the Health and Human Services Department and other agencies to cobble together HealthCare.gov by redirecting funds from existing programs. On top of that, nearly half of the states declined to expand their Medicaid programs using federal funds, as the law envisioned.

Then, in the months leading up to the program’s debut, some states refused to do anything at all to educate the public about the law. And congressional Republicans sent so many burdensome queries to local hospitals and nonprofits gearing up to help consumers navigate the new system face-to-face that at least two such groups returned their federal grants and gave up the effort. When the White House let it be known last summer that it was in talks with the National Football League to enlist star athletes to help promote the law, the Senate’s top two Republicans sent the league an ominous letter wondering why it would “risk damaging its inclusive and apolitical brand.” The NFL backed off.

The drama culminated on the eve of the open enrollment date of Oct. 1. Congressional Republicans shut down the government, disrupting last-minute planning and limiting the administration’s political ability to prepare the public for the likelihood of potential problems, because it was in a last-ditch fight to defend the president’s biggest legislative accomplishment.

“I think my Republican colleagues forget that a lot of people are enrolling through state exchanges, rather than the federal exchange,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) noted last week. “And if it wasn’t for the fact that many Republican governors, including my own,” failed to set up state exchanges, “then we wouldn’t be putting so much burden on the federal system.”

In fact, putting an excessive burden on the federal government was the explicit aim of the law’s opponents. “Congress authorized no funds for federal ‘fallback’ exchanges,” the Tea Party Patriots website noted as long ago as last December. “So Washington may not be able to impose exchanges on states at all.” The group went on to suggest that since Washington was not equipped to handle so many state exchanges, “both financially and otherwise — this means the entire law could implode on itself.”

Continue reading on page 2

Former NAACP Chair Says The IRS Was Right To Target Tea Party Groups (VIDEO)

Julian Bond; photo: Nikki Khan, The Washington Post;@PBS

I absolutely agree with former NAACP Chair, Julian Bond.  This entire faux outrage fiasco is designed to make the president look bad.  That has been the objective of the GOP since Tuesday, January 20th, 2009.

Addicting Info

As my colleague Egberto Willies wrote on Tuesday, this whole tempest in a teacup over the IRS scrutiny of groups who used “tea party” or “patriot” in their names is foolish. He is correct in stating that the IRS was well within its boundaries and, indeed, was doing exactly what it should have been doing. The granting of a 501(c) status is a very big deal. When I was on the staff of the one of the largest Pagan churches in the country, it took us years to be approved for that tax-free status. The IRS doesn’t hand those exemptions out like candy: you must prove that you fit the qualifications. Most of the Tea Party groups most certainly did not, not if they were engaged in politics.

We are not the only ones who think that the IRS was doing its job, either. Former NAACP Chairman, Julian Bond, told Thomas Roberts of MSNBC:

 

“I think it’s entirely legitimate to look at the tea party. Here are a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political, who’ve tried as best they can to harm President Obama in every way they can.”

Mr. Bond found himself in a similar situation back in 2004 when, after a speech he’d given criticizing then-President George Bush, he received a letter from the IRS advising him that the NAACP was being investigated because of what he said. He thought that he was exercising his right to free speech but, as some of us know, criticism of Bush was not covered by that right.

But criticism of Obama? Well, that’s an entirely different matter. We’ve seen it time and again: Tea Party “patriots” with outrageous signs saying horrible things about a duly elected president. And these are most definitely not non-political groups. As Mr. Bond noted:

“They are the Taliban wing of American politics. We all ought to be a little worried about them.”

When Roberts asked Bond if that wasn’t a bit harsh – calling the TP the “Taliban wing” of American politics – Bond replied that it wasn’t at all too harsh and that we should all be concerned about their influence. He did say that it was wrong of the IRS to be so heavy-handed and chided them for not explaining their actions better. But Bond was adamant that this situation has no parallel to the targeting of the NAACP in 2004.

Now a liberal group called Progress Texas has come forward saying that they received the same level of scrutiny that the Tea Party groups did. Their executive director, Ed Espinoza, said in a statement:

“Progress Texas and the Tea Party strongly disagree on the role of government. Yet, when we applied for tax-exempt status, Progress Texas received the same type of additional scrutiny that Tea Party groups are complaining about. The similar treatment indicates the IRS was likely addressing a flood of 501(c)4 applications after Citizens United, and undermines the paranoid notion that Tea Party groups were singled out.”

Exactly. This entire “scandal” is being blown up out of all proportion. The IRS, the agency that collects the taxes for the American people to run our government, should be wary of groups that apply for 501(c) status. Even more so when the applicants have been so brazen about its involvement in politics. This faux outrage is silly. The IRS was just doing its job and the Tea Party groups are doing what they do: blame the government and whine about taxes. Same as it ever was.

Here’s the video of Bond’s appearance:

 

On Peter King, Republicans, Fleas…and Marco Rubio

Republican Party - The Dark Side : http://mariopiperni.com/

I’m such a fan of Mario Piperni’s work…

Mario Piperni

GoldenBoy Marco Rubio shows up in New York to fundraise and one of the state’s Reps, Republican Peter King, protests.

“Guys like Marco Rubio in Florida. All the money that your people have gotten in Florida over the years from every hurricane that came along. And this guy has the nerve to vote against money for New York and then come up here and try to raise money. You know, he can forget it.”

“I made it clear any of those people who voted and postured against money coming to New York and New Jersey and comes up here and wants to take money out of our pockets – forget it, stay home.”

A couple of thoughts on King’s little rant…

a) Consider Rubio to be another Mitt, only shorter and with a better command of Spanish. The man is a fraud who will say or do what he must to get the votes he needs in his quest to become the GOP candidate in 2016.

 

Marco Romney : MarcoRubio / MittRomney http://mariopiperni.com/

After leading the Republican charge on immigration reform, Rubio is now hesitating as a bipartisan agreement is within sight. Why? Because the GOP base whose support he needs, opposes any form of amnesty for undocumented workers. In effect, Rubio finds himself in the exact same position that Romney was in – trying to appear to be a rational and reasonable politician while appeasing the crazies in the party.

He’ll discover, like Romney did, that it cannot be done.

b) King is upset with Rubio for voting against Sandy funding for New York and New Jersey. Cry us a river. How the hell did King expect Republicans to act? The man is a standing member of a political party that can best be described as suffering from severe sociopathic personality disorder – manipulative,  paranoid and delusional, showing lack of empathy, remorse, guilt or shame, callous in nature with a strong tendency toward pathological lying. And King himself shows many of these traits.

  • He opposed the 2009 stimulus package.
  • He voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
  • He opposes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
  • He’s an Islamophobe. “There are too many mosques in this country… There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully and finding out how we can infiltrate them.”
  • He voted for the Ryan budget that would slash social programs like Medicare and Medicaid that form the socials safety net for the aged, poor and middle class.
  • He’s voted to defund Obamacare despite the fact that it would help many of the 50 million Americans who cannot afford health care insurance.

Word of advice for Peter King. Don’t bitch about waking up with fleas when you lie down with dogs.

 

Arizona GOP Senate Candidate Robocalls Democrats And Tells Them To Vote In The Wrong Place

What are they so scared of…?

Think Progress

According to a report by Phoenix, Arizona’s NBC affiliate, Rep. Jeff Flake’s (R-AZ) U.S. Senate campaign called Democratic voters telling them to vote in the wrong precinct — in some cases as much as 11 miles away from their actual polling place. After telling the Democratic voters to vote in the wrong place, the calls also encourage the voter to “vote Flake for U.S. Senate.” Watch the report:

It’s unclear whether these calls were made accidentally or as part of an intentional strategy to depress the Democratic vote.

 

Editorial: Obama for president: A second term for a serious man

Sam SteinHuffington Post

As President Barack Obama was celebrating his inauguration at various balls, top Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency at a private dinner in Washington.

The event — which provides a telling revelation for how quickly the post-election climate soured — serves as the prologue of Robert Draper’s much-discussed and heavily-reported new book, “Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives.”

According to Draper, the guest list that night (which was just over 15 people in total) included Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). The non-lawmakers present included Newt Gingrich, several years removed from his presidential campaign, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith. Notably absent were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) — who, Draper writes, had an acrimonious relationship with Luntz.

For several hours in the Caucus Room (a high-end D.C. establishment), the book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but to also put the brakes on Obama’s legislative platform.

The Editorial Board  –  St. Louis Post Dispatch

Four years ago, in endorsing Democrat Barack Obama for president, we noted his intellect, his temperament and equanimity under pressure. He was unproven, but we found him to be presidential, in all that that word implies.

In that, we have not been disappointed. This is a serious man. And now he is a proven leader. He has earned a second term.

Mr. Obama sees an America where the common good is as important as the individual good. That is the vision on which the nation was founded. It is the vision that has seen America through its darkest days and illuminated its best days. It is the vision that underlies the president’s greatest achievement, the Affordable Care Act. Twenty years from now, it will be hard to find anyone who remembers being opposed to Obamacare.

He continues to steer the nation through the most perilous economic challenges since the Great Depression. Those who complain that unemployment remains high, or that economic growth is too slow, either do not understand the scope of the catastrophe imposed upon the nation by Wall Street and its enablers, or they are lying about it.

To expect Barack Obama to have repaired, in four years, what took 30 years to undermine, is simply absurd. He might have gotten further had he not been saddled with an opposition party, funded by plutocrats, that sneers at the word compromise. But even if Mr. Obama had had Franklin Roosevelt’s majorities, the economy would still be in peril.

Extraordinary, perhaps existential, economic challenges lie just beyond Election Day. The nation’s $16 trillion debt must be addressed, but in ways that do not endanger the sick and elderly, or further erode the middle class or drive the poor deeper into penury.

The social Darwinist solutions put forward by Republican Mitt Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, are not worthy of this nation’s history, except that part of it known as the Gilded Age.

Mr. Obama has not been everything we expected. In his first weeks in office, Democrats ran amokwith part of his economic stimulus package. His mortgage relief program was insufficient. Together with his Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, the president has been too deferential to the financial industry. The president should have moved to nationalize troubled banks instead of structuring the bailout to their benefit. Regulatory agencies and the Justice Department were unable to bring financial crooks to heel.

We had hoped that Mr. Obama would staff the executive branch with the best and the brightest. There have been stars, but there have been egregious failures, too. The “Fast and Furious”operation at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was a disgrace. The vastly expensive and unaccountable intelligence and Homeland Security agencies need stronger oversight. The now-renamed Minerals Management Service could have used some best-and-brightest inspectors before the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

People who don’t understand the word “socialist” accuse Mr. Obama of being one. But as president he has proven to be pragmatic and conciliatory. He is not one to tilt at windmills. He did not close Guantanamo. He cut deals with anyone who’d come to the table. In health care, banking regulation and most other policy areas, he has practiced the art of the possible.

In foreign policy, after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for doing little more than not being George W. Bush, he has been a centrist. He has stood with Israel, but not as its surrogate. He brought the last of the U.S. troops out of Iraq. He began to wind down the war in Afghanistan — too slowly in our view. He let the nations of the Arab Spring follow their own course to democracy. He used thumb drives instead of bunker busters in Iran.

Against the advice of his senior advisers, he approved the SEAL mission that killed Osama bin Laden. He has been almost ruthless in his pursuit of terrorists, reserving to himself the right to approve targets. Regretfully, he massaged “due process” to allow himself to assassinate an al-Qaida leader who was an American citizen.

He is not a happy warrior, literally or figuratively. He is careful, cautious, private and deeply thoughtful, almost introverted. His rhetoric soars because he is a good writer, and good writers tend to be solitary souls. He is not as good working off the cuff, as was demonstrated in Wednesday’s debate with Mr. Romney. But being careful and thoughtful is a good thing in a president.

As to Mr. Romney, we are puzzled. Which Mitt Romney are we talking about? The one who said of himself, in 2002, “I’m not a partisan Republican. I’m someone who is moderate and … my views are progressive.”

Or is it the Mitt Romney who posed as a “severely conservative” primary candidate? Is it the Mitt Romney who supported abortion rights and public health care subsidies in Massachusetts or the one who is pro-life and anti-Obamacare now?

Is it the Mitt Romney who wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion or the one who can’t remember saying that now? Is it the Mitt Romney who said in May that 47 percent of Americans are moochers or the one who said last week that’s not what he believes?

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama

This is an issue that should be addressed by those involved in the plot to do nothing that the newly elected president proposed to Congress.

It’s been going on for three and a half years and the American People need to know the truth.   This article should be passed on to everyone,  Right leaning or Left leaning.

Time Magazine’s Swampland - John Grunwald

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.” The excerpt includes a special bonus nugget of Mitt Romney dissing the Tea Party.

But as we say in the sales world: There’s more! I’m going to be blogging some of the news and larger themes from the book here at TIME.com, and I’ll kick it off with more scenes from the early days of the Republican strategy of No. Read on to hear what Joe Biden’s sources in the Senate GOP were telling him, some candid pillow talk between a Republican staffer and an Obama aide, and a top Republican admitting his party didn’t want to “play.” I’ll start with a scene I consider a turning point in the Obama era, when the new President went to the Hill to extend his hand and the GOP spurned it.

On Jan. 27, 2009, House Republican leader John Boehner opened his weekly conference meeting with an announcement: Obama would make his first visit to the Capitol around noon, to meet exclusively with Republicans about his economic-recovery plan. “We’re looking forward to the President’s visit,” Boehner said.

The niceties ended there, as Boehner turned to the $815 billion stimulus bill that House Democrats had just unveiled. Boehner complained that it would spend too much, too late, on too many Democratic goodies. He urged his members to trash it on cable, on YouTube, on the House floor: “It’s another run-of-the-mill, undisciplined, cumbersome, wasteful Washington spending bill … I hope everyone here will join me in voting no!

Cantor’s whip staff had been planning a “walk-back” strategy in which they would start leaking that 50 Republicans might vote yes, then that they were down to 30 problem children, then that they might lose 20 or so. The idea was to convey momentum. “You want the members to feel like, Oh, the herd is moving. I’ve got to move with the herd,” explains Rob Collins, Cantor’s chief of staff at the time. That way, even if a dozen Republicans ultimately defected, it would look as if Obama failed to meet expectations.

But when he addressed the conference, Cantor adopted a different strategy. “We’re not going to lose any Republicans,” he declared. His staff was stunned.

“We’re like, Uhhhhh, we have to recalibrate,” Collins recalls.

Afterward, Cantor’s aides asked if he was sure he wanted to go that far out on a limb. Zero was a low number. Centrists and big-spending appropriators from Obama-friendly districts would be sorely tempted to break ranks. If Cantor promised unanimity and failed to deliver, the press would have the story it craved: Republicans divided, dysfunction junction, still clueless after two straight spankings.

But Cantor said yes, he meant zero. He was afraid that if the Democrats managed to pick off two or three Republicans, they’d be able to slap a “bipartisan” label on the bill. “We can get there,” he said. “If we don’t get there, we can try like hell to get there.”

Shortly before 11 a.m., the AP reported that Boehner had urged Republicans to oppose the stimulus. Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs handed Obama a copy of the story in the Oval Office, just before he left for the Hill to make his case for the stimulus, an unprecedented visit to the opposition after just a week in office. “You know, we still thought this was on the level,” Gibbs says. Obama political aide David Axelrod says that after the President left, White House aides were buzzing about the insult. And they didn’t even know that Cantor had vowed to whip a unanimous vote — which, ultimately, he did.

“It was stunning that we’d set this up and, before hearing from the President, they’d say they were going to oppose this,” Axelrod says. “Our feeling was, we were dealing with a potential disaster of epic proportions that demanded cooperation. If anything was a signal of what the next two years would be like, it was that.”

Continue reading here…

From Day One

The Daily Beast‘s Michael Tomasky has written a critique about GOP behavior toward Obama and the country.  His premise is supported by Robert  Draper’s Do Not Ask What Good We Do, which focuses on just that, GOP behavior towards this president.

The Daily Beast

I’ve been reading Robert Draper’s Do No Ask What Good We Do, about the new GOP House, and it opens with a very interesting anecdote. On the night of Obama’s inauguration, Draper writes, about 15 GOP legislators from both houses–along with Newt Gingrich, journalist Fred Barnes, and pollster Frank Luntz, who arranged the evening–got together at a Washington restaurant.

They were not necessarily the party’s official leaders, but they were the emotional leaders of the new breed–Jim DeMint, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy–which is to say, the cohort to whom many others were looking for leadership; indeed, if you know anything about Mitch McConnell, to whom the leadership was looking for leadership. They talked for four hours about what their posture should be.

They agreed that night: oppose everything in completely unity. Show, Draper writes, “united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies.”

So, before President Obama had proposed a single idea, the Republicans had already decided that they would oppose everything he did. Didn’t matter what it was. Look his plans over and see where we might be able to work together? Are you kidding?

Remember, this is the middle of a near-depression. The country lost around 800,000 jobs that very month. Every economic indicator was in the toilet and quickly rushing down into the sewer. The country was at the rock-bottom point of its worst economic crisis in the lifetimes of every one of the men in that room.

One might hope under such circumstances that the agenda-setting members of a minority party would, oh, convene a meeting in which someone said something like, “You know, we don’t like this president, and we’re not going to agree with him much, but let’s remember that almost a million Americans are losing their jobs this month, so we might want to find one or two areas of agreement.”

If anyone said such a thing, which seems doubtful, Draper doesn’t record it. Instead, the posture was–oppose, and stick him with the blame.

And no, Democrats don’t behave this way. I have shown before that Democrats in Congress voted at far higher rates for Bush’s signature legislative proposals than Republicans did for Obama’s, by 41 percent to 6 percent. It’s not chiefly because Democrats are better people, although it’s certainly true that Democrats aren’t as ideologically crazed as Republicans. it’s chiefly because many Democrats were in January 2001 from purple districts. But whatever the reason, Democrats didn’t and don’t do this.

It’s pretty amazing, and it’s worse that they get away with it because it’s precisely the behavior expected of them, so no one bats an eye any more. But this is not even the behavior of apes, who are far more socialized.

5 of the worst Governors in the United States today

GOP Governors

I believe that everyone who keeps up with politics these days is quite aware of these five “cretins” (my assessment).  For those who are merely part-time political junkies, this information from The Examiner is compiled in away that everyone can comprehend..

The Examiner

In the United States today, the political climate is very divided. As the Democrats seem more willing to come to the center and compromise, the Republicans in office take giant leaps to the right pulling their entire party and voting base with them.

[...]

1. Rick Scott (Republican-Florida)- Ah, the sunshine state. Florida has always been known as a “swing-state” in elections, but with the Tea Party wave running its way through the country in 2010, Florida was no exception. With a strong conservative base, especially in Central Florida, Governor Rick Scott was able to defeat the Democrat, Alex Sink in a tough election. One could only wonder how Scott was even able to get into office in the first place. Rick Scott helped create and was the Chief Executive Officer of the Columbia Hospital Corporation in the late 1980s and then merged with the Hospital Corporation of American in 1989. Fast forward to 1997 and Scott was forced to resign as CEO when his company was charged with the largest Medicare fraud in US history, $2 billion, while pleading the fifth 57 times in court. In addition to his issues before being Governor, Scott has shown that as Governor he has been just as bad. While giving massive tax breaks to the wealthy, Scott is requiring over 600,000 government workers to contribute 5% more to their retirement while cutting over $2,000 a year for public teachers to offset the lack of revenue coming back into the state government. Rick Scott also turned down $2.4 billion in federal stimulus money to build a high-speed rail that would have created nearly 25,000 jobs over the next decade. The icing on the cake for Scott is he has proposed completely cutting support for historically black colleges and universities and is shutting down state agencys that help minority small businesses.

2. John Kasich (Republican-Ohio)- The idea of a labor union is very important. Unions are a united voice for workers to create a fair environment with the top owners and executives of a company. Public unions are put together to create the same situation, but instead of collectively barganing against a corporation or business, it’s done with the government. In the current economic state that the country is in, it’s not unfair to ask everyone to contribute in getting the economy back on track. The main issue with Governor Kasich is that he doesn’t handle the situation fairly. While claiming to fix the budget for Ohio, Kasich has asked union members to take a cut in pay and contribute more to their pensions and health care, at the same time giving massive tax breaks to the most wealthy citizens in the state. Not only has Kasich ask unions to take a pay cut, he always wants to take away the ability of the unions to even bargain. If this isn’t enough, Kasich is the first Governor not appoint an African-American to a state cabinet post since 1962.

3. Scott Walker (Republican-Wisconsin) - Like his Republican friend in Ohio, Scott Walker has been known for his anti-union and anti-worker stance in his policies. Walker, like the Republican ideology, stands by the rich and puts his foot on the throat of the rest of economic class. For what seemed like months, thousands of Wisconsin citizens occupied the state capital in protests over Walkers anti-American plans for getting his budget under control. The reason that these workers were protesting wasn’t simply because they had to contribute more out of their paychecks, but because the wealthiest citizens of Wisconsin didn’t have to contribute much of anything.

4. Rick Perry- (Republican-Texas)- Of late, Perry has been known as the candidate who can’t debate, has horrible policies and when all else fails, just claims that Democrats don’t love Jesus so he should be voted into office. Perry, like other governors of Texas, loves his guns and Bible and can’t stand much of anything else. Rick Perry, as the Governor of Texas, currently has a $27 billion hole into his budget, and in order to fix it has proposed cutting education by $10 billion while firing over 100,000 teachers. How much has Perry asked the rich to contribute? The answer is the same as other Republicans, zero. Perry also has talked about Texas actually seceding from the United States and now wants to run the country, ironic right? Perry has a strong stance on social issues as well. He loves the death penalty and has been in office while over 200 people have been put to death. As much as he loves the death penalty, Perry loves telling women what to do with their own body. Perry has tried to force a mandate that every woman getting an abortion must get a sonogram whether she wants to or not. Rick Perry might have multiple gaffes during a debate, but his time in office should be noted as one giant gaffe on the state of Texas.

5. Jan Brewer (Republican-Arizona)- Brewer is known for her ignorant immigration law that simply targets people because they are the wrong color. Illegal immigration is a serious issue and those that are here illegally should be dealt with accordingly and on an individual basis, but Brewers law paints each undocumented worker with the same brush and that is simply not fair. In addition to her racist immigration law, Brewer passed tax cuts for the wealthy that will cost the state over $500 million over the next decade and while claiming to create jobs, Arizona has done nothing but lose jobs while she has been in office.