It might still be possible to get a bipartisan bill on immigration through the Senate regardless of what the bill looks like and how well it addresses true reform. But it’s getting likelier that there won’t be any immigration legislation coming out of the House any time soon.
“I don’t see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn’t have a majority support of Republicans,” Boehner said during a press briefing with reporters Tuesday.
“I frankly think the Senate bill is weak on border security, I think the internal enforcement mechanisms are weak and the triggers are almost laughable,” he said of the bill drafted by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Republican Sens. Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Jeff Flake. “So if they’re serious about getting an immigration bill finished, they should reach out to their GOP colleagues to broaden support.”
There you go. That just about kills any chance of an immigration bill getting through Congress. Boehner is essentially saying that unless he gets the support of teapublican house members, he will not bring an immigration bill to the floor. We know, of course, that there is no bill that addresses immigration reform in any serious manner that would ever satisfy the xenophobic madness running rampant in the radical right.
It’s all going to come down to how much pressure the GOP establishment can exert on the orange man between now and the elections to get an immigration bill through the House. Tea Party idiots might not get it but most Republicans do: there will not be another Republican president in the White House if Hispanics believe that the Republican party blocked immigration reform. End of story.
“What the GOP will never learn – Tea Party to establishment – is that smiling while giving the finger to the American [people] doesn’t change the message and I think we all get the GOP’s message in giving us Marco Rubio.”
It hasn’t been a good week for Republican Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). First, Ann Coulter called him the Doctor Kervorkian of the Republican Party for supporting immigration reform.
Then, on Sunday, Rubio embarrassed himself – badly – by suggesting a Bushian Syria policy that depends on finding the good guys and working with them.
That wasn’t all, for another hammer was about to fall, this wielded by fellow Republican, California’s Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who said, “Rubio is so mixed up and so confused. I think he has given up his rightful place to advise any of us in Washington what to do, and he’s given up any right to be trusted by the American people.”
That’s language usually reserved by Republicans for President Obama.
Seriously, criticism by a Republican doesn’t get any worse than that.
Let’s be clear. Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.
Rohrabacher did a Coulter in response to this:
This is just a lot of weasel words that Rubio and these people are throwing in. They’re going to legalize the status of people here illegally. Once they do that, that is an amnesty. And once they do that, there will be no border security improvements. It’ll all be a facade.
Let’s not forget that in May, Rubio, apparently channeling Sarah Palin, demanded that the non-existent IRS Commissioner resign. Or that in April he was forced to admit he opposed a gun control bill that he hadn’t even bothered to read.
It wasn’t long ago that Marco Rubio was the bright young hero of the Republican Party, a young McCarthy in the making (which alone should have endeared him to Ann Coulter) and a potential 2016 candidate and the GOP’s access to the Hispanic vote – even though he was less popular with Hispanics than President George W. Bush (29 to 23 percent).
At this point, any Hispanic votes garnered by Rubio would be offset by the loss of the racist lily-white base.
Let’s face it: these people did not want a black man in the White House. They are not going to stand for a Hispanic.
As Jason Easley wrote here in April, “Only a party that is operating from a completely race based mindset would think that the elevation of Marco Rubio to Hispanic show pony/gimmick is a good idea.”
Clearly, making Rubio the face of immigration reform has backfired and he has become a target of ridicule instead, not all of it related to immigration but all of it due to any discernible ability to articulate his politics and beliefs.
The GOP hasn’t clued in to a glaring defect in their thinking: that it is difficult to position yourself as a champion of minorities while fielding dullards as your point-men or women and while being pushed into the KKK section of the political landscape by Tea Party racists and moralizing religious fanatics.
To be fair, Marco Rubio never stood a chance of succeeding in his appointed role as Hispanic Messiah. Even in March, the bigoted Rand Paul was leading Rubio in polls, showing the base really doesn’t care when establishment Republicans think. And that fact might itself be irrelevant as neither man stands a chance against Hilary Clinton.
A worse harbinger yet, Nate Silver, who predicted the outcome of the 2012 election, pointed to Rubio as being as unelectable as Mitt Romney.
At this point, Rubio seems more a sacrificial lamb than the eternal hero, that security guy on Star Trek away teams whose sole job it is to be killed. Using Rubio in that way would at least have shown some method to the GOP’s madness but that sort of credit is undeserved.
They seem really to have genuinely thought their initial impressions after catastrophic defeat in 2012 that some charisma would make their stupidity look good, was a workable strategy. The GOP seems to abound with charismatic young men saying truly reprehensible things.
What the GOP will never learn – Tea Party to establishment – is that smiling while giving the finger to the American [people] doesn’t change the message and I think we all get the GOP’s message in giving us Marco Rubio.
“Controversy equalizes fools and wise men – and the fools know it.”
~Oliver Wendell Holmes
Interesting piece by Dana Milbank on Republican’s priorities now that the economy is on the rebound.
Now, after a long economic winter, green shoots are everywhere: The stock market is booming, housing prices are rebounding and mortgage providers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, long demonized by Republicans, are returning profits to the Treasury. Job growth has accelerated and consumer confidence has reached its highest level in almost six years. Health-care cost increases are slowing, Medicare’s prospects are improving — in part because of President Obama’s health-care reforms — and gasoline prices are forecast to decline. Long-term fiscal problems remain, but the federal deficit is shrinking, putting off Washington’s debt-ceiling standoff until late fall.
Yet House Republicans have shelved a serious legislative agenda this year in favor of 24/7 investigations.
Just yesterday, here’s what Republicans were up to:
2 separate hearings on alleged wrongdoing by the Obama administration
a Ways and Means Committee heard complaints from various tea party groups about the IRS messing with their rights
Other than the Ways and Means hearing,
there will be two other House committee hearings this week on alleged abuses by the IRS
A good indication of House Republicans’ mind-set came last week, when Rep. John Boehner’s spokesman wrote on the House speaker’s official blog that a speech by Obama on student loans was an attempt “to change the subject from its growing list of scandals.” It’s telling that the GOP leadership would view a student loan event as a distraction from scandals but wouldn’t see the obsession with scandals as a distraction from pocketbook issues.
As The Post’s Paul Kane reported Tuesday, House Republicans haven’t passed much ambitious legislation this year after they “disintegrated into squabbling factions, no longer able to agree on — much less execute — some of the most basic government functions.” One of the few things that unite them is the investigation of scandals. A few weeks ago, Heritage Action for America, an influential conservative group, suggested that House Republicans focus on investigations and avoid legislation that could divide them.
All of which takes us back to the Oliver Wendell Holmes quote on fools needing controversy to equalize their standing with wise men…and nothing equalizes better than being dragged into a mud pit by a fool and his friends.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, widely seen as the nation’s second most important federal bench, has three vacancies. President Obama yesterday introduced three non-controversial nominees to fill those vacancies. And were it not for the breakdowns of the American political process, none of this would be especially interesting.
Senate Republicans have come up with lots of reasons for not wanting to advance President Barack Obama’s nominees to the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, whether it be false accusations of “court-packing” or claims that the court doesn’t need its three vacancies filled because it’s not busy enough.
On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) argued there was another problem with moving Obama’s nominees: a “culture of intimidation” being fueled by Democrats.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) went further, responding to the nominees by telling reporters, “There is no basis for the president inventing these crises. It’s unpresidential. It’s embarrassing to me.”
Just so we’re clear, we’ve apparently reached the point at which a president nominating judges to fill existing vacancies is seen by Republicans as outrageous. They not only decry “court packing” — a phrase they use but clearly do not understand – they also feel “intimidated” and “embarrassed” by a basic governmental process outlined by the Constitution.
Indeed, according to Lamar Alexander, Obama is creating a “crisis.” Worse, it’s “unpresidential” for the president to exercise his presidential duties. I realize it’s a little unusual for the White House to introduce three judicial nominees at once, but this GOP freak-out is excessive by any sensible standard.
But, Mitch McConnell says, there’s no reason for Democrats to complain. “You know, we’ve confirmed an overwhelming number of judges for President Obama,” the Minority Leader told reporters yesterday. “So the president’s been treated very fairly on judicial [nominees].”
From where I stand, Ted Cruz is an opportunistic nitwit.
He’s a freshman senator trying his best to make his mark with the Tea Party faithful. It also appears he has ambitious plans to run for the presidency in 2016.
The Texas senator is annoying, and doesn’t play well with others. Will that doom his White House ambitions?
Ted Cruz has sharp elbows. He’s already managed to annoy several senators, including Republicans, and sparked what appears to be a full-on feud with Sen. John McCain. He also wants to be president of the United States.
[T]o be the Republican nominee, he’ll need the support of his Republican colleagues. The 2012 election once again showed—and despite some skepticism—that it is very hard to win the nomination unless you’re preferred by a substantial chunk, if not the vast majority of, your party’s leaders (as was Romney). Which is to say, it pays to be nice to your colleagues. It’s no guarantee, of course: junior Senator Hillary Clinton kept her head down and played nice, and lost the nomination. John McCain often irritated his fellow Republicans, but still mustered enough support within the party to win the nomination.
But political scientist Dave Hopkins isn’t so sure: “Don’t think this is the problem for Cruz that John does. McCain bugged Sen colleagues/leaders too; still won ’08 nom.”
They’re both right … but Dave is more right than John is.
But U.S. political parties are large, and have many leaders, only a small subset of whom are members of Congress. There are governors, interest group leaders, activists, fundraisers and more. And there’s a long history, from Lyndon Johnson in 1960 through Dick Gephardt in 2004, of candidates being overrated because they had strong support within Congress – just as there’s a long history, from John Kennedy through John McCain, of candidates doing well with less-than-stellar Hill reputations (not just nomination winners; John Edwards wasn’t exactly a legislative dynamo but did just fine in 2004; Gary Hart had few supporters from the Senate and almost won in 1984).
To back up a bit: There are really two tests for whether someone is a viable candidate for a presidential nomination. The candidate needs to have conventional qualifications, and with (by then) four years in the Senate, Cruz qualifies, albeit just barely. The candidate must also be within the mainstream of his or her party when it comes to public policy. This is where Cruz is a solid step ahead of his fellow Tea Partying Sen. Rand Paul – as far as we know so far, Cruz doesn’t have major issue areas, such as Paul has with foreign policy, where there are important differences between him and key party groups.
Where Cruz stands out, and where he gets in trouble with his Senate colleagues, is in his willingness to use demagogic rhetoric (such as his McCarthyite and uncollegial attacks on Chuck Hagel) and his frequent attacks on “Republican leaders” or the “Republican establishment.” Many members of Congress may see themselves as targets of those attacks.
But outside of those chambers (and even to some extent within them), there’s a curious phenomenon in both parties, and usefully for Cruz it’s probably even stronger in the Republican Party than it is among Democrats: people who by any objective standards function as party leaders but nevertheless think of themselves as outsiders and rebels.
Indeed, in U.S. politics, hardly anyone thinks of themselves as the “establishment” – that’s always those other folks. Tea Party activists hardly think of themselves as “Republican leaders” no matter how long they have been active within GOP politics, and how many battles they’ve won. Neither do most talk show hosts – my guess is that Rush Limbaugh would throw a fit if you called him a longtime leader of the Republican establishment that he regularly mocks. Even within government, my guess is that there are a fair number of staffers in Barack Obama’s White House, even some who previously served with Bill Clinton, who think of themselves as infiltrating the establishment, not embodying it – and I’m sure the same was true during George W. Bush’s presidency, just as it was during Richard Nixon’s and Ronald Reagan’s presidencies.
All of which means that even if those who actually have to work with Ted Cruz may not like him, there are still plenty of party leaders who may interpret his attacks on “party leaders” as those of an ally ready to help them storm the gates, rather than as a threat to their insider status.
None of which means that Cruz is a sure thing, of course. It’s very early, and it’s extremely difficult to predict how any of the candidates will navigate the process, or even what strengths and weaknesses they will reveal along the way. Cruz surely won’t be the only candidate vying for the support of Tea Party and other extreme conservative party elites. At this point, he’s a potentially viable candidate, no more.
But feuding with John McCain, and having other Republican senators uncomfortable with his excesses? That’s not going to be what stops him.
As earlier reported, Michele Bachmann abruptly announced yesterday that she won’t be running for re-election for a seat that used to be assuredly hers by virtue of her party, but could be under threat from a Democratic challenger as her national profile-seeking has revealed to the country exactly how much of an embarrassment she is. Here is the video where she announced this:
Like you, I got about 30 seconds in before her tendency to talk to the public like it’s made up of very slow-witted preschoolers got to me and I had to shut it off. However, the hard-working folks at Minnesota Public Radio graciously published a transcript, and so I thought I’d use that to quote juicy bits and help translate them from Wingnutese (which I sadly speak fluently) to English.
My good friends, after a great deal of thought and deliberation, I have decided next year I will not seek a fifth Congressional term to represent the wonderful people of the Sixth District of Minnesota. After serious consideration, I am confident that this is the right decision.
However, the law limits anyone from serving as President of the United States for more than eight years. And in my opionion, well, eight years is also long enough for an individual to serve as a representative for a specific congressional district.
To make myself feel better about leaving in disgrace, I’m going to pretend Congress is a club I don’t want to be in anyway, starting by disparaging those who managed to hang in longer than I did.
Be assured, my decision was not in any way influenced by any concerns about my being re-elected to Congress. I’ve always in the past defeated candidates that were capable, qualified and well-funded. And I have every confidence that if I ran, I would again defeat the individual that I defeated last year, who recently announced that he is once again running.
And rest assured, this decision was not impacted in any way by the recent inquiries into the activities of my former presidential campaign, or my former presidential staff. It was clearly understood that compliance with all rules and regulations was an absolute necessity for my presdiential campaign, and I have no reason to believe that that was not the case.
I think you’re dumb enough to believe that someone who ran for President last year suddenly had a change of heart about being a professional politician. I’m hoping that my reputation for being “crazy” will convince you that I’m indifferent to the relentless phone calls I’m getting from the Republican Party leaders begging me to step down so as not to lose an otherwise secure seat to a Democrat.
And even when it means resisting the policy positions of many in my own political party, I’ve always strived to be first and foremost a public servant and do what is best for the people and never acquiesce to being a political servant.
Even when people were laughing at me, I never budged an inch from spouting John Bircher-levels of right wing nonsense.
Feel confident, over the next 18 months, I will continue to work 100-hour weeks
Broken down: 10 hours doing work, 10 hours going on TV to be a freak show, and 80 hours fussing over paranoid fantasies of the Muslims/gays/feminists/college professors lurking in the bushes, waiting for me to let down my guard so they can drink my blood.
And I will continue to work vehemently and robustly to fight back against what most in the other party want to do, to transform our country into becoming, which would be a nation that our founders would hardly even recognize today.
They wouldn’t recognize this mutant America, where women can vote and slavery is banned, that differs so from the nation they built.
I proudly have, and I promise you I will continue, to fight to protect innocent human life, traditional marriage, family values, religious liberty and academic excellence
I’ll make a handful of speeches that continue to affirm people’s suspicion that I think married couples should have sex through a hole in a sheet.
I’ve called out the Muslim jihad terrorists for who they are, and for the evil that they perpetrate upon our people.
No one would have noticed that Boston bombing if I hadn’t said something.
I’ve identified at the outset of the so-called Arab Spring, this adminsitration’s foriegn policy blunders and how those blunders have contributed into turning the Middle East into a devastating, evil, jihadist earthquake.
You don’t really need to understand foreign policy so long as you accept that whatever Obama does must be wrong.
I’ve also demanded, consistently, a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility, that this be a preeminent government requirement, so as to avoid the dangers of a future, a financial calamity for our children and the ultimate risk of the destruction of our entire economic system.
I hope that my uber-white district will continue to believe it’s better to burn this country to the ground than share it fairly with people who aren’t exactly like them, and won’t hold my behavior against whatever crazed but untested wingnut they run in my stead.
My core of conviction on these principal issues and more will continue, in a steadfast manner, during the remainder of my term and beyond.
I promise at least a few more floor speeches that will make you marvel at their stupidity.
Unfortunately, today I am even more concerned about our country’s future than I have ever been in the past. On so many issues, we’re clearly on the wrong track.
Please vote for whoever the Republicans run, or else you might end up with a gay, Latino boss one day.
But looking forward, after the completion of my term, my future is full, it is limitless, and my passions for America will remain. And I want you to be assured that there is no future option or opportunity, be it directly in the political arena or otherwise, that I won’t be giving serious consideration if it can help save and protect our great nation for future generations.
Dear Fox News: If you give me a multi-million dollar contract, I won’t squander it like Sarah Palin did.
I fully anticipate the mainstream liberal media to put a detrimental spin on my decision not to seek a fifth term. Since I was first elected to Congress many years ago, they always seem to attempt to find a dishonest way to disparage me.
Usually by quoting me directly, without comment.
To my many good friends and supporters, I will continue fight for public policy that is first and foremost in the best interest of the citizens of the United States at large.
Seriously, Roger Ailes: I released this statement as a video as a reminder of how photogenic I am. I’ll settle for $2 million a year.
I’m not a real fan of PolitiFact’s methods of determining truth from falsehoods. However, if PolitiFact says half of the statements made by GOP officials wrong, then I’d venture to say those false statements might even be higher…
Republicans’ claims are far more likely than Democrats’ to be rated false by the fact-checking site PolitiFact, according to a study released Tuesday.
Since January, PolitiFact has rated 52 percent of Republicans’ statements as mostly or entirely false, compared to just 24 percent of Democrats’ statements, the study found. In the first three weeks of May, amid controversies over the attacks in Benghazi, Libya and investigations at the Internal Revenue Service and the Department Of Justice, 60 percent of Republicans’ statements were rated as false, compared to 29 percent of those made by Democrats.
George Mason University’s Center for Media and Public Affairs, which conducted the study, looked at 100 claims, 46 made by Democrats and 54 by Republicans.
Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-Minn.) claim that the IRS runs a “huge national database” of personal details, for instance, got a “pants on fire” rating.
“While Republicans see a credibility gap in the Obama administration, PolitiFact rates Republicans as the less credible party,” George Mason University CMPA president Robert Lichter wrote in a release with the Tuesday report.
The center released similar findings last year when it compared the Obama and Romney campaigns, giving Obama higher marks on truthfulness.
The study is far from a scientific referendum on partisan honesty — as PolitiFact’s editor Bill Adair noted, the statements it chooses to check aren’t a representative sample of what either party is saying.
“PolitiFact rates the factual accuracy of specific claims; we do not seek to measure which party tells more falsehoods,” he told Beaujon. “The authors of this press release seem to have counted up a small number of our Truth-O-Meter ratings over a few months, and then drew their own conclusions.”
PolitiFact itself is no stranger to controversy, often from both sides of the aisle. The site annually causes chagrin with its “Lie of the Year” award. It gave that designation to Mitt Romney’s Jeep ad in 2012, and to the claim that Republicans voted to end Medicare in 2011, earning an “avalanche of criticism” for the latter.
n this March 16, 2013 file photo, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R- Minn., speaks at the 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Md. Bachmann said Wednesday, May 29, 2013, that she will not run for re-election in 2014.
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, a conservative firebrand and a favorite of tea party Republicans, said Wednesday she will not run for another term in the U.S. House.
Bachmann, who ran for the Republican presidential nomination last year, announced her decision in a video on her website.
“My decision was not influenced by any concerns about my being re-elected,” Bachmann said. She narrowly won a fourth term in 2012 over Democrat Jim Graves, a hotel chain founder who is running again in 2014.
Bachmann also said, “This decision was not impacted in any way by the recent inquiries into the activities of my former presidential campaign.” In January, a former Bachmann aide filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, claiming the candidate made improper payments to an Iowa state senator who was the state chairman of her 2012 presidential run. The aide, Peter Waldron, also accused Bachmann of other FEC violations.
Bachmann had given few clues she was considering leaving Congress. Her fundraising operation was churning out the regular pitches for the small-dollar donations that Bachmann corralled so well over the years, and she had an ad running on Twin Cities television talking about her role in opposing President Barack Obama’s health law.
Without the polarizing Bachmann on the ticket, Republicans could have an easier time holding a district that leans more heavily in the GOP direction than any other in Minnesota.
Graves said he thought Bachmann had “read the tea leaves.”
“The district is changing,” the Democrat said in an interview Wednesday with KARE-TV in Minneapolis. “They want somebody who really does have some business background and understands the economy and can get things done in Washington and back in the district.”
Bachmann, a vocal opponent of the Obama administration, promised her supporters, “I will continue to work overtime for the next 18 months in Congress defending the same Constitutional Conservative values we have worked so hard on together.”
As for her plans beyond Congress, she said, “There is no future option or opportunity, be it directly in the political arena or otherwise, that I won’t be giving serious consideration if it can help save and protect our great nation.”
A spokesman said Bachmann would not be available for interviews Wednesday.
Former Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) suggested that the Republican Party “ought to put a sign on the national committee doors that says ‘closed for repairs’ until New Year’s Day next year — and spend that time going over ideas and positive agendas.”
I’m in full agreement with Senator Snowe.
The president is doing nothing more than trying to fill four vacant seats on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Republican senators are fuming about President Barack Obama’s attempt to fill empty seats on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, charging him with “court-packing” and alleging that his push to confirm nominees is all politics.
But not only is Obama not “court-packing” — a term describing an attempt to add judges to a court with the goal of shifting the balance, not filling existing vacancies — but Republicans’ efforts to prevent Obama from appointing judges amount to their own attempt to tip the scales in their favor. What’s more, some of the GOP senators trying to prevent his nominees from advancing previously voted to fill the court when there was a Republican in the White House.
As it stands, the powerful D.C. Circuit has 11 seats, three of which are vacant. Obama has signaled plans to put forward nominees for all three open slots as soon as this week. But Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and other Republicans are pushing legislation that would eliminate those seats and keep the court where it is: with eight judges, four of whom were appointed by Democrats and four of whom were appointed by Republicans.
Grassley has argued that the court simply doesn’t need to have three more judges because it has a lighter workload than other circuit courts — a stance that Democrats say overlooks the fact that the court is second in stature only to the Supreme Court and takes on particularly complex cases. But Grassley has also suggested that Obama is trying to pack the court.
“I’m concerned about the caseload of this circuit and the efforts to pack it,” Grassley complained during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week, charging the administration — six times – with court-packing. Of course, Grassley was quickly corrected by a colleague, who said that court-packing isn’t about filling existing vacancies.
Still, Grassley isn’t alone in making these charges. During floor remarks last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) accused Democrats of plotting with the White House “to pack the D.C. Circuit with appointees,” and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) worried aloud that Democrats may “decide to play politics and seek — without any legitimate justification — to pack the D.C. Circuit with unneeded judges simply in order to advance a partisan agenda.”
