U.S. Politics: High Nunes or Russian to Judgement

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

  Nothing to see here. Move along folks, nothing to see.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

We are becoming a banana republic

[OldGimletEye]

@Swordfish

Well it depends on what you mean by “recent”.

Anyway, it would seem to me that a certain orange one tried to bully the Republican Party over a certain bill and didn’t work out for him.

Around 2006 or 2007, even some congressional Republicans were starting to question George Bush’s broad assertions of power as commander-in-chief in the armed forces. If I recall, both Voinovich and Lugar pushed back on Bush’s claims.Perhaps though, that was just a cynical attempt to save their own hides form an increasingly unpopular armed conflict and president. Don’t really know about that one.

In 1995, if I recall correctly, there was a bill in congress to repeal the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Interestingly enough, most of the Democrats voted against that bill, while most Republicans voted for it, in the House at least, and this was while Bill Clinton was in office.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was passed under Richard Nixon’s presidency, got quite a few Republican votes.

While were on the War Powers Resolution, both Graham and McCain I believe have always had a pretty consistent position that is not constitutional. Don’t agree with them on a lot concerning foreign policy stuff, but least on that question that haven’t just been playing team Republican.

During Vietnam, LBJ’s biggest critics tended to be Liberal Democrats.

Around 1952, with the Korean War still being fought, Harry Truman ordered steel mills to be seized and suggested that the 82nd Congress could pass a resolution, if it wanted to, endorsing the act. No resolution was forthcoming by the 82nd Congress, which I believe, was controlled by Democrats.

It was a Democratic Congress that rebuffed FDR’s court packing plan. And they vetoed him on other matters.

That is just some stuff, I think of right off the top of my head.

[Fragile Bird]

I watched CNN lay out a timeline of events with regard to Nunes, his visits to the White House, comments made by WH staff, comments made by Trump, Nunes speeches in the public committee meeting, comments made by other persons, and it all sounds like there was a whole lotta conspiring goin' on.

I haven't searched for an outline yet on the internet, but presumably someone is spelling it all out.

And yet Republicans have the nerve to demand investigations into the shipping of spent uranium to Russia, (which has already been investigated). funds received by the Clinton Foundation from Russians and the possibility they conspired with the Russians, investigate Podesta's trips to Panama (?????) and on and on and on.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I watched CNN lay out a timeline of events with regard to Nunes, his visits to the White House, comments made by WH staff, comments made by Trump, Nunes speeches in the public committee meeting, comments made by other persons, and it all sounds like there was a whole lotta conspiring goin' on.

I haven't searched for an outline yet on the internet, but presumably someone is spelling it all out.

I liked Colbert's breakdown.

 

[LongRider]

Raw Story has a timeline they put out yesterday and Mother Jones has one dated March 24.

I'm on my phone or I would link. I googled 'timeline Trump Russia' and they popped right up.

[The Anti-Targ]

Quote

FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday his agency makes its decisions on a nonpartisan basis and said he doesn't care about the political backlash of the choices he makes.

"I know that when I make a hard decision, a storm is going to follow," Comey said at the Intelligence and National Security Alliance Leadership dinner. "Honestly, I don't care."

He defended the FBI, which has been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans in the past year.

"We're not on anybody's side ever," Comey said.

Except for that one time, when you decided to investigate that presidential candidate 2 weeks out from an election on spurious grounds and ended up finding nothing. But the impression of smoke was created, and thus an assumption of fire was made. Did it make a difference to the outcome of the election? Hard to know, impossible to prove. But it does not pass the "non-partisan" sniff test.

 

[OldGimletEye]

http://www.regblog.org/2017/03/29/roberts-misguided-regulatory-accountability-act/

Quote

Many of the features of the Regulatory Accountability Act render it a disastrous piece of legislation for public health, safety, and the environment. By tying up essential safeguards in enormous amounts of red tape, the legislation would covertly undermine longstanding protections for child safety, food safety, auto safety, and other broadly shared values.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/behind-neil-gorsuchs-non-answers

Quote

th Bader Ginsburg, the diminutive liberal colossus of the Supreme Court, has built a distinguished record as a Justice, but her legacy as a nominee is more dubious. In her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, in 1993, she refused to answer most questions about how, if confirmed, she would rule. In an oft-quoted phrase, she vowed to give “no hints, no forecasts, no previews.” Nominees have invoked this stonewall ever since. Last week, Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s choice to fill the seat of the late Antonin Scalia, proved an especially ardent follower of what has come to be known as the Ginsburg rule.

 

Quote

 From his boyhood days as a Republican Senate page to his decades of volunteer work for G.O.P. candidates, Gorsuch has been a strong party loyalist. (Like many Republican pols, he refers to the “Democrat,” rather than the Democratic, Party.)

Okay, in the bigger picture of things, this is a very small thing.  Tiny really.

But, it seems to me that when it comes to the Republican Party, you really do have to play tit-for-tat games.

If Republicans want to refer to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party", then I think we ought to refer to the Republican Party as the "Idiot Party" or whatever. Of course, conservatives will start whining about the "lack of civility", but they should be told to go pound sand with their whining, as we just don't want to hear it.

Quote

His background also includes a dose of pro-corporate, deregulatory libertarianism, as reflected in his close relationship with the billionaire Philip Anschutz, a client turned mentor. A sampling of authoritarianism can be seen in Gorsuch’s service in George W. Bush’s Justice Department, where he helped craft a proposal for the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo. (The Supreme Court later ruled it unconstitutional.)

You really gotta like waterboard loving libertarians. It's libertarianism for corporations and the wealthy, while its authoritarianism for everyone else.

Quote

There’s social conservatism, too, evident in his one book, a critique of death-with-dignity laws and physician-assisted suicide. “All human beings are intrinsically valuable,” he wrote, “and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.” 

That's of course until they are actually born. Then at the point, they don't deserve a minimal level of healthcare.

Quote

His predilection for employers over employees is such that it yielded a circuit-court opinion of almost Gothic cruelty. When subzero temperatures caused a truck driver’s trailer brakes to freeze, he pulled over to the side of the road. After waiting three hours for help to arrive, he began to lose feeling in his extremities, so he unhitched the cab from the trailer and drove to safety. His employer fired him for abandoning company property. The majority in the case called the dismissal unjustified, but Gorsuch said that the driver was in the wrong.

Libertarians are always protecting your local libertarian feudal overlord. Everyone else can just piss off, evidently.

http://voxeu.org/article/economic-growth-us-tale-two-countries

Quote

First, our data show that the bottom half of the income distribution in the US has been completely shut off from economic growth since the 1970s. From 1980 to 2014, average national income per adult grew by 61% in the US, yet the average pre-tax income of the bottom 50% of individual income earners stagnated at about $16,000 per adult after adjusting for inflation.4 In contrast, income skyrocketed at the top of the income distribution, rising 121% for the top 10%, 205% for the top 1%, and 636% for the top 0.001% (see Figures 1 and 2.)

https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/monetary-policy-in-a-low-interest-rate-world/

Quote

In “Monetary policy in a low interest-rate world,” the Federal Reserve Board’s Michael T. Kiley and John M. Roberts, using standard economic models, find that rates could hit zero as much as 40 percent of the time—twice as often as predicted in work by others—according to standard economic models of the type used at the Federal Reserve and other central banks.

The constraint on monetary policy this would cause would make it harder for the Fed to achieve its 2 percent inflation objective and reach full employment. The authors’ analysis suggests that a monetary policy that tolerates inflation in good times near 3 percent, above its 2 percent long-run inflation target, may be necessary to bring inflation to 2 percent on average.

 

[denstorebog]

Oh, it's ON, motherfuckers.

It's really hard to tell which of these tweets are of the 'strategic ploy' variety, and which ones are of the 'whole administration now goes into damage control mode' variety. Looking forward to seeing Spicer either double down or walk this back later today.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Mexal

Quote

This doesn't make sense. I saw something about her going for NYC mayor but I haven't seen anything anywhere about her running for President again.

That's funny, because I haven't heard a single person mention her as a potential candidate for the mayor of NYC. 

Also, why has de Blasio become so unpopular?

@The Anti-Targ,

I agree, she won't run. I just find it annoying that people are suggesting that it she be an option worth considering. 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

14 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

Oh, it's ON, motherfuckers.

It's really hard to tell which of these tweets are of the 'strategic ploy' variety, and which ones are of the 'whole administration now goes into damage control mode' variety. Looking forward to seeing Spicer either double down or walk this back later today.

The Freedom Caucus' seats are fairly safe as a result of the GOP's 2010 gerrymandering stunt, having created insular pockets for their more ideologically extreme inner factions. 

[DMC]

10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Except for that one time, when you decided to investigate that presidential candidate 2 weeks out from an election on spurious grounds and ended up finding nothing. But the impression of smoke was created, and thus an assumption of fire was made. Did it make a difference to the outcome of the election? Hard to know, impossible to prove. But it does not pass the "non-partisan" sniff test.

 

Obviously Comey himself isn't "non-partisan" - one needs only to look at his employment history for that to be clear.  But I think he's also above all else narcissistic and attention-seeking.  Even before the October letter, he made the Hillary investigation all about him in his unprecedented press release/conference in July.  His "moral stands" against wiretapping and torture during the Bush era suggests he sees himself as the sheriff in a corrupt town of bandits.  All of this is actually promising IRT the Russia investigation.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

The Freedom Caucus' seats are fairly safe as a result of the GOP's 2010 gerrymandering stunt, having created insular pockets for their more ideologically extreme inner factions. 

They're not safe from getting primaried.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

They're not safe from getting primaried.

While that may be the case, 1) their incumbency status is a boon, 2) to their benefit, regardless of their reasons, they were responsible for helping to sink a nationally unpopular health care bill. It's a victory they can place in their cap and present to their constituents. 

[Maithanet]

22 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

The Freedom Caucus' seats are fairly safe as a result of the GOP's 2010 gerrymandering stunt, having created insular pockets for their more ideologically extreme inner factions. 

So, I hear this a lot that Republican seats are only vulnerable from getting primaried by an even more conservative Republican.  But I don't really understand why that would be.  If your district is 70% Republicans, why couldn't a mainstream "let's work with Trump and McConnell" Republican successfully oust a Freedom Caucus member?  (This isn't an attack on you, because it does seem to be the conventional wisdom, but I don't understand why).

For example in Kansas, Brownback destroyed the economy so completely that his extreme supporters are getting replaced by moderate Republicans who want to actually have things like schools and roads.  Hell, they even voted to expand Medicaid to Kansas*.  I'm hoping that will become more common nationwide, but I'm not holding my breath. 

* Brownback is expected to veto

[DMC]

Just now, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

While that may be the case, 1) their incumbency status is a boon, 2) to their benefit, regardless of their reasons, they were responsible for helping to sink a nationally unpopular health care bill. It's a victory they can place in their cap and present to their constituents. 

Agreed.  Depends on how popular Trump is within the party in 18 months though - and how much he wants to go after these guys as retribution.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

So, I hear this a lot that Republican seats are only vulnerable from getting primaried by an even more conservative Republican.  But I don't really understand why that would be.  If your district is 70% Republicans, why couldn't a mainstream "let's work with Trump and McConnell" Republican successfully oust a Freedom Caucus member?  (This isn't an attack on you, because it does seem to be the conventional wisdom, but I don't understand why).

For example in Kansas, Brownback destroyed the economy so completely that his extreme supporters are getting replaced by moderate Republicans who want to actually have things like schools and roads.  Hell, they even voted to expand Medicaid to Kansas.  I'm hoping that will become more common nationwide, but I'm not holding my breath. 

In conventional thinking, it is because you can depict the "moderate" (i.e. the candidate who is simply less rightwing) as a RINO: i.e. "not a true conservative." And so 'RINO' has become its own conservative pejorative that often gets thrown around alongside "cuckservative." 

[Maithanet]

31 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

In conventional thinking, it is because you can depict the "moderate" (i.e. the candidate who is simply less rightwing) as a RINO: i.e. "not a true conservative." And so 'RINO' has become its own conservative pejorative that often gets thrown around alongside "cuckservative." 

Yeah, I guess it is just hard for me to understand why someone would simultaneously want Trump for President and want a Representative who will sabotage all of Trump's policy initiatives. 

EDIT:  Although it is quite possible that unless Trump's popularity improves, Republicans won't have much to fear from him in 2018. 

[Fez]

59 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

* Brownback is expected to veto

And he officially has. His excuse? The bill doesn't defund Planned Parenthood.

The bill very nearly passed both chambers with veto-proof majorities, which is amazing considering how massively Republicans outnumber Democrats. I wouldn't be surprised if there's at least an attempt at an override; not sure if the extra votes needed are there though.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

They're not safe from getting primaried.

Especially if they get blamed for not repealing the ACA.