Still Think the Republican Party Isn't Self-Destructing?

If anyone out there isn't convinced the Republican Party isn't in full-on self-destruct mode, check out these few headlines from yesterday afternoon---one day--alone. This first one knocked me out.

GOP Campaigns Will Reportedly Meet to Discuss Taking Debates Out of RNC Control

Read that again. Then think about it.

The GOP---the Republicans--are apparently going to have a meeting to discuss taking the organization and control of the presidential debates out of the control of the Republican National Committee.

Folks, that is stunning. And they can't blame it on having a token black man at the head of the RNC any more, either.

That is incredible, by itself. But there's more.

Mark Levin Trashes 'Incompetent' Reince Priebus: 'Should Be Fired!'

This has been going on for some time and I've noted and written on this before. The Right Wingers, whether in religion or Christianity or politics and government have to increasingly prove themselves the most extreme, the "furthest right/Right", the most fervent, the "closest to God."

It's disgusting. It's crazy and they "out crazy" each other doing it.

I show this next one because it shows how really awful the Republican candidates for the highest office in the nation and arguably the most powerful nation in the world really are.

Trump on Future Debates: 'Maybe Every Moderator Should Show That They Vote Republican'

And even Republicans are aware of how badly Republicans are doing and how they're handling their own campaigns for the White House.

Lindsey Graham on RNC's Handling of Debates: 'This Is Getting Pretty Bad'

This last one isn't from yesterday but it shows where we, as a nation, have been going in recent years. And thank goodness.

Fewer People Identify As Republicans Now

It's enough to give a person hope.

Why Congress and so, America, is dysfunctional

Thank you to all Republicans in Congress.

Jobs/infrastructure bill?  Oh, hell no.

President Obama, yesterday, to the Republican Congress

Not rocket science

A History Lesson on Executive Orders

It gets so tiresome.

All the calls for this president to be---I saw it yesterday---"empeached."

It's so ridiculous.

He's a Constitutional scholar, for pity's sake.  I think he knows what is and is not "Constitutional."

And now, today, after the State of the Union speech last night and after President Obama's desperate but necessary threat to issue more Executive Orders since, after all, he's dealing with one of the most truly "do-nothing" Congresses in our nation's history, it seems a little history lesson is in order.  Here's the truth, kiddos:

Obama: Fewest Executive Orders in Over 100 Years

Yes, read it and weep:

A bit from the article:

We've crunched the numbers, and as you can see in our handy graph, above, Obama has issued fewer executive orders per day in office than conservative heroes like George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Calvin Coolidge. In fact, you have to go all the way back to Grover Cleveland in the nineteenth century to find a president who has issued executive orders at a lower rate than Obama.

And yet, we have the following lately:

Kentucky senator Rand Paul has accused Obama of acting "like a king or a monarch." South Carolina congressman Jeff Duncan declared last week, "We live in a republic, not a dictatorship." Mike Huckabee proclaimed that the White House has "nothing but contempt for the Constitution" and seeks to "trump ... the checks and balances of power in which no branch could act unilaterally." Texas congressman Steve Stockman has already threatened impeachment.

Way to put things in perspective, guys.  Congress won't and doesn't do their job so they blame someone else for going forward, doing something, getting things done--for the people--and doing some work.

Bloody hypocrites.

As though demanding a more livable, fair, minimum wage is somehow a horrible thing.

So as of yesterday, here's John Boehner's and the Republican Party's response to this "outrage":

John Boehner Threatens President Obama With Impeachment 

On Tuesday morning, at a breakfast discussing the State of the Union address later in the evening, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) told reporters that President Obama is on dangerous ground on his use of executive orders. Essentially, Boehner issued a veiled threat stating that if the President thinks he can enact more change by circumventing Congress and utilizing executive orders, then Obama could be facing a backlash from Congressional Republicans. While he did not overtly state it, it seemed pretty clear he was talking about impeachment.

“We’re just not going to sit here and let the President trample all over us. This idea that he’s just going to go it alone, I have to remind him we do have a constitution. And the Congress writes the laws, and the President’s job is to execute the laws faithfully. And if he tries to ignore this he’s going to run into a brick wall.”

Actually, Mr. Boehner, given how little Congress did in the last session of your up-to-now august body, we expect that's precisely what you'll do. That is, sit there and do nothing.

You scheduled 97 total days of "work" this year in Congress.

Oh, yeah.  I think you'll do nothing.

Bloody hypocrites.

Links:

Obama To Raise Minimum Wage For Federal Contract Workers

The Republican agenda

 

How is any of that good for America?

 

 

 

Where the Republicans--and we--are now

After that horrible vote from the House yesterday...

This is where our hope lies, in how recognizably stupid this all is.

Great question: on the modern day Republican Party (guest post)

I ask you:

What Exactly Do Republicans Stand For?

Trying to figure out exactly what the Republican Party stands for has been something I’ve pondered for quite a while.

If you listen to their rhetoric, the answer is easy.  However, looking at reality, it completely contradicts nearly everything they say they support.

They don’t stand for freedom, as they continue to support legislation that denies basic freedoms for homosexuals, women and people who follow religions other than Christianity.

They don’t stand for small government, as they’ve recently supported constitutional amendments that define marriage and redefine what constitutes being an American citizen.  Not to mention they were the party which orchestrated one of the most intrusive piece of legislation our nation has ever seen—the Patriot Act.

They don’t stand for a fiscally conservative government, especially considering there has yet to be a single Republican president since Eisenhower, who served from 1953-1961, who has balanced the budget.  In fact, every Republican president since Eisenhower didn’t just increase our deficits— they set records for growth in our national debt.

They don’t stand for Christian values, because Jesus Christ stood for love, hope, compassion, acceptance, helping those less fortunate than ourselves, not judging others and forgiveness—traits which the Republican Party seems to strongly oppose.

They don’t support...our military, as Republican Presidents have frequently sent our military into pointless wars where hundreds of thousands have been killed, or severely wounded to the point where they will suffer from these disabilities for the rest of their lives.

They don’t stand for constitutional values, as they frequently support violating those constitutionally-upheld laws which they disagree with.

It’s really easy to come up with a nice slogan, some rhetoric or a tagline that sounds good—hell anyone can do it. But I was always taught that actions speak louder than words.

In one breath conservatives say they’re for a fiscally conservative small government which protects our freedoms, yet their actions completely contradict that.

So looking at those actions, I really don’t have a clue what it is these people believe in.

_________________________________________________________

Except the wealthy. Supporting the wealthy and corporations.  They certainly have that down pat.

Truly, which side do you support?

It's a great question.

With only one obvious answer.

That said, we still need to end campaign contributions so our representatives and their legislation aren't continually bought in Washington in either political party, I'll grant you that.

Link: American Voice of Reason

Rep. John Boehner, hypocrite extraordinaire

Channel surfing a few days ago, I saw where Representative John Boehner gave a speech to the National Association of Manufacturers on the economy.  Here's a link to the original:

“We Are A Nation of Builders”: Congressman Boehner Delivers

Her's video for it (if you can stomach it):

Speaker Boehner Remarks on Manufacturing

In it, he complains, at length, repeatedly, in different ways, on how slow and weak our economy is.

Seriously.  He actually does.

When I heard it, when I heard him whining about how poor our economy is, part of me wanted to laugh, sure, but far more of me wanted to scream.

For Rep. Boehner or ANY Republican to complain about a weak US economy and not enough growth or jobs would, in fact, be laughable, if it weren't so tragic and, in the case of the Republicans, hypocritical.

Not once, since 2008, since Democratic Party President Obama took office have any Republicans introduced even ONE bill in our Congress to create jobs. Not one.

Not one jobs bill, not one construction bill, not one bill proposed to update our infrastructure nationwide which, I think it's safe to say we're finding is taking us down a decidedly bad path both for that lack of jobs but also for the highway maintenance and updating and expanding we need.

I say again, we all know all too well how badly Missouri needs our Interstate 70 improved and updated, and that's from Illinois and St. Louis on the East, all the way to Kansas and Kansas City on the West.

And then, of course, there are the two bridges that collapsed in the last year--the first in Minneapolis and the other in Washington State.

Yet he--Mr. Boehner--has the nerve, the unmitigated gall to lament on and complain of a lack of jobs in the country and the weak economy.

What chutzpah.

The putz.

The United States of Inequality

“A petty, narcissistic, pridefully ignorant politics has come to dominate and paralyze our government, while millions of people keep falling through the gaping hole that has turned us into the United States of Inequality.”

--Bill Moyers, American journalist and public commentator. He served as White House Press Secretary in the Johnson administration from 1965 to 1967

Links:  Bill Moyers Essay: The United States of Inequality

Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com

Bill Moyers - Wikipedia

Jobs and infrastructure both possible for America

If only the Republican Congress would let it happen.

The Republicans suddenly, amazingly admit we have no big debt crisis after all

The heads must be exploding all across America today, from Washington, D.C., out. I know mine certainly is.  Check out what came from the Sunday morning news programs today. First there's this:

John Boehner Tells ABC He Trusts Obama, Agrees Debt Is 'Not An Immediate Problem'

House Speaker John Boehner downplayed the national debt as a major problem for the country during his appearance this morning on ABC's This Week. Boehner told fill-in host Martha Raddatz that not only does he think the debt is not an immediate threat but that he trusts the president and that "they're trying to bridge some big differences."

And then closely followed by this one:

Paul Ryan Tells CBS' Bob Schieffer 'We Do Not Have A Debt Crisis'

Congressman Paul Ryan downplayed concerns that the United States is in the midst of a debt crisis on Face The Nation this morning by saying that the country hasn't arrived there yet because it is buoyed by factors unique to America. 

What on God's green Earth is going on in and with the Republican Party? First they say we're going to hell with debt and now their two leaders come out today, this morning, and say that's not the case at all. THEN WHY ARE THEY PUTTING US THROUGH THIS SEQUESTER??

What in the world is with the Repubs right now?  I can't believe Boehner and Ryan could or would both come out and say we're not that bad on debt right now since they've been screaming about it for what? years? All of a sudden, these people both sound like and agree with economist Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, who have been saying this FOR YEARS. Sheesh.  Hypocrisy, anyone?

If this is all true, then are we surely not, then, now very close to having these people compromise and get a budget for the nation?

I doubt it seriously but I certainly hope so and it seems as though, with these positions on both their parts, that's where we should be--on the cusp of getting a budget from Congress.

I wouldn't put money on it but geez, what other conclusion can you come to?

You have to excuse me now, I have to go do something for my exploded  skull.

On the State of the Union today

From Robert Reich, economist, professor, author:

"On Thursday, congressional Republicans will introduce a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget. They're not doing this because they think it will be enacted (it doesn't stand a chance in the Senate, and Obama would veto it anyway). They're doing it to perpetuate their biggest lie: that the federal budget deficit is responsible for the still-anemic recovery. That's the lie they'll continue to tell over the next 7 weeks as they drag the nation through another set of showdowns over sequestration (the fiscal cliff on March 1), continuing resolutions to fund the government (running out later in March), and the debt limit (end of March).


The opposite is true: Continued cutbacks in government spending, and tax increases on the middle class and working poor (such as the Social Security tax increase at the start of January, as well as sales-tax increases in 16 states), are robbing the economy of the demand it needs when... consumers are still unable to provide it.

Republicans have been telling the Big Lie that the budget deficit is to blame for our economic problems for more than two decades -- even though Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were far more responsible for running up the tab than either Bill Clinton (under whose administration the budget was finally balanced and put into surplus) or Barack Obama (who inherited a fiscal mess and has now got the deficit down to 5.3 percent of GDP).

They want the public to believe the Big Lie because it fits in with their hate-the-government ideology, and enables them to whittle it down, especially programs the middle class and working poor depend on -- including the two programs they've despised more than any others because they're so popular: Medicare and Social Security. President Obama mustn't let them. We mustn't let them."

We need to support and fight for this, instead: 

Tax Fairness Act

A flashback, updated (and tongue-in-cheek)

I'm so old, I remember when this came out.

Budget negotiations in Washington devolving

President Obama warns today that failure to get these budget negotiations done and agreed on will keep Seniors in the country from getting their Social Security checks in August. Ouch. In the meantime, Senate Minority Leader Mitch "I'm in it for me" McConnell and House Majority Leader John "I don't have enough time to tan" Boehner are increasing their criticisms of the President. We should have seen this coming. Representative Boehner, however said the dumbest and most untrue thing of all, however, when he said the specter of the nation's credit default is "his problem", meaning President Obama's. To which I'd like to remind him that it absolutely is not. These clowns need to stop playing "chicken" or Russian roulette or whatever game they think they're playing with the nation--all of us out here---and our credit standing, the buffoons. Fortunately, there's this: "U.S. business leaders pressed Obama and congressional leaders to act swiftly to raise the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt ceiling -- which caps how much the United States can borrow -- or risk derailing a sputtering economic recovery and endangering the global financial system." I think this may likely mean that President Obama has them by their sensitive parts on this. Here's hoping. Links: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-lawmakers-fall-short-debt-deal-045247357.html; http://news.yahoo.com/mcconnell-boehner-increase-criticism-obama-162345932.html

Republicans: get on with the country's business

Because people still deny it, we needed--and still need--health care reform.  We truly needed the "public option" so we could truly get and keep insurance premiums and  health care costs lower.

I post this now because the Republicans are talking about repealing the health care reform we got this year.

I say again, we have the most expensive health care system in the world, literally, and yet we're ranked 37th--behind Costa Rica--in mortality rates.  You're more likely to live longer in Costa Rica and 35 other countries than here in the US.

We needed change.  We needed this reform.  We've gotten it, watered-down as it is.  It shouldn't now be taken away.

This next Congress needs to work and focus on our problems at hand, not on repealing health care reform.

This Congress working with this President?

Did you hear about this today?

John Boehner and Mitch McConnell cancelled the planned meeting President Obama had requested this week with these guys "because they were too busy and would hold it later this month".   Check it out:

WASHINGTON – The White House has postponed a meeting with Democratic and Republican congressional leaders to Nov. 30 after top Republicans said they had a scheduling conflict.


It seems the Republicans may have originally agreed to this day and time and only later changed their minds but I don't know.  I can't verify that.  Hopefully this doesn't presage how they intend to treat this President.


It seems to indicate that these guys have little or no respect for this President and indicates no willingness to work with him for the benefit of the country.  They were too busy to meet with one of the most powerful men in the world.  Right.

Additionally, it's apparent the Republicans have every intention of killing a new arms control treaty with Russia--which we, the US, and the world needs and the Soviets want:  "the chief Senate Republican negotiator moved to block a vote on the pact, one of the White House’s top foreign policy goals, in the lame-duck session of Congress. "


It looks as though we can expect nothing constructive from these gentlemen separately or together, or from this next Congress or from our government, as I suspected, expected and predicted--probably for the next 2 years.

Sad.  Pitiful.  Ugly, really.


Links:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/world/europe/17start.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a2
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101117/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_congress

It's all the Right Wing Crazies vs. all the rest of us

That's right, especially now, since the extreme Right Wing Republicans will be taking over the House of Representatives next year. 

We need to get back to where we took only serious and intelligent people seriously and left all the crazies out in the cold.

I miss fairness, intelligence and sanity in this country, in the opposition.  Especially since William F. Buckley is gone and Fox "News" isn't.

Enjoy your Sunday, y'all.

"You won't have Pelosi to kick around any more..."

Okay, now that that's over with, who will the Right demonize now?  They won't have the smiling feminine face to foist all their hate on.

But wait!  That's right!

They still have the Black guy!

Silly me!

(With thanks and apologies to the memory of Richard Milhouse Nixon).

Whither, Republicans and Tea Party politicians?

Driving around yesterday, for work, naturally I had NPR on the radio and it was virtually entirely coverage of the previous night's election, again, naturally.

I'm on overload, I think.  It doesn't take long to get there.

Repeatedly, though, I heard that John Boehner and his Republicans in the House want to cut federal spending in order to create jobs.

And I'm all "You gotta' be kidding."

How does that work?

What economist ever told anyone, let alone them, that that could or would work?

Where are they going to cut spending?

You know they won't touch one of the biggest fatcats in the budget--the one that needs to be cut--and that is Defense Spending.

They aren't going to get us out of Iraq or Afghanistan or Japan or Italy (why are we still in Italy?) or Germany or anywhere else.

And sure, it was just announced that we're about to spend over one-half trillion dollars (511 billion dollars, to be specific) to expand the Kabul, Afghanistan embassy but they won't suggest cutting that, we know that.

So forget all that, right off.

Let's try to think the way they do, difficult and/or painful as that might be.  What would they want to cut?

And of course the answer comes up right away! 

SOCIAL PROGRAMS!!   Of course!!

Cut welfare!  Cut Social Security!  Cut anything "soft-headed" that those pesky Liberals and "Lefties" might like, want, value or trust!  Sure!  That makes sense!

But since when would cutting ANY of those things lead to more work and jobs elsewhere?

I thought if you maybe tried to fix our infrastructure (highways, bridges, sewers, etc.), that that might create jobs. 

And, of course, that's what the last Congress and this president were trying to do.

But no, cut government!  Cut government spending!

Tell me, anyone, what do you cut in this government's budget to create jobs?

I just don't see it.

These people know we're in a deep recession, right? 

You think they read the papers?

Link:  http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/11/03-5