It’s a One-Time Thing, It Just Happens A Lot

Last night’s vote was strange. Boehner has a split caucus of 151 who voted no, and 85 who joined the Democrats for a majority. That should mean that he’s in line to be replaced, but even though his majority leader (Eric the White) and majority whip (Kevin McCarthy) voted “No”, who else wants to be saddled with 150 or so dead-enders who won’t vote for anything? Last night was a preview of coming attractions. A day after the next deadline, the Senate’s bill will be jammed through the House with an almost completely intact Democratic caucus voting with 80 or 100 or however many Republicans are still interested in not destroying the country.

In the meantime, almost nothing else will happen. For example, the House was supposed to vote on Hurricane Sandy relief before ending their session: no vote happened last night.

Another way of looking at it is that we have a third party in DC. It has 150 votes in the House and 5 in the Senate. They stand for nothing, are led by nobody, and will obstruct everything, and we’re stuck with them for at least two more years.






122 replies
  1. 1
    4tehlulz says:

    If Obama would stop this spineless “governing” and start imposing his will like real democratic leaders do, this wouldn’t be a problem.

  2. 2
    vhh says:

    Most of the 150 GOP obstructionists are from the former Confederate States. Another name for them is Traitors.

  3. 3
    Robin G. says:

    I’m actually relieved we’ve still got some sane GOPers to peel off. (Sane being a relative term jn this case.) I really thought they’d all glom together at the end. Though I suppose it’s possible that McConnell left a lot of horses’ heads in a lot of beds yesterday. (I would if I were him.)

  4. 4
    aimai says:

    I’ve come around to agreeing with the President who apparently believed that there was simply no way to get the Republicans to govern at all–leverage or no leverage. They are incapable of voting on anything for the good of the country. Going over the fiscal cliff would have raised more revenue (technically) but none of the other stuff would have gotten done and it wouldn’t have been done after January 3rd either because the Republicans, in or out of congress, have zero interest in actually working or voting.

    aimai

  5. 5
    Cargo says:

    The party of Ron Swanson, working in government badly because they hate government and want to prove it doesn’t work.

  6. 6
    Walker says:

    @aimai:

    Which is why “kicking the can” is a viable strategy. The only solution is to get more sane people in Congress the next go around, and limit the damage until that happens.

  7. 7
    Schlemizel says:

    I’m not buying the “and we’re stuck with them for at least two more years.” part of your statement. AS long as the CDs are done up the way they are today we are stuck with them for another decade AT LEAST. Maybe longer. The only thing that would change that would be a huge shift in voting patterns and if they have not figured it out yet I don’t think they will any time soon.

  8. 8

    I don’t know that they’re “led by nobody,” but then again, I don’t see who the hell could be leading them, especially after DeMint quits the Senate.

    Mike Lee seems to like his chances at being something of a leader of this nihilistic movement. My reading could be wrong but I think DeMint left in part because he now knew the succession was safe, i.e. there was someone who would carry on his legacy of obstructionism at all costs.

    Or maybe it’s early and I need coffee. Open to that possibility as well.

  9. 9
    Cassidy says:

    But, but, but BOTH SIDES DO IT! WORSE THAN BUSH! HE SOLD US OUT!

    Seriously, how dare you lay the responsibility on the House when a perfectly good Nig(clang) black man Democratice POTUS can be blamed?

  10. 10
    comrade scott's agenda of rage says:

    The 85 Reps who voted for it: you can betcher ass that primary opponents are already lining up against those who will be in the next Congress.

    The only way the next Congress will be “better” is if Dems regain control of the House. Otherwise it’ll be deja vu all over again.

  11. 11
    J.D. Rhoades says:

    @Cargo:

    The party of Ron Swanson, working in government badly because they hate government and want to prove it doesn’t work.

    Except Ron’s funny. These guys, not so much.

  12. 12
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @aimai: on the other hand, the relatively strong number of Republicans who voted for the thing suggested to me that there may be more people on that side willing to engage at all constructively than I had begun to suspect. Then again, I think I read in one of the earlier threads that a decent number of the Republicans who voted for it were on the verge of retirement. (And I had wondered if that might be a factor in why anyone would prefer to deal with this Congress rather than the next one — fewer people worrying actively about their next election.)

  13. 13
    piratedan says:

    @J.D. Rhoades: c’mon JD, despite the complete idiocy of what he says, there’s no denying that Louie Gohmert is indeed funny. Scary that he makes votes deciding on policy in any way shape or form, but he’s our go-to guy when it comes to demonstrating about the rampant village idiocy that is shot thru the ranks of the GOP.

  14. 14
    c u n d gulag says:

    HUZZAH! ! !

    The Union forces “won” the 2nd Battle of Bullsh*t Run!

    Now, on to DebtCeilingburg.

  15. 15
    MattF says:

    There’s an interesting graphic in the NYT showing the House vote:

    http://politics.nytimes.com/co.....f=politics

    Quick read: There are some arguably ‘sane’ Republicans in PA, NY, NJ, CA, and IL. The South is a big zero. Not a surprise, I suppose.

  16. 16
    c u n d gulag says:

    @vhh:
    Aka: Secesh, and/or Johnny Reb.

  17. 17
    aimai says:

    @FlipYrWhig: I guess I think that absent a strong leader (and Boehner is not a strong leader) and a unified Republican Caucus there’s no real way to deal with those outlying Republican “centrists.” Obama’s problem with Boehner all the way along is that he’s an incredibly weak leader who is, in addition, like the rest of his party constitutionally unwilling to deal honestly in negotiations. Not only could he not promise to bring his caucus along (losing Plan B) but he and they consistently go back on previously agreed upon goals, votes, and agreements. Whether there are some Republicans who are reasonable or not isn’t even an issue if their leader won’t tilt towards their presumed goals and fights tooth and nail on behalf of his craziest membership–which Boehner did, ably, until forced to the wall.

    aimai

  18. 18
    JPL says:

    @vhh: Even though I live in GA, I think income taxes on the middle class should raise in our state. It’s only fair since our representatives supposedly support our wishes.
    The NJ republicans should caucus with the dems because the house ignored their wishes for Hurricane Sandy relief funds.

  19. 19
    RP says:

    It will be interesting to see how this is covered in the media and the blogs. your point about the third party is far more significant than the actual terms of the deal (which are really good for the Dems IMO). We just saw
    – A huge blow to the Hastert rule.
    – A third of the GOP breaking off to vote with the Dems and for tax increases.
    – Two thirds of the house GOP rejecting their counterparts in the Senate and their Speaker.

    Pretty significant development. Potentially a turning point in American political history.

  20. 20
    Feudalism Now! says:

    Nope. The Nihilist GOP is still part and parcel of the Boehner rump. There wille be fewer GoP votes next time, Nancy Smash will have to do the heavy whipping to maintain Dem solidarity to get legislation passed. The whole game is to break the notion of an effective government. Both sides do it is the battle cry of small government anarchists. If you are losing the ability to run the show, burn it all down and see if you can rig it in your favor next time.

  21. 21
    Ash Can says:

    I still think Cantor is dumb enough to want the gig, so I still expect to see something at least mildly entertaining happen tomorrow. Nevertheless, I do expect Boehner to retain the Speaker’s chair after seeing how things shook out last night. All of the reps vote, right? I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Nancy promised Boehner some Dem support for retaining his position in return for ditching the Hastert Rule.

  22. 22
    MattF says:

    @Ash Can: This was actually Cantor returning to form. Insider question: Who leaked Cantor’s remarks to the closed Republican caucus meeting yesterday?

  23. 23
    JPL says:

    @MattF: Did the PA republicans realize that gerrymandered seats only help so much?

  24. 24
    amk says:

    If the dems and boner can continue to flip 40 to 50 repubs in the votes that matter, (yes, it’s a big if), then the rest of the teabagging clowns can continue holding their breath. Who cares?

  25. 25
    Smiling Mortician says:

    @MattF: That is interesting. In my state (Washington) the republicans aren’t known for being particularly sane, but they all voted yes. The only no votes came from dems.

  26. 26
    dr. bloor says:

    @RP: He may or may not want to, but Boehner now has a lot more latitude to dump the Hastert rule after calling Cantor’s bluff.

  27. 27

    @Ash Can:

    That’s what I was thinking yesterday. The part of me that appreciates a good political satire would love it if Boehner was re-elected Speaker with the support of a Democratic caucus.

    I’m not sure if it will happen. Boehner’s probably pissed off enough Dems on a personal level. But she could offer qualified support if he promised to cooperate with them. On the other hand, while his Speakership might be secure, he’d most likely be looking at a well-funded primary challenge and his official caucus would be waiting with the knives out.

  28. 28
    JPL says:

    Norquist said that the republicans who voted for the tax increase, technically did not break his pledge. In other words, he still thinks he is a player.

  29. 29

    According to Andrea Tantaros (the replacement wing nut radio show for Ingraham on my local station) Cantor voted for this bill. I could have sworn that MJ said this morning that Cantor voted no. Proof yet again that the wing nuts can’t even get their outrage right.

  30. 30
    Linda Featheringill says:

    @FlipYrWhig: #11

    On the other hand, the relatively strong number of Republicans who voted for the thing suggested to me that there may be more people on that side willing to engage at all constructively than I had begun to suspect. Then again, I think I read in one of the earlier threads that a decent number of the Republicans who voted for it were on the verge of retirement.

    According to my list, there are 40 lame duck Republicans in the House. I don’t know how they voted on this bill. But even if they all voted for the bill, that still leaves us with at least 45 or so who might be a little amenable to cooperation.

  31. 31
    Snarki, child of Loki says:

    I’m sure that a significant fraction of the Repugs that voted for the bill figure they can use Romney’s campaign strategery (i.e, MOAR LYING) to escape the consequences with GOP primary voters (i.e., MORONS)

    As for having to wait 2 years for any change, maybe, maybe not.

    Scandals big and nasty enough to force out GOP members? I’m sure there is PLENTY of dirt, but with Dave “Diaper Boy” Vitter in the caucus, it really raises the bar.

    Small plane crashes? Drone strikes on armed terrorist traitor insurgents? An accidental shoot-out at an NRA event? One can but hope…

  32. 32
    balconesfault says:

    Look at that NY Times map – where were Republicans voting for the measure?

    It’s not ideology – it’s wind power. The Texas Panhandle, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Illinois, eastern Washington and Oregon, these are places where there’s a big backlog of potential wind projects that have been stalled out because of Boehner’s refusal to allow a vote on the extension of the renewable energy Production Tax Credit. These were Republicans who were finally given the opportunity to bring some bacon that was much desired by their constituencies home, and they jumped on it.

  33. 33
    Peregrinus says:

    @Ash Can:

    That’s what I was thinking yesterday. The part of me that appreciates a good political satire would love it if Boehner was re-elected Speaker with the support of a Democratic caucus.

    I’m not sure if it will happen. Boehner’s probably pissed off enough Dems on a personal level. But she could offer qualified support if he promised to cooperate with them. On the other hand, while his Speakership might be secure, he’d most likely be looking at a well-funded primary challenge and his official caucus would be waiting with the knives out.

    (Reposted because my earlier one had a different nym. Requesting deletion of it now.)

  34. 34
    Napoleon says:

    Boehner has a split caucus of 151 who voted no, and 85 who joined the Democrats for a majority. That should mean that he’s in line to be replaced . . .

    What if that was the plan? Boehner polls his caucus and finds a majority are more then fine with the plan, so he brings it to the floor where they vote no (which Boehner realized they would do, that was the plan) while it gets passed with Dem fingerprints all over it?

  35. 35
    aimai says:

    I’m wondering if the NE Republican party (such as it is) can recover from having the Sandy issue thrown in their faces this way? How many New ENgland/NY and NJ republicans are left at this point and will they all flip in 2014 given this spurning of their issues? Can Pelosi and Obama approach them and flip them in the interim? Would it make any difference?

    aimai

  36. 36
    Ash Can says:

    @JPL: Lol! Actually, that sounds more like Norquist realizing he’s losing his position of influence, and is flailing to retain it (“I meant for that to happen! Really I did!”).

  37. 37
    Peregrinus says:

    @aimai:

    Peter King, among others, isn’t going anywhere, and the Republicans in New York will always have my part of the state (the west) to carry them through any momentary difficulties attracting a downstate base.

    As far as New England, though, I think you’re right about their chances. Except maybe for New Hampshire.

  38. 38
    dedc79 says:

    I think the numbers are actually worse. A good bunch of the Republicans who voted yes just did so because they’re expecting a whole new fight on spending where they expect to have more leverage. The third party you’re talking about has closer to 200 votes in the House.

  39. 39
    comrade scott's agenda of rage says:

    @Feudalism Now!:

    The whole game is to break the notion of an effective government. Both sides do it is the battle cry of small government anarchists.

    This. Orange Julius may or may not be an effective leader but that issue is irrelevant to strategic goals of the Repups. Remember, first Obama term the goal was to make him a one-term president so “NO!” was the answer to everything.

    Now the goal is to make him an ineffectual two-term president and wreck the economy so as to set the stage for a massive Repup comeback in 2016 for the Presidency.

    I simply don’t see how anything’s changed on their part: we are dealing with economic terrorists, No-Nothings and racists. The election results haven’t changed that basic dynamic.

  40. 40
    Morbo says:

    @MattF: They need to update their congressional district maps. I was pretty blown away that our TP representative was a “yes” vote.

  41. 41
    Napoleon says:

    @Napoleon:

    PS, two things in support of my hypothesis. This first one I do not have a link to and forget where I saw it but in the last couple of weeks I saw some tea bagging Rep Congressman talking about Plan B and he actually said he thought it should have been passed but the jackass had actually voted against it. Relatedly David Frum recently had a piece on how the Republicans are caught in the prisoners dilemma, which actually would explain why the person I mention above could both vote against something yet state that it should have been passed. I think that is what you saw last night.

  42. 42
    Palli says:

    @aimai:
    Executive Orders

  43. 43
    Ash Can says:

    @aimai: I’m sure it couldn’t hurt to at least make them more amenable to cooperation down the road. Given the current state of the House, I’m sure that Obama, Pelosi et al. want all the votes they can get.

  44. 44
    quannlace says:

    Eric Cantor is a sociopath. That is all.

    This is the same guy who wanted to refuse Federal aid to tornado victims unless cuts were made to Social Security.

  45. 45
    xian says:

    @JPL: so when he predicted last week that taxes weren’t going to go up, he meant against the expiration-baseline? How convenient…

  46. 46
    Donut says:

    They stand for nothing, are led by nobody, and will obstruct everything, and we’re stuck with them for at least two eight more years.

    FTFY. Maybe this’ll be fixed after the next Census.

  47. 47
    BlueDWarrior says:

    Part of the problem I have with this scenario is that a lot of people are going to suffer because a we are in a situation where gridlock exacerbates the problem.

    But a lot of people (many times the same people who get the most hurt) say “Hurr, Government Bad, Gridlock Good”

    It’s like they want to stick that fork in the electrical socket, and when they get electrocuted, we all do as well…

  48. 48
    Elie says:

    @Feudalism Now!:

    You have that right — along with Aimai… the whole purpose of the Republican right wing — even as disorganized and leaderless as it is right now — is to continuously undermine any effective governance. They will do that to 1) cripple the current system and 2) replace it with new law of the jungle that institutionally favors their priorities. We clearly saw what they want the US to look like during the last election — a fascist white people only state that caters only to the wealthy and would let anyone who is weak fall into a ditch and stay there. The only justifiable federal expenditure in their world (besides graft and payoffs) is for the military.

    No one can say that they don’t know what the Republicans want. It is crystal clear. The left progressives that keep thinking that if we hold out for perfection and forego these imperfect wins, we will end up with nirvana are bigger fools than the right wing. You cannot truly negotiate that way with terrorists – and that is what these folks are.

  49. 49
    Kip the Wonder Rat says:

    @Linda Featheringill: The bill passed with 44 more votes than needed. I don’t know what to make of that, other than it suggests that not ALL of the votes required horse-head-under-blanket offers from leadership.

  50. 50
    Elie says:

    @BlueDWarrior:

    Part of what is needed is for the left NOT to echo the language of the disaffected right wing. If they also keep screaming about how bad the government is, then we perpetuate that perception. In fact, our government does a lot of things right… I thank the Lord everyday cause my Mom and other relatives count on social security and Medicare…

  51. 51
    quannlace says:

    Small plane crashes? Drone strikes on armed terrorist traitor insurgents? An accidental shoot-out at an NRA event? One can but hope…

    Oh please, don’t give the conspiracy crazies the slightest bit of ammunition. They still think Bretbart was murdered by Obama with a frozen bullet.

  52. 52
    jp7505a says:

    It has taken 550+ days since the last hostage drama to achieve the following
    1. Only 0.7 percent of households will see their income taxes rise
    2. 77 percent of wage earners will see their payroll taxes increase.
    3. We are 60 some days from the next hostage drama

    What is wrong with this picture. well for the 1% really nothing. For the rest of us ……….

  53. 53
    Kip the Wonder Rat says:

    @Elie:

    The only justifiable federal expenditure in their world (besides graft and payoffs) is for the military.

    Which is redundant, of course.

  54. 54
    JPL says:

    @Ash Can: My New Year’s predictions.
    Boehner will try to resurrect the Hassert rule to prevent bipartisanship
    Norquist will continue to pretend that he is relevant.

  55. 55
    Palli says:

    Here’s what I want to know:
    How can the [middleclass] tax cuts extend to families with an annual income of $450,000 when the top 5% of American family incomes actually begins with families with annual incomes of $311,444?
    180,454,920 (three fifths of all families) have annual incomes below $50,000. And 6,015,164 of these families are trying to survive on less than $11,000. That’s more than one half of all Americans families!
    Four fifths of all American families live on an annual income less than $80,000.
    That’s 240,606,572 American families. Isn’t that a supermajority?

  56. 56
    Elie says:

    @Kip the Wonder Rat:

    Hey – thanks for the editorial assistance. I should have stated “graft and other corruption”

    Please incert.

    Thanks!

  57. 57
    thalarctos says:

    Welcome to Kansas, a state with three parties! You’ve got the (somewhat conservative) Democrats, the Sane Republicans, and the Crazed Lunatic Republicans. When the Crazed Lunatic faction is in the ascendency, the Democrats (aided by the Sane Republicans) come out ahead–that’s how Gov. Sebelius was elected. When the Crazed faction is thinking about winning elections, and is willing to tolerate the Sane faction, the R’s come out ahead–and that’s how Brownback became governor.

    So congratulations, denizens of DC–you’re now living in Topeka.

  58. 58
    Elie says:

    @jp7505a:

    I know, I know — you could have gotten a better deal, no?

    Yes, it isn’t what any of us ultimately want — but we got a raise on those folks and some other things that were essential, like the extension of the unemployment insurance. We had to negotiate away some of the capital we were going to get if we went over the cliff to benefit truly needy folks who are unemployed. Would you have us rather have held out for the tax profile going over the cliff and have screwed those others? Would you have preferred the other mandatory cuts to our best programs to achieve the tax distribution that you would like more?

    Look at the whole thing. Please also look at the reality that the administration and the Democrats have to look after not only our party, but the country. We are the only ones who care, you see. If we went over the cliff, we would have no certainty that we could undo the cutts to those programs and add the other social necessities. They couldnt take that risk cause they know who they are dealing with. You and your left progressives think you can make up the opposition that you want rather than dealing with the one you actually have.

  59. 59
    Napoleon says:

    @jp7505a:

    Yet some people think that Obama “won” or knows how to negotiate.

  60. 60
    comrade scott's agenda of rage says:

    @thalarctos:

    So congratulations, denizens of DC–you’re now living in Topeka.

    As someone who drives there every other month for bidness I can only say “ugh”. Topeka has two things going for it: Devlin’s Wine and Spirits and right down the street, Oriental Express.

    I’ve driven past the assholes at Westboro and that imagery reminds me that while it ain’t great living in the reddest county in Misery, at least it ain’t Topeka.

  61. 61
    General Stuck says:

    I feeeel good, Like I knew that I would

  62. 62
    Lol says:

    @jp7505a:

    Wait a second. You idiots were *complaining* about the payroll tax cut and how Obama was jeopardizing social security and now you’re complaining it’s ending?

  63. 63
    mk3872 says:

    Just scan around DK, FDL and even many bloggers/commenters right here @ BJ and you’ll see that the emoprog libs are once again playing the “OBummer” card.

    Which means that without their complete 100% golden pony wishes satisfied, they will stay home again next year in 2014, which means you can expect many more Tea Baggers in the Congress next year.

  64. 64
    Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937 says:

    Does the entire house vote for the leader or just the majority party?

    Edit: I looked it up “Elected by the whole of the House of Representatives, the Speaker acts as leader of the House”

    I wonder if Nancy made a deal to continue Boehner as the House Speaker?

  65. 65
    catclub says:

    @Schlemizel: “another decade AT LEAST”

    Not quite, because the population within those districts can change over the decade. However, more states can adopt the Texas solution and redistrict every three months, or whenever they get a bug up their ass. It is only REQUIRED every ten years.

  66. 66
    Chris says:

    I think the 150 are relieved as hell that 80 or so of their brethren bit the bullet for the greater good so they wouldn’t have to. They get to be purity trolls and thus forego a primary challenge, while the things that have to happen still happen. No, Boehner won’t be replaced, because they need someone to keep making those kinds of deals.

  67. 67
    RP says:

    The goalpost shifting on the far left is incredible. Haven’t we been clamoring for a return to the Clinton era rates for the wealthy for years? Wasn’t that what people were pissed about when Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2010? So now we’ve gotten 90% of what we wanted, without giving up much in return (I don’t think the narrow slice of people in the $250-$450K range is a big deal). And we just fractured the GOP for good measure. I’d call that a huge win.

  68. 68
    danielx says:

    @vhh:

    They are not interested in governing. They are not even interested in ruling, which was W’s preference – governing implies some minimal level of concern for those who didn’t vote for you.

    To use a quote from the dreaded 60s (oh NOEZ! Not the 60s!), those 150 in the House want to burn the motherfucker down.

    Why isn’t David Brooks writing an indignant column about their lack of bipartisanship? David Broder is spinning in his grave like a high speed centrifuge, throwing off bits of decomposition.

  69. 69
    catclub says:

    Well, the stock market is up 200 points on the news that unemployment insurance was extended.

    Political Animal predicts it falls back by the end of the day, since they realize there are plenty of (near) future crises coming to worry about. I agree.

  70. 70
    gene108 says:

    who else wants to be saddled with 150 or so dead-enders who won’t vote for anything?

    They’ll vote for plenty of stuff.

    (1) They’ll vote to repeal Obamacare
    (2) They’ll vote to screw sluts and their slutty life-style
    (3) They’ll vote to ban abortions
    (4) They’ll vote to end Social Security and Medicare as we know it
    (5) They’ll vote for more DoD spending
    (6) They’ll vote – if the opportunity arises – to impeach President Obama
    (7) They’ll vote to cut taxes on the wealthy
    (8) They’ll vote to make sure the 47%, who paid no Federal income tax quit mooching and pay their fare share in Federal income taxes*
    (9) They’ll vote to strip away environmental laws
    (10) They’ll vote to strip away labor laws.
    (11) They’d vote to repeal the Voting Rights Act of 1965
    (12) They’d vote to make it easier to obtain and own firearms

    The list can go on, but you get the gist.

    *Making the 47% pay Federal income tax will not be a tax increase. It will come in the form of a flat tax or some such revision to flatten the tax rates across entire tax code; even though some people’s tax go up and others go down (the cough-rich-cough), everyone is paying the same rate so it’s fare and not a tax increase.

  71. 71
    jp7505a says:

    @Lol: The payroll tax cut was intended as a short term form of stimulus. Another year would not have destroyed soc. security and would have injected much needed cash into the system.

    Yes at some point the payroll tax holiday would have gone aways.

    My point was we spent 550+ days arguing over rasing taxes on the top 1% and yet allowed taxes to go up, without a wimper, on the 77%. I really donot think that is inconsistent. It is possible to view this issue in terms of shades of grey and not simply black and white (well at least some of us can)

  72. 72
    MattF says:

    @danielx: Brooks’ reaction to the deal has been remarkably crabby. According to him, it’s all the fault of that 47% who insist on having medical care and buying food even when they can’t pay for it.

  73. 73
    jp7505a says:

    @Elie: It probably is the best deal possible. It’s just depressing that it took so long to arrive at so little. We are the worlds most exceptional country arn’t we

  74. 74
    aimai says:

    Oh, weren’t we just talking about Peter King? This is from Ed Kilgore who is a professional idiot, of course, but still:

    Considering the northeastern venue of most media centers, it’s not surprising that the House’s refusal to follow the Senate in enacting a package of relief and recovery funds for states hit by Sandy is getting a lot of attention today. Those crying betrayal include a lot of House Republicans, notably New York’s Peter King, who is calling on New Yorkers to boycott House GOP campaign accounts and even fanning rumors he’s considering a party-switch.

  75. 75
    CaseyL says:

    @mk3872: I’m… not really sure how much of a factor the emoprogs are, electorally. Since nothing is ever good enough for them, I’m inclined to think they’re non-voters most, if not all, of the time.

    Yeah, they did permanent and unforgivable damage in 2000, but that election was a black swan.

    I think the emos are the kinds of fools who run around with “Don’t Vote, It Only Encourages Them” bumperstickers on their cars – and those fools have been around a lot longer than dKos has. The Internet just gave them a forum so they can show their asses to the whole world.

  76. 76
    chopper says:

    @Napoleon:

    your posts sound so much better when read in eeyore’s voice.

  77. 77
    aimai says:

    @jp7505a:

    But you aren’t looking at it in shades of gray at all, you are all black and white. The payroll tax didn’t “go up without a whimper” because they fought over it. Sometimes you lose things you fight over–losing them, while gaining other things, does not mean that they weren’t fought over or that losing them is the end of the world. Second of all the payroll tax was 1) the only kind of stimulus Obama could get through the previous congress during a previous round of negotiations but that doesn’t make it a good idea and plenty of people thought it was a bad idea at the time. In reality when Payroll taxes were cut it just put off the forced savings that SS and Medicare are–technically people weren’t “taxed” but in reality the cost of those things was simply shifted from now until later for the very same people. To talk about the payroll tax as though “taxes have gone up” in some blanket way is an absurd buy in to Republican framing. It is more accurate to talk about the payroll tax holiday ending and to realize that the payroll tax is a directed, functional, form of paying forward. Its not an unmittigated good that it was temporarily stayed and it is probably a pretty good thing that it ended.

    aimai

  78. 78
    NCSteve says:

    We need a naming contest for this new breakaway party. A few suggestions off the top of my head are “The Provisional Republican Party,” “The REAL GOP,” “The Republidix Party,” or “The Republiban Party.”

  79. 79
    General Stuck says:

    From the horses mouth. In a wingnut shell.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50.....cal-cliff/

    (CBS News) Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio) said today on “CBS This Morning” that the GOP “got whooped” in the “fiscal cliff” compromise that passed the House last night, but explained that he voted for the deal regardless because “If there was no deal, taxes would have gone up on every American.”

    Savoring victory is medicine for the psyche, at least for a short while. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s not. Till the next battle looms

  80. 80
    Elie says:

    @jp7505a:

    You haven’t read much on US civics. The “founding fathers” had a concept that changing laws/government should take some effort and engagement. What — you think we should just flip decisions like turning on a light in a room?

    We have had at least three decades of conservative government in the US. The nature of the conservatism has gotten more and more radical over time and progressives more or less let it happen by not organizing seriously until the last 4-5 years or so. Its going to take a lot more of that energy continuously applied, to make things more balanced. I don’t whine about it anymore. We just have to do the deeds we need to do to expand the population who participates.

    We progressives also have to check our attitudes. Whining about “how hard it is” (like we are in heaven or something and doing the right thing should be easy), or how “bad” government is — how it shouldnt be trusted. Well, that doesnt really make our job easier, now does it?

    Check out how you think. How you think informs what you think the options are and your attitude and energy to take on what is needed. I was feeling pretty demoralized before this last election until I started canvassing for Obama in northern VA. Changed my whole sense of optimism and energy about change. Not that its easy and/or guaranteed — but that actually DOING SOMETHING was better than sitting around feeling depressed and fatalistic.

    We are not in heaven. We have to work for the common good. Stop whining about it and get to work.

  81. 81
    ...now I try to be amused says:

    @NCSteve:
    I like the double meaning in “Republidix”.

  82. 82
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @NCSteve:

    “The Confederate Party of America”

  83. 83
    Cassidy says:

    @chopper:

    your posts sound so much better when read in eeyore’s voice.

    This is the funniest thing I’ve read this morning.

  84. 84
    cmorenc says:

    @MattF:

    Quick read: There are some arguably ‘sane’ Republicans in PA, NY, NJ, CA, and IL. The South is a big zero. Not a surprise, I suppose.

    One of the remaining southern “blue dog” dems, Mike McIntyre (from southeastern North Carolina) only retains affiliation with the democrats (rather than switching openly to R) because he knows he’d never survive a GOP primary. He openly campaigned in 2012 as a “true” conservative candidate in a nasty mudslinging campaign against a tea-party GOP opponent where each tried to paint the other as a traitor to conservative principles, especially fiscal ones.

    And yet, we’re still stuck with needing the remaining blue dog dems like McIntyre, who usually vote against progressive interests, if we’re going to have any hope of re-taking control of the House of Representative over the next two to three election cycles.

  85. 85
    AliceBlue says:

    @aimai:
    I would love to have been a fly on the wall in Chris Christie’s office when he heard about Boehner blowing off Sandy aid.

  86. 86
    jp7505a says:

    @Elie: I have read my share of civics. I realize that as Churchill said democracy is the worst form of gov’t except for all the others. And yes I proudly voted for the ‘kenyan’ twice. I just think this is no way to run the government of a 21st century super power even with all of the checks and balances and veto points. To much is at stake both in the domestic economy and the world economy. If any of us performed our jobs the way the folks in washington have over the past few years we would have been fired a long time ago.

    And just for the record my choices would have been 1. extend the payroll tax holiday for at least a yeatr. 2. allow the all of the bush tax cuts to exipire on a gradual basis as the economy recovers. 3. the big driver of the long term debt is medical care. We have to bend thaqt cost cure down and Obama care is just the start. 4. No radical changes to spending until the economy ios back to normal. Much of the deficit disppears all by it seld. 5. and yes defense scuts.

  87. 87
    Mnemosyne says:

    This was tough to find because there seems to be some dispute about whether we should be looking at the top 1% of income or the top 1% of wealth (not the same thing), but the New York Times seems to indicate that the top 1% of income starts at $386K, which doesn’t seem that far off from the $400K (individual)/$450K (family) that we got in this deal.

    Add in the fact that individuals who make more than $200K are losing some of their tax breaks, which means they will be paying a larger dollar amount in taxes even though their tax bracket is not increasing, and I honestly don’t see this as the financial disaster some people are making it out to be.

    Here’s a thought for the next battle: since Congress seems to think that $400K a year is “middle income,” shouldn’t the FISA cap be raised to at least that amount rather than being kept at $105K? That would solve a whole lot of our problems with Social Security funding almost immediately (though it would have to be phased in slowly).

  88. 88
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @Feudalism Now!:

    The whole game is to break the notion of an effective government. Both sides do it is the battle cry of small government state’s rights anarchists. If you are losing the ability to run the show, burn it all down and see if you can rig it in your favor next time at a different level of our federated government structure.

    A good statement; I added a few tweaks to emphasize what comes next. A GOP which cannot control the WH or Senate is weak at the federal level, but they remain very strong at the state and local level, even outside the states of the former CSA. Hence the logical power play for them is Nullification.

  89. 89
    xian says:

    @Lol: arguing both sides is a key part of taking “savvy” potshots at people actually governing. every choice has a downside and the unethical (david brooks, case in point) will always take the other side, clucking knowingly about “seriousness” and an unwillingness to make “tough decisions.”

  90. 90
    Ash Can says:

    @mk3872: They aren’t the ones who made the difference in 2010; there’s way too few of them for that. What made the difference in 2010 was a combination of a load of whites who had flipped their shit over a black getting elected to the highest office in the land and a failure on the part of low-info Dem voters to realize how important it was for them to get their asses to the polls for a local election (with an assist awarded to a Dem party that failed to motivate voters for a mid-term election).

    @catclub: I think it will fall back too, but it will be on profit-taking, not speculation about what will happen in two months. There won’t be any appreciable market reaction to the next fiscal cliff until there’s some specific indication of what either side is likely to do (and I do mean specific — statements, press releases, quotations, or rumors started by someone who has a friend who’s a congressional aide who overheard something in a Capitol Hill washroom.)

  91. 91
    aimai says:

    @jp7505a:

    But you didn’t get your choice and “gradually” dealing with the tax issues was not ever on the table. Couldn’t be–it was going to be on/off with the tax rates going back up because anything new had to originate in the House and the House as you might have noticed was in Republican hands.

    aimai

  92. 92
    zzyzx says:

    Cool Suzanne Vega reference there

  93. 93
  94. 94
    chopper says:

    @NCSteve:

    the republican’t party?

  95. 95
    nastybrutishntall says:

    @balconesfault: good catch. bringing money home is a Congresscritter’s first job, transcending party and ideology.

  96. 96
    jp7505a says:

    @aimai: I agree that I didn’t get my choice. I’m not the guy sitting in 1600 Penna. ave. I’m just giving you what I (as the mythical dictator) would have pushed for and what I think would have the best chance of solving the long term budget issues. But politics is the art of the possible and I know those things were beyond what the system would even consider let alone agree to even with a rational GOP.

    All of which leaves us with an aging population, aging infrastructure, a new and growing generation of kids to educate and a medical system that will bankrupt both the public and private sector in 15 years or so. I really do hope Obama is playing 11 dimension chess and can figure out a way to move toward workable solutions in the face of a party that prefers slash and burn. The GOP failed in making Obama a one term president they now want to make him a failed two term president even if it destroys the global economy in the process.

  97. 97
    Morzer says:

    @NCSteve:

    The Republidublibubblis.

  98. 98
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @NCSteve:

    We need a naming contest for this new breakaway party.

    the Native Sons and Daughters of America Party.

  99. 99
    jp7505a says:

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ: Not sure about a name but the symbol could be the Ostrach with its head in the sand. Or the foo-foo bird with its head up it’s ……. well I’ll leave that to the imagination

  100. 100
    Joel says:

    @MattF: Pennsylvania is, coincidentally, the most gerrymandered state in the Union. You might expect the republicans there to be somewhat more moderate because their constituents are largely Democrats.

  101. 101
    Elie says:

    @jp7505a:

    I seriously believe that the answer is much more local (by state and within states)

    It is extremely important to change some of the state legislatures and to build a constituency that demands progressive policies, starting with school boards and county government.

    So many people these days are ignorant of the very important points that you make and the values that accompany them. The social and political Darwinism that accompanied the dominance of the conservatives shaped the thinking and therefore the values of at least two generations, both Democratic and Republican. That has to be changed before we can make the changes you cite.

    Lotta work ahead. I am hoping to get going back home with work on the precinct level to unseat a bunch of reckless right wingers on the County Council. They swept into office in two consecutive elections when poor candidates represented the progressives. We have to understand how that happens and how to fix it and bring along the demand for good governance and fair representation…

  102. 102
    jp7505a says:

    @Elie: Agreed. Just as one example, not much good to pass Obamacare at the national level if the states can undermine it .

  103. 103
    TenguPhule says:

    If enough Republicans don’t back Bohner as the next speaker, does this mean the Democrats could potentially bring Nancy-smash back in with a unified voting bloc?

  104. 104
    Elie says:

    @jp7505a:

    Gotta disagree with you there, friend. No way healthcare reform was going to start locally. Obviously, it had to start somewhere and again, we have to keep building on it — just like we did with Medicare and Medicaid. Nothing is perfect out of the gate…

  105. 105
    jp7505a says:

    @Elie: I think you mis-understood the example . Medical care reform has to be at the national level (anyone in favor of single payor!) but the red state govenors are trying to undermine Obamacare by not setting up the state exchanges, Obviously the feds can set them up but that was the fall back position. So it is important to be aware of what happens locally and vote in those off-year elections.

  106. 106
    DougL says:

    Maybe it’s a little better than it appears at first glance (but maybe not altogether that much). We’re not stuck with all of the 150 ‘No’ votes for the next two years. A number of them – maybe not enough to make a big enough difference – are from the outgoing congress, and now that this last bit of token obstructionism is done, they’ll be dragging their sorry asses back home to spend more time with their families. Joe Walsh, IL-8, is one example.

  107. 107
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Feudalism Now!: If you are losing the ability to run the show, burn it all down and see if you can rig it in your favor next time.

    So on the right, so on the left, it seems.

    Really tired of the “burn it all down!” types. Grow the fuck up.

  108. 108
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Snarki, child of Loki: Can you load an entire congressional district into a small plane?

  109. 109
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @balconesfault: Nice.

  110. 110
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @mk3872: Just scan around DK, FDL and even many bloggers/commenters right here @ BJ and you’ll see that the emoprog libs are once again playing the “OBummer” card.

    They suffer from ODS just as bad as the right wing. Whether it’s because effective Dems make them irrelevant (the Nader dilemma) or because of years of R rule have given them Stockholm Syndrome (“I Can’t Believe It’s Not Fascism!”) or because of unconscious bias that causes them to distrust and doubt everything Obama does on a viscerally personal level, they are clowns.

  111. 111
    mclaren says:

    Another way of looking at it is that we have a third party in DC. It has 150 votes in the House and 5 in the Senate. They stand for nothing, are led by nobody, and will obstruct everything, and we’re stuck with them for at least two more years.

    Actually, this third party stands for something very specific — they want to destroy America.

    Time to bite the bullet and declare them enemy combatants?

  112. 112
    mclaren says:

    @Another Halocene Human:

    Whether it’s because effective Dems make them irrelevant (the Nader dilemma) or because of years of R rule have given them Stockholm Syndrome (“I Can’t Believe It’s Not Fascism!”) or because of unconscious bias that causes them to distrust and doubt everything Obama does on a viscerally personal level, they are clowns.

    The facts disagree with you:

    OK, now for the really bad news. Anyone looking at these negotiations, especially given Obama’s previous behavior, can’t help but reach one main conclusion: whenever the president says that there’s an issue on which he absolutely, positively won’t give ground, you can count on him, you know, giving way — and soon, too. The idea that you should only make promises and threats you intend to make good on doesn’t seem to be one that this particular president can grasp.

    And that means that Republicans will go right from this negotiation into the debt ceiling in the firm belief that Obama can be rolled.

    Source: “Conceder in chief?” Paul Krugman, 31 December 2012, New York Times.

    My far bigger gripe with the whole fiscal-cliff exercise has always been the strategic dimension—how it affects the next showdown with the GOP, and the one after that. Coming into the negotiation, Obama had two big problems: First, no matter how tough he talked, Republicans always assumed he’d blink in the end, for the simple reason that he pretty much always had. (..)

    Instead, the emerging deal will reinforce the convictions that have made the GOP such a toxic presence in Washington. If Obama will cave even when he’s got all the leverage, when won’t he cave? Never, the Republicans will assume. If Obama’s too scared to stop bargaining and let the public decide who’s right in this instance, when the polls appear to back him, then he must think our position is more popular than he lets on. Suffice it to say, these are not sentiments you want at the front of Republicans’ mind as they prepare to shake him down over the debt limit in another two months. The White House continues to maintain that it simply won’t negotiate over the limit. After this deal, why would any Republican ever believe this? I certainly don’t, and I desperately want to.

    Source: “Democrats’ Cliff Compromise Is Bad; But the Strategic Consequences Are Disastrous,” Noam Scheiber, The New Republic, 31 December 2012.

    New documents prove what was once dismissed as paranoid fantasy: totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent

    Source: “Revealed: how the FBI coordinated the crackdown on Occupy,” Naomi Wolf, The Guardian, 29 December 2012.

    Yes, the facts disagree with you…but then again, the facts suffer from well-known Obama Derangement Syndrome.

  113. 113
    General Stuck says:

    @mclaren:

    Back in your box bumpkin. The sun ain’t even down yet/

  114. 114
    slightly_peeved says:

    @jp7505a:

    four more years until Vermont has single-payer. obamacare creates a framework within which states can innovate.

  115. 115
    slightly_peeved says:

    @mclaren:

    those are opinion pieces numnut.

  116. 116
    Maude says:

    @slightly_peeved:
    Thank you, comment 114.

  117. 117
    Lojasmo says:

    @Napoleon:

    I hate to use the word troll.

    We need better dickheads on this site.

  118. 118
    Lojasmo says:

    @jp7505a:

    There are going to be two or three national exchanges.

    You should stop talking because everything you say makes you look even dumber.

  119. 119

    […] moronic best to once again bring American and global markets crashing. I like how mistermix over at BalloonJuice describes the […]

  120. 120

    […] [Tuesday] night was a preview of coming attractions. A day after the next deadline, the Senate’s bill will be jammed through the House with an almost completely intact Democratic caucus voting with 80 or 100 or however many Republicans are still interested in not destroying the country. In the meantime, almost nothing else will happen. For example, the House was supposed to vote on Hurricane Sandy relief before ending their session: no vote happened last night. Another way of looking at it is that we have a third party in DC. It has 150 votes in the House and 5 in the Senate. They stand for nothing, are led by nobody, and will obstruct everything, and we’re stuck with them for at least two more years. – mistermix […]

  121. 121
    Ramalama says:

    Walk with me and we will see what we have got

  122. 122
    Ramalama says:

    @zzyzx: walk with me and we will see what we have got

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] [Tuesday] night was a preview of coming attractions. A day after the next deadline, the Senate’s bill will be jammed through the House with an almost completely intact Democratic caucus voting with 80 or 100 or however many Republicans are still interested in not destroying the country. In the meantime, almost nothing else will happen. For example, the House was supposed to vote on Hurricane Sandy relief before ending their session: no vote happened last night. Another way of looking at it is that we have a third party in DC. It has 150 votes in the House and 5 in the Senate. They stand for nothing, are led by nobody, and will obstruct everything, and we’re stuck with them for at least two more years. – mistermix […]

  2. […] moronic best to once again bring American and global markets crashing. I like how mistermix over at BalloonJuice describes the […]

Comments are closed.