Friday, November 22, 2013
Fire In The Hole!
Well, it appears that the Hatfields are utterly gobsmacked that the McCoys have fired back at them.
In my opinion, the worst thing about all of this “nuclear” showdown is how widely and thoroughly misunderstood the whole business is, which might be due in some small part to the misnomer “nuclear option,” the coinage of which is usually attributed to the ever flamboyant Sen. Trent Lott (R-MISS) and implies something of epic proportion.
The Right Wingosphere is quivering with rage and awash in the tears of despondent patriots decrying “225 years of tradition blown away” and, I suspect, before too long, some ill-regulated militia will be suiting up to defend the Republic from Harry Reid.
Well, take a breath, folks. Rumors that the filibuster is dead have been greatly exaggerated—legislation, Supreme Court appointments can still be filibustered til the cows come home or until the Library of Congress runs out of Dr Seuss.
Reid’s Rule, as it has been dubbed, is a narrow rule change that addresses only judicial nominees and cabinet and administration positions. In other words, appointments that have rarely been challenged in the past. Appointments, in fact, that Republicans like Mitch McConnell have constantly reminded us should, for the most part, go unchallenged.
Is it possible that even the lowest-info Americans believe that the Senate has been operating flawlessly in some Utopian legislative realm, that has now, suddenly, been sacked by vandals and will never be the same? Bullpucky. If you believe that one, I have a compassionate conservative candidate you might be interested in voting for. It wasn’t so very long ago that the very same Senate hosted a night of performance art, unforgettably rendered by Mr Cruz, Jr., to advance him in his effort to shut down the US government.
This Senate is not your granddaddy’s Senate and hasn’t been for quite some time . . .
As John Dickerson, channeling Sen. Robert Byrd, put it:
. . . today’s change made what was de facto now de jure.
read the whole post »
Posted by Bette Noir on 11/22/13 at 11:56 AM
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Hypocrisy and Privilege: This is About Trey Radel
You know what? I’ll even spot Rep. Trey Radel (FL-R) his weak, borrowed from Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, excuse that he only did cocaine because he was such a drunk, because sure. It’s not like the sting that busted him was perpetrated because he already had a history of purchasing coke (it was), and in any event, I can’t talk about what drunk people might get up to. I am only an indifferent drunk myself. I do know I can’t afford $250 bucks worth of blow if I had that much to spend on bourbon. That is some fucking stupid drunkonomics. But maybe being wasted on microbrews made him wonder if he shouldn’t maybe be doing lines, just like I interrupt a wine binge with espressos (I do no such thing). Sure. That’s logical. (By which I mean “NOT”.)
What isn’t logical is being well aware that people acquire substances to help them through the bitter pain of their day to day existence and get dependent on them, and then thinking that it would be A-OK to penalize the poor for their propensity to self-medicate against the horror of a crappy reality by piss-testing people to qualify for their benefits.
Do I think Rep. Radel was maybe in the midst of getting high his ownself when he thought this would be a nifty exercise to spring on the poor? Yeah. I think so. Do I think he thought he was fundamentally different from some wasted SOB who couldn’t catch a job because he himself had a good one in Congress, and therefore, he was morally better than that other kind of substance-user? Yes, indeed. I think he believes he is morally and substantively different from some person who might use drugs, but does not have money.
In other words, he is a real prick. Now, there is drug and alcohol rehab, but I do not know that there is any successful “being a real prick” rehab. But he could use that kind. He surely could.
(X-posted at Strangely Blogged)
Posted by Vixen Strangely on 11/20/13 at 11:40 PM
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Say You Want A Revolution?
Unless you’re a right-wing extremist voyeur or really peculiar in other ways you were probably completely unaware of the demonstration taking place in Lafayette Square across the street from the White House, today.
The demonstration/occupation/whatever is being led by a former Reagan administration DoJ prosecutor turned birther named Larry Klayman. The name might ring a bell because Klayman showed up at the World War II memorial for the “Million Vets March,” last month, to help the Republicans who shut the memorial down, reopen it.
read the whole post »
Posted by Bette Noir on 11/19/13 at 02:15 PM
Friday, November 15, 2013
Blame It On Texas
It’s become close to a truism that if political events conspire to give Republicans any kind of unanticipated boon, they will immediately find a way to fk it up, usually to disastrously hilarious effect.
And, so it is that Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX), who assures us he does not take his new project lightly, has rounded up eight other steely-eyed Texan reps, plus a handful of House conspiracy experts, to draw up Articles of Impeachment charging Attorney General Eric Holder with high crimes and other stuff that really ticks Republicans off.
read the whole post »
Posted by Bette Noir on 11/15/13 at 10:57 AM
Friday, November 08, 2013
El Cucuy Gonna Getcha, If You Don’t Watch Out
Apparently, Ted Cruz is feeling a little insecure these days what with his highly publicized catalog of freshman fiascoes and the fact that dear old Dad, Senor Crazypants, is upstaging him at every turn, lately.
The most recent sign that Cruz is making a course adjustment was news, last week, coming out of a closed-door Republican luncheon, that Cruz has promised to “not actively campaign against” his Senate colleagues or “help raise money for their primary opponents.”
What a guy!
So. What does a megalomaniac do when he’s not getting enough attention? well, this one goes out to his own backyard and barks at the president in a typically Cruz-ian display of tastelessness and deplorably bad timing.
Days away from the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination in Dallas, TX, Cruz decides that it would be appropriate to publicly warn President Obama against coming to Dallas:
President Obama should take his broken promises tour elsewhere so Texans can continue focusing on the solutions that have allowed our state to become and remain the nation’s economic and job creation powerhouse.
No wonder some Tejanos refer to Ted Cruz as El Cu-cuy—the boogeyman.
read the whole post »
Posted by Bette Noir on 11/08/13 at 12:45 PM
Thursday, November 07, 2013
Innocence Bludgeoned with a Candlestick in the Conservatory
Via Whiskey Fire, I found a link to a boring old harrumph from boring old Colonel Mustard (see DijonGate) expressing outrage at the prospect of highly educated artsy-fartsy types getting free health insurance under ObamaCare instead of pursuing a soul-crushing professoriate or dying a painful, lonely death from a preventable disease in a rundown artist garret. As God intended.
The Colonel manages to work Nancy Pelosi and struggling rock musicians into his plaint about being forced to subsidize shiftless painters and textile artists—pretty standard “are there no workhouses” fare. But the real fun begins in the comments section, which starts with a complaint about “low achievers” killing the work ethic, until a self-styled member of that demographic pipes up:
Hey now! I’m a low achiever (never had much ambition), but I’m SELF-RELIANT low achiever. I ask no one to support my lifestyle but myself.
The glory of it all, is that I am civil disobedient, not enrolling, even though I would probably qualify even more than those “artists”. I draw comic characters as a hobby, and I drink Lattes. OMG, How many liberal minds just burst from the fact that I’m a tea party conservative?
Dollars to donuts the layabout cartoonist is as independent of government largesse as a fellow tea partier on a Medicare-subsized mobility scooter. And while his words seemed calculated to endear him to Colonel Mustard’s audience, the ruffian blew it by supplying a link to one of his impure doodlings to support his bona fides as an artiste. Well! That prompted a passing preacher to involuntarily become engorged, and the offended shaman dressed the cartoonist down thusly:
I’m not trying to be a jerk, but when you put down a link to something, you may want to let people know that they are about to be linked to illustrations of naked women with erect nipples, simply out of courtesy. I’m a celibate clergyman, and I try very hard not to entertain thoughts or images of naked women, especially if they look like the one that greeted me upon linking. When one tries to quiet the mind for prayer, often the day’s most memorable events, images, sounds, etc., try to pry in and disrupt one’s focus. It also helps to avoid temptation, if such images are not before my eyes and in my head. I know that many other men try to keep their virtue intact, not just clergy. The less we see of naked women, the better.
For those of you who haven’t already scurried over to Casa de Mustard to check out the titillating cartoon for yourselves, allow me to assure you that it’s a pretty harmless Catwoman knock-off. Catwoman with high-beams, mind you, but hardly a buck-nekkid siren to lure the preacher man into the pits of hell. You’ll see more salacious ads at the mall. Duh, stay off the internet, Padre!
Anyhoo, there’s no real point to this post other than pointing and laughing, so feel free to treat it as an open thread. Or take the high road and discuss whether or not destitute PhDs who pursue a career in pottery should receive subsidized medical benefits up front or just go to the hospital as uninsured ER patients and jack up medical costs for us all on the back-end.
[X-posted at Balloon Juice]
Posted by Betty Cracker on 11/07/13 at 02:28 PM
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Papa Don’t Preach!
We’ve all recognized for some time now that Cruz et fils is a slightly creepy sideshow especially when both the senator and Papi share the same stage and the same awkward adoring glances.
It started out innocently enough, proud father sharing some triumphal moments around election time. And the occasional human interest backgrounder interview in which Cruz, Sr. shared a few memorable anecdotes from “daddy’s little prodigy’s” past.
Like how Cruz, Sr. introduced his precocious middle-schooler to Austrian School libertarian economics and ultraconservative interpretations of US history at the Free Enterprise Education Center (FEEC). And how Teddy and a few of his little friends from FEEC created a group known as the Constitutional Corroborators who toured local Rotary luncheons to dazzle diners with their compendious knowledge of free enterprise and the US Constitution.
We’re almost a year into Cruz Jr’s reign of terror in the US Senate, though, and Cruz, Sr seems to just be hitting his stride, warming up for the Big Push. If things go according to plan, Cruz & Cruz could get a whole lot creepier.
read the whole post »
Posted by Bette Noir on 10/31/13 at 12:37 PM
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Ted Cruz Overturns Federal Judge’s Decision in His Spare Time
Apparently, Ted Cruz, Esq. managed to eke out a few minutes in his busy, busy schedule on the Cruzapalooza Self-Aggrandizement Tour to overturn a Federal judge’s ruling on a controversial Texas abortion law.
Cruz, a Hahvahd Law graduate, master-debater and freelance constitootional skolar advised the world that we should all ignore Judge Lee Yeakel’s ruling because the Texas law “is, too!” constitutional.
According to Cruz the law is:
. . . commonsense legislation to protect the health of women and their unborn children.
This law is constitutional and consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent protecting the life and health of the mother and child. I hope the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will uphold Texas’ reasonable law.
Judge Yeakel, a George W. Bush appointee, no less, found several provisions of the Texas law to be unlawful, ergo the dozen or so [almost half of state-wide] Texas abortion clinics that were scheduled to close today will still be open for business.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Texas Attorney General and Governor-in-Waiting, Greg Abbott, thumbed his nose and promised to keep up the good fight to protect Texas’ purty little ladies and unborn buckaroos:
Today’s decision will not stop our ongoing efforts to protect life and ensure the women of our state aren’t exposed to any more of the abortion-mill horror stories that have made headlines recently.
Now, let’s take a moment to unpack Abbott’s statement. Evidently he’s concerned that there are unregulated, back-alley, horror-story-worthy abortion mills all over Texas endangering Texas women. Who wouldn’t be concerned? But, then, I’m thinking that the State Attorney General is in a great position to do something about that. So why is he wasting his time dreaming up ways to harrass well-regulated Planned Parenthood clinics?
Gov. Rick Perry, not to be outdone, added his two cents:
We will continue fighting to implement the laws passed by the duly-elected officials of our state, laws that reflect the will and values of Texans.
Constitutional or not, I take it.
Phew! I guess the rest of us can only hope that what happens in Texas, stays in Texas.
Posted by Bette Noir on 10/29/13 at 07:19 AM
Thursday, October 24, 2013
And things were said and tears were shed, People
The above video is of Rep. Pete Sessions of TX, who was supposedly the person who said he could not stand to look at President Obama at some point in a White House meeting. And I don’t even know if it is true. I won’t pretend I know. Let’s just call him the Schroedinger’s Racist, and posit that unless the White House meeting in question was actually recorded, we simply can not infer from the available data whether he actually expressed the opinion that he could not stand the President and will not know until that event can be observed.
Some people might allege that based upon a priori data, we can reasonably speculate that Pete Sessions is in fact just the sort of person who might have made a disrespectful remark regarding the President. Others might state that the authoritative denial of the White House spokespeople negates the likelihood that he said that thing—but reasonable people might also weigh the possibility that the remark exists as an inadmissible anecdote—not on the record, but having been heard by someone, just not in a fashion readily reproducible.
In other words, he may have said it, and have had it been officially unsaid. In fact, it may have been very necessary to do so, because in order for the aforementioned White House meeting to have been in effect, the actual authority of the holder of the office that the White House represents would have to be validated. The failure to recognize that authority would tend to corrupt the resulting exchange of the conversation.
And we have no particular reason to believe that the conversation was corrupted, do we?
I leave that logical exercise for the reader to determine on his/her/their own.
(X-posted at Strangely Blogged.)
Posted by Vixen Strangely on 10/24/13 at 10:44 PM
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Inglourious Basterds Hit the Campaign Trail
For a while there, it looked like October might just have to go into the annals of political history as an unmitigated downer what with shutdowns, defaults, Values Voters, healthcare.crash and suchlike. To be honest, I almost expected Hillary to announce “just kidding” and that she wouldn’t run in 2016 just to pay us all back for picking Obama last time around.
But then, like a tonic for my soul, the morning news brought the first bona fide political belly laugh of October, 2013 and it’s all good again, thank you very much. So what was the breath of fresh air that blew away the cobwebs down in my dumps? It was the news that my fellow-Pennsylvanian, Rick Santorum has put out an S.O.S. to rally his dozens of loyal supporters to create a “strike force” of teabaggers to carry Ken Cuccinelli to victory in the upcoming Virginia gubernatorial race. What could go wrong . . . ?
Santorum’s PAC, Patriot Voices, is recruiting supporters to go door to door Nov. 1-3 in Virginia to plug the Republican candidate for governor on its website.
In a plea from the PAC sent to supporters, Santorum, who endorsed Cuccinelli last year, also asks for those who can’t volunteer their time to donate money to pay for travel, meals, signs and literature for the strikeforce
I suppose that Santorum decided to pull out the big guns when he heard that those godless Clintons and the gun-grabbing, New York elite, Mayor Michael Bloomberg were endorsing Ken Cuccinelli’s opponent, Clintonite carpetbagger, Terry McAuliffe.
Santorum, who knows quite a lot about ideological nuances that crater elections will, no doubt, be quite a comfort to the Cooch after his inevitable loss.
And, then, perhaps Cooch can return the favor when Santorum runs again in 2016 for Moralizer-in-Chief.
Uh-oh. Looks like Santorum is already having quite an effect on the Virginia race, Rasmussen just came out with a poll showing McAuliffe doubled his lead overnight.
Posted by Bette Noir on 10/22/13 at 01:19 PM
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Not With a Bang, But a Whimper
Since November 7, 2012, literally millions of words have been dedicated to analyzing and describing the decline and fall of the Republican Party. I’ve contributed my share.
Some point fingers, some lash out, some ridicule, some despair. Others prescribe, coach, and recommend reform to little avail because many of the new hands are unqualified, irrational zealots and many of the old hands are frightened, tired and not up to the job of rehabilitating demagogues.
But now we’ve arrived at a tipping point in which the age old battle between those who would preserve what we have built vs those who would destroy everything and start over is about to be waged. We have to decide whether to “stay calm and carry on” or go crazy and break things.
Historically, similar battles have been waged with variable results so it is understandable that no one is quite sure how the current Rand-ian Self-Interest Crusade will change the face of American politics, if at all.
Personally, I tend toward the “if at all” side of the equation for a number of fairly prosaic reasons.
read the whole post »
Posted by Bette Noir on 10/20/13 at 09:22 AM
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Postphoning the Goperdammurung?
It seems that whenever there is a Republican setback lately, whether electoral or politically in general, there are a spate of thinky pieces about what’s going wrong in the Republican Party and how they might fix it. I don’t despise the impulse, even while I find it overly optimistic and paradoxical. Many of the premature postmortem-writers aren’t ostensibly fans of the Republican party, to begin with. And rather than consider how whatever rupture between the party and the mainstream can be repaired, I know my gut instinct is to reach for a lever and pull like a mad mother. Political writers are, for the most part, I think, bright people and problem-solvers at heart. We are generally not rooting for armageddon. There is a code of honoring bar tabs and not kicking even bastards in the slats when they are down.
And I am a political writer and not immune to the zeitgeist, so why don’t I carve into this still-wriggling corpus and see what political wisdom may be extracted? (Let’s get it down first. And maybe a kick to the slats? And while we are here, a shiv and that lever. Thank you.)
read the whole post »
Posted by Vixen Strangely on 10/19/13 at 04:30 PM
Friday, October 18, 2013
New Southern Strategery: Let the Poor get Poorer While the Rich get Richer
Discouraging piece in the Washington Post today about the increase in poverty in southern and western states as measured by the percentage of school kids qualifying for free or reduced price lunches. This graphic compares 2000 to 2011:
In 2000 only four states reported that a majority of their public school kids were on free or reduced lunch. In 2011 seventeen states did. All in southern or western states. The author of the article quotes Michael Rebell, executive director of the Campaign for Educational Equity at Columbia University as attributing this increase in poverty to statistics showing that the U.S. lags behind other countries in educational testing. He points out that kids from high income areas are holding their own but when you look at scores from schools with a lot of low income kids the bottom drops out. The rise in poverty can certainly be at least partially explained by the recession. The Southern Education Association spokespeep also throws in “immigration and a high birthrate among low-income families”. (Translation: “If only those poors would stay where they belong and not breed so much here!”) Hank Bounds, Mississippi commissioner of higher education has a couple of cents worth too:
Hank Bounds, the Mississippi commissioner of higher education, said the country needs to figure out how to educate the growing classes of poor students and reverse the trend.
“Lots of folks say we need to change this paradigm, but as a country, we’re not focusing on the issue,” said Bounds, who was previously Mississippi’s state school superintendent. “What we’re doing is not working. We need to get philanthropies, the feds, business leaders, everybody, together and figure this out. We need another Sputnik moment.”
Sputnik moment? Seriously? OK, here’s what that 2011 map called to mind for me.
read the whole post »
Posted by marindenver on 10/18/13 at 02:15 PM
Nullification Doctrine 2.0
Jim DeMint, who fittingly occupied John C. Calhoun’s old Senate seat before he decamped for a wingnut welfare gig at Heritage, published a screed in the WSJ today that was two parts “la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you” and one part argument for a modern twist on nullification.
The editorial, entitled “We Won’t Back Down on ObamaCare,” serves notice that the teaturd lemmings in Congress will continue to try to overthrow a law that was duly debated, legislated and upheld by the highest court in the land plus a national election. DeMint gives three reasons why the gallant cause to combat
Northern aggression ObamaCare must continue:
The first is that ObamaCare was not the central fight in 2012, much to the disappointment of conservatives. Republicans hoped that negative economic news would sweep them to victory, and exit polls confirmed that the economy, not health care, was the top issue. The best thing is to declare last year’s election a mistrial on ObamaCare.
A “mistrial”—are you fucking kidding me? We don’t need to consult a “word cloud” of Republican talking points for the 2012 election to know “ObamaCare” would show up in a big fat font. It was a major issue by any rational measure, and even if it weren’t, exit polls aren’t a sane basis to nullify laws. There was an election. The GOP lost.
Second, the lives of most Americans are not dominated by the electoral cycle. They shouldn’t have to wait three more years for Congress to give them relief from this law, especially when the president has so frequently given waivers to his friends. Full legislative repeal may not be possible while President Obama remains in office, but delaying implementation by withholding funds from a law that is proven to be unfair, unworkable and unaffordable is a reasonable and necessary fight.
Take it up with the Founders, Jimbo. And you had your shot in the last election cycle. You lost.
There’s a third reason not to stop fighting. Forget the consultants, the pundits and the pollsters; good policy is good politics. If the Republicans had not fought on ObamaCare, the compromise would have been over the budget sequester. Instead, they have retained the sequester and for the past three months ObamaCare and its failings have been front and center in the national debate. Its disastrous launch was spotlighted by our defund struggle, not overshadowed, as some contend. With a revived and engaged electorate, ObamaCare will now be the issue for the next few years.
No, what’s been front and center is the irresponsible and reckless behavior of the GOP—so much so that it’s overshadowed the glitchy healthcare exchange rollout. Only someone who is irrevocably divorced from reality could claim that Cruz & Co.’s disastrous nullification attempt was a win for the GOP. And make no mistake, fellow citizens, that’s what we’re dealing with here: people who are completely unmoored from facts. The kicker:
These are the reasons we fought so hard to get Washington to listen to the American people and take action to stop ObamaCare, and it is why so many are thankful for the courageous leadership of people like Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, and conservatives in the House of Representatives. The law is economically unstable, financially irresponsible and harmful to hardworking Americans.
No, the Republicans are fomenting economic instability, behaving in a financially irresponsible manner and doing measurable harm to hardworking Americans. It’s been laid bare for all to see, and the American people reject DeMint’s Calhoun Doctrine 2.0 by huge margins.
When he was still a senator instead of a wingnut welfare queen, DeMint famously predicted that healthcare reform would be Obama’s Waterloo. But it’s looking more like the GOP’s Appomattox.
[X-posted at Balloon Juice]
Posted by Betty Cracker on 10/18/13 at 10:47 AM
Thursday, October 17, 2013
It’s His Party: He Can Cry if He Wants To
The final (for now) congressional vote on ending the government shutdown and raising the debt limit finally happened, and here are our totals:
The Senate voted 81 to 18 Wednesday night to reopen the federal government and raise the nation’s borrowing limit, hours before the Treasury Department faced the possibility of being unable to pay all of America’s bills for the first time in modern history.
The House followed suit, voting 285-144, to end the latest damaging battle of divided government in a polarized Congress.
I wil probably have a lot more to say about this later, but for now, keep in mind that there were 18 GOP Senators and 144 GOP House members (oh, yes, they were all GOP members), who for some reason thought not raising the debt ceiling would be fine with them. Among the “Nays” were usual suspects for the 2016 GOP presidential primaries—Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul—even Paul Ryan.
That’s kind of a disgrace, isn’t it? In a few years, will they be able to defend that? Will they maintain that this was a symbolic vote since they didn’t doubt in the least that the votes to pass were there? I guess we will see how that flies.
But speaking of whether or not the votes were there, I guess Boehner was not accurate when he previously said that the votes to pass a clean CR weren’t there. It’s possible he only thought he could get them if his members were under the debt limit gun, so to speak. But when you consider the last 16 days, and $24 billion lost in the economy, it just doesn’t seem like this was all that productive. does it?
This also takes us back to the dilemma from the beginning of the year—Boehner might really have only 80-odd reliable votes in his caucus, and Nancy Pelosi has pretty much the Democratic side. He’s a pretty weak speaker to begin with, and with yet another violation of the Hastert rule, once again, his Speakership may be in peril. But once again—who wants it? If Speaker Boehner looks like a man who drinks, he also looks to me like a man with reasons.
With an update since I posted at Strangely Blogged:
Which, when I composed all this last night, was a bit contigent upon more GOP members actually minding, but as of today, his Facebook page blowing up with dolchstoss imagery notwithstanding, it looks like the teafolk have electedto be cool. I deeply wonder if this is because Drunk Uncle John promises them Christmas, lets them stay up past their bedtimes, and will allow them to do this thing all over again. Unlike the GOP Senators, who are poopyheads.
Posted by Vixen Strangely on 10/17/13 at 07:55 PM