The rich Democratic Sugar Daddy of the GOP.

Ok I gotta be honest, this is probably the most surprising story I've read in a while. Turns out the man who basically bank rolled the last presidential election for the republicans is an idiot who has no idea what the party actually stands for.

Sheldon Adelson was BY FAR the largest individual donor to the GOP in the last election, as he spent over $150 million on republican candidates (by and large all of whom lost) and has already pledged to double that support in 2016.

So clearly Mr. Adelson is a strict conservative right? no not really.

"Look, I’m basically a social liberal, I know nobody will believe that, “Number one, I’m supporting stem-cell research,” Adelson told the Wall Street Journal.

Ok look to be fair Stem Cell Research may be important in the long run, but a major election issue or even social issue it isnt. So I guess supporting the anti stem cell party makes sense since he agrees with every thing else right?

"I’m pro-Dream Act, I’m pro the Dream Act. My parents were immigrants to this country,” he said. “What are we going to do ? Listen, I’m sure a lot of my parents generation …..snuck onto the ship and they came into the country....So – people will do anything to leave massacres and to leave the economic conditions – they can’t put food on their own table....There has been in our history a lot of illegal immigration. Do I approve of it? No, but it’s here.

 It would be inhumane to send those people back , to send 12 million people out of this country to disrupt a whole potpourri of family issues  over what happens to the children. I mean it’s all ridiculous. So we’ve got to find a way, find a route for those people to get legal citizenship,”

Ok well again to be fair, himself being the child of possible illegals (based on context, I dont know) and definitely a First Generation American thats not too surprising. And if their is one social issue the GOP looks ready to give ground on its the Dream Act/Immigration reform....so I guess thats an understandable position too for a Republican donor.. But thats it right?

“You can take your own religious beliefs …and live your life with your own beliefs. But to make it a portion of the government’s policies?” 

Well again in Mr. Adelson's defense, not all republicans are religious nuts and as a Jew its not surprising he wouldnt want the stereotypical christian republican beliefs forced down peoples throats. Still I guess I'm not seeing any real MAJOR policy disagreements.....

“I’m pro choice,...Abortion shouldn’t be brought up as a political issue,”

Dafuq? sir are you SURE your a republican? I mean they have passed more anti abortion laws since 2010 then they have every other year since Roe v Wade was decided combined. In fact I'm pretty sure the last guy who came out as pro choice got kicked out of the party for being a RINO (republican in name only)

“And by the way I’m in favor of a socialized-like health care.”

Yet you gave 150 Million and are pledging 300 million to the party who SOLE issue over the last couple elections has been repealing and doing away with a health care system they think is socialist and more to the point never insisting a system even remotely like a socialist system.

Are you SURE you know what your doing sir?

"Look, nobody agrees with 100 % of their planks” is what he told the WSJ when they basically asked him the same question.

Thing is though, you appear to agree with none of them. Just saying so far down the list you have been somewhere between left and hard left on every issue/

So whats the real reason Mr. Adelson is bankrolling the GOP? 

Well for that, you gotta go back to a previous interview with Politico in which Adleson said his primary reason for supporting the GOP was that he believed that a second Obama term would bring " vilification of people that were against him. [Obama]” and that he already believed he himself was on the top of Obama's list 

What was he talking about? lifting directly for the aforementioned article "Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands Corp. is being scrutinized by federal investigators looking into possible money-laundering in Vegas, and possible violation of bribery laws by the company’s ventures in China, including four casinos in the gambling mecca of Macau."

And what does Mr. Adelson say about it? (from same interview) “When I see what’s happening to me and this company, about accusations that are unfounded, that kind of behavior … has to stop"

I should point out the investigation into Adelson began after an EX employee went whistle blower in 2009, long before he gave a dime to the republicans. So hes got his process backwards. He wasnt picked on for donating against Obama....he did that after the government came after him.

Now maybe its just me, but big multi billion dollar companies like Adelson's usually make mince meat out of people who file false claims against them, as I understand it its a common occurrence because people are greedy and out to make an easy buck. 

And usually Adelson does the same thing, he releases the "hounds" (lawyers) and rips the guy to pieces. But for whatever reason O:) not this time. 

No this time he apparently believes it necessary to sell out all the positions he actually agrees with to elect a political candidate whos gonna owe him big time as President of the United States. And lets be honest these investigations are gonna take a while, they always do. And he's decided that it likely wont conclude until after the next election so he's willing to go "double or nothing". 

Unless you can think of another reason you spend what will be $450,000,000 on a party you dont agree with on anything.

I'm not saying Adelson did it, or that the GOP is corrupt or anything like that. What I am saying though is it says alot about both Adelson and the GOP that Adelson is willing to give them that kind of money on the belief mistaken or not they will help all his personal legal issues go away.

I mean maybe he's wrong (and I hope he is, just for the sake of good governance even if he's innocent I want to see it proved) but if I were the GOP I'd a bit embarrassed about my top donor right now. Disagrees on everything, figures your "for sale" and will make his legal troubles vanish. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Breaking up is hard.......

......but finally it seems its gonna happen.

Ladies and Gentlemen it appears only a few short years after settling their divorce with reality and moving in together the party is over. The celebrity power couple known [nowhere but here] as the TOParty is breaking up. I suppose it was inevitable. Romances like theirs are built on passion and hate of all others, and burn out quickly. Not to mention its always awkward when your expecting that big promotion at work, controlling the government and your significant other costs you the job, not once.....but twice.

And really pledges of hatred for the evil Islama-comu-marxa-soca-fastic in the white house seem sweet at first. And the idea of teaming up to get him out of there, after only one term, seem romantic. I mean you get to spend time together and your archiving something as a couple. But then it turns out your love has their own way of doing things, and your not sure you agree. So you argue and fight over it, and get distracted. And then boom before you know it this "sweet exercise in togetherness" becomes a chore.....and then finally something you just dont want to do. And then you wind up spending all your time blaming each other for the thing you never managed to do. And before you know it, he's kicking your friends off of committees and she's banning your buddies from TV and basically everyone is always mad at everyone else.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the Republican Party of 2012.

It all started yesterday with Speaker of the House John Boehner, who decided to kick Rep's Tim Huelskamp and Justin Amash, off the powerful House Budget committee, and Rep. David Schweikert off the powerful appropriations committee. (and because no break up is complete without the obligatory cheap shots Rep Huelskamp was also kicked off the agriculture committee) And what pray tell was the sin these men had committed to endure such wraith? Well they are all well known associates of the Speakers Ex, one Miss T. Party. So clearly they had to go. After all the committees they were on gave them access to the Speaker's \wallet....and their loyalty to the Tea Party meant they might not let him use it the way he wants to in his upcoming negotiations with the evil Islama-comu-marxa-soca-fastic (what? everyone makes bad rebound relationship choices)

Then over at FOX news Roger Ailes told his long time lovers Karl Rove and Dick Morris that it had been fun he wanted to be seen with other people. See it turns out Mr. Ailes believed that his two Beau's had made fools of themselves over recent months. Morris and Rove tried to argue, claiming someone had spiked their Tea Party flavored Kool Aid, but Roger had already had enough. For blowing their election coverage so badly and so publicly they had embarrassed him in front of his friends so badly he actually told all his friends at FOX they arnt allowed to be seen with Karl and Dick without written permission from the boss anymore. (this appears to be a true story according to the New Yorker, both men are actually being discouraged from appearing and producers need to get permission before booking them)

Apparently throwing an on air temper tantrum when you lose a state you really really really wanted to someone else doesnt really impress your date. Nor does making wild predictions about the future for the two of.....only to later discover it was all lies and now your partner Dick [Morris] is covered in brown stuff he says is "a mud slide" and hes really really sorry......(btw that really was Dick Morris' line that he "had a mudslide on his face" in regards to his horriblly off the mark election predictions)....of course when you date a guy who lost his last job after he was caught sucking a hooker's toes, you gotta expect these things. But hey I get it, you guys were young and in-love, its easy to miss the signs early on.

And over at the House they bought together, that they lovingly named Freedomworks? signs of marital strife there. It appears Former GOP house Majority leader Dick Armey has decided to move out, since he is no longer happy with how the Tea party half of Freedomworks is spending his money. For there part Freedomworks is saying they dont really expect to notice he's gone and everything will basically operate the same it always has. Ouch, dude thats just cold, your EX claims they wont even miss you? Damn. But hey the upside to letting Tea Party keep freedomworks? well at least you wont have to pay alimony.

Of course to be fair, I could be blowing this all out of proportion. It could just be a bad case of "you only hurt the one you love". Take Senator John Cornyn for example. He had been tasked by the GOP to run the NRSC for them, a group whos job it is to win the senate for republicans in what should have the easiest Senate election for the GOP to win in decades.....and he lost two seats because of his reliance on the Tea Party and its friends like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdoch.

And clearly the GOP isnt mad at Mr. Cornyn, they just promoted him to be their new number two man in the senate....and they gave him a Whip [thats his title, Senate minority whip] the kinky beasts.

So who knows maybe love will triumph over all, and the romance will be saved. But between you and me, I'm 47% certain this is one couple that is totally over, even if they pretend for appearances sake in public for a while.       

And this is why you should never listen to a man named Grover.

Ok first: for those who dont know Grover Norquist is a lobbyist who for the last 30 years or so has gotten the majority of the republican caucuses in both the house and senate to sign a pledge to never raise taxes under any circumstances, under threat Norquist will help fund raise against them and have them defeated (something that to his credit, he's been very successful at)

The problem he's having at the moment is that the incoming congress will be the first in which there are enough republicans who have refused to sign and/or honor previous signing of the pledge that when added to the democrats the majority of congress is at the very least not pledged to raise taxes.

And given that basically Grover is running a "cult of personality" in that he's relevant only as long as people believe he is, and that he can only "knock out" so many defectors, he is desperately trying to coax the GOP back in line (cause at this point he wont be able to knock this many defectors out and therefore will quickly become irrelevant if he cant carry out the "threat" associated with breaking his pledge). It's that coaxing that probably led Grover to call for Republicans to pledge to return to the Reagan tax rates, as those would be the only thing that could counter all the job and economy killing tax increases and government spending increases under Obama.

As a side note I should point out, Norquist firmly believes that it was breaking from the Reagan rates and raising taxes that cost George HW Bush the presidency in 1992.  Now I point that out because that appears to be the last time Norquist actually paid any attention to tax rates.

See at the moment under the "Bush Tax Cut's" the top tax rate is 35%. What Obama and the democracts are calling for is letting those cuts expire, restoring the "Clinton tax rate" of 39%. So under the democratic plan taxes go up to 39% in the richest people.

Compare that to the return Norquist is calling for in his attempt convince the GOP to allegedly keep taxes LOW, the Reagan Tax Rate.

Well when Reagan came into office the Top tax rate was 70%. 2 years into his term Reagan lowered it to 50%. 4 years later he would pass the second, cutting the top tax rate to 38.5%. Only in his final year would taxes actually drop notable below the "dreaded" Clinton tax rates, dropping to 28%.....well at least until George HW Bush undid them and brought taxes up to 31% two years later.

What this means though is that under Reagan taxes on the top earners where 50% most of time he was in office. AND there's more.

When Reagan came into office in order to be placed in the highest income bracket you had to make $532k a year by todays standards. With his first tax cut (down to 50%) he dropped that to $199k a year (again by todays standards/adjusted for inflation). In other words if you made some amount of money between those two points your taxes likely went up slightly.

Same with his 2nd tax cut (dropping top bracket down to $178k and 38%) and his 3rd ($56k 28%).

Again compare that to the Clinton and proposed Obama rates of 39% if you make $388k (how much you have to make stayed more or less the same under the Bush rates) or more a year.

Just compare the two side by side Reagan: 50% for those making more then 199k a year. Clinton/Obama: 39% for those making more then 388k a year. 

No question about it, clearly under the Reagan rates more people would pay more in taxes then under the Clinton/Obama rate.

So to recap, according to Gover Norquist: Republicans shouldnt vote for a 4% increase in the top rates, as a tax increase like that would be horrible for the economy send us father into recession, quash job growth, discourage job creators. What Republicans should do though, in the name of lower taxes, more job growth and encouraging job creators is accept a tax cut of -15%. (which most of us would call an increase)

Look turns out Grover might not be wrong, we might be better off under the reagan rates.....but I can totally understand now why the GOP is deserting him, he clearly doesnt know what he's taking about since according to him moving from 35 to 39 is an increase and moving from 35 to 50 is a cut......

Rick Santorum's new job.

So everyone remembers Senator Rick Santorum right?

If you dont let me help you out: hates gays, ran for president and came in second in the GOP primary in 2012 after basing part of his campaign on a "War on Porn", hates gays, wears a sweater vest ALL the time, hates gays, while in the senate passed legislation to classify a medical procedure called IDX as a partial birth abortion and therefore illegal....but only after an IDX procedure saved the life of his wife, hates gays, victim of the most epic internet prank of all times (google his name, look until you find the link to the website "spreading santorum" these days its number 5 or 6, but for more then a decade it was the top result for his name) and did I mention hates gays?

Well it turns out he's got a new job. He's now a columnist at WorldNetDaily A.K.A. WND.com.

Now I know what your thinking, yea so? whats WND? Ever heard of the birthers? You want to guess who dreamed that story up? that would be WorldNetDaily. Or actually to put that theory, that they are still pushing, into its current form:

You know that site that discovered that the President was secretly fathered by Frank Marshall Davis (if you havnt heard of him, he's a black journalist who married a white woman.....and also american born, but dont worry if you didnt know him since being made into a random scary boogyman by the far right is his biggest "accomplishment") but his [american born] Mother had to lie and claim that the boy's real father was the Kenyan Barack Obama Sr. for unspecified reasons, so she went to Kenya to secretly have her baby [with its TWO american parents, just saying], but not before planting fake birth announcements, before bringing the baby back here before running off with her new husband to simultaneously raise him in Singapore and Indonesia where she could secretly bring him up Islamic before sending him back to the states to go to college, which of course he only got into because he was a black Indosingpayan [and really how many of those do you know?] and where he met his gay lover turned secret gay husband who he had murdered so that he could marry Michelle Obama, which of course was secretly arranged by Obama's militant black preacher [and really what good Muslim doesnt have one of those?] Reverend Wright as the finishing steps of the master-plan that had started when Frank Marshall Davis inseminated Obama's mother, all of which as it turns out can be clearly seen if you just decipher the Islamic script on the wedding ring his husband gave him back in college.


[BTW do your self a favor, DO NOT try to make any sense out of or apply logic to ^. I currently have a tissue in both nostrils AND my ears in other to stop the bleeding after I broke my brain trying]


Yea anyways, THAT website, also the same website that is pushing the "3rd Obama term" and "how Romney can still be president" theories I mentioned in an earlier post, that website is where Rick Santorum has decided to go to carry on his legacy.

Oh did I mention that less then a week ago Senator Santorum mentioned he was totally "open" to running for president again in 2016?

Well can i just say I wish you the best of luck Senator, but something tells me that in 4 years you may find that "The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." (remember the spreading santorum prank? yea thats what I was talking about) is only the SECOND most problematic thing that is going to associated with your name during a Google search.

The other sick part about the GOP Benghazi attack lines

So it turns out, not surprisingly, the GOP attacks over the Benghazi attacks serves a double purpose (beyond getting Susan Rice DQ'ed for Sec of State in order to get Scott Brown reelected) and that is to again go back to the myth that republicans are better on national security, which they invented after 9/11 happened when they were in charge of national security. Although to be fair I dont blame any one party for that, and I mention it only because I believe it explains the extreme defensiveness of the GOP on the issue....many of them I believe DO blame their own party and are terrified the American People will (unfairly) as well if the GOP doesnt "make up for it" at all time.

Which is why you have people like Senator Lindsey Graham and others (although I'm picking on Graham here cause he's gotten a comparative pass on my other two rants on the issue) saying things like this:

"If we don't change our strategy from a foreign policy point of view...change this light footprint approach to the war on terror, there are gonna be more Benghazis,"

In otherwords if we dont John Wayne this bitch and go hard go harder and go hardest all the time more people are going to die.

Well see here's the problem: The last major terrorist attack against a US embassy was in 2010 when two embassy staff were killed (as were a few other civilians in the area) as part of a larger wave of attacks (that had nothing to do with us directly).

Now Ok, thats on Obama's watch, so i guess that doesnt really help my case....just means he's doubly weak, so how about this: (and for the record I'm not skipping 2011 or 2009....nothing happened those years)

September 17th 2008, 6 people (not counting civilians) were killed in an Al-Qaeda attack on our embassy in Yeman. Now I'm pretty sure Obama wasnt president back then, and we were doing the John Wayne style politics Lindsey Graham said would keep us safe.

July 9th 2008, AKA just 2 months before the above attack. 3 People were killed in an attack on the american embassy in Istanbul.

18 March 2008, A rocket was fired at the embassy in Yeman....yes that would be the same embassy from two paragraphs up, that would come under attack AGAIN 6 months later. This time no embassy workers were killed but only because the rocket missed and blew up a school next to the embassy instead.

That's 3 attacks, 2 ON THE SAME PLACE, in under a year, with a body count of Embassy personal more then twice that on Benghazi. Oddly their was no outrage from any Republican

By the way, you know where senator Lindsey Graham was in 2008? he was wrapping up a stint on the Senate Select committee for Intelligence.....in other words he was one of the people who "should have seen those attacks coming" (assuming such a thing was possible, but thats the charge he is currently leveling at others now in that position so)

Nor was their any outrage, durring the September 12th 2006 attack in Syria, December 6, 2004 attack in Saudi Arabia, June 30th 2004 attack in Uzbekistan, the February 28th 2003 attack in Pakistan, the October 12th attack in Indonesia, the June 14th 2002 attacks in Pakistan or the January 22nd 2002 attacks in India.

Literally all of those were unavoidable tragedies to the GOP  (correctly). no criticisms there at all, no calling the attacks the biggest cover up since watergate or the needing a special congressional committee to get to the bottom of. Nope those were cool.

And to be fair I'm not picking on Bush, cause heres the thing, every single president since at least 1970 (as far back as i cared to look) has seen embassies attacked during his term(s) and people killed. In fact the highest death toll of all embassy attacks was under president clinton in the
1998 United States embassy bombings that killed 223 people. And that I should point out was long before the John Wayne style Foreign policy Graham claims we need to stay safe. So clearly foreign policy plays very little roll in any of thise.

Oh and were was Senator Graham during those attacks? he was in the House then and on the 

United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, AKA the committee actual responsible for embassy safety.....Way to go Lindsey.

And actually to be honest, not much has changed either. Today Senator Graham sits on the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the United States Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, both of which are supposed to identify threats to the United States before they act......kinda like what DIDNT happen in Benghazi.

Look the fact that the ONLY reason the Benghazi attacks are currently getting so much attention is because Republicans are trying to gin up a non existent scandal is pretty disturbing, given what they are basically doing is exploiting a few deaths of their advantage (although given how hard they used 9/11 I'm not shocked)

The fact that the only reason that this attack got any real attention at all was both a mix of when it happened, (election year) and that one of the people killed this time happened to be an ambassador, which makes him much more important then the other smucks who were killed in the other attacks according to the media is sad.

But the fact that Lindsey Graham, the ONE guy in congress who's been dealing with this tragic part of american policy for years is now pretending that this is something like an "unprecedented" situation and pretending foreign policy has anything to do with this at all is just sick.

 

It's time to party like its 1865.

Well since the movie Lincoln came out its apparently now in vogue to make civil war references as political analogies.

First it was Charles Krauthammer: "It’s not just a bad deal, this is really an insulting deal… Robert E. Lee was offered easier terms at Appomattox and he lost the Civil War. The Democrats won by 3% of the vote and they did not hold the House. Republicans won the House. So this is not exactly unconditional surrender, but that’s what the administration is asking of Republicans."

The deal Krauthammer is referring to was the President's initial fiscal cliff proposal, which like it or not is exactly what the president campaigned on. Now of course thats kinda how negotiations are supposed to work. 1 side says "I want 100% of what I want /0% of what you want" the other side says "well how about 0/100?" to which side will say "how about 90/10?" countered by "how about 80/20" and so on and so on, until you wind up in theory with 50/50.  Now of course in any real negotiations any number of other factors come into play so you might get 70/30 or 30/70 ect. But starting with your your list of demands is kinda the way negotiations work.

That said I do understand Krauthammers shock, Obama's got a bad habit of making his first offer "how about 50% of what I want and 50% of what you want" so maybe Krauthammer just forgot what real negotiations look like?

But lets move on to the analogy portion of Krauthammers comments. He's probably right Lee was offered easier terms. See what the confederacy did was treason, and therefor all confederate soldiers could legally have been executed....and if nothing else the high officers likely expected to be. But the terms they got? "give us your guns, and your word you wont fight anymore and go home."

Lets be honest here when you "should" have been executed and the terms you get are "go home" those are extremely easy terms. easy enough that even if Obama's opening offer to the GOP had been "how about we unquestionably do it 100% your way" Lee STILL would have had easier terms, given the potential downside of harder terms.

Also lastly two other points, remember the Bush "landslide" as Republicans including Krauthammer called it? the one that gave him a "sweeping mandate? yea the popular vote different there was 2.4% (50.7-48.3) and the electoral split was 35 (286/251). That Obama win Krauthammer is referring to? Well thats actually 3.6% different at the moment (counts not finished yet) (50.9-47.3) and 126 vote difference in the electoral vote (332-206) and to be honest the Dem's actually got more votes for the house then the GOP, just the GOP majority was large enough to cancel that out...even though they did lose 8 seats.

Now the second point, Lee actually DID expect and offer his unconditional surrender to Grant. Yes Grant gave him good terms. But its not like Krauthammer's implying, that even after the civil war the US wasnt in a position of enough strength to demand unconditional surrender from the CS, who were in a much worse position then the current GOP is in these negotiations.

The US was in a strong enough position to demand unconditional surrender, and they got it. Where as Obama isnt demanding it, since unlike the CS, the GOP is well within their power to say "no" and counter offer to Obama....the fact they refuse to is not Obama's doing.


And now on to our second 1865 reference of the week: Former 1 term Tea Party congressman Alan West who was just defeated. Mr. West was interviewed by NPR when this exchange happened:

"NPR: So what's next for you?

WEST: Look, you know, God closes a door so that he can open up greater doors. I will continue to, you know, stand up and fight for this country. That's my goal. I have two daughters, 19 and 16, and I want to make sure that they grow up in a great America that provides them all the opportunities that it provided to their mother and father.

NPR: Congressman Allen West is completing his term in Congress. He was kind enough to join us from a House recording studio on Capitol Hill here in Washington, D.C.

WEST: And always remember, Abraham Lincoln only served one term in Congress, too.

NPR: Duly noted. Congressman West, thank you so much for speaking with us."

Now heres the thing: Alan West is totally right. Yea I said it. Lincoln was in fact only a one term Representative who then went on to be President (which is clearly the implication Mr. West was trying to make).

But here's the difference between the Truth, and the WHOLE Truth: Lincoln was a one term  Representative entirely by choice. Most Whigs (Lincoln's party at the time) believed in term limits, and Lincoln himself ran for office pledging to only serve the one term, so he made no attempt to run for reelection....unlike Mr. West who lost. Which means in theory at least, unlike Mr. West, Mr. Lincoln was never rejected by the voters. (to be fair I have no idea if Lincoln could have won a second term if he choose to). In fact although Lincoln ran for US senate twice and lost twice, back in those days senators were not directly elected, the various State Legislators elected them, so even that cant count as a rebuff by voters.

And the other thing Mr. West might want to be aware of: when Lincoln became president he was running in a 4 way race (which hasnt happened before or since) and only picked up 39% of the popular vote....just over 1/3 of the country, and in fact only picked up more then 10,000 votes in 18 states out of the then 33 states, so just a hair over 54% of all states....and only got electoral votes in 17 (basically half the states).

In otherwords although a president could win with that same electoral %  today the popular vote % especially in a 2 man race would render said president basically irrelevant and totally ignored and unpopular, and to be honest, in a two man race Lincoln likely would not have won. in fact given that two of his opponents were democrats (as the party ran two tickets that year after splitting on regional lines), had that party held together they would have beaten Lincoln in the popular vote (at least 47% adding their totals together) and likely in the electoral vote as well (although thats a bit harder to calculate)

So if your trying to imply that your going to be a dominate presidential candidate like Mr. West seemed to be, Lincoln is actually a really really poor choice.

However since he was the only former Rep to never hold another public office to go on the be president (12 years later but still) I guess in that respect he is the best Mr. West can hope for at the moment.

Dumbest excuse of the Week part 2

Ok i gotta stop doing the "craziest/dumbest comment of the week" early. I miss out on a lot of gems. So with all due respect to this weeks previous winner Stuart Stevens (from this post ) I gotta rescind that award.

So our first new nominee, proving math really isnt part of the Republican Party, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, who was explaining why the President is going to have to listen to the demands of the Senate Republicans in the fiscal cliff talks. McConnell said: "Three-quarters of our members come from states he didn't carry, Public opinion in those states probably is not helpful to him."


Ok so if the President doesn't listen to you he's going to be opposed by 3/4ths of your Caucus? Well see here's the problem....your caucus only has 47 members. 3/4ths of that is 35. In order to stop a democratic bill from passing the senate you need 51 votes. And 35 < 51. Unless you filibuster of course, in which case you only need 40, but again 35 < 40. The good news is 35 votes is enough to stop a veto from being overridden, but yea that's all you got, you wont override a bill the president vetoed.

So basically Mr. McConnell you just admitted your irrelevant if all you got is 3/4ths of your caucus. Oh and thats your present caucus, the one your getting next month? that only has 45 senators......just saying.

And our second nominee is actually also Mitch McConnell, who again trying to prove why he has any relevance in this fiscal cliff talk proved geography and scale arnt his strong suits either when he said to the president on a phone call that "You won only four out of 120 Kentucky counties and lost many senators’ home states."

Now I just dealt with the home states issue so I'll quickly deal with the Kentucky one. Mitch I know your from Kentucky, but you do know their are 49 other states right? and that because of that, no one gives a flying  fuck how many counties Obama won in Kentucky or Oklahoma or California or any other state, since the counties really arnt large enough to matter comparatively right?

Our third Nominee is Neil Newhouse, the man who ran the internal polls for the Romney Campaign, which were released today and were kinda hilariously wrong. For example the Romney polls said Romney was up 3.5 points in New Hampshire....but the truth is Obama was up by 6. Or that Iowa was a tie.....again Obama was really up 6. Or Colorado which they said was 2.5 points in favor of Romney...was really 5 points in favor of Obama. So at least that explains why Romney was so confident he would win he didnt write a concession speech.

But see its not being incredibly bad at his job (for which he was likely paid millions of dollars) that got Mr. Newhouse this nomination, it was his excuse for why they were so wrong “I’m not sure what the answer is,”.

Points for honesty at least. But really, man you SUCK at your job.

The 4th nominee is kinda  Nth way split, which I guess I will just give to the Right Wing Media. Ok so again on the fisical cliff thing the Democratic position is "let the bush tax cuts on the top two % expire and also cut defense spending" and the GOP position is "no". Now if we do nothing and go over the cliff the bush tax cuts on EVERYBODY expire and defense spending is cut.

Now with that in mind, what is the right wing advice for the GOP (picking just several examples)?

Well lets start with the intellectual leader of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh: “The way to handle that, the way to call his bluff on this is to not negotiate with him and leave it up to him what happens, Very publicly walk away from the talks so that whatever happens vis-à-vis the cliff is perceived to happen"

Redstate blogger and CNN contributor Erick Ericson: "They [the GOP] might as well give it [Cliff negotiations up. They’re going to get the blame no matter what happens. They are disjointed with bad spokesmen. One is orange and the other . . . well . . . .
They might as well dive." (the link is from the original text by the way and not my doing...)


And Fox News and allegedly well respected commentator Charles Krauthammer: "The Republicans are going to walk on this."

Now again keep in mind, if we do nothing (as walking away would cause) the defense cuts and Bush Tax cuts end. Which means the Democrats win everything they want.

Now admittedly we cant stay off the cliff that would be bad, so we will have to find a way to negotiation a way back "up" once we go over, but every single poll suggests if we go over the GOP will take the blame. And they will have just lost everything they want, and the only way they will get it back would be to deal with the Dem's (who will then have a stronger house minority and senate majority) or keep absorbing the blame. So while I personally am in favor of going over the fiscal cliff, it certainly wont help the GOP no matter what the right wing talking heads say.

And finally our 5th nominee, and new winner (in my opinion at least) is John Boehner, who admittedly got nominated not for something he said but for something he did (hey it's my contest I can bend the rules as I see fit :P ). And actually to be fair, I should take some of the heat for this, since the speaker clearly reads my blog, and part of this was my suggestion.

Ok so everyone I'm sure has seen the picture (and read the rant ) of the 19 all white all male GOP committee chairmen right? well see it turned out their were still two committee chairmanships left to announce ...not that it would have made a difference since those committees were all male. But see Speaker John Boehner followed my advise and just appointed a women to one of those committee's just to chair it. Now what I didnt know when I suggested that was that that's never been done before, and now Boehner is taking heat for it as it appears to be a blatant and transparent ploy to get a woman in charge of something. So yea, sorry Mr. Speaker, that one's on me. But the rest is totally on you.

See the committee John Boehner just named a woman to chair is the House Administration Committee. And what are the duties of the Administration Committee? Well they include jurisdiction over the Library of congress and the House library, including buying books for the latter. Jurisdiction over the Botanical Gardens, buying art and statues for the capital, management of the parking lot for the House, the disposition of various executive papers, printing the congressional record, managing and maintaining the office space of the House and my personal favorite, Managing and running the House cafeteria.

Like does that sound like the stereotypical description of the duties of a stay at home mom, a secretary and a librarian (who are usually stereotyped as a female) to anyone else?  And that's really the committee you wanted to put THE ONLY FEMALE CHAIR on?

Oh by the way, did I mention the woman he selected, Rep. Candice Miller was up for the chairmanship of another committee but lost out to one of the 19 white guys? And did I mention that committee was HOMELAND F@CKING SECURITY (where she already chairs a few subcommittees) ? and again John Boehner given that choice was like "eh whatever, put her on the housekeeping committee". 

You know I thought not having any women was bad optics....turns out on occasion having 1 woman is worse.....