The Real Reason for Republican Reagan Reverence.

Ok so I want you to pretend your a republicans, and from that point of view, please tell me if youd vote for this candidate:

Candidate:  signs a bill expanding Abortion. Tripled the national Debt. Opposes the voting rights act. Signed and supported Gun Control. Believed Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. Funded Al Qaeda. Negotiated with and armed terrorists in South America. Passed 11 tax increases, including one increasing Social Security. Pro Amnesty. Reacted to the murder of 238 americans overseas by doing nothing and pulling americans out of that country. Never fought in combat.

Now it turns out, Republicans did vote for this candidate, twice. And those too young to have voted for this candidate claim to this day they totally would have.

In fact that Candidate is Ronald Reagan. Reagan is widely considered the by modern Republicans to be the GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER......even though he basically disagrees with them on every issue they think is important.

Which raises an interesting question: how did Republicans get into that mess, of singing the praises of a man they would oppose on almost every issue?

Now some of it is Reagan's "fault", as Reagan was one of our most charismatic presidents and alked a good game in terms of sounding like he was really conservative while not actually doing anything that conservative. But its been 30 years, the secret's out for most people.

So what's the explanation: well simple, Reagan is basically the only president the GOP has they can point to as successful in the last century so he wins by default.

Alright so since 1914 we have had 17 presidents. And they have been split pretty evenly, with 8 Democrats and 9 Republicans.

Now if we expand this to include the entire 20th century, this number gets much better for the GOP, as it becomes 12 Republicans and still 8 Democrats.

But when we look at the presidents, if becomes clear most of them are ones you wouldnt want to try to emulate/endorse/support.

So for starters failing to win reelection is basically the kiss of death as far as being considered a good president. I dont think any 1 term president who ever stood for reelection and lost breaks anyones top 20. (even on my list of 10 greatest presidents the 2 one termers I had, Authur and Polk, chose not to run again, so didnt actually lose reelection)

So that forces us to bid Good-bye to Taft, Hoover, Ford and H.W. Bush.

meaning the field of potential great republican presidents has shrunk to 8.

Problem is, more half of those 8 have MAJOR flaws associated with them.

Harding was one of the most corrupt presidents ever, and along with his successor Coolidge is widely seen as causing the Great Depression via their economic polices. In fact their combined tenures in office are called the "gilded age" in that everything was basically rotting but was given a nice shiney "finish" to look like it was working.

And then their is Nixon You know, the guy who resigned as president, generally (and unfairly) seen as most corrupt president ever.....yea moving on

And then we get to W.  Now I declined to rate W when I did my 10 best or 10 worst presidents list, but I'll be honest things arnt looking good for him.

Consider, any time a politician has a major fuck up or scandal, the comparison is no longer "[scandal]-gate" as it had been since Nixon (and Watergate) but is now either "[politican's] Katrina" or "[politican's] 9/11". And those comparisons tend to come from republicans. So yea, when your presidency is the metric used to proclaim "worst fuck up ever" thats not a good sign youe going to be considered great. And that doesnt even get us into the 2000 election results....

So that leaves us with 4 Presidents. But again, 2 of them present problems. William McKinley barely counts as a 20th century president, since was first elected in the 19th century, and was killed about a year into the 20th.  So yea, he was just too long ago to be of any real use as a "example of what the party can do/be" Which is a shame, since he wasnt a bad president.

Much the same can be said of his successor Teddy Roosevelt (who I proclaimed the 3rd best president ever). Not only has he been out of office for more than a century, but one of the things instantly associated with him is "trust-buster". AKA he broke up all the "too big to fail" businesses, something the modern GOP is strongly against. So they cant really use him either.


So that brings us down to two choice: Reagan and Eisenhower.

And I'll be honest, this is where I start to have a little trouble. Cause their is really no good reason to not pick Eisenhower and the model for your party. He was the last republican to balance the budget, and was extremely pro free market. he also attempted to take a very hardline stand on immigration (operation wetback). And he doesnt really have any comments on current social issues that could trip him up.

So why wont republicans pick him and not Reagan (with all of his faults) as the standard bearer?

Well I think it actually comes down to 2 things

First it was Eisenhower who signed the first civil rights acts, and as much as the GOP doesnt want to admit it, they do have a strongly racist element in their party, and lots of their candidates (including all 3 announced candidates for 2016) take great pains to go out of their way to talk about how they would have opposed the civil rights acts then or are in favor of ending them now.

and the 2nd reason is timing.

Ok so you ask any random american to name the 10 greatest presidents odds are very good FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ will be on that list. For those not good at chronology, those would be Ike's 2 predecessors and successors.

in otherwords he happens to be the odd republican smack in the middle of the pantheon of greatest Democratic Presidents EVER.  Which is awkward placement

Also it makes him the one republican in a quarter century. So yea, he kinda looks a bit like a fluke, and not really an example you want to follow. (which is a shame, because if you read my rankings, I ranked him 9 overall......althought admittedly that did put him below FDR (2) LBJ (5) and JKF (7)...but above Truman (11))

And as a side note, he might also have some Nixon stink on him, given Nixon was his VP.

So yea, I think those are the reasons the GOP basically wont support him and likes to pretend he doesnt exist.

Which leaves Reagan as really the only president the GOP has the CAN stick up as an example, no matter his faults.

Which I think is part of the reason Reagan is worshiped so blindly (unlike say the Dems and FDR, JFK LBJ and Truman....all of whom dems are willing to admit had faults, because they can always pivot to another of the 4). It doesnt really matter what he stood for, he's all the republicans have, and therefore they dont have a choice.

And given that, the odds of another run of universally considered great presidents, like what happened between 1933 and 1969 is pretty unlikely, it doesnt seem like the situation is going to improve for republicans any time soon (although with the 100 year anniversary of FDR's inauguration coming in 4 presidential elections, it wont be all that long before Dem's start losing some of the guys they can point to as great presidents due to the passage of time.....its just going to take a generation to run through the entire list)

Sic Semper Moronis. The [last] week in stupid part 3.

So finally, we come to the end. It seemed last weeks river of bullshit was bottomless....especially when it fed into the massive faceplant of the ted cruz presidential launch (which even got its own thread devoted to it). But it seems finally, at long last we may have reached the end of the swamp of stupidity.

Up "first" in our final section, Ireland. Yea the entire country of Ireland....or at least its government, who accidentally legalized pretty much every drug ever. So basically what happened was the court of appeals in Ireland ruled a law called the Misuse of Drugs act illegal due to a technicality....which controlled/set the drug penalties.....which kinda got removed by this ruling. OOPS. Of course the government of Ireland tried to undo this as fast as possible....which is 2 days. So yea, for two days it was legal to get all kinds of fucked up in Ireland. Happy St. Patty's day indeed.

Next up, RickPAC, the PAC for Rick Perry's unannounced presidential run, who just hired Jamie Johnson as its senior director. See it turns out Johnson is known for sending emails like

"The question then comes, ‘Is it God’s highest desire, that is, his biblically expressed will, … to have a woman rule the institutions of the family, the church, and the state?”

Yea in other words its God's will that a man be president and a woman get him a damn sammich. That should do wonders for your outreach to women......especially given that this ISNT a new story. It first surfaced in 2012, and the woman in question was presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann. And Johnson was running Rick Santorum's campaign.

Which means RickPAC knew exactly who they were hiring....but apparently somehow thought that taking Santorum's sexist sloppy seconds somehow wouldnt blow up in their faces. Yea...good luck with that.

Next up, I need to cheat a little bit. In that this is actually from this present week, and not last week like the rest of these. Still time waits for no moron, so here it is.

US Congressman Pete Sessions, who said this on the floor of congress yesterday.

“If you just do simple multiplication, 12 million [insured individuals] into $108 billion, we are talking literally every single [Obamacare] recipient would be costing this government more than $5 million per person for their insurance. It’s staggering….$108 billion for 12 million people is immoral. It’s unconscionable. ”

So first off, I'm pretty sure he means division, not multiplication. Still at least he got the simple part right.....problem is (possibly because he was multiplying) thats about all he got right.

See $108 billion divided by 12 million people would be about $9,000 per person.

Or roughly 1/500th of what Pete Session's claimed. But hey, ask any woman....all men exaggerate slightly about how big things are......

But in fairness to Sessions, nine thousand dollars is still a lot of money.....well except it turns out, he got his other numbers wrong too.

According to the CBO, Obamacare would cost 95 Billion....and the number of people on Obamacare is closer to 23 million. meaning the actual cost per person is closer to 4,100 dollars........

Which you know still might be a lot of money to some people. Probably not Pete Sessions though, since thats about what he makes every 10 days.......

Which I agree is totally immoral and unconscionable.....we actually pay morons that much.

Finally our winner.....Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham.

No....the OTHER Billy Graham....you know, the preacher.

 Anyways, Little Graham was on a right wing radio show the other day and said this:

"[Obama's] mother must have been a Muslim, We don't know that, but she married two Muslim men, so there must have been something there."

That sound you hear in the background is my grandmothers ashes bouncing around in her urn, having just learned she's jewish, and the shrieking of my friends wife having just discovered she actually did become a catholic.......not to mention my future wife realizing she always thought all religion was bullshit.

I guess Graham Cracker has never heard of a interfaith marriage. Which is a bit weird given that his father's a baptist and his mother isnt......at least as far as she knew.

But then again, he mother presumably thought women retain their own beliefs and identities after marriage, which I know is a radical notion.

Furthermore I kinda like the implication, Obama must be a Muslim because his parents were one. Its just funny coming from a guy who doesnt identify as Baptist or Presbyterian (his mother's faith).

I mean, that level of self unwareness exhibited by Baby Graham takes some real talent....I think you have to not only train to be that stupid, but you need to be "blessed" with below average intelligence to begin with,

Anywho, that finally caps off bullshit mountain, and one of the longest (and therefore dumbest) "this week in stupid"'s ever.

I'm really hoping it will be a while before I have to do the next one....but something tells me I wont get my wish.

Call it a hunch, but I think a mass of stupidity is headed directly for us.......

Cruzing towards 2016. Ted Cruz for President.

So guess what? the 2016 presidential election has officially begun, as yesterday Republican Senator Ted Cruz has announced he is officially running for president. This annoucement was met with the expected cheers and roars of support from the Democratic Party.

And no, that's not a typo. Because you see, Ted Cruz is the best thing to happen to the Democratic party in a long time.  Basically it works out like this, the better Ted Cruz seems to be doing, the more likely the Democrats will win the presidency.

Ok so the last 2, and upcoming election all have one thing in common: In all 3, there appears to be a defacto Democratic Nominee, making the only real race be on the GOP side, and in some respects therefore the GOP's race to lose (now yes I'm aware Obama upset Clinton in 2008, but the feeling in 2007 was that it was Clinton who would be inevitable, and it was that belief that molded the race, just like this time).

Now in both 2008 and 2012 you had a mix of joke candidates (as in no one actually thought they had a chance in hell of winning) and people you might actually consider serious candidates.

In 2008 the joke candidates were Tom Tancrado, Alen Keyes and Fred Thompson, with Mitt Romney. Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain as the serious candidates.

In 2012 the joke candidates were Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingirch. Where as the serious candidates were Mitt Romney, Buddy Roemer, Jon Huntsman, and at least at first Rick Perry.

Now if you think back to who you actually remember running from those races, you might notice something. You likely never heard of the joke candidates in 2008, but never heard of the serious candidates in 2012.....mostly because of how much the GOP managed to fuck itself over in the 4 years in the middle and lose control of their party to crazy people.

So now we get to 2016, and Ted Cruz, the "first official" candidate (actually the 3rd republican candidate to declare, but no one seems to be taking Jack Fellure (formally of the Prohibition (as in anti booze) Party) and Mark Everson (Bush's IRS head) seriously for some reason).

Heres the thing though, Ted Cruz is clearly in the joke category (as I'll prove in a minute). So he's basically the benchmark here for 2016...the more attention he gets the more 2016 looks like a repeat of the Republicans collapsing under their own stupidity, the less attention he gets the more things look like 2008 where, if not for the economic collapse (a "random" action), and a single bad decision (picking palin) the GOP looked like they might actually have won.

So yea, more attention means making things look like 2012 again....which Democrats want republicans probably dont.

Now, since I know there are some Ted Cruz supporters.....and some who will support any Republican candidate out of party loyalty, let me explain why Ted Cruz is a joke:

1) He's actually an idiot

2) He's actually great at advancing every policy he doesnt support.

Now I know, that seems like normal political sniping.....luckily for me I can prove it.

Alright, so one of the earliest things Ted Cruz was known for was leading one of the only Filibusters of a Defense Secretary (or any Cabinet Secretary) based on the "fact" that Chuck Hagel took $200,000 donations from a group called "Friends of Hamas" Now of course this story was a total work of fiction.....not surprisingly given the massive amount of stupid that needs to exist for you to believe it. For starters, what terrorist group in its right mind would openly try to bribe someone with a group that uses their name? And secondly....$200,000? thats it? seriously? thats all they got? And lastly Cruz claims the donations started AFTER Hagel retired from the senator....and it must be asked what terrorist group would be stupid enough to bribe a retried senator with no power instead of a sitting senator? just saying....

And its not like he's gotten smarter with time, as most recently he tweeted just ahead of his announcing he was running for president, that he would repeal the federal laws about common core......which would be cool and all, if those actually. you know, existed.....

So yea, when your political career so far is bookended by believing in shit that doesnt exist....you might be a moron.

Furthermore, Ted Cruz is already being hammered by some, including Donald Trump, for not being eligible to run for president cause he wasnt born here, he was born in Calgary.

Now while he is in fact eligable, one need only look at how much this has dogged President Obama (who was actually born here) to see how this could be a major nagging problem for Cruz in the base of his own party.....a base he needs if he wants to win.

Now why do I bring this up in a discussion of Cruz's intelligence (or lack of)?  Because, as anyone who clicked the preceding link found out....Cruz is the one who blew the whistle on this story for no apparent reason.  In other words if it wasnt for Ted Cruz, its possible no one would have noticed....especially since, as noted, there is no question he is eligible, so its not a story in and of itself.

So yea, basically Ted Cruz, for no reason, decided to shine light on a "story" that would trip him up when he ran for president. And really a presidential candidate who creates their own road blocks? doesnt scream intelligent to me....


And now we get to the second part of my claim....that Cruz is great at advancing the polices he opposes. And for this we need look no farther than the Government Shutdown a couple years back.

A shutdown that most people claim was engineered by Ted Cruz. First he talked the Republican House into pretending like they wanted to shut down the government before stabbing them in the back and refusing to support his own idea to stave off the shutdown. And what did the Republicans gain from the shutdown? well per the deal to reopen the government, they got more Obamacare even faster than it was supposed to happen.

Which is a major win for the anti obmacare party, the same way Hiroshima was a major win for Japan........

And then we get to his filibuster of the clean debt ceiling increase....which resulted in nothing for the GOP...except making them appear to "cave" by doing what they wanted to do in the first place. SO yea way to support your own party there Ted.

And then there was  another filibuster....this time to stop president Obama's immigration actions. Which didnt exactly work....but did accomplish getting 23 Obama appointee's confirmed that wouldnt have been confirmed if the Senate hadnt had to stay in session extra days due to the filibuster.

Oh and did I mention half of those nominee's were judges, all serving lifetime appointments? Thank Cruz for the dozen liberal judges........a great thing for a so called conservative to be responsible for.

And then, tying back into the lack of intelligence as well, this story broke today:

Ted Cruz just voluntarily choose to enroll in Obamacare. Now this wasnt some deep digging journalist investigation that turned this up, nor was this a long held secret.

This appears to have been the very first thing Cruz chose to do after announcing he's running for president.
 
Now the article I linked to gives the explanation, that his wife basically quit her job to help (in an unspecified way) his campaign and he'd been on her insurance but it doesnt really matter. Cause yea, this was clearly a side effect of her quitting he knew about before hand. He's not surprised by this, so he cant claim ignorance (ironically) 

Which means that, a man, known in part for his opposition to Obamacare, and repeatedly touting the fact he was "lucky enough" to not have to use it, decided to switch over from his private healthcare to the "inferior" Obamacare....right before what is likely the most arduous, stressful and strenuous undertaking of his life, while also pretty much ensuring he would never be anywhere near his local doctor (due to campaigning)....you know basically the time you would want the best health care you could get?

So yea, when he needs the best healthcare he can get.....apparently he chose to enroll in Obamacare.

Which is now the first major news story of the Ted Cruz for President campaign.  Talk about tripping and falling flat on your face walking out the door......

So to sum up, as a democrat I wish Mr. Cruz the best of luck,,,,hopefully we will get more candidates like you in the GOP primaries.

Das Bullshit. This week in stupid part 2.

Alright I know I promised this time would only be not nationally elected stupid people, but turns out, I suck ass at predicting the future. So because nationally elected people keep saying stupid shit, I'm afraid I'm going to have to do just one more nationally elected person......or more to the point, that person again.

Because it turns out, that in just 24 hours, Senator Tom Cotton has managed to get himself, not 1 but 2 more nominations for stupidest person of the week.....and I believe set the all time record for most nominations by a single person in a single week.....

New nomination #1. Tom Cotton is now authoring a bill that would punish any country that had accepted a prisoner transfer from Gitmo by cutting off all aid to that country. Which is includes such members of the axis of terror as "The United Kingdom" "France" "Canada" "Germany" "Denmark" "Sweden" "Spain"  "Switzerland" "Australia" "Italy" "Saudi Arabia" "Ireland" "Portugal" "Belgium" "Turkey" and of course "The United States of America", many of which only took the transfers as a favor to either the Obama or Bush administrations.

Cause you know, kicking our allies and ourselves in the balls is generally accepted as a good idea.....

New nomination #2.

Ok, so this will require a quick explanation. As you may know Bibi Netanyahu just won reelection as Prime Minster. However, a couple of days before the election Bibi walked away from his support for a "two state solution" to the Palestinian/Israeli issues, presumably to try to win support. Pretty much 90 seconds after the polls closed Netanyahu then flip flopped on that and back to allegedly favoring a two state solution.

Now since that is probably the single most important issues in Israeli politics, that is an almost earthshattering double flip flop.

Which has lead to multiple governments issuing statements worried about if they can trust Bibi. Including our own.

Per our state department: "the administration is “currently evaluating our approach” to the recently reelected Netanyahu"

Apprently this statement bothered Senator Tom Cotton who had this to say about it

“While Prime Minister Netanyahu won a decisive victory, he still has just started assembling a governing majority coalition. These kinds of quotes from Israel’s most important ally could very well startle some of the smaller parties and their leaders with whom Prime Minister Netanyahu is currently in negotiations.”

So yea, it seems Tom Cotton is bothered by people with no role in negotiations doing or saying anything that might interfere with those negotiations.

Makes you wonder what he would have to say to the 47 Senators who following the lead of a guy named Tom Cotton and wrote a letter widely precieved as treasonous to interfere with negotiations that the senate had no part of....

Anyways, now finally moving on to the promised unelected portion of this week in stupid.

And we start this section off with Dr. Ben Carson, who is allegedly running for president....and clearly the front runner to be the next Herman Cain, as he proved with this exchange with radio Host Hugh Hewitt

"HH: The Baltic states are very nervous, and we have troops in the Baltic states. Ought NATO to be willing to go to war if Putin attempts in the Baltic states anything like he’s attempted in Ukraine?


BC: I think they would be willing to go to war if they knew that they were backed up by us. I think part of the problem throughout the world right now is that our allies cannot be 100% certain that we’re behind them."

Well given that we are not only part of NATO but provide the majority of the money and equipment for NATO.....yea I think we can safely assume we will back up ourselves......it seems Dr. Carson is unaware the US is in NATO....and it's not going to get any better

"HH: And so should we have that sort of commitment, that if Putin makes a move on the Baltic states, we’d go to war?

BC: Well, if we have them involved in NATO. We need to convince them to get involved in NATO and strengthen NATO."

Now if you dont know anything about the world, Carson makes a really good point....however if you do know something.,..well actually you know what, Imma let Mr. Hewitt handle this one

"HH: Well, the Baltics, they are in NATO. So that’s, we’ll come back after the break and continue that conversation. And Poland’s in NATO, and we’ll talk about what that means with Dr. Ben Carson doing foreign affairs on the Hugh Hewitt Show."

Yea....and for the record Dr. Carson, its not a good sign when the radio host has to tell you the country he wants to ask you about next is in NATO, so as you wont look like a moron again. Except he failed, as here's more from later in the show

"HH: But Dr. Carson, one of the things I know that’s going to come up, and again, I don’t do ambush interviews, but when it appeared you didn’t know that the Baltic states were a part of NATO, or where you date the…

BC: Well, when you were saying Baltic state, I thought you were continuing our conversation about the former components of the Soviet Union. Obviously, there’s only three Baltic states.

HH: Right, and they’re all part of NATO.

BC: Right."

So where to begin? Either Doc Carson doesnt understand the difference between the Baltic States and the Eastern Bloc and/or Warsaw Pact.  Or Carson doesnt know that ALL of the Warsaw Pact countries (excluding the USSR) have also joined NATO in addition to not knowing the Baltic States had joined.

In either case, someone might want to get him a plane ticket to Uzibecibeckistanstan with Herman Cain.......

 Next up. our first of two locally elected politicians/groups, New Hampshire Republicans.

Ok so a group of 4th graders asked the NH legislature to consider making the Red Tailed Hawk the State Raptor of New Hampshire.

This is literally the least contentious bill that can exist. This should be the easiest vote in the world. Or so the 4th graders thought as they went to the state house to see it pass.....only to see this happen:

First State Republican Rep Warren Groen: "It grasps them with its talons then uses its razor sharp beak to basically tear it apart limb by limb, and I guess the shame about making this a state bird is it would serve as a much better mascot for Planned Parenthood."

Then Republican Rep. John Burt: "Bottom line, if we keep bringing more of these bills, and bills, and bills forward that really I think we shouldn't have in front of us, we'll be picking a state hot dog next."
Because you know.....no matter what you actually think of the bill ridiculing 4th graders for bringing it to you is a GREAT idea. Also really....now we have the slippery slop argument that  recognizing Hakws will lead to legal recognition of Hot Dogs and more abortions??? REALLY?

Next up, our second locally elected nominee of the week: Nevada Republican Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, who was attempting to defend the proposed voter ID bill from charges of being racially discriminatory when she said this:

"But I can tell you the great respect I have for my peer Mr. Munford for being the first colored man to graduate from his college, We’re in 2015 and we have a black president, in case anyone didn’t notice. So the color and the race issue; I think it’s time that we put that to rest?"
Golly Gee Wilikers. I cant understand what all the fuss is about? It seems to me the little lady has made a good point. I mean shucks, we let them colored go to college now. I thought I'd be danged before I ever saw that happen. and Gee Wiz I thought I'd never see the day one of them became president......

Meanwhile for those of us NOT STUCK in 1965's vocabulary, a pro tip to the assembly woman....when claiming something isnt racist, might be a good idea NOT to use a term that dates back to jim crow and hasnt been in vogue since....

Also I love the logic here. If, before the law was passed, something happened, there is no way to pass a law that might prevent such a thing from happening again.

Except of course that is the entire point of pretty much every law ever passed.....to prevent something that already happened from happening again. So the only possible interpretation of her comment is that, since we all ready had our black president, we dont need another one for them colored folks because they wont be so uppity anymore......

So yea, congrats assembly woman, I think you did a great job at proving why some people might be worried about this bill being intended to have a racial bias.

Now you may have noticed I havnt named a winner yet.....and theirs a reason for that. I havnt gotten to them yet. Because of having to insert those extra comments from Senator Treason...err Cotton, it seems I am going to actually need a part 3 to cover all the stupid of the last week (and slightly more)

Ph.D. in Moronology. The week in stupid part 1.

So yea, in my last week in stupid, I pointed out it had been 8 months since enough stupid had piled up for me to need to do one.

WELP they are making up for lost time. Seriously, I hit the the number of stupid comments I could make fun of, and have a decent length blog like 4 days ago, I've just been too busy to sit down and write it. Which is a shame for me cause the stupid kept flowing and now I'm gonna need multiple blogs to carry the weight of all this brain excrement.

First up, Ted Cruz with a rare double nomination

He started off unveiling his new conspiracy theory about the pending criminal indictment of Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, who also happened to be a supporter of the infamous Netayahu speech

“The timing is curious, It raises a suggestion to other Democrats that if you dare part from the Obama White House, that criminal prosecutions will be used potentially as a political weapon as well, That’s a serious concern.”
And you know, to be honest, Cruz seems right. I mean announcing a criminal investigation into someone a week or so after they defied you looks bad right?

"This investigation has been going on for over a year and yet the very week they announce a pending indictment comes within hours after Sen. Menendez showing courage to speak out against President Obama’s dangerous foreign policy that is risking the national security of this country.”

Wait, the investigation started last YEAR, for an "offense" committed last WEEK.

you know what this means right? THE WHITE HOUSE CAN SEE THE FUTURE.......

Although, they clearly arnt very good at it. Otherwise they could look into the future, see where they found dirt on the guy, and find it overnight......they shouldnt need a year prep time.

Plus you'd think they would have foreseen Cruz discovering they can see into the future. And they've had years to arrange an unfortunate accident for him before he figured it out. Oh well. I guess assassinations from the future is just one more failure of this White House. Thanks Obama.

Not that the week got much better for the Senator from Texas. as he took to twitter and tweeted this:

"Federal govt has no business sticking its nose in education. We need to repeal every word of Common Core! #nhpolitics #MakeDCListen"

Now, once again to show why Cruz is a moron, we turn to time travel.....but this time we look not to the future but to the past....................where we quickly discover that their is not common core legislation at the federal level.......Because its not a federal program.......its state run and managed.

So yea.....looks like Senator Cruz has his work cut out for him, because first he has to PASS Common Core at the federal level just to be able to attempt his goal of repealing it.

But hey, you got to give him credit. If the senate wont pass any bills, seems like the next logical step is to repeal the bills they wont pass......

Next up, we turn our attention to the fallout of the [not really] Treason Letter issued by the "#47Traitors" (to use their twitter tag) in the senate.

First off we turn to the National Review, who when trying to explain why the letter wasnt treason, offer up this gem:

"The Cotton/GOP letter regarding Tehran’s atom-bomb talks with Obama was not sent to the ayatollahs. Had Cotton & Co. actually delivered their communiqué to Iran’s mullahs — perhaps via a Swiss diplomatic pouch or something even more cloak and dagger — their critics would be on less swampy ground in calling them “traitors,” as the New York Daily News screamed.[...]“Because it was an open letter, it was not sent to Tehran but rather posted on Senator Cotton’s website and social-media accounts,” Caroline Rabbitt, Senator Cotton’s communications director, explained to me last week. Cotton & Co. never even dropped an envelope in the mail.[...]Agree or disagree with that point, here is the inescapable truth: Tom Cotton and his Senate colleagues never contacted anyone in Iran. That fact alone should turn the Left’s fluttering “GOP = Treason” banner into a wet rag."

Now, as you might have guessed from how I introduced it, I dont disagree that the letter isnt treason.

But the defense of "if we didnt mail it, it doesnt count"? Seriously? you've never heard of E-mail?

More to the point, the idea seems to be that if it was posted on a website, no one [in iran] could read it. Which is bad news for you, dear reader, as it seems your just a figment of my imagination. As apparently is the national review, since, if you follow the link (assuming you were real) you would find I took this story from their webpage.

So yea, claiming, on your website, that no one can read a website, kinda begs the question "Do you have any idea what the fuck you are doing....just you know, in general?"

Next up, we turn to the leader of the 47, the man who authored the open letter, Senator Tom Cotton, who was asked to explain (as all the 47 have been) what the fuck he was thinking. Now like the rest of the 47, he failed....however he failed spectacularly:

"Moreover we have to stand up to Iran’s attempts to drive for regional dominance. They already control Tehran increasingly they control Damascus and Beirut and Baghdad and now Sana’a as well. They do all that without a nuclear weapon. imagine what they would do with a nuclear weapon." 

Now heres the thing. I want the government of Iran controlling Tehran........which is only as radical a statement as saying I want the government of the United States controlling Washington DC, and the government of Britain controlling London (and Westminster).

Cause yea, Tehran is kinda the capital of Iran.....so if they Iranian government isnt controlling it, I'd say we have a pretty big problem on our hands.

Fun fact by the way, Tehran became the capital in 1796....4 years before DC became our Capital. Just saying, its not like Tom Cotton hasnt had plenty of time to look at a map.....

And next we move from current Senators to a former Senator.....Senator Rick Santorum (dont google him), who apprently is under the impression he's running for president and people actually give a shit. Anyways at a recent "campaign stop" he said this:

“Why are Bibles no longer in public schools? Don’t give me the Supreme Court. The reason Bibles are no longer in the public schools is because we let them take them out of the public schools. You say, ‘Well, we can’t get them back in?' Yes we can! Yes we can!"

"How much are you willing to sacrifice? One person got the Bibles out of the schools. We have more than one person here! But you’ve got to have the same passion in preserving our country as they do to transform it."

Yea see heres the problem.....I dont know who Rick Santorum is talking about with his "one person".
Because the reason bibles were banned from schools is because of the Supreme Court.....who apparently I'm not allowed to mention......ruled on it. Oh, and here's the thing. It was an 8 to 1 ruling.

So I cant exactly figure out which 1 judge was the one who swung the vote......unless Santorum thinks the "1"  in 8-1 was ruling in favor, with 8 against....and doesnt understand which number is bigger.

Now to be honest, I had first figured that the "One Person"  might have been the person who brought the case....but 2 problems emerged.
1) the case had 2 plantiff's....I dont know which one would be the one
2) As the Supreme Court doesnt exist in Santorumland, it seems doubtful their cases could....so it really couldnt be either plantiff anyways.

So yea.....just going to assume this "one" is named Obama......

Or maybe this guy?

But in either case, Rick Santorum talking out his ass shouldnt really surprise anyone at this point. (Pro time, NEVER google "Santorum" and "Ass" at work....You will be fired.)

Lastly we head back to the House....and full circle back to Bibi Netanyahu this time in the form of Rep Steve King, who is trying to explain the boycott by Democrats of Netanyahu's speech to congress:

“Well, there were some 50 or so Democrats that decided they would boycott the president’s speech. One thing that’s happened is — just look at the polling, that means — here is what thing that I don’t understand, I don’t understand how Jews in America can be Democrats first and Jewish second and support Israel along the line of just following their president,[...]I’m amazed to see this happen. It’s a phenomenon that I did not expect to see in post-World War II, the revulsion of what I saw. But anti-Semitism is a component of this and just plain liberalism is another component."

So yea, according to Steve King all Jews should think and act the exact same by virtue of being Jewish....and liberals are anti Semitic. Me thinkth the Congressman might need to look up the definition of Irony.

However I see Steve King's point. It is unthinkable to go against your religion's home country. So with that in mind, as a loyal American, using Steve King's logic, I now present this countries National Anthem.

Anywho, that wraps up this half of this week in stupid. next time will be all the stupid people who arnt elected members of our government (and one exception). So until next time, GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

One stupid son of a Mitch

Ok so as an elected politician one of the unofficial parts of the job is usually going on TV/Radio ect  doing interviews. And clearly if your on TV all the time, your liable to say one or two stupid things....just as any politician elected in the last 40 years.

That said, on CNN's State of the Union this morning (3/15/15 for those reading the blog after it was posted) Mitch McConnell gave one of the worst interviews I have ever seen, and managed to exceed the number of allowable stupid comments a politician can have in a career in a single interview.

As usual, when I do something like this, I'm going to give the quotes first, my comments/explanations as to why they are stupid second.  Since I cant find short vidoes of McConnell individual comments I'm pulling from the CNN transcript, which does have a disclaimer it might be edited later, however based on what I saw and read it seems accurate.

Starting from the top:


"DANA BASH: Let's just talk first about the timing of this.
There's a lot of discussion about the fact that this was done in a rushed way, signed quickly, before senators wanted to get out of town for the snowstorm.

When did Senator Cotton come to you with this letter? Explain the process.

MCCONNELL: Well, Dana, first, let me just say, I think this is a good case of selective outrage.

I remember reading about Senator Robert Byrd when he was the majority leader flying to Moscow during the negotiations over the SALT II treaty explaining to the Russians the Senate's role in treaty ratification. And John Kerry, when he was a senator, flew to Managua and met with a communist dictator there, Daniel Ortega, and accused the Reagan administration of engaging in terrorism.

So, look, members of Congress expressing themselves about important matters, not only at home, but around the world, is not unprecedented.

So, the main point here I think everybody needs to understand is the president is about to make what we believe will be a very bad deal. He clearly doesn't want Congress involved it at all. And we're worried about it. We don't think he ought to make a bad deal with one of the worst regimes in the world.


I signed the letter. I don't think it was a mistake. It's no more unusual than Robert Byrd going to Moscow or John Kerry going to Managua."

Alright, actually have to give some credit to McConnell for pulling up some similar examples. Of course all of those examples were of 1 individual, and all generated massive controversy. But still not a bad defense.

However then we leap directly into the stupid, when he starts taking about how this is a "bad deal."

Based on WHAT exactly? We dont know anything about the deal, other than one is happening.

Therefore I must assume that the bad part of the deal is its existence in the first place. Now of course it exists to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, so if your against that premise, your kinda pro Iranian nuke/anti peace.

Or in otherwords EXACTLY what your critics are saying about you.

So much for a good defense. And it keeps going down hill from there  

"BASH: Did you go -- did you go over it? Did you look at it, suggest...

MCCONNELL: Yes, I read it. I read it.

BASH: Make suggestions?

MCCONNELL: I thought it was entirely appropriate to explain that the process is going to include Congress at some point."

Except as your own damn website states, this process probably wouldnt include congress.

If you dont take my word for it, lets skip ahead a couple of minutes in this interview

"MCCONNELL: I think what we need to talk about here is the substance of the issue.

Apparently, the administration is on the cusp of entering into a very bad deal with one of the worst regimes in the world that would allow them to continue to have their nuclear infrastructure. We're alarmed about it. A number of Democrats are alarmed about it. We will be acting. We will either be voting on a bill that would require the deal to come to Congress. The president says he would veto that. "

Ok so first, not sure how McConnell knows the details of the deal, cause as I said the public knows nothing. But thats not really the point here.

The point is the last two sentences. Congress is voting on a bill requiring the deal to come to congress.

But you also just said the fact the deal was ALREADY going to involve congress is the reason why the letter is appropriate.

So then why would you need to vote on bringing something to congress that is already on its way to congress hence why your letter was a-ok?

Don't worry its a rhetorical question....you we lying the first time, because even you know there is no good excuse in telling Iran not to trust our government as you did.

Of course, probibly due to the several minute interval between contradictions there was no follow up beyond "so you dont think this letter hurt you?" "no" and they moved on the next subject.........at which point McConnell proceeded to put his foot in his mouth AGAIN.

"BASH: OK. Let's move on to human trafficking.
It's a bill that has -- talk about bipartisan support -- broad bipartisan support to stop human trafficking.

MCCONNELL: Yes.

BASH: It stalled in the Senate this past week. Democrats say that they are holding it up now because they discovered what they call an anti-abortion provision in there. And they are demanding that you take it out.

Just sort of big picture, this is the kind of thing that you said you wanted to stop. It was sort of the gridlock of the old Senate happening again.

MCCONNELL: Yes. I'm glad you brought this up.

The Democrats are acting the same way in the minority they did in the majority. They don't seem to like to vote. Here are the facts. This is -- was a noncontroversial bill. It came out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. The language that they now profess to find offensive was in there from the beginning. "

On if the wording was changed or not, I have no idea. So for the moment I'm willing to concede that point to McConnell. Mostly because my focus was really on the first two sentences of the last paragraph.

Its one of those things that I'm sure sounds great.....assuming you dont understand english. I honestly could almost write a blog about the breakdown of internal logic just in those two sentences along.

For example. lets accept McConnell premise, that the Democrats just dont like to vote. Now while they were in the majority that certainly would have been a problem since the majority controls what bill. But since they are now in the minority, that shouldnt matter right?

Well not unless the minority could somehow control what comes to the floor...via this process we call a filibuster. Of course if the minority can filibuster maybe its not the democrats fault nothing got passed in the last two years?
 
Except of course, oddly McConnell didnt say the word "filibuster" (probably because he knows his is the first name that comes to mind when people hear it). Which might draw people to a different conclusion, that Mitch McConnell is to inept at his job to do it unless he can get the minority party to do it for him.

Yea....no matter how you slice it there is no way that sentence does good things for McConnell. Which I imagine will be a repeated problem for him if he really cant bring himself to say the word "Filibuster" when trying to explain to his voters why he couldnt do "X"

Anyways back to the interview. I actually cut the final paragraph of McConnell's previous point because I wanted to deal with it separately so here we go:

"And this will have an impact on the timing of considering the new attorney general. Now, I had hoped to turn to her next week, but, if we can't finish the trafficking bill, she will be put off again. They need to come to grips with this. I offered them a simple up-or-down vote if they wanted to take out language that they all voted -- that they all voted for three months ago."

Wait....so because the Dem's wont give you your abortion bill you wont give them an attorney general?

Thats not really a great idea for 2 reasons

1) the current attorney general eric holder is hated by republicans possibly more than Obama. You do realize he cant leave until you confirm his replacement right? So the longer that takes the longer your stuck with an AG your voters think should be removed from office ASAP.....

Democrats meanwhile love Holder, and many are sad to see him go. So threatening to not let him leave really isnt going to get democrats to cave to your demands. As long as they hold the line the Dem's get 100% of what they want, and you get nothing.

Great job convincing them to negotiate.......

2)  if confirmed Loretta Lynch would be the first black female AG in history.
And black folks are one of those groups the GOP keeps trying to reach out to....you think they will take kindly to seeing this delayed? I dont.

To make matters worse, Mitch McConnell should be at least in his 3rd, possibly 5th year as majority leader. Except in both 2010 and 2012 the GOP blew a what appeared to be a sure thing by focusing on 1 issue. Abortion/birth control.

So coming up on a presidential election, and a year numbers dont favor the GOP in the senate, you really want to focus attention on abortion by making it a bigger deal via linking it to something else?

More to the point, you really want to link your parties poison bill to the confirmation of a historic AG, so that you cant also shoot yourself in the foot on minority outreach at the same time?

Well I mean....what could possibly go wrong?

Unless maybe, just maybe, these two are linked in a way I dont see. Lets find out:

"BASH: So, it sounds like you are threatening to hold up Loretta Lynch, who has been in limbo for months and months...

MCCONNELL: It's not a threat. We need to finish this human trafficking bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. That's the next item.

BASH: Right.

MCCONNELL: It's on -- it's on the Senate floor right now.

BASH: Right.

MCCONNELL: We need to finish that, so we have time to turn to the attorney general, because, the next week, we will be doing the budget, and two weeks -- and the next two weeks after that, Congress is not in session.

BASH: So, unless Democrats give in, Loretta Lynch's nomination will not be on the Senate floor next week?

MCCONNELL: We have to finish the human trafficking bill. The Loretta Lynch nomination comes next. And as soon as we finish the human trafficking bill, we will turn to the attorney general.

Oh. I get it. It turns out the two ARE linked, via the incompetency of Mitch McConnell's senate, which it seems can only do 1 thing at a time.

Just like McConnell's senate....except they wouldnt have managed the gum

 Which raises another question.....assuming the bill to bring the Iran deal to congress actually passes.....when exactly would you get around to voting on it?

Cause you seem kinda busy in the the next month or so....so I would assume maybe by may you would have found some time to vote on that bill.

And note that's just the bill.....presumably the deal itself would have to wait its turn in line until everything else got taken care of.....1 at a time of course.

Of course, at that rate none of this matters since I'm sure the deal will be done in less than a month.....so in less time then you need to bring the bill to the floor.

So what was your justification for the Iran letter again? since by your own admission the Senate is really really busy, so probably couldnt take on doing a second thing at once.....it might hurt your little teeny tiny brains.....

Mercifully for McConnell, other than some speculation on who might be the GOP nominee in 2016, that was the end of his interview, so he managed to get away without saying anything else stupid......this time anyways, at the rate he's going I'm sure he will have plenty of chances in the future.  

Senator Treason of Iran

So unless you've been living under a rock, you probably heard about the letter that 47 Republican senators sent to the government of Iran. You know, the one thats getting them accused of Treason....

By the way, as of March 12th 9:55 PM EDT, the top google result on the word "Treason" is an article about this letter. Now admittedly that article is explaining (correctly) why the letter is not Treason (although it may be criminal).

Still thats the top result just for the word Treason. So, when what you did tops that list I'm pretty sure thats a leading indicator that someone (read 47 republican senators) massively massively fucked up. In fact this has gotten so much attention, that even right wing websites are reporting the petition on whitehouse.gov demanding the republican's be charged with treason absolutely shattered the required number of signatures needed to get a white house response (the standard is 100,000 signatures in 30 days. As of yesterday, 2 days after the petition went up, it had 165,000 signatures, As of right now, it has 255,156 signatures.....or double and half again the required number....in 1/10 the time).

And here's the thing, potentially being seen as treasonous, isnt even the only problem in this letter.

Before we go any farther,  the Obama administration is currently involved in negotiations to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb presumably by lifting trade sanctions in exchange for Iran to stop nuclear development and allow for regular inspections

Now with that in mind here is the letter itself:


"An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress."

Yea thats right. The senate of the United States (or 47 of its members) just wrote to the Iranian government saying that our government cant be trusted to hold up our end of the deal if you agree to not develop a nuke.

Starting to see the problem yet?

Now shockingly the letter actually got a response from Iran, per Iran's state controlled news

[Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad] Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

Foreign Minister Zarif added, “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.”

The Iranian Foreign Minister added that “change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.”

“I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with ‘the stroke of a pen,’ as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.”

He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.

Zarif expressed the hope that his comments “may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not ‘modify the terms of the agreement at any time’ as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.”

The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as “mere executive agreements” and not treaties ratified by the Senate.

He reminded them that “their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such ‘mere executive agreements’ that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.”

Zarif concluded by stating that “the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement possible.”

Now of course, this appears to be a case of He said/He said right? So how do we know who's right? lets go to the website of the United States Senate and see what they have to say about it.

Turns out they side overwhelmingly with the Iranian.....

"In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law."

" According to a 1984 study by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, "88.3 percent of international agreements reached between 1946 and 1972 were based at least partly on statutory authority; 6.2 percent were treaties, and 5.5 percent were based solely on executive authority."

"The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated."

Translation: While republicans got the name right, literally everything else goes to Iran. Most "treaties" arnt the treaties in the constitutional sense, but treaties in the international law sense. (this agreement for the record would most likely fit under the 93.8% of things the senate has no say on), and its actually not clear the president or next congress could modify the agreement with the stroke of a pen.

There is also one other very embarrassing thing on the Senate.gov website the Iranian foreign minister was nice enough not to mention.

You know that whole bit in the GOP letter "First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. "?

Well it turns out, per the Senate.gov website.....thats not true. "The Senate does not ratify treaties"
What they do instead is: the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s)

Now, yes at the end of the day, the treaty cant move forward without senate consent, but still when you start your letter "It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system." and it turns out the very point of which you are writing about is wrong (even if only via technicality) thats kinda embarrassing.

And that's only after the recipient of the letter writes a response showing he knows more about the subject than you.....and is supported by your own website.

So yea massively embarrassing website. Republicans attempted to show their expertise on the american government (which, you know, by virtue of being the american government they should kinda have) and instead get shown to be too fucking stupid to read their own job descriptions......

And all of that is before we get into the PR aspect of this. You know, the one that puts the Republican party on the same side as the radical militant Islamist in Iran, and against the concept of peace.....yea, thats gotta be the worlds strangest bedfellows ever.

All of which probably explains why republicans are running for the hills, trying to get as far away from this letter as they can, as fast as they can.

It started off as a slow walk away, when the day after the letter was published, this got reported:(per the dailybeast)

" Two GOP aides separately described their letter as a “cheeky” reminder of the congressional branch’s prerogatives.

“The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations,” said a top GOP Senate aide.""

Translation Well yea of course this letter looks bad.....if you think we actually meant it, we were just kidding.

Which then turned into a slow jog with comments like this:

"I also understand the frustration when this president has done everything in his power to prevent awareness on the part of congressional leadership on exactly what the terms under consideration are, or his willingness to sit down with Congress and talk about the legislation they are trying to pass right now, I think if we had a president who had engaged more in understanding that Congress has a very critical role in all elements of government, we could avoid this type of sad situation." (-George Pataki. One example of many like this)

Translation: Yea it was a fucking stupid letter. But Obama made us do it. Blame Obama. No really PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE blame Obama cause we cant accept we were that stupid.

Which has now turning into a full rout with comments like this:

“It was kind of a very rapid process. Everybody was looking forward to getting out of town because of the snowstorm, I think we probably should have had more discussion about it, given the blowback that there is.”

Translation: hey come on, we didnt even read the thing, so you cant assume we support it.

Oh, by the way, that statement was made by John McCain, who actually signed the letter. Was also the Republican Nominee for president a while back. Just, you know, in case people only think its political lightweights running away.

And he's not the only one: In fact most of the other signers have already passed over into the land of denial. Again as example. Senator Pat Toomey:

“That letter is just the most recent case of my doing all that I can to prevent Iran from having a nuclear bomb.”

Translation: That letter I signed, the one that said "dont trust the americans if they ask you to give up your bombs cause they will change the agreement after the fact" well thats actually three dimensional opposite day political chess game for "you should totally trust the americans and give up your nukes.

Finally we get to the ultimate in republican backpeddle, presumed presidential candidate Rand Paul:

""I'm kinda one of the Senators who's in favor of negotiations with Iran, I want there to be a peaceful outcome. But I want to strengthen the president's hand. I want to strengthen his hand by saying, you know what, we've got a lot of hardliners, and we're going to have to get this agreement by Congress and by doing so maybe the president will negotiate a more appropriate deal"

Translation: I undercut the negotiations because I'm in favor of them. AND I AGREE WITH OBAMA ON THEM AND I WANT TO HELP OBAMA DO BETTER.

Think about that. For the first time in 6+ years we have a high level republican saying basically they agree with President Obama on something.

Not only that, but the high level republican is presumably running for president in 2016 on a party wide platform of repudiate EVERYTHING Obama/democrats ever did.  Yet even he is now forced to look like he likes and agrees with Obama just to get his ass out of the fire.

So yea, if that doesnt show just how fucking deep the shit is the republicans put themselves in on this one, just how badly they miscalculated, that they now have to claim they are either bad at their jobs (McCain) and/or support Obama (Paul) literally nothing will.


But on the upside no one gives a shit anymore about John Boehner violating all kinds of diplomatic and governmental norms by inviting Netuyahu. So you know, at least one republican probably sees this letter as a good thing......