#ReadyForHillary ??? #ReadyForWarren ??? What Schumer Said, What It Means

Don’t be fooled. Big Media and Obama Dimocrats are at it again. We’re not talking Cromnibus. Although that too stinks to low Hell and features Elizabeth Warren.

Recently, in a speech that did not get the coverage it deserved due to so much other news, Chuck Schumer made an astounding political move on 2016 which was immediately misunderstood by Republicans/conservatives and twisted by Big Media into what it was not. Schumer’s speech was portrayed as a boost for Hillary Clinton 2016. But Schumer’s speech was really a move to propel Elizabeth Warren and hurt Hillary Clinton 2016.

The incorrect analysis of the Schumer speech goes like this: Chuck Schumer made a speech about ObamaCare designed to help Hillary Clinton 2016 as it makes the necessary move to distance Hillary and the party from the Obama disasters which have led to the decimation of the party at local, state, and national levels.

In 2008 Chuck Schumer played the same game. In public Schumer was a Hillary Clinton supporter. In private, Schumer advised Obama to mercilessly “take a two-by-four” and smash it into Hillary’s head. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Rahm Emanuel, Donna Brazile, all pretended to be neutral in 2008 but they were all helping Obama behind the scenes and doing everything to destroy Hillary Clinton. Yesterday’s Howard Dean endorsement of Hillary Clinton is another ploy… but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

Back to 2×4 Schumer and what he is up to. The New York Times‘ Tom Edsall wrote a good article about Schumer’s speech:

Is Obamacare Destroying the Democratic Party?

Charles Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, has forced a debate over fundamental party priorities out into the open. Should Democrats focus primarily on the problems of the poor or should they first address the economic struggles of the working and middle classes? [snip]

Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem – health care reform. The plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships caused by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed. But it wasn’t the change we were hired to make; Americans were crying out for an end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs; not for changes in their health care. This makes sense considering that 85 percent of all Americans got their health care from either the government – Medicare or Medicaid – or their employer. And if health care costs were going up, it didn’t really affect them. [snip]

There were also adverse political and policy consequences to the emphasis on enactment of Obamacare:

Had we started more broadly, the middle class would have been more receptive to the idea that President Obama wanted to help them. The initial faith they placed in him would have been rewarded. They would have held a more pro-government view and would have given him the permission structure to build a more pro-government coalition. Then Democrats would have been in a better position to tackle our nation’s health care crisis.

Read what Schumer is saying carefully. Schumer’s pique is not against Obama nor ObamaCare. Schumer wanted Obama to deceive with greater skill so that once the middle class was gulled into support for Obama it would have given “the permission structure to build a more pro-government coalition.

Schumer in 2008 bought into the “coalition of the ascendant” hogwash peddled by kooks such as Ruy Teixeira. Schumer’s goal is to realize the fool’s gold new coalition to supplant the FDR coalition (which Schumer must forget actually won elections and built the party for 40 years).

After Schumer’s speech the usual Obama henchmen went into Obama protection mode. Their goal is Obama worship not political strategy or how to build a party so these Obama thugs (Tommy Vietor, Jon Lovett, etc.) did not have the intellectual heft to understand what Schumer was saying. The Obama thugs attacked Schumer out of reflex because all they care about is their love bug Obama.

Edsall noted that public opinion sides with Schumer because public opinion is against ObamaCare. Edsall writes that the consequences have been dire for those interested in party building. Edsall writes that “there were huge white defections from the Democratic Party; in 2010 and 2014, there were comparable defections of senior voters.

Edsall explains Schumer’s speech very well:

The only way for Democratic Party leaders to stop the hemorrhaging, in Schumer’s view, is to take on the task of using the government to intervene in the private sector, pushing to raise wages and revive job opportunities for working men and women.

“Large forces – technology, automation and globalization – are not inherently malign forces,” Schumer said, but the burden is on Democrats “to figure out ways for the middle class to adapt to these new forces – to be able to thrive amidst these forces.” The only counterweight “that can give you the tools to stand up to the large tectonic forces, that can mitigate the effects that technology creates on your income, is an active and committed government that is on your side.”

Standing in the way of activist intervention is the fact that “the American public is so cynical about government that a Democratic, pro-government message would not be immediately successful.” To restore credibility, Schumer argued, the “first step is to convince voters that we are on their side, and not in the grips of special interests.” He specifically suggested the prosecution of bankers for “what seems, on its face, blatant fraud” and tax reform designed to ensure that C.E.O.s paid higher rates “than their secretaries.” In effect, he said, “an element of populism, even for those of us who don’t consider ourselves populists, is necessary to open the door before we can rally people to the view that a strong government program must be implemented.”

The ability of the Democratic Party to convince middle-class voters that it is on their side is by no means guaranteed. In mid-November, 2008, just after Obama first won election, 55 percent of voters had a favorable view of the Democratic Party. In the immediate aftermath of the recent election, according to Gallup, the favorability rating of the Democratic Party had fallen to a record low of 36 percent. [snip]

By shifting the public focus to the party’s pro-work and pro-wage policies, Schumer wants to transform the negative association of the Democratic Party with Obamacare. Even as his speech has provoked an intraparty rift, Schumer’s argument has won support from some surprising quarters.

Tom Edsall is surprised but we are not. The entire Schumer speech sounded to us very familiar. We’ve heard it before. We’ve heard it a lot. The first time we heard the Schumer speech we understood immediately that Schumer was not out to help Hillary Clinton 2016. What “two-by-four” Chuck Schumer was up to was to clear the path, as in 2008, for a candidate other than Hillary Clinton.

Chuck Schumer still resents Hillary Clinton from his first run for office. Schumer could not have won against an incumbent senator if it was not for First Lady Hillary Clinton’s campaigning for him. Later, when First Lady Hillary Clinton used her New York campaign experience (and data acquired from the first Schumer campaign) on behalf of Smuck Schumer to become New York Senator Hillary Clinton, the senior senator was not happy.

Schumer resented Hillary Clinton because although she was the “junior” senator from New York it was Hillary that got the attention. Chuck Schumer was downsized to “announcements” and public relations stunts on Sundays when there was no competition for news to get play on TV. Those Sunday morning pressers were often mocked by Big Media and campaign professionals.

The every Sunday morning “announcements” by Chuck Schumer brought laughs to one and all because for years Schumer observers originated the jibe “there is no place more dangerous than between Chuck Schumer and a television camera”. To watch Schumer crawl for publicity, his most craved commodity, brought mockery and more humiliation to Schumer and he has never forgotten.

Chuck Schumer is not about to see Hillary eclipse him again. Harry Reid will be gone as soon as Nevada votes for Senate again and Chuck wants the throne. Hillary in charge with Chuck as water-boy is a humiliation he does not want ever again. So Chuck Schumer gave a speech which sounded very much like Elizabeth Warren.

It was no surprise to us that almost immediately, almost as if it was planned, Schumer got some strong support from… Elizabeth Warren:

A spokesman for Senator Elizabeth Warren told reporters that Warren “agrees with Senator Schumer that there was an urgent need in 2009 and 2010 to help middle-class families who were struggling to get by, and that more should have been done.”

Schumer’s speech was the Warren playbook. Chuck Schumer is making the case and plowing the road for Elizabeth Warren. Recall Schumer’s attack against bankers? Lizzie Warren has her tomahawk out for banker scalps as she smartly attacks Obama from the left:

The Massachusetts Democrat is using the president’s choice of Lazard banker Antonio Weiss to be undersecretary for domestic finance to stir a debate within the Democratic party over whether it is too cozy with Wall Street, particularly when filling top finance jobs in government.

Speaking at the liberal Economic Policy Institute, Warren cast her opposition to Weiss as part of a bigger battle against the influence of the finance industry in Washington.

That Chuck Schumer is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the finance industry due to the fact he is from Wall Street New York is not the focus of Warren’s ire. What Warren/Schumer are up to is an attack on Hillary whom the left is portraying as the bankers’ choice.

But…but…but Howard Dean just endorsed Hillary some will say. It’s just a 2008 style ploy from Howard Dean. Want proof? Here:

Progressive groups move to draft Warren

Two prominent liberal groups are moving to draft Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as a liberal alternative to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton.

On Tuesday, MoveOn.org announced its members would hold a vote on whether to spend $1 million to boost Warren in the Democratic primaries. The vote is expected to pass, with the group already saying it’s poised to throw its “full weight” behind the Massachusetts Democrat.

Democracy For America, a group founded by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, announced shortly after it would join MoveOn’s efforts. [snip]

Still, some on the left are clamoring for a progressive challenger to Clinton in the primaries. They believe Warren’s populist message is a stark contrast to Clinton’s close ties to Wall Street.

If Howard Dean was really #ReadyForHillary the organization he fully controls would not be #ReadyForWarren.

“Warren’s populist message is a stark contrast to Clinton’s close ties to Wall Street.” Remind you of anything? Remember the Schumer speech? He said, an element of populism, even for those of us who don’t consider ourselves populists, is necessary to open the door before we can rally people to the view that a strong government program must be implemented.”

Elizabeth Warren’s latest move is to attack Obama from the left just as Schumer did:

During a meeting with nearly 50 of her top Boston-area donors Sunday night, Sen. Elizabeth Warren strongly criticized President Barack Obama’s Treasury Department pick Antonio Weiss and said Hispanic and African-American families were “targeted” during the mortgage crisis, according to people who attended the event.

The get-together, which was not a fundraiser but instead a chance for the Massachusetts Democrat to tend to her donor supporters, came as some Democrats continue to plead with Warren to launch a 2016 presidential campaign. [snip]

Beeuwkes, a Concord, Massachusetts, pharmaceutical executive, told POLITICO, “She spoke with passion about things like income inequality, but I’m not going to give you an interview.”

Beeuwkes has contributed to #ReadyForHillary but the moment Warren announces he will likely be #ReadyForWarren. Warren is the model candidate straight out of the Schumer speech.

Tom Harkin one of the most leftist members of the senate joined Schumer and Warren in the feint against ObamaCare and sly trap against Hillary Clinton 2016 designed to force Hillary further toward the Obama kook left. Harkin’s argument is that it was three “centrists” that blocked a full takeover of the health care system and that because of these moderates the mess of ObamaCare was born. Harkin does not understand that it was Obama’s allegiance to the insurance companies, just as he was loyal to them in Illinois, that led to ObamaCare.

For full scale Obama style sycophancy on behalf of Warren Juan Williams weighs in:

Juan Williams: Warren towers above

The 2014 winner of my annual award for “Member of Congress of the Year” goes to the politician who had such a good year she now defines her party’s future — Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). [snip]

The Massachusetts senator could become the Barack Obama of 2016, able to grab the Democrats’ presidential nomination from the favorite, Hillary Clinton, by coming at her from the left. The defining issue for Democrats in 2008 was Iraq. In 2016 it will be the economy. Warren is much more in step with the party on this issue than is Clinton.

Warren’s economic populism also defines the party’s present. After losses in the midterms, the Democrats have concluded that it is time for them to go on offense, utilizing Warren’s issues — raising the minimum wage, cutting better deals on student loans and supporting equal pay for women.

The new political direction set by Warren led Senate Democrats to add the first-term senator to their leadership team. They created a position just for her: “Strategic Policy Adviser to the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.”

That means Warren will be at the table shaping the identity of Democrats in the Senate, as they become a loud, defiant minority beginning in January.

But Warren looms largest over the 2016 race.

Democratic strategists are openly worried that with President Obama leaving the stage, the base of their party — women, unions, young people and racial minorities — will lose interest in politics and splinter. That could allow a unified GOP to retake the White House. Warren’s focus on economic inequality is proving to be the glue holding the Democrats together.

Warren’s surprising power is evident in her ability to force Clinton, the former senator from Wall Street’s home state and a well-paid speaker for top brokerages, to go on the attack against income inequality.

“I love watching Elizabeth give it to those who deserve to get it,” she said at a late October rally in Boston. Clinton was referring to Warren’s calls for increased regulation of big banks and Wall Street brokers who have “tried to trick and trap and cheat our families.” Clinton also echoed Warren’s rhetoric when she said at the same rally: “Don’t let anybody tell you that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) struck a Warren-like note last week, when he said the Democrats lost the midterms because they spent too much time on the healthcare law when they should have been working on improving the economy for the middle class.

The resonance of Warren’s economic populist agenda was evident in a recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll. [snip]

But a poll taken this month by the progressive group Democracy for America found Warren to be the most popular choice for party activists asked whom they wanted to see run. Warren drew 42 percent support, overshadowing Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) 24 percent and Clinton’s 23 percent.

Warren also gave the political speech of the year. [snip]

“These are American values,” she said, “and these are the values we are willing to fight for. … Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement. … We believe in science and that means that we have a responsibility to protect the earth. … We believe no one should work full time and still live in poverty. That means raising the minimum wage. And we will fight for it …

“We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt. And we are willing to fight for it,” Warren continued as the cheering grew and grew. “We believe that, after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare and pensions. … We believe – only I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014 – we believe in equal pay for equal work, and we are willing to fight for it.”

Warren also backed immigration reform.

It’s easy to mock wide-eyed Obama lover Juan Williams and his bombast for Warren. But understand this key point that Williams makes and which Schumer and the Obama Dimocrat Party establishment believes wholeheartedly: The reason, they say, Obama Dimocrats lost in 2014 (and 2010) because they did not go far left enough.

Let’s repeat that because it is something that Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton 2016, #ReadyForHillary do not understand but is the key to 2016: Obama Dimocrats lost in 2014 (and 2010) because they did not go far left enough. When the election autopsy from the Obama Dimocrats is written early next year by the party establishment do not be surprised when that group concludes that the problem in 2010 and 2014 is that Obama Dimocrats were not sufficiently pro-Obama and not sufficiently too far to the kook left.

Schumer finally understands (we have been correct in our analysis all along) that the “coalition of the ascendant” cannot overcome the FDR coalition which once won elections for the Democratic party:

Democrats have a lot going for them in presidential years. Nonetheless, at the moment you’d have to say that they have their work cut out for them.

Even though midterm elections favor Republicans, the 2014 results show middle- and working-class dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party rising to dangerous levels, which threatens the party’s growing demographic advantages.

Perhaps most notably, Republican House candidates in 2014 won 37 percent of the Hispanic vote, their highest percentage since Republicans rejected immigration reform in 2005, and a slight majority, 51-49, of Asian-American voters, who had been moving decisively in the Democrats’ favor. Asian-Americans and Hispanics are crucial to future Democratic presidential victories.

In combination with the growing Republican allegiance of whites, these trends raise the possibility that the Democratic plan for victory by demographics could implode, which would make the case for a full scale re-evaluation of its strategies and policies glaringly obvious.

The “plan for victory by demographics” has already imploded. In order to try to resuscitate the “plan for victory by demographics” Obama Dimocrats will import new voters via illegal immigration. But that will not be enough to shield Obama Dimocrats from disaster.

Chuck Schumer is leading the way to disaster by saying one thing and meaning a whole ‘nother. Schumer is #ReadyForHillary in the sense that he has laid his traps.

Hillary, watch out. They’re ready for you.

Share

220 thoughts on “#ReadyForHillary ??? #ReadyForWarren ??? What Schumer Said, What It Means

  1. Boner doesn’t have the votes for Cromnibus because Elizabeth Warren says no and has forced Dims to vote “no”. Republicans are also voting “no” due to illegal immigration:

    http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/218/lacking-sufficient-support-house-gop-leaders-delay-cromnibus-vote/

    Unsure whether they have the votes to pass a trillion-dollar federal spending package, House GOP leaders on Thursday afternoon delayed a final vote on the “cromnibus.”

    They did so with mere hours to go until the government is set to run out of funding, and just before the House was scheduled to vote.

    GOP leaders called a recess to floor proceedings, with a GOP leadership aide confirming “no conference meeting [is] planned at this time.” The aide said “leadership teams are still talking to their respective members,” and noted, “We still plan to vote this afternoon.”

    It’s not clear, however, what they will be voting on.

    If Republicans can’t surmount the impasse, they could decide to proceed with swiftly moving a short-term continuing resolution through the chamber, which the Senate could also pass before 11:59 p.m., when current funding expires.

    In doing so, they would be throwing away months of hard-fought negotiations between appropriators and dashing dreams of a return to regular order when the GOP takes control of all of Capitol Hill in the new year.

    But House GOP leadership may have few other options. After barely winning a procedural vote to bring the spending bill to the floor for full debate and consideration, they realized they were in peril of not having enough votes for passage. Too many Republicans were prepared to vote “no” because the Feb. 27 sunset date for Department of Homeland Security funding was not enough to pacify concerns the cromnibus contained no language to explicitly bar President Barack Obama from implementing his immigration executive orders.

    Hopes that Democrats would be able to make up for the short-fall have also dimmed as the minority party fought back “poison-pill” policy riders rolling back the financial regulatory overhaul laws from the Dodd-Frank Act and loosening some campaign finance rules.

    Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., defied the White House’s call to pass the cromnibus during a scathing floor speech, in which she said she was “enormously disappointed” with the administration.

    Warren and Cruz, united in opposition. This is pretty good news and might mean only a short term bill can pass.

  2. http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/11/amnesty-protestors-crash-capitol-hill-switchboard/

    Amnesty Protesters Crash Capitol Hill Switchboard

    The Capitol Hill switchboard has been overwhelmed by calls to Congress.

    The 202 224-3121 number is jammed, likely by people protesting House Speaker John Boehner’s 2015 government funding bill, which allows funding for President Barack Obama’s unpopular decision to stop enforcing immigration law, and to award work-permits to at least 5 million illegal immigrants.

    Boehner’s effort to fund the $1.1 trillion bill and amnesty is being backed by President Barack Obama, whose deputies are pushing Democrats to support Boehner’s bill.

  3. I feel like I am going to puke.

    Everyone on the far left and the cave-in GOP are so full of horse$hit, I just can’t stand what has been going on since Bill Clinton left office.

    Depressing to say the least.

    The only hope I have felt in the past 6 years is that 24 of our states are willing to join together and fight against Obamacare.

    Admin, do you have any aspirations to run for office? I would damn well support you!

  4. Warren’s star is rising as she leads the progressive charge against the vote….she has, imo, positioned herself to get the democratic nomination should she run. She can run as the anti-Obama that many here we hoped Hillary would. Warren is a misguided opportunist, but will gain the support of what is today’s dimocratic party.

  5. This is so much fun it proves there is a Sanity Clause:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/226886-dem-to-dems-dont-be-intimidated-by-obama

    Waters gathered more than 20 fellow Democrats to her office Thursday afternoon to push back against the president’s efforts after learning of Obama’s lobbying effort.

    And she’s not apologizing for it.

    We don’t like lobbying that is being done by the president or anybody else that would allow us to support a bill that … would give a big gift to Wall Street and the bankers who caused this country to almost go into a depression,” she said. “So I’m opposed to it and we’re going to fight it.”

    Waters said the lawmakers who met in her office, including Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), divvied up a list of members and took to the phones to urge Democrats to hold their ground in opposition to the package.

    “We’re fighting anybody who is lobbying to tell people to vote for this bill,” Waters said. “If the president is lobbying, we do not like it, and we’re saying to our members, ‘Don’t be intimidated by anybody.’”

    Too bad it passed in the House. C’mon Wig-Wam, block it in the senate will’ya!!!

  6. Jim Moran has Wig-Wam’s number:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/394498/house-dem-elizabeth-warren-getting-ready-2016-joel-gehrke

    House Dem: Elizabeth Warren is Getting Ready for 2016

    At least one member of the House Democratic caucus suspects that Senator Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass) scuttled the cromnibus in order to boost her profile ahead of the 2016 presidential campaign.

    I would not be surprised if Mrs. Warren’s position has something to do with the 2016 campaign,” retiring Representative Jim Moran (D., Va.) told National Review Online, although he allowed that he was speculating. “I assume it does.”

    Warren’s owes her success in driving the Democratic caucus as much to her rivals as her friends, he suggested minutes earlier.

    “There are a lot of people in the caucus that understand that the public at large, at least their more liberal constituencies, feel that this is a giveaway to Wall Street,” Moran told reporters. “And I think frankly there are some people that — they’re not going to let Elizabeth Warren get to the left of them.”

  7. This is all for show. Wigwam can vote against it and look good doing it with the secret approval of Reid and McConnell.

  8. I have a strong feeling that the inmates at the loony bin are the ones are driving this bus, and it just makes one want to give up entirely on the whole political process.

  9. That fucking Boehner is the perfect shill for Warren.

    By loading this omnibus bill up with Wall Street goodies, he paints his party as hostile to main street, and at the same time he legitimizes the radical left. If competence, not corruption, were the determining factor, then he would have been fired for incompetence long ago. If clean living and clean legislating were sine qua non, he would be history. As things stand, he is stupid, as Gruber would likely say. He wins an election, then surrenders, and then stabs himself in the heart while proclaiming I have not yet begun to fight, and see me next year.

  10. Freaking HATE everyone that voted for this. We MUST stop this in the Senate. ..
    I called everyone…just like 2008…same results as 2008…

  11. Washington, DC is encased in a reality distortion field. People elected into Congress turn into the walking dead programmed like trained monkeys to go along with whatever their leaders command them to do, no matter what their constituents say.

  12. “Obama can’t be trusted”

    The Kook left is revolting… in more ways than one.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/liberals-obama-abandoned-us-113516.html?hp=t2_r

    Liberals: Obama abandoned us

    The left revolts, saying Obama gave up too easily on spending bill.

    The White House’s aggressive push to salvage a spending bill on Capitol Hill left liberal lawmakers feeling burned by President Barack Obama — and raised significant doubts about their desire to cooperate heading into next year’s Republican takeover of Congress.

    Democrats will need every vote they can muster next year as the GOP plans to attack liberal priorities on health care, energy and financial regulation in 2015. But Thursday’s deadline drama offered no signal of party unity, only fresh reminders of the post-election divisions between a president who’s looking to govern during his last two years in office and a newly invigorated populist wing of the party, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). [snip]

    “A vote for this bill is a vote for future taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street,” Warren said Thursday. “It is time for all of us to stand up and fight.” [snip]

    Obama’s base said he tried to sell them out—and didn’t even wait to do it until Republicans officially expand their majority in the House and take over the Senate come January. And some on the left worried the wide range of policy riders in a spending bill were a worrisome sign as Republicans take over the Senate next year – and are already urging Obama to steel himself and ready his veto pen for what’s to come.

    “We gave Democrats in the House multiple opportunities to negotiate the best deal they could get,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said late Thursday on MSNBC, explaining why the president and others were whipping votes. “The good news is they got a pretty good deal.”

    Few liberals saw things his way. The White House’s support for the measure sent them into a rage, including a very rare and blunt split between Pelosi and the president which began when a White House statement landed in Washington inboxes on Thursday afternoon. The message from the president: The bill has plenty to scoff at, but you should vote for it anyway.

    I’m enormously disappointed the White House feels the only way they could get a bill is to go along with this,” Pelosi said Thursday afternoon, coming to the floor to declare that she wouldn’t be voting for the bill so long as it includes the Dodd-Frank rollback “blackmail.” [snip]

    Though Pelosi was the star of the Democratic revolt, she had major air support on the other side of the Capitol from Warren, who for a second consecutive day railed against the legislation that the White House was pushing. The message from the two was clear: Hold the line. ”

    Lizzie Warren is on the warpath. Heap big trouble!

  13. If the Clintons don’t see what’s going on, I’ll be very surprised. Surely, Hillary doesn’t trust Schumer after the back stabbing job in 2008. She needs to get some smart advisors ASAP –

    I checked on the DU kiddies to see if they were finding a way to support both O and One Drop; Not much being said there tonite about O, but they love them some Liz.

  14. Wigwam is getting the same bs golden-calf-rising as Baracko.

    What a freakin’ joke.

    They could get a blowup doll with a recorded chant and control it just like the two puppets they think they have taking over the Dim party.

    Problem is, the media and leftist Kooks are not the majority of the voting public…so their wishes are just more hope and change holograms.

    If they were the majority of the voting public, they wouldn’t have been bitch slapped in the 2010 and 2014 elections. They went from having the SUPERmajority, to loosing both houses.

    Put up wigwam in the primary and even a bad Repub candidate wins. One drop would lose over the terrible two headed dentist, sweaters, Jeb and then, God help us.

  15. You do not have to be a left wing loon to depise the corrupt practices of the fusion party that controls Washington.

    Warren is merely doing what we implored Hillary to do since 2016 will be a change election–not a stay the course election.

    But Hillary decided to hang with Obama and thereby embrace the status quo.

    All Warren has to do now is stand in front of a camera, point to the Wall Street giveaways Hoffa mentioned in his letter (supra), and say as long as I am a member of this body and have an ounce of breathe I will fight this corruption!!!

    And what, if anything, will Hillary say to that? We must understand our enemies? Businesses do create jobs?? We were broke when we left the White House???

    If the loyal Hillary supporters on this blog feel despair, they can console themselves with the fact that we gave her the right advice, and it is not our fault that she did not follow it.

    Can she come out swinging next year? Sure. But the public will also remember who threw the first punch, if Warren proceeds as any smart politician would when the other party gives them this kind of a gift.

    I disagree that Pelosi came out of this thing smelling like a rose. She helped the hated Boehner ram through a piece of legislation which the left despises, and they will take it out on Pelosi.

  16. There is alot of insanity in this bill, and that will become evident to all over the next few days.

    One of the things that hit me was a taxpayer bailout of the retirees of a Fortune 50 Company.

    Another was a taxpayer bailout of financial institutions that go broke due to speculating—to big to fail.

    Another is the introduction of new rule which would allow truck drivers to drive 80 hours in a seven day period–unsafe.

    The RINO barely waited a month from the election to revert back to its traditional robbing of the poor and giving to the rich.

    And anybody who thinks Boehner will take a stand on amnesty in March just because he promised to in order to win the election must also believe in the tooth fairy.

  17. I see the appeal of Elizabeth Warren in the Primaries but I just don’t see her winning the general elections. And if her chances in the general elections are slim, I would wager that she will ultimately lose the primary. Her hurdle is different and ultimately higher than what Hillary faces. Warren needs to demonstrate that she can win the general elections, something that Hillary doesn’t have a problem with at this point.

  18. For better or for worse, Hillary is more aligned with Obama than Warren. Hillary has a harder balancing act than Warren. Whar Hillary needs to do is to create the distinction between her and Obama in the primaries enough for her to win and then turn right in the general.

    It would be easy for Hillary to pay lip service to the progressive ideals that Warren espouses and convince liberals that she means it. She already has laid the groundwork for that in her previous speeches. I don’t believe for one second that she actually believes it. She only says it to placate the left. Hillary’s hurdle, i think is lower in that she just needs to convince the left that she is not the enemy. In any case, I don’t think that the progressive wing of the party dictates who will win the primaries. Although Obama won in 2008, it was not because she was supported by the left but because she was able to fool everyone.

  19. WaPo reports several things that indicate she’s following the game plan I sent to Chappaqua early this year:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-begins-weighing-details-of-a-2016-bid-with-a-spring-announcement-likely/2014/12/11/088bccac-80a5-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html

    (1) She’s building a legal firewall between herself and the PACs that are pushing her to run, which hints that she will not integrate ReadyForHillary into her campaign bandwagon. But The article also states ReadyForHillary plans to shut down once Hillary announces.

    (2) She is debating whether or not to establish an exploratory committee so that she can coyly avoid an outright early announcement.

    (3) It has also been widely reported, starting with the WSJ, that the paid speaker’s job she accepted at CAMP in March implies she won’t be announcing before that gig in March, because engaging in paid speaking events while conducting a campaign would, while not impossible, be unseemly and “open her to criticism for perceived conflicts of interest.”.

  20. if Hilary ws smart she would stop with the PAID anything. It just akes her look power and money hungry. Go on your listening tour Hillary and help out some American’s along the way. Stop MAKING money, you look like someone who is only interested in $$$$$$$$$$$$$

    I hate this effin country.

    The repubs did not EVEN wait till their own NEW members who are against all this shit came in to back track on their promises

    Already laid into McConnell and Boehner yesterdya…I plan to do so aain today

    Not that it does much good

    I see NOT one party has my interest at heart

    WigWam will win the nomination….you see Pelosi siding with her now….this whole thing was a smokescreen by Dems to set Warren up as the “one who grabs the working whites back”

    As Gruber said Americans are effin stupid … yes we are to a big extent because we believe this bs

  21. Hillary needs to just go on her listening tour and let them all play their cards. She is not in a position to fight this fight because she is not a Senator. That is a lost strength of her position in ’08. Her strength is one of a seasoned, competent, inclusive leader. Warren is a good Wallstreet attack dog and Hillary would be best to play her against the Wallstreet Banksters.

    An endorsement from former Bobots is not an endorsement. They picked a loser. Warren will be just another cheap date for Soros. Let her take the mantle of Obama II.

  22. I want system reform.

    For the life of me, I do not see Hillary reforming the system.

    On the other hand, there is no way I could trust Warren.

    What I hope for is something I doubt we will ever see in our lifetime.

    A president who is devoted to the American People rather than Wall Street

    Or billionaries who think the political system is their oyster–a comparatively new phenomenon.

    The choice we are given are bleak and uninspiring.

  23. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)6% in the Senate, of all people, pointed out (Boehner’s) hypocrisy.

    That was an amazing spectacle.

    She, reading RedState, took advantage of Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)N/A‘s unwillingness to fight in order to recast the fight as one of main street versus Wall Street.

    And damned if she was not right.

    ————————–

    The GOP: For Wall Street, Not Main Street
    By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | December 12th, 2014 at 04:30 AM | 40

    Sixteen Republicans voted against the rule on the CROmnibus. They threw the process into chaos and sent Republican leaders scrambling. Barack Obama had to send his Chief of Staff up to the Hill to convince Democrats to go along with it.

    And ultimately we got a clear picture of where Republican leaders stand. They headed to the edge of the shutdown cliff, willing to shut down the government for a Wall Street bailout, but unwilling to do so to stop the President’s amnesty plan.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)6% in the Senate, of all people, pointed out the hypocrisy. That was an amazing spectacle. She, reading RedState, took advantage of Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)N/A‘s unwillingness to fight in order to recast the fight as one of main street versus Wall Street. And damned if she was not right.

    The provision in question would benefit Citibank. It’s not a bad provision. I favor it. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)6% does not. But it is quite telling that House GOP Leaders preferred a shutdown to stripping that provision out. They could not, however, be bothered when it came to stopping amnesty.

    That’s really all you need to know.

    Conservatives were not really helped. Pro-life Christians proved yet again what a cheap date they are. But in the end we all got to see the Republican leadership for who they are. And that has long term benefits for conservatives in the ongoing fight against the establishment.
    ——-
    Conservative Wanderer • 8 minutes ago

    So, Erick, is it safe to talk about parties other than the GOP now?

    Those of you who have known me are well aware that I’ve been against third parties up till last night, but I’m starting to change my mind. I’m not fully convinced that a third party is necessary, but I’m a lot more open to the idea today than I was at this time yesterday morning.

  24. They headed to the edge of the shutdown cliff, willing to shut down the government for a Wall Street bailout, but unwilling to do so to stop the President’s amnesty plan.
    ————
    THAT RIGHT THERE IS THE LETHAL BULLET FOR THE REPUBLICANS . . . . .

    THERE IS NO WALKING THAT ONE BACK–OR PRETENDING IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

    IT IS RIGHT THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE, IN THE TEXT OF THE BILL FOR GODSSAKE.

    WHAT A MARVELOUS SOUND BITE THAT WILL MAKE FOR DIMS.

    THIS WAS A POINT HILLARY COULD HAVE MADE.

    BUT WITH HER OWN TIES TO WALL STREET IT IS SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE.

  25. What I believe Hillary is missing is what for lack of a better term is the zeitgeist of this political era, which by the time of the next election will have reached critical mass. It is Washington vs the nation. It is Wall Street vs Main Street. It is the Fusion party vs. the American People. It is illegals vs. legals. It is democracy vs oligarchy. It is all those things and more. The freight train is rolling, its speed is increasing, and I do not think she can run fast enough now to catch it.

    This gets down to the core question why did you support Hillary in 2008. I cannot answer for anyone else. All I can tell you is my answer. I supported Hillary because I believed that Bush et al had put the country in a ditch, shown no respect for civil liberties, and we were becoming non competitive in the world. I saw Hillary as competent and committed to reversing that slide. Her tenure as Senator, to which I contributed $1000 which is alot of money for me. And Obama was nothing more than a brand offered up by the same forces who gave us Bush, and with his pronounced racial bias, he was a good bet to accelerate the slide.

    Given that perspective, perhaps you can see why for me now the bloom is off the rose. And when the very forces who are destroying this nation, from big media to Wall Street are saying we owe her, this is her turn, I say, I cannot be on the same side as them. That is a bridge too far, worse than an alliance with Stalin. I realize there is intrigue afoot, and people who say they are for her, or imply as much, are secretly working against her. In 2008 these revelations would have kept me on the edge of my chair, and blogging all night, whereas now, it is just part of a soap opera, whose conclusion has been written.

  26. if Hilary ws smart she would stop with the PAID anything. It just akes her look power and money hungry. Go on your listening tour Hillary and help out some American’s along the way. Stop MAKING money, you look like someone who is only interested in $$$$$$$$$$$$$

    ==============

    Spot on dot48..while I am all for making as much money as possible, I think it is safe to say the Clintons have more than enough for their future generations and then some. It will help her combat that awkward “couldn’t pay their mortgage” comments. Nonetheless, I think she will not run and if she does, will could well to Warren who has mass appeal in the democratic party…

  27. EXCLUSIVE–PALIN ON OBAMA/BOEHNER CROMNIBUS BILL: ‘IT STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN’

    by STEPHEN K. BANNON 12 Dec 2014, 5:50 AM PDT 1630 POST A COMMENT

    1. What do you think of Speaker Boehner having President Obama ‘whip votes’ from the White House in order to pass this bill?
    It stinks to high heaven. Did arrogant politicians not get the memo that Obama’s agenda was decisively defeated in last month’s historic midterm landslide? Good Lord, America said loud and clear not just “no” but “hell no” to Obama’s failed policies. Americans who pay attention said absolutely no to Obama’s amnesty for illegal aliens.

    We also said no to the mother-of-all unfunded mandates, Obamacare, and voters believed promises that they would ratchet down the $18 trillion debt. Well, our bad for apathetically trusting politicians. No, on second thought, it’s not “our bad.” Some of us warned and worked hard to elect candidates who would buck the status quo. Many conscientious Americans did all they could to open the eyes of low-information voters. It was tough going up against Obama’s lapdogs in the media and the power liberals have to play their politics of personal destruction against commonsense conservatives.

    But really how out-of-touch do these politicians have to be to misunderstand our recent mandate to stop Barack Obama’s fundamental transformation of the greatest nation on earth?

    2. Only 162 Republicans voted for this bill–a bill that will take decision making away from a Republican controlled Congress in 4 weeks–does that strike you as outrageous?

    It’s baffling really. The Republican Leadership in the House just flipped American voters the bird by sidelining the new Congress we just elected. I want the names of all 162 yahoos who would squander the opportunity to respect the will of the people and get America on the right track. Please print their names so we can ask them, “What the heck are you thinking?!”
    And thank you to the 67 House Republicans who did vote no. Let’s remind everyone of their names also.

    3. Do you believe that the 162 Republicans that voted for the bill will face a backlash by conservatives?

    Hope so! I’ll do my part and I call upon every citizen to do their civic duty to save our country. It’s easy; understand RINO season opens soon and don’t hold back.

    4. Do you believe that Speaker Boehner working with President Obama effectively tried to ‘nullify’ the sweeping Republican victory in the 2014 mid-terms?

    That’s the result thus far, so yes. This is an example of the GOP establishment campaigning one way and then governing another. It’s quite nauseating. They promised they would do everything in their power to stop Obama’s executive amnesty – I heard their darn campaign speeches promising to do so! – and yet when they have the power to do so (power that we the voters just gave them) they tacitly endorse Obama’s failed agenda. They’re shining that boot that liberals have on the neck of our economy. They’re carrying Barack Obama’s water even more so than Nancy Pelosi if you can believe it.

    5. Do you think John Boehner should be re-elected Speaker of the House given his actions over the pass few days?

    Constitutional conservatives who understand government’s balance of power and the grave danger in Obama’s lawlessness, and those of us who want smart and principled leadership, should be perplexed and disappointed if stale leadership is re-elected, considering that the midterm election was all about “the status quo has got to go.” It’s time for new energy and steel-spined commitment to stop Obama’s bizarre behavior against this country! Surely there are more of us than not who know that our Founders’ memory, our vets, and our children deserve better that what we’re underneath today. Keep the faith that there are more of us than there are of them who think broken campaign promises and a broken government are just dandy.

  28. We posted our article because it is a link in a chain leading up to our next “Mistake In ’08” installment. We’re building a case with our recent articles for our broader strategic understanding of the political landscape. We thought the article was important but not exactly the most attuned with current events.

    But it turns out that our article is quite in tune with current events. Here’s another data point, or 300, to add to the mix and for Hillary to wake up to:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/300-former-obama-staffers-urge-elizabeth-warren-run-president_821232.html

    300 Former Obama Staffers Urge Elizabeth Warren to Run for President

    A group of more than 300 hundred former Obama staffers have written an open letter urging Elizabeth Warren to run for president of the United States. “We helped elect Barack Obama — now we’re calling on Elizabeth Warren to run in 2016,” the letter is titled.

    We believed in an unlikely candidate who no one thought had a chance.

    We worked for him — and against all odds, we won in Iowa.

    We organized like no campaign had organized before — and won the Democratic primary.

    We built a movement — and the country elected the first-ever African American president.

    We know that the improbable is far from impossible.

    Now, former staffers from President Obama’s campaigns, along with former staffers from OFA, are joining with the thousands of Americans who are calling on Elizabeth Warren to run for president in 2016.

    Rising income inequality is the challenge of our times, and we want someone who will stand up for working families and take on the Wall Street banks and special interests that took down our economy.

    We urge Elizabeth Warren to run for president in 2016.

    The list of former Obama staffers who signed the letter is here.

    The letter was organized by a group called Ready for Warren. The group’s goal is to get Warren to run for president.

    “We are ready for Elizabeth Warren to run for President in 2016,” reads the group’s website.

    “Warren is the backbone that the Democratic Party too often forgets it needs. She has inspired a movement—yet to jump into the race for president, we need to show the Senator that she’s got support all across the country, from Oklahoma to Massachusetts, from Florida to Nevada.

  29. rickya December 12, 2014 at 5:29 am

    It would be easy for Hillary to pay lip service to the progressive ideals…. I don’t believe for one second that she actually believes it. She only says it to placate the left.

    I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding Hillary here. She has been known to make mistakes and misstatements; but she doesn’t say anything just to “pay lip service” for political gain.

    She is a progressive. For example, if she’s talking about income equality now, it’s because she’s concerned by it, not because Warren or the left is talking about it.

    She is also a pragmatist and a hard worker. Once in office, she will have to grapple with things like income inequality, immigration, deficit spending, you name it, facing a Congress that may very well be divided between the far left and the far right. It’s at that point that we will see how a president behaves when she doesn’t spend the better part of her time on the links or on vacation.

    Her goals at that point will still be progressive because that’s where her heart and mind lead her, but the results will be centrist.

  30. admin
    December 12, 2014 at 11:57 am
    ———–
    The fact that 300 of these Nazis would sign a letter begging Warren to run, after she has been coy and said she will not run, should suggest to the dimmest bulb at Hillaryland that this outreach to the left, progs call them what you will, is not only unrewarded but self defeating. Then again, if the money men control everything—which they can do when you have a duopoly between the two parties, perhaps those dreamers of a thousand year Reich from Obama to Warren to god knows who are just part of the passing parade. But logic and experience seem to suggest that a tipping point is near, and the game would change irreversibly when a credible third party is born. The gulf between Wall Street and Mainstreet is wider and more transparent than ever. Ted Cruz, my favorite is not favored by the leadership of his party, whereas Warren now seems to be. Seems. It will be interesting to see whether the owl and the pussycat make hay while the sun shines when this toxic waste of a bill hits the senate transom. How far will Lizzy Borden go in bucking Reid who wants the casino kickback, etc. If between the two of them they expose to the world the dirt and corruption inbedded in this bill, some people may stifle their collective yawn, and think long and hard about a political system which has wandered this far off track, in the immediate aftermath of an election where the American People spoke clearly and decisively that this is NOT what they want. A credible third party is coming.

  31. Well then Hillary will be “out progressed” by Warren if that is the case….the writing has been on the wall for some time now. Again, love and will vote for her, but I hope she says “screw them” and lets Tonto get crushed hopefully by Romney in general election.

  32. First of all, Wigwam has NO CHANCE of building her teepee in the Oval Office. Not a chance in Hell.

    Second, hypothetically if she did become president in 2016, and she has to deal with a GOP SuperMajority in Congress…she would be the lame Wigwam from day one.

    Ain’t gonna happen.

  33. Wigwam can easily get the nomination because it is increasingly clear that party elites and Big Media want her, not Hillary. It’s a repeat of 2008 and the voters don’t matter in this equation.

    But a Wigwam candidacy would be a disaster for the Obama Dimocrats and the remnants of party officials that want to restore the Democratic Party.

    Wigwam cannot win the presidency. Wigwam will finish off Obama Dimocrats in the few remaining local/statewide/state/congressional elections they might have been able to win. The only survivors of a Wigwam candidacy are the deep blue and black redoubts in metropolitan areas. But this is all irrelevant.

    Wigwam will not win the presidency but that is irrelevant to the kooks who propel her candidacy. The goal for them is to maintain control of the Obama Dimocrat Party and not allow any rational leaders or rational discussions to occur.

    Wigwam is a Milton candidacy for the kooks. They would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.

  34. “The bill’s fate (in the Senate) remains unclear”.–Associated Press

    Oh fuck you.

    Spare me the false hype and drama.

    I’ll give you long odds it will pass with some minor tweaks.

    But the real point of the article is in the headline.

    It is what I have been saying and obsessing about.

    Bad moves by the Republicans and bad moves by Hillaryland.

    Have created a hole wide enough to drive a Mac Truck through.

    For Tanto.

    And what about the 300 Nazis?

    Well, its hard to go cold turkey.

    The H (Obama) is causing them to throw up, be dizzy, lose energy and have suicidal thoughts.

    They need methadone, and Tanto is just what they needed.

    More hope for no change from an altogether corrupt and ugly status quo.
    ———
    Budget bill in Senate’s court now; House narrowly approves spending bill 3 hours shy of deadline

    WASHINGTON – Washington woke up to “Fallout Friday,” with liberal Democrats openly outraged at President Obama and conservative Republicans disgusted with House Speaker John Boehner after both did enough wheeling, dealing and arm twisting to push through a spending bill three hours shy of the midnight deadline.

    The surprise beneficiary in this latest political conundrum could be Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., a relative newcomer to the Senate but looking more and more like the liberal Democratic answer to who might challenge Hillary Clinton for the party’s 2016 presidential nomination.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Friday morning that he hopes to take up and finish the omnibus bill as soon as possible but said getting it done would require cooperation from both sides of the aisle. Reid, speaking from the Senate floor, acknowledged there were some provisions he was not happy with but pitched it as a compromise nonetheless.

    “We’re going to consider this legislation to keep our government open and funded and we’re going to do it today – I hope,” he said. He later warned, “There isn’t much time… government funding runs out on Saturday at midnight.”

    The House narrowly approved a sweeping spending bill Thursday night despite deep misgivings among liberals and conservatives alike, sending the measure to the Senate as lawmakers averted a partial government shutdown.

    The bill passed on a 219-206 vote, following an intense lobbying effort by House Republican leaders and the White House.

    Current government funding technically runs out at midnight Thursday, but lawmakers late Thursday approved a stopgap measure to keep the government running through midnight Saturday as the Senate considers the main $1.1 trillion spending package. That debate could last through the weekend and potentially into Monday.

    “We will not have a government shutdown,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., pledged.

    Passage in the House followed hours of urgent appeals from an unlikely alliance: President Obama and House GOP leadership.

    Obama and Vice President Biden worked the phones to sway Democratic lawmakers. White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough also met on the Hill with the Democratic caucus. Despite sources inside the meeting initially saying he did little to persuade lawmakers, a rift emerged in the Democratic leadership late Thursday. As House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi continued to oppose the bill, her deputy, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., urged passage.

    Meanwhile, House GOP leaders did what they could to sway conservative members who, for different reasons, were opposed to the package.

    In the end, 67 Republicans defected, but 57 Democrats voted for it.

    Many conservatives opposed the bill because it does not address Obama’s executive actions on illegal immigration, while liberal Democrats were angry over provisions dealing with campaign spending and financial regulation.

    The debate saw Pelosi flexing her clout, recognizing that House Speaker John Boehner needed Democrats to pass the bill.

    She pushed back not only against GOP leaders but Obama’s lobbying effort.

    In a rare public rebuke of the president, Pelosi said she was “enormously disappointed” he had decided to embrace the bill, which she described as an attempt at legislative blackmail by House Republicans.

    Pelosi, D-Calif., sent an email note to colleagues in the afternoon saying they had “leverage” to make demands — namely, to remove two provisions her party doesn’t like. They are: a provision rolling back one of the regulations imposed on the financial industry in the wake of the economic collapse of 2008, and one that permits wealthy contributors to increase the size of their donations to political parties for national conventions, election recounts or the construction of a headquarters building.

    Right before the vote, according to a source in the room, Pelosi told lawmakers: “We have enough votes to show them never to do this again.”

    But perhaps an overriding desire on both sides not to risk another government shutdown prevailed.

    The current plan would fund the government through September 2015, but immigration services only through late February, teeing up a battle over immigration for early 2015.

    Earlier in the day, the bill narrowly cleared an important procedural hurdle, on a 214-212 test vote. But the tight vote, which almost failed, exposed serious problems. GOP leaders then delayed a final vote and spent hours trying to round up support, as the White House did the same with Democrats.

    White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said earlier that Obama supports the bill and would sign it — despite having reservations about certain provisions.

    Hoyer ultimately took a similar position.

    The bill’s fate in the Senate remains unclear.

    Warren, now a member of leadership, has fought the bill in an effort to preserve the financial regulatory policy known as Dodd-Frank. Debate in the Senate on the main spending bill could easily last several more days.

    Fox News’ Chad Pergram, Kara Rowland and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Friday morning that he hopes to take up and finish the omnibus bill as soon as possible but said getting it done would require cooperation from both sides of the aisle. Reid, speaking from the Senate floor, acknowledged there were some provisions he was not happy with but pitched it as a compromise nonetheless.

    “We’re going to consider this legislation to keep our government open and funded and we’re going to do it today – I hope,” he said. He later warned, “There isn’t much time… government funding runs out on Saturday at midnight.”

    The House narrowly approved a sweeping spending bill Thursday night despite deep misgivings among liberals and conservatives alike, sending the measure to the Senate as lawmakers averted a partial government shutdown.

    The bill passed on a 219-206 vote, following an intense lobbying effort by House Republican leaders and the White House.

    Current government funding technically runs out at midnight Thursday, but lawmakers late Thursday approved a stopgap measure to keep the government running through midnight Saturday as the Senate considers the main $1.1 trillion spending package. That debate could last through the weekend and potentially into Monday.

    “We will not have a government shutdown,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., pledged.

    Passage in the House followed hours of urgent appeals from an unlikely alliance: President Obama and House GOP leadership.

    Obama and Vice President Biden worked the phones to sway Democratic lawmakers. White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough also met on the Hill with the Democratic caucus. Despite sources inside the meeting initially saying he did little to persuade lawmakers, a rift emerged in the Democratic leadership late Thursday. As House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi continued to oppose the bill, her deputy, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., urged passage.

    Meanwhile, House GOP leaders did what they could to sway conservative members who, for different reasons, were opposed to the package.

    In the end, 67 Republicans defected, but 57 Democrats voted for it.

    Many conservatives opposed the bill because it does not address Obama’s executive actions on illegal immigration, while liberal Democrats were angry over provisions dealing with campaign spending and financial regulation.

    The debate saw Pelosi flexing her clout, recognizing that House Speaker John Boehner needed Democrats to pass the bill.

    She pushed back not only against GOP leaders but Obama’s lobbying effort.

    In a rare public rebuke of the president, Pelosi said she was “enormously disappointed” he had decided to embrace the bill, which she described as an attempt at legislative blackmail by House Republicans.

    Pelosi, D-Calif., sent an email note to colleagues in the afternoon saying they had “leverage” to make demands — namely, to remove two provisions her party doesn’t like. They are: a provision rolling back one of the regulations imposed on the financial industry in the wake of the economic collapse of 2008, and one that permits wealthy contributors to increase the size of their donations to political parties for national conventions, election recounts or the construction of a headquarters building.

    Right before the vote, according to a source in the room, Pelosi told lawmakers: “We have enough votes to show them never to do this again.”

    But perhaps an overriding desire on both sides not to risk another government shutdown prevailed.

    The current plan would fund the government through September 2015, but immigration services only through late February, teeing up a battle over immigration for early 2015.

    Earlier in the day, the bill narrowly cleared an important procedural hurdle, on a 214-212 test vote. But the tight vote, which almost failed, exposed serious problems. GOP leaders then delayed a final vote and spent hours trying to round up support, as the White House did the same with Democrats.

    White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said earlier that Obama supports the bill and would sign it — despite having reservations about certain provisions.

    Hoyer ultimately took a similar position.

    The bill’s fate in the Senate remains unclear.

    Warren, now a member of leadership, has fought the bill in an effort to preserve the financial regulatory policy known as Dodd-Frank. Debate in the Senate on the main spending bill could easily last several more days.

    Fox News’ Chad Pergram, Kara Rowland and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

  35. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Friday morning that he hopes to take up and finish the omnibus bill as soon as possible but said getting it done would require cooperation from both sides of the aisle. Reid, speaking from the Senate floor, acknowledged there were some provisions he was not happy with but pitched it as a compromise nonetheless.
    ————–
    it will take “cooperation” from both sides of he aisle to get done what must be done?

    This from the dirtiest man in politics.

    The game here is transparent.

    Reid is faced with demands to control the budget, which fly in the face of his personal goal to give away the entire public treasury to his donors, and supporters.

    Therefore, he abuses his position as Senate majority leader to bottle up all spending bills, reach impasse and create this continuing resolution mini drama every year, where his big media allies can force the other party to accept all the pork his donors can imagine, on penalty of a shut down, which they know Boehner will cave in to anything to avoid—except for a bail out of Citibank, which he would gladly shut down the government to avoid.

    It therefore follows that when Reid says it will take cooperation from the other side of the aisle to complete this sell out of the American People which began in the lower chamber what he means is the thieves have got to put their heads together and determine how they will divide up the spoils. I guess that is cooperation in the loosest sense of the word. But to me the accurate name for it is not cooperation, but conspiracy.

  36. I would almost like to see Wigwam run against Hillary.

    An epic fight between the Dim and FDR Democratic Party.

    Two women, both white – so no race cards can be pulled out, unless wigwam wants to try and pass for a Native American again…that would be priceless.

  37. An epic fight between the Dim and FDR Democratic Party.

    ————
    It was possible to make that distinction in 2008, whereas today those lines are blurred. You cannot hang with Obama, and then present yourself as a Roosevelt democrat. That video won’t do it. The age factor also conspires against it. I expect her to declare in February, it will get all the headlines and initial praise from a big media which is looking for any excuse to deflect public attention from the scandals and disasters of Obama, and their own complicity therein, but once things settle do not be surprised if you see a Obama weighing in against Hillary and for Warren, and suddenly all those untraceable contributions from little people that add up to hundreds of millions will come Borden’s way from all over the world because she is so downright inspirational. Whereupon Wall Street will either reach out to the Republican, and if it is Cruz, then they will figure Tanto is an easier target for bribery and put their marbels there. Snake eyes!

  38. Admin, given the shifting, treacherous political sands and nefarious Game-of-Thrones-like forces currently conspiring against HRC, can you address in your next article what Hillary’s best strategy should in your opinion, assuming of course that she still wants the presidency in 2016?

  39. Let’s also cheer Hillary for listening to reason in her delay in announcement date (if any). Our reasons have won the day (if we are to believe the Post article) and Hillary is clearly refusing to go all in as a “Shield Maiden” to protect Obama.

    Hillary must not only time any potential candidacy smartly, Hillary must also understand the message that will be needed to win. We’ve been advocating for an “attack Obama” and put people first message (which Warren is increasingly doing).

    The reports had been that the Tommy Vietors infesting Hillary Clinton 2016 wanted Hillary to announce this year. They did this not in the interest of Hillary but to use Hillary to deflect attacks on Obama. We called that the “Shield Maiden” ploy.

    We won’t say that our smart attacks calling Hillary “stupid” for even thinking about becoming a Shield Maiden for Obama have convinced Bill and Hill. But by stopping any 2014 announcement we think we have won both battle and war.

    We think we have won the battle because any possible announcement (we still doubt Hillary will run) has been postponed. By winning this process battle we think we have won the war.

    We think we have won the war because the delay in any possible announcement will force Hillary into the “attack Obama” strategy we have advocated. Why? Here’s Michael Barone:

    The implication for 2016 is that Democrats will be at a serious disadvantage if Obama’s job approval stays at current levels or falls. Republicans will be if it rises up to 50 percent or above.

    Anyone think Obama’s popularity will rise?

    We witnessed yesterday AA Congresswoman from California Maxine Waters tell fellow party members not to be “intimidated” by Obama and his thugs. We witnessed Pelousy slam Obama. The Obama kooks rallied to Warren against Obama too. Think Obama’s popularity will rise?

    Think Obama’s popularity will rise? Now that Hillary will not announce early (if at all) and might wait until spring to make her decision it means months more of Obama as the target of attacks. The attacks now will come from the right and the left and the center. Hillary won’t be the Shield Maiden. Obama’s popularity will sink further – Hillary will take notice – the news will determine the timing and the message. Checkmate.

  40. The question for Hillary now becomes this:

    You have taken money from Wall Street

    You have supported Obama

    You have positioned yourself as a progressive

    The Continuing Resolution is a gift to Wall Street

    And a burden to the American People

    Obama doesn’t just support that Continuing Resolution

    He pulled out all the stops to make sure it passed

    And Senator Warren who is now in a leadership position in Congress

    Opposes that bill insofar as it favors Wall Street over Main Street

    If you were still a Senator yourself

    Whom would you support

    President Obama, or

    Senator Warren?

    That is only part of the price she pays for continuing to support Obama unconditionally

  41. The reports had been that the Tommy Vietors infesting Hillary Clinton 2016 wanted Hillary to announce this year
    ———–
    Why is he even involved in her campaign in being?

    He is the male version of Patty Solis Doyle.

    He means her no good–only harm.

  42. admin
    December 12, 2014 at 2:12 pm

    —————

    True, if things remain as they are.

    But what if the Republican Party breaks apart?

    No one can be certain where this thing is headed.

    The only thing we can be reasonably sure of

    Is that given all the corruption

    And leadership’s continuing assault on their base

    A tipping point will occur

    But the timing is an imponderable

  43. My best guess is the Republicans will run Romney–again.

    And if they do that the base will stay home.

    All their frontrunners–Bush, Christie and Romney are front men for Wall Street

    Yet their platform preaches the rights and virtues of Main Street

    Which has been shown to be a lie.

    This Cronnnibus Bill is plaintiff’s exhibit 1.

  44. Any more, it’s all ASTROFURF.

    Campaigning is important because it decides who gets to steal.

    Governing is a bore.

    What’s more, we have an ethical high minded bureaucracy who will attend to that.

    Not to worry.

  45. Admin

    Let’s also cheer Hillary for listening to reason in her delay in announcement date.


    Brovo Hillary!!!

    Let’s assume for the sake of argument, that Hillary doesn’t plan to run again.

    She also feels no need to defend Obama now that the election is over.

    She also feels no need to let everyone know she isn’t going to run again.

    She rather decides to let the Wigwam twist in the wind, and not divulge her real distaste for running until, whenever.

    Maybe Hillary really hasn’t made up her mind because she knows of the infighting inside the Dim party, and wants to see how things shake out in the spring?

  46. ….and wants to see how things shake out in the spring – when the SuperMajority of GOP take over the Congress.

    Who has the most skill in working across the isle with Republicans?

    Wigwam or Hillary?

  47. Another is the introduction of new rule which would allow truck drivers to drive 80 hours in a seven day period–unsafe.

    As I understand it, the trucking provision was introduced by Susan Collins of Maine. It temporarily suspends two new regulations put in place by Obama in 2013.

    Rule limiting maximum driving hours to 11 hours before a 10 hour off-duty break and a max of 60 hours in a 7 consecutive day period or 70 hours in an 8 consecutive day period remain in place. The change is to revert to the old 34 hour mandatory off-duty after 7 days. The Obama rule was also 34 hours but required the 34 hours to include two 1 am to 5 am periods. Same 34 hours off, but it required drivers to schedule more of their hours during heavy traffic daylight periods. The argument was that this would actually hurt overall safety. Of course, it wouldn’t be the first bureaucratic regulation that missed the intended “do-gooder” intent. 🙂

    ——————

    As for Hillary…. I’m just having a hard time seeing the Democrat moonbats loving her more now than they did eight years ago. Since there are more centrist Democrats, the moonbats control the nominating process even more strongly than they did in 2008.

  48. Check out the photo on Drudge, looks like the Cry-baby is going to pull in and give a smooch to his BarryCakes.

  49. wbboei
    December 12, 2014 at 3:27 pm
    My best guess is the Republicans will run Romney–again.

    And if they do that the base will stay home.
    ________________

    EXACTLY!

  50. And btw, Erik Erickson (Red State blog) is every bit as much of a moonbat as the KOS kids. A Chrishun Coalishun moonbat.

  51. Shadowfax
    December 12, 2014 at 3:33 pm
    Admin

    Let’s also cheer Hillary for listening to reason in her delay in announcement date.


    Brovo Hillary!!!
    ___________

    Hell yeah!! At this point, I’m glad to have a reason to cheer anything to do with the jacked-up political situation. So Bravo Hillary. It’s Friday, and I may just let Jose Quervo join in the mini-celebration tonight, as well. lol

  52. The Republicans don’t need Romney. They’ve got Rick Santorum in the race! Can Herman Cain and Michele Bachman be far behind? 🙂

    If I were handicapping this far out (I really have no clue), I would probably put a few quid on Scott Walker to get the Republican nomination. Although I would not write off Rand Paul. He’s been working diligently to make himself palatable to mainstream Republicans, the exact opposite of Ted Cruz.

  53. I’m glad to have a reason to cheer anything to do with the jacked-up political situation

    I know it’s a small thing, but I’m cheering the passage of the Cromnibus, which I think was strategically shrewd for the leadership of the new Republican controlled Congress.

    It takes government shutdown brinksmanship off the table until regular order can pass budget and appropriations bills next September (not very far away in Congressional terms).

    It clears the deck for the Republicans to pass a series of “bipartisan” bills next February and March to sell the image of “getting things done in Washington”.

    It sets up a separate fight on DHS funding in March when they can allow the rabid dogs to duke it out with Obama with the brinksmanship limited to the funding for one department.

    My only complaint with the Cromnibus is that I think the Republicans are making a big mistake shutting down pot legalization in DC. I think the Republicans have an opportunity to pull the rug out from under the moonbats by being the part of states rights when it comes to referendums on pot and gay marriage and so forth. Alas, that may be a bridge too far for the Puritanical wing of the Republican Party.

  54. Seems to me then that HRC’s best strategy is to lay low and disappear from the news while the Democratic party immolates itself and the GOP coalition falls apart thanks to its incompetent leadership. HRC probably should wait till next summer then come back and announce her candidacy as an alternative centrist solution to the all the bickering on both sides of the political spectrum.

  55. “The Continuing Resolution is a gift to Wall Street

    And a burden to the American People

    Obama doesn’t just support that Continuing Resolution

    He pulled out all the stops to make sure it passed”
    ****
    More Street Theater, “The Perils of Pauline”, will it or won’t it pass. We have seen the same drama with Patriot Act, TARP, FISA, ACA, etc., etc. etc. Lobbyists and revolving door Congressional staffers wrote the bill and the money has been promised/paid.

    “Presenting The $303 Trillion In Derivatives That US Taxpayers Are Now On The Hook For”

    “Courtesy of the Cronybus(sic) last minute passage, government was provided a quid-pro-quo $1.1 trillion spending allowance with Wall Street’s blessing in exchange for assuring banks that taxpayers would be on the hook for yet another bailout, as a result of the swaps push-out provision, after incorporating explicit Citigroup language that allows financial institutions to trade certain financial derivatives from subsidiaries that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, explicitly putting taxpayers on the hook for losses caused by these contracts.”
    (more)

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-12/presenting-303-trillion-derivatives-us-taxpayers-are-now-hook

  56. My main hesitancy in betting on Walker is that I just haven’t seen him in action that much. But, I figure he must have some political chops to withstand the barrage the unions have hit him with in Wisconsin. With everything they have thrown at him, the Democrats must be scared of his political chops.

    I would think that Jeb would be the logical pick, but Obama screwed his chances by lighting a new fire under the “amnesty” issue. I don’t see how Booosh can finesse that one. He could just skip Iowa (probably good advice for any nearly sane candidate in either party), but he can’t skip Iowa and South Carolina.

    Plus, nothing says “new blood” quite like a third Bush…. 🙂 The Republicans really need to grab a page from the anti-Washington playbook. A competent midwest or southern guv would be perfect.

  57. Tony Stark
    December 12, 2014 at 5:32 pm

    Seems to me then that HRC’s best strategy is to lay low and disappear from the news while the Democratic party immolates itself and the GOP coalition falls apart thanks to its incompetent leadership. HRC probably should wait till next summer then come back and announce her candidacy as an alternative centrist solution to the all the bickering on both sides of the political spectrum.

    I totally agree Tony.

  58. Here’s a good article on the derivative swaps issue:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/10/swap-talk-why-are-people-fighting-over-dodd-frank-and-derivatives/

    It was originally a provision in Dodd Frank pushed by Blanche Lincoln. By the time it made it in into law, it only covered a few types of derivatives. Opponents argued that it actually pushed the trading into areas where there was less oversight and regulation.

    In any case, Wall Street hated it because it made it more expensive to buy and sell interest rate and oil pricing hedges. The exact language in the Cromnibus passed in the House last year with 70 Democrat votes. Like everything else, it was disappeared by Harry Reid, despite bipartisan support in the Senate.

    The really risky derivatives are still verboten and can’t be done by subsidiaries with FDIC protection.

    This appears to me to be another issue designed to whip partisans into a frenzy as a distraction. Seems to be pretty arcane stuff. Why would the House pass the same language last year and now we are led to believe it’s the end of the world because Fuaxchahonas and Cruz say so?

  59. Who would be the perfect match up for Scott Walker? Wigwam.

    Wigwam would be up the ass of the Unions so deeply, she might have to be reborn in a teepee. She would play to the unions hatred of the 1%, and Walker would appear to the Kooks to be the antiChrist.

    If Hillary decides not to run (I think she will), 2016 will be one crazy ass election.

  60. Here’s the vote on the Dodd/Frank change when it was voted on as a standalone in the House. Passed 292-122 in October 2013.

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll569.xml

    Personally, I would endorse, sight unseen, the repeal of any provision in any law sponsored by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. I don’t know much about politics, but I do know enough to suspect that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank reflect my political views on very little. My guess is that repealing anything in the Dodd-Frank bill rammed through a Democrat Congress is probably a net plus.

  61. If Hillary doesn’t run, the Democrat nomination battle will be even more insane than the Republican primaries.

    I actually think the Republican nomination process will be more orderly that people are imagining. The nomination rules (and debate schedules) have been changed to avoid the self-immolation of 2012, when a nobody like Santorum could hang around all the way to the convention. Starting with the March SuperTuesday primaries, everything is winner take all on the Republican side. The nomination should be decided earlier rather than later. And, the convention is early.

    The third element of that is that the big money donors learned a lesson. I think it’s going to much harder for the Crazy for Cocoa Puffs candidates to line up a sugar daddy donor to keep them going. The money men want to win.

    It’s actually more likely that Hillary runs into the same problem Romeny had in 2012 — an unexcited based jumping onto any alternative willing to throw them some red meat. The howling for red meat will be an issue on the Republican side, but unless Jeb gets in, there won’t be a tired old same-old same-old establishment presumptive nominee thing. Even the Senators making noises on the Republican side are new faces.

  62. I called my Senators today and McConnell..I had to call McConnell’s home state because they weren’t answering the phone in the capital. I can not tell you how rude and arrogant McConnell’s people were. Well, the Apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. I have every intention of making a formal complaint. Sure that will have a young, squirt shaking in his boots.

  63. now that’s a little more like it…

    ******************************************************

    http://oversight.house.gov/release/issa-subpoenas-obamacare-architect-jonathan-gruber/

    Issa Subpoenas ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber
    December 12, 2014

    Last night, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., subpoenaed ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber for all documents and communications with federal, state, or local government employees related to aspects of his work on the President’s health care law.

    “As one of the architects of ObamaCare, Jonathan Gruber is in a unique position to shed light on the ‘lack of transparency’ surrounding the passage of the President’s health care law, however he has so far been unwilling to fully comply with the Oversight Committee’s repeated requests,” Chairman Issa said in a statement. “This week, Dr. Gruber repeatedly refused to answer several key questions, including the amount of taxpayer funds he received for his work on ObamaCare. The American people deserve not just an apology, but a full accounting, which Dr. Gruber must provide.”

    On Tuesday, Dr. Gruber testified before the Committee about his role in developing the President’s health care law. During the hearing, Dr. Gruber received bipartisan criticism for boasting in 2012 that ObamaCare passed because of a “lack of transparency” and the “stupidity of the American voter.” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Marilyn Tavenner also testified at the hearing about the inflated ObamaCare enrollment numbers CMS reported in September and November 2014.

    The subpoena schedule is as follows:

    1. All documents and communications to or from any federal, state, or local government employee, including, but not limited to, any document or communication referring or relating to the Affordable Care Act or federal and state health care exchanges.

    2. All documents and communications referring or relating to funding, for research or otherwise, from any federal, state, or local government agency, including, but not limited to, any contract(s) with a federal, state, or local government agency.

    3. All documents and communications referring or relating to work product produced to any federal, state, or local government agency, for any purpose, including, but not limited to, the results of any and all economic models or simulations.

  64. Hillary is surrounded with back stabbers again ” Why is the world did she spend the last 6+ years carrying water and kissing the behinds of these people. Did she think she would get them to like her? Meanwhile, I who supported her unconditionally, went to Denver to act as a historical witness have had to step away from her and turn my back completely. What a waste, a waste!

  65. Perfect timing. HotAir (right wing blog) has a blurb on Walker buried in a Jeb article this evening:

    We all do understand, I hope, that Walker will be running basically as a centrist, yes? He doesn’t need to pander to righties; he spent four years taking withering fire from lefties for his collective bargaining reforms and beat them at every turn. Unless he comes out for single-payer, he’s bulletproof on the right. I think he’s going to run as a similar sort of pragmatist as Bush — lots of talk about jobs and education, squishy on immigration, socially conservative but low key about it, and if tea partiers start getting restless with him, he’ll pull the ol’ “remember the time the unions spent millions to recall me and I kicked the sh*t out of them?” card. And then everyone will quiet down.

    This sounds about right. It’s why I would put a few quid on Walker if I had to bet. He is the obvious candidate to “unify” the party. He’s got tea party cred without appearing overtly crazier than a loon to the establishment/money types.

    —————–

    On Carlson, I just don’t know yet. Interesting story, but I haven’t seen any sign that he has any political instincts. I’m thinking Rubio, Cruz, or Martinez might be better for the ethnic pandering slot on the ticket.

  66. The Elizabeth Warren wing of the GOP?

    An interesting observation tweeted by Townhall and The Federalist columnist Amy Otto caught my eye last night:

    Otto had put her finger on a fascinating condition: The hideously named “Cromnibus” bill, which narrowly passed the House on Thursday with 219 votes, had united the conservative wing of the GOP and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in opposition. For many conservatives, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) far better represented their position on the bill than did House Republican leadership.

    Politico expanded on this:

    The tea party’s opposition to the rider puts it in rare agreement with progressives, who also are criticizing the provision but for different reasons. Democratic Party committees would also benefit from the measure, but they do not have the same level of intra-party strife as the Republicans.

    In a statement calling on Democrats to oppose the spending bill, Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said the rider would gut “campaign finance laws” and “would represent Democrats marching in the exact wrong direction.” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has also cited the campaign finance provision as one of the two reasons for Democrats to sink the bill.

    Politico’s effort to downplay “intra-party strife” that Democrats are presently struggling with is comical.

    Yesterday alone, Pelosi and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee mounted a campaign of open opposition the White House’s preferred outcome on this funding bill.

    Speaking on behalf of the president earlier that day, the CIA director delivered a lengthy and rare rebuttal to a scathing report issued by the Democrat-led Senate Intelligence Committee. That statement was countered point-by-point and in real time by SSCI Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

    If that’s not “intra-party strife,” I don’t know what is.

    Politico’s observation that conservatives and progressives had found common ground over their opposition to “Cromnibus” was, however, valid.

    “So help me God, I have no way to refute the basic point that the Democrats are making about the CRomnibus fight right now,” RedState’s Leon Wolf wrote. “In fact, I might even go so far as to say they are right.”

    “Here we have a bill that will kick the funding question almost a full year down the road, increases government spending, funds a wildly unpopular and probably unconstitutional executive amnesty, and continues the very practices voters sent Republicans to Washington to oppose,” he added. “

    In this context, what possible good faith reason can the Republicans have for threatening to gum up the whole works over doing a favor to Wall Street?”

    That compelling argument caught the eye of no less a figure than Warren herself who approvingly cited this passage on the floor of the Senate on Thursday.

    “These conservative activists are right,” the Bay State Senator said after quoting Wolf at length. “If you believe in smaller government, how can you support a provision that would expand a government insurance program and put taxpayers on the hook for the riskiest private activities?”

    On Friday, Warren will join with conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in an effort to get another 39 of their fellow senators to kill the “Cromnibus.” The fact that the two populist wings of both parties are beginning to look more and more alike is not lost on their opponents. “Elizabeth Warren clearly now a Democratic Ted Cruz,” an unnamed GOP House member said according to CNBC’s John Harwood. “She has set off a stampede among Dems.”

    I don’t think that was meant as a compliment.

    Otto is right. The fact that conservative Republicans are finding more common cause with the face of the progressive moment more than their party’s leadership should trouble GOP brass. Even those conservatives who are not predisposed to mistrust Wall Street’s priorities took this vote as an indication that the GOP was never serious about opposing of Obama’s executive order on immigration, though neither this hybrid Omnibus nor a short-term CR would have forestalled the implementation of anything at the Department of Homeland Security.

    Republican leaders might be tempted to dismiss this ire from conservatives as a mere fit of pique among conservatives, but insouciance would be a foolish approach to this development. Maybe it’s nothing. Maybe it’s a dire portent about the future instability of the Republican coalition. GOP leadership shouldn’t risk the latter.

  67. “The fact that conservative Republicans are finding more common cause with the face of the progressive moment more than their party’s leadership should trouble GOP brass.”
    ———–
    Ralph Nader made the exact same point in his book. Exact same point. And by way of illustration he showed how the populist wings of both parties have have actually combined to defeat corporate welfare initiatives sponsored by the fusion party of Boeher and McConnell, Cole and Corker that cares not about the fate of the American People and only about where their next donation is coming from. He cited ten cases of this progressive/conservative alliance, which goes to show that war makes for strange bedfellows.

  68. “These conservative activists are right,” the Bay State Senator said after quoting Wolf at length. “If you believe in smaller government, how can you support a provision that would expand a government insurance program and put taxpayers on the hook for the riskiest private activities?”

    It’s amazing that Warren can even say that with a straight face. If you believe in smaller government, you are generally in favor of repealing new government regulations and mandates.

  69. I hope that Ralph Nader runs for the Democratic nomination. The debates between Nadar, Sanders, and Hiawatha would be classics….

  70. The avarice of the Beltway elites knows no limits.

    Not content to simply loot the American People, they are now demanding that the 2024 Olympic Games come to Washington D.C.

    I would sooner see it in Pyongyang.

    That country needs the revenue–its people are starving.

    And the presence of the Olympic Games would open up that society to the world and have a salutary effect.

    Besides, Kim Jo Ill loves ping pong, and chopping heads.

    The chopping of heads would likely stop whilst the Olympic games were in town.

    Or else that would become a new Olympic event to replace the long defunct Pentathlon.

    Which George Patton one in ot five Gonzo if memory serves.

  71. hwc
    December 12, 2014 at 9:28 pm

    ————-
    They are politicians.

    They will say anything to get elected.

    The point is an alliance is forming which will challenge Wall Street control over the political process.

    This happened before in our history, when JP Morgan began to overreach.

    He was hauled before Congress, humiliated and the career of a republican Progressive, i.e. T.R. was born.

    These patterns of American political history are relevant.

    Cost thinks they are determinative.

    I on the other hand thing they are mainly suggestive.

    Because history never repeats itself exactly.

    But when the pendulum swings similar things tend to happen.

  72. As a historical note, Morgans repudiation before Congress broke the man–the same man who bought out Carnagee and after the deal was agreed to asked Morgan suppose I had asked for another half billion for Carnagee Steel who then replied if you had asked then you would have had it. Morgan, in his own deranged mind, believe he was savior of the country, because he did pledge his fortune to bail us out from one of those crashes, most likely the crash of 1872. But the public memory is short, and the ideal that there should be those among us who are billionares goes down like a grassful of burrs. There is something egalitarian in the American character that despises such wealth. This is not a new thing. DeTocquiville observed the same phenomenon in this seminal book Democracy in American and Rogers and Hammerstein capture it in that patter song from the stage play Oklahoma–I aint no better than anybody else—but I’ll be damned if I ain’t just as good. Our big media celebrities and Harvard trained betters don’t exactly see it that way, but they are tone deaf.

  73. Correction: a mouth full of grass burrs.

    Clarification: big media who tends to worship wealth and celebrity is quick to ascribe the public aversion to the accumulation of vast wealth to envy. But it goes far deeper than that. It is that egalitarianism, and that idea that wealth should be earned through honest labor that causes people on this content to be suspicious of these well heeled critters. They are inclined to assume that behind every great fortune is a great crime.

  74. There’s no question that the US is ripe for a populist “mad as hell, not going to take it any more” candidate. That’s really the emotion of the tea party. Both political parties should be alarmed at the degree of anger.

  75. If I had my choices of Republican candidates, I would rather bring back a successful businessman that cares about jobs and the economy. I would bring back little Ross Perot or the comb-over boy, Trump.

    Enough of these politician’s that are mainly full of hot air.

  76. hwc

    December 12, 2014 at 10:13 pm

    There’s no question that the US is ripe for a populist “mad as hell, not going to take it any more” candidate. That’s really the emotion of the tea party. Both political parties should be alarmed at the degree of anger.

    ————–
    Danger to the corrupt two party system could be salvation to the American People, but it all depends on a credible third party the likes of which we have yet to see. I do not buy the idea that a businessman is the answer. The businessman has one north star: profit. The politician has a constellation of interests he or she must cater to, according to Churchill. In our time, that challenge has been made nearly impossible by the rise of an uber corrupt big media. Going back for a moment to Judge Stern’s observation about what he and Fred Lacey faced when he moved from the Manhattan District Attorney’s office where he lead the investigation into the murder of Malcom X to the Garden State with a mandate to root out the mob, he will tell you that he had the press on his side, and that made all the difference, and lead to his success. Unfortunately, any national political leader who would break with tradition and support the American People would face initial interest and then withering attacks by big media. They profit handsomely from the status quo, whereby the corruption of our political system puts billions of dollars in their pockets such that reform is something to be assiduously avoided. It is difficult, you see, to convince a man of your bona fides and the merits of your argument when his livliehood depends on him not understanding it. The only figure on the political scene with the courage and intellect to lead such a massive reform campaign is Ted Cruz.

  77. I did business at one point with Fletcher and Springer who were the legal counsel for the Perot campaign. I was never that impressed with candidate Perot. I also did business with Locke Liddell the law firm that gave Harriett Miers. They were a good firm, but Miers was not a good candidate. Then again neither were the wise Latina or Elena Kagen who never served as a judge yet they made it on the court.

  78. This is a large part of the problem as well . . .

    ——————

    The Myth of American Meritocracy

    Just before the Labor Day weekend, a front page New York Times story broke the news of the largest cheating scandal in Harvard University history, in which nearly half the students taking a Government course on the role of Congress had plagiarized or otherwise illegally collaborated on their final exam.1 Each year, Harvard admits just 1600 freshmen while almost 125 Harvard students now face possible suspension over this single incident. A Harvard dean described the situation as “unprecedented.”

    But should we really be so surprised at this behavior among the students at America’s most prestigious academic institution? In the last generation or two, the funnel of opportunity in American society has drastically narrowed, with a greater and greater proportion of our financial, media, business, and political elites being drawn from a relatively small number of our leading universities, together with their professional schools. The rise of a Henry Ford, from farm boy mechanic to world business tycoon, seems virtually impossible today, as even America’s most successful college dropouts such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg often turn out to be extremely well-connected former Harvard students. Indeed, the early success of Facebook was largely due to the powerful imprimatur it enjoyed from its exclusive availability first only at Harvard and later restricted to just the Ivy League.

    During this period, we have witnessed a huge national decline in well-paid middle class jobs in the manufacturing sector and other sources of employment for those lacking college degrees, with median American wages having been stagnant or declining for the last forty years. Meanwhile, there has been an astonishing concentration of wealth at the top, with America’s richest 1 percent now possessing nearly as much net wealth as the bottom 95 percent.2 This situation, sometimes described as a “winner take all society,” leaves families desperate to maximize the chances that their children will reach the winners’ circle, rather than risk failure and poverty or even merely a spot in the rapidly deteriorating middle class. And the best single means of becoming such an economic winner is to gain admission to a top university, which provides an easy ticket to the wealth of Wall Street or similar venues, whose leading firms increasingly restrict their hiring to graduates of the Ivy League or a tiny handful of other top colleges.3 On the other side, finance remains the favored employment choice for Harvard, Yale or Princeton students after the diplomas are handed out.4

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

  79. The paranoia of the elites is manifest in their reaction to the rise of the tea party.

    The tea party was and is a canary in the cave—an early warning signal to every American of the dangers which lie ahead as the oligarchs consolidate their control over the media, the economy, politics and the like, leaving the middle class of this nation without a lifeboat or a set of oars.

    That was the reason why the elites were so quick to disparage them as racists, hayseeds, revolutionaries etc. And one of the tools they used to oppose the tea party was big media, where they would send little mice reporters into their rallies trolling for one racist to prove their point, and sticking a microphone in front of the least articulate person assembled there. It was a big media hatchet job. That is happened, no one can deny. The why of it is what people should begin to focus on.

  80. The danger lies not in the challenge to the status quo, but rather in the status quo itself:

    Ever wonder why unpopular programs like amnesty and Obamacare move forward in a nation that purports to be a democracy?

    Well, here is the answer according to a recent study by a Princeton and a Northwestern Professor:

    “The wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

    The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.

    “A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time,” they write, “while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time.”

    On the other hand:

    When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.

    They conclude:

    Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

    (Note: these finding coincide with the prior analysis of Professor Sheldon Wolin whom I have quoted here on this blog previously. He defines our system as inverted totalitarianism and managed democracy. This is also the view of Chris Hedges, who is an honest man of the left and a deep thinker.)

  81. I went to Nial Ferguson expecting to find support for my position, even though he was a strong opponent of Scottish independence. I did not find what I was expecting. He is, if anything, consistent. He claims that this economic down turn–the one we are still in will not sink the ship, like the great depression did. He claims it will be more like the depression of 1873 where the center actually held. I think it really depends on what he means by the center. If he means this corruption filled omnibus spending bill, and the political malfeasance that lead up to it, I cannot gainsay that they center will hold. And, with all due respect to Ferguson, neither can he. All we have seen so far is Act I: The Repudiation of Obama. Act II: The Betrayal of Voters By The Republican Party has only just begun.

    http://www.niallferguson.com/journalism/politics/a-populism-spurned-by-the-downturns-discontents

  82. Very pissed at how the Repubs have taken “control” so far. Of course they are memeing this was just the start to get the “shut down” off the page.

    The next year will show me what I need to know more.

    Even Bob Beckel concedes that Warren will run against Hillary in the primary but he does not think she will have mass appeal BUT noted that also that Obama started out just like Warren.

  83. dot48
    December 13, 2014 at 6:50 am
    ———
    What would have seemed impossible to me as recently as a year ago, now seems almost inevitable, namely a Warren candidacy.

    What would have seemed impossible to me as recently as six months ago, now seems possible, namely a Warren presidency.

    The American People who have learned nothing and forgotten nothing are looking for a new brand, and she appears to be it.

    The American People are beginning to realize that we have a winner take all economy, and they are the losers.

    The repudiation of them first by Obama and now by Republicans is the beginning of the end for establishment candidate.

    When the establishment exploits the people they will reject its candidates and move to the extremes.

    The other thing to realize is that the left has a formidable gotv machine and big media will go for her.

    The wild card is Wall Street—but their support is a double edged sword.

    The articles which I found and posted above tell the rest of the story, i.e. the how and the why.

  84. Like a lot of things, most people do not see it. They assume business as usual. That would be a classic mistake.

  85. If you think the tea party frightened the elites to the point that they did everything within their power to destroy it, just imagine how paranoid they would become if a credible third party were to materialize, one that put the interests of the American People as opposed to its donors first, and was not susceptible to their bribes and pathetic attempts at vilification. It would take someone with impeccable credentials like Jim Web to sustain it and to tap into the sense of loss of country which now hangs over the body politic like a vast fog. The game of the elites works only until the light goes on and then suddenly the bread and circuses are no longer enough to perpetuate the ruse. Unless I am wrong, illegal amnesty will turn out to be the catalyst. The thing that forces people to confront the truth that we no longer have a country.

  86. The thing people failed to realize about Obama because of his unorthodox bigography is that he was and is the quintessential establishment candidate. This was obvious to me from the beginning. If the devil can quote scripture then Obama can talk about saving the middle class, when in fact he is personally and politically responsible for its destruction. It may well be that his predecessors contributed to its demise, but there can be no doubt that Obama put the final nail in the coffin. How ironic that young people and the left in general put all their faith in a man who was and is the utter negation of all they claim to stand for, from civil liberties to economic opportunity etc. Truth to tell, they are complete rubes.

  87. i fully believe Warren will win the Dim nomination, regardless if Hillary runs, or not. my eyes were shut in 2007-2008. they are fully opened now. the fix is in. the money pours in. the media falls in line. the GOP nominates a laughable white man candidate and warren wins the presidency.

  88. If you want to know why Obama is a complete failure the answer lies in the fact that for him, nothing is substantive, everything is political, and he would rather politicize a problem than solve it, and invent a problem where none exists to agitate, to a single end: a cheap political victory which he and his big media cronies can crow about, while Rome burns.

  89. I have seen some polls of conservative audiences showing the Rand Paul was the most popular candidate for 2016.

    Yes, you heard me right, the two headed dentist.

    And here, silly me, I thought conservatives did not believe in hallucinatory drugs.

    I had a sometimes golf partner who was a medical doctor and the city psychiatrist of Miami–I mentioned him before.

    We played the Doral Golf course a couple of times, which is now owned by Trump.

    He was 76 years old, full of wild stories, and he had this remarkable ability to attract voluptuous young ladies.

    He reveled in it and wanted me to believe it was his personal magnetism.

    But the truth was, and it came out later after he was arrested, he was prescribing illegal drugs useful in their trade.

    I wonder what kind of opiate the two headed dentist is feeding to those audiences.

    One thing I will tell you:

    Unlike Cruz, he is cozying up to Wall Street, which is never a good sign.

    But if the dims go for Warren, it is easy to see where they will put their money.

    I have heard tell that there are two candidates Wall Street does not want: Cruz and Warren/

  90. Tony Stark
    December 12, 2014 at 5:32 pm

    Seems to me then that HRC’s best strategy is to lay low and disappear from the news while the Democratic party immolates itself and the GOP coalition falls apart thanks to its incompetent leadership.
    __________________

    Exactly Tony very good advice.
    Admin has been saying that too. 😀

  91. When the election autopsy from the Obama Dimocrats is written early next year by the party establishment do not be surprised when that group concludes that the problem in 2010 and 2014 is that Obama Dimocrats were not sufficiently pro-Obama and not sufficiently too far to the kook left.
    —————–
    More self delusion.

    The problem is, it is still a Wall Street operation.

    The sole purpose of such a report is to gull the stupid, exonerate the guilty.

    And to perpetuate the exploitation of the American People.

  92. Seems to me then that HRC’s best strategy is to lay low and disappear from the news while the Democratic party immolates itself and the GOP coalition falls apart thanks to its incompetent leadership.
    ————-
    Personally, I do not see much of a counter force to Obama internally. Yes, yes, I know Pelosi was very disappointed in him, Schumer said Obamacare was a mistake, etc. But if you agree with admin that is posturing and trap laying.

    For me, the critical reason for her to delay comes from outside the party, in the continuing investigation of the scandals and the demonstrable incompetence of Obama, and his sociopathic nature.

    Simply put, we must not allow big media to change the subject. If they cannot do that, and the failures of Obama become manifest, then whatever they obituary they may write about 2014 will be tossed in the shit can where it belongs.

  93. Delaying her announcement ensures the Obama will twist in the wind as the saying goes. And the mere fact that investigations to date have proved largely fruitless, and much of he truth about Obama has come from Judicial Watch, that situation is likely to change when Republicans take charge, because then they will have a free shot at Obama without a government shutdown, and they will see this as cheap way to pacify their base.

  94. Article discusses the “cracks” within the Dim party. Describes torture report as Dim effort to target anyone who wanted to take the fight after 9/11 to the enemy. Of course, mentions Warren as the “liberal populist” leading the charge along with Nano.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/12/12/the-insiders-the-democrats-have-come-unhinged/

    The Dems have devolved from Big Tent Party to the Bullshit Party in a relatively short period of time time. The Dimocratic Party is full of idiots and people twisting themselves into pretzels in order to appeal to whomever they wish to exploit for votes and money at any given time.

  95. Very pissed at how the Repubs have taken “control” so far.

    They haven’t taken control yet. The new Senate and House aren’t seated until January. The Cromnibus package has been in negotiation (Senate and House Budget Committee chairs) for some time. The Republican leadership does NOT want to spend the entire year in 2015 in government shutdown brinksmanship over expiring short term continuing resolutions. They’ve got a backlog of 100+ bills passed by the House, sitting on Harry Reid’s desk to get to. Many of those have bipartisan support and strong poll ratings with the American voter. They want to get to that list to go into the 2016 elections as a party that is getting things done in Washington….

    Here’s an op-ed that lays out the Cromnibus as a win for the GOP:

    a href=http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2014/12/11/the-cromnibus-funding-bill-is-a-big-win-for-the-gop>The Cromnibus Funding Bill is a Big Win for the GOP

    I believe that’s pretty close to the mark. They got a funding bill for the rest of the fiscal year, that adheres to the spending limits set in 2013, cleared the decks for 2015, and got a few goodies for their donors thrown in for good measure. And, they did it with a bipartisan vote that allowed the firebrands on both sides to strut and preen in indignation, throwing chunks of red meat to their congregations. By Washington standards, that’a pretty good day’s work. Boehner’s calculations have to include allowing no votes in his caucus. In perverse way, those “no” votes give him future leverage in negotiations. That’s what Pelosi was doing. Laying down markers for future negotiations.

    The problem both parties have is the extreme factions in the media (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.on the right, MSNBC, DailyKooks, etc. on the left), leaving little voice in support of some middle ground where Congressional deal have to fall.

  96. I am predicting today Warren will get the nomination., Obama , Pelosi, Schumer, and Reid are working on this already. Hillary again has been blindsided.

  97. I just don’t see how moonbat Dems are going to love Hillary more now than in 2008. The elements that rejected her then are stronger in the party now. The elements that supported her in 2008 have less of a role in the Party or have simply switched parties. For example, there are no more white Democrats in coal country and the south.

    In many ways, she has the same problem as Jeb Bush.

  98. I hope the Dems do nominate Warren. A moonbat Harvard prof, from Massachusetts, with fake Indian credentials, ultra-left ideology and zero political experience has the potential for a McGovern or Dukakis style blowout.

  99. Democratic Representative, Jim Moran takes One Drop to task, saying that her stance on the funding bill was an attempt to use an issue she knew the public did not fully understand to get some TV face time and make political points. Moran cited the provisions in the bill that he believed were too important to give up.

    ___________________

    (snip)

    Moran accused her of exaggerating the impact of the financial services provision to get media attention.

    “She’s demagoguing an issue that she knows the public doesn’t understand,” he said. “With this provision in the bill banks still can’t put any taxpayers’ money at risk. There will never be another bank bailout. Banks can’t use depositors money for risky investment. They can’t engage in credit default swaps.”

    Moran cited former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker’s assurance that the provision would not jeopardize banks’ solvency.

    He noted that 70 House Democrats voted to amend Dodd-Frank in similar fashion in October of last year.

    “Because she knew that people don’t really understand I think she wanted to be out front,” Moran said. “That should not have derailed this bill.”

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/227046-dem-dont-be-scared-of-warren

  100. hwc
    December 13, 2014 at 12:30 pm

    The Cromnibus Funding Bill is a Big Win for the GOP

    ————-
    Well, a big win and a absolutely brilliant move– in the beltway chess game.

    The RINO steals big pharma back from the dims—its like a big score in an endless hockey game.

    And all it cost those living outside the beltway is their future.

    Who are watching their future disappear and the ever more intense concentration of wealth.

    This is what his idea of a huge victory for Republicans looks like:

    No caps on political spending at conventions, a bail out for Citibank speculators, social security and medicare for illegals, a punt on amnesty (notice how before the election the rhetoric of Boehener was to stop illegal amnensty whereas now the operative word is “challenge”, repeal the medical device tax (what the base was most interested in), a bailout of a retiree plan of a Fortune 50 company, a huge influx of illegals, a Reid kickback to Las Vegas, an increase in the national debt a tribute the very kind of visionary leadership that McConnell and Boehner are (in)famous for.

    Not a huge victory. A Pyrrhic victory for the GOP after they just got done slaughtering their base. Why? Because Tommy ain’t no bloomin’ fool. You bet that Tommy sees.

  101. Democratic Representative, Jim Moran
    ————-
    The whore of babble on!!! he speaks!!! tell me sir, that son of yours, you know the one who was caught engaging in election fraud, what his he up to now? And how did he manage to avoid prosecution? Would it be fair to say that there are two standards of justice at work here: one for the elites like you, and another for the rest of us??

  102. JB, I hope your are wrong. I think if Hillary lays low for a while and watches what’s up, she’ll be able to pursue the nomination – if she decides to do so – from a position of strength. The far left faction within the party would give up the GE in order to see Lizzie get the nomination, presumably. Or maybe they’re just to dense to know the country as a whole, will not support Warren. . However, there have to be others, more centrist leaning voters both within the party and outside of it, who know that Warren is especially unelectable, following 2 terms of O. Hillary can take a more moderate stance and gain both Republican and Dem voters in the general election. More moderate Dims will not be willing to give up the opportunity to place a Dim in the WH, by nominating someone whose appeal is limited to the progressives.

    However, It is beginning to seem that the progs would rather defeat Hillary, and prevent her from becoming the nominee than to win the WH.

    Regardless of whether Warren is successful in carving out a niche that is perceived as being separate from Obama or not, she’s a far left Dim who stands about as much chance of getting elected in 2016 as a far right Republican stood of being elected in 2008, after 2 terms of W.

    The next president of the country will be a moderate or a right-winger. I don’t believe even with MSM controlling the narrative that this country would elect another far lefty at this point in time.

  103. I hope the Dems do nominate Warren. A moonbat Harvard prof, from Massachusetts, with fake Indian credentials, ultra-left ideology and zero political experience has the potential for a McGovern or Dukakis style blowout.
    ————-
    That would solve only half the problem.

    The other half would require the republican base refusing to support the establishment candidate.

    Now that I understand the corruption of the political system today, it would be in the best interests of the country, defined as those living outside the beltway who are not joined at the hip with the federal government, to see it crash and let the states take over those duties.

    The first job of the federal government is to secure the country, and the federal government is so abysmally corrupt that they cannot perform even that much.

  104. The establishment of both political parties is so infested with parasites that all it can do is stagger and sway along the way. One step forward, two steps back, etc. The establishment cannot possibly serve the interests of the American People when it is completely beholden to special interests. To think that these interests can be held at bay is simply a fool’s errand.

  105. If you read Charles Beard and other historians of his caliber you will see that economic elites have always held great power.

    However, in times past, their power was never absolute.

    There were certain obstacles that inhibited their ability to achieve absolute control.

    One of those obstacles was the Constitution.

    It prevented them from consolidating their political power to the point that it threatened the rest of us.

    Today, the elites use their political power to buy the judges they want, through the politicians they elect.

    A second obstacle was effective limits on political contributions.

    This made it harder, but by no means impossible to buy off politicians.

    The loss of those controls through Citizens United and its progeny now give those elites effective control over the future.

    This point is proven beyond cavil by the Princeton Northwestern study linked above.

    The third obstacle was a favorable balance between supply and demand.

    There was an abundance of land, jobs, health care, food, safety nets, etc.

    Whereas today, there is an artificial scarcity due to outsourcing, off-shoring, technological change and illegal immigration etc

    There is only so much that politicians can do to mitigate or ameliorate these factors.

    But there is much they can do, and much that Obama has done to accelerate them, and our demise as a nation.

    The center of both political parties is thoroughly invested in the corruption that has brought us to this point.

    It is only in the extremes where you find people willing to admit the country is hurting.

    When an establishment candidate, like Schumer, tries to make this point, he should not be believed.

    When a true conservative or a progressive makes the point, like it or not, they are speaking for millions of people.

    Noticing the problem is one thing.

    Solving it is quite another.

    The solutions proffered by progressives are cloud cuckooland.

    Meaning that the cure may be worse than the disease.

    But the establishment, which typically ignores the problem, is even worse.

  106. Well Lizzy spoke out on the Cromnibus but didn’t change a thing. What a bag of wind. Definitely reminds me of Ofuctard. Expressing populist opinions to position themselves to sell them out.

  107. thus far, I have been impressed with Jason Chaffetz

    let’s see what he does with this inquiry…

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/obamacare-brewing-fiscal-fiasco-11834

    Food for thought: “The CBO now says that it can no longer determine the full impact of the law.”

    Robert E. Moffit

    December 11, 2014

    There is more to this week’s House hearing with Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber than just an examination of his disparaging comments about the American public’s understanding of Obamacare.

    Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform asked Gruber for copies of his taxpayer-funded modeling results, his work product, for the Affordable Care Act.

    Instead of a simple “yes,” Gruber said that he would consult with his lawyer. Lawyering up on such a request is more than bad form. Transparency, not personal information, is at issue here.

    Did Gruber model the health law’s budgetary impacts for the White House before its passage? Peering behind that curtain—Gruber’s analyses, memos, reports or projections on Obamacare’s budget impact, and especially internal communications emails with the Congressional Budget Office and others within the administration—would help clarify what President Obama and his team understood about the law at the time. It might also teach us how to avoid similar problems in the future. Corrective legislation is the purpose of congressional investigations.

    The basic budgetary facts are not in dispute. When Obamacare was enacted, the official cost estimate was roughly $900 billion over the period from 2010 through 2019. However, the health law’s cumulative costs have since roughly doubled as more of its provisions come online. The simple difference in the time period, plus the increase in massive new entitlement spending, has started to bring the law’s true costs into sharper focus. For 2015 through 2024, CBO now estimates that the insurance subsidies and the big Medicaid expansions will cost $1.89 trillion. (me – and going up, up, up)

    President Obama initially promised that he would not sign a bill that added “one dime” to the federal deficits. And the ACA did indeed include various measures to offset its costs, particularly steep Medicare payment reductions and some big tax hikes.

    But in both cases, the pay cuts and richer revenues will generate intense political opposition. In its 2010 assessment of the law, the CBO formally expressed doubt as to whether the Medicare payment policies could be sustained. Curiously, during his questioning with Gruber at the House hearing, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) complained of the law’s 40 percent excise tax on high-cost, union-negotiated plans. Organized labor, as Lynch indicated, hates that tax. Other Obamacare taxes are almost universally unpopular, such as the medical device tax that hits a lot of biotechnology firms in some very liberal states.

    It’s only 2014, and the health law’s big spending provisions, such as the exchange subsidies and the Medicaid expansion, are just up and running. Assuming it continues in its current form, Obamacare’s big spending spree is certain to soar, and may turn out to be even higher than the CBO’s projections.

    What is not certain are the law’s projected savings or the ability of revenue increases to offset its rising costs. They may be much lower, and in some cases may not materialize at all. Congress may yet weaken or repeal them. Certain spending on a massive scale, and uncertain savings or revenues, is an unhealthy prescription for higher deficits and huge debt.

    The CBO now says that it can no longer determine the full impact of the law. Once Obamacare was passed, its deficit reduction provisions dissolved into the vast sea of overall federal spending and revenues.

    My colleagues and I at the Heritage Foundation have argued that Obamacare’s festering budgetary issues reflect a much deeper problem with today’s congressional budgeting process. Particularly, lawmakers have a fixation with “deficit reduction” at the expense of controlling government spending. Washington’s crazy spending is the root cause of its fiscal problems, deficits and debt.

    Following Rep. Chaffetz’s lead, the Committee could mine a potentially rich vein of information. Far more important than Gruber’s insulting comments is the work product—all of it—from his sophisticated econometric modeling.

    That information might shed light on the gravity of Obamacare’s fiscal problems facing the country, and how we got there. In the name of transparency, congressional investigators need to stay on the job. Meanwhile, they should fix their own broken budgetary process and stop the crazy spending.

    Robert E. Moffit, PhD., is a senior fellow in the Center for Health Policy

  108. Lu4PUMA, Wigwam is just like Obama with FISA – promises to filibuster against, followed by a “yes” vote.

    Here’s more from Danny Vinik, a kook at the White Republic:

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120544/chances-elizabeth-warren-runs-president-increased-week

    The Week Elizabeth Warren Decided to Run for President

    Or may have decided. We won’t know for a few months whether the Massachusetts senator will challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, but if she chooses to run, we’re going to look back at this week as a pivotal moment in Warren’s decision-making.

    Warren has been waging two battles against mainstream Democrats over the past month in an attempt to reduce Wall Street’s influence within the party. Both of those battles hit inflection points this week. The first is over President Barack Obama’s nominee for the under secretary for Domestic Finance, the number three position at the Treasury Department. It’s rare for such a nomine to become a political issue, much less a political issue within a party. But that’s what has happened to Antonio Weiss, whom Obama nominated on November 12.

    A week later, Warren came out vocally against Weiss, arguing that he was both unqualified for the job and another example of Democrats’ filling senior government positions with people from Wall Street. “The over-representation of Wall Street banks in senior government positions sends a bad message,” she wrote in the Huffington Post. “It tells people that one—and only one—point of view will dominate economic policymaking. It tells people that whatever goes wrong in this economy, the Wall Street banks will be protected first. That’s yet another advantage that Wall Street just doesn’t need.”

    On Tuesday, Warren took her criticism of Weiss’s nomination up a notch. Speaking at a conference on the Federal Reserve, Warren tore into Weiss’s qualifications and ripped her party for cozying up to Wall Street. Writing at this site, David Dayen argued that the speech was a direct attack on the Democratic establishment. “In the wake of another midterm wipeout,” he wrote, “the Democratic Party has been flailing around for some guiding principles, and Warren has seized on this moment to provide them.” During the week, a collection of Democratic senators—Joe Manchin, Jeanne Shaheen, and Al Franken, among others—announced that they opposed Weiss’s nomination. Obama will need significant Republican support in the next Congress if Weiss is to be confirmed.

    But Warren’s biggest moment this week was her crusade against a must-pass spending bill over a little-known policy rider that would have eliminated a part in the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill. Section 716 prevents banks from using taxpayer-backed funds to trade in riskier financial products known as custom swaps. On Wednesday, Warren delivered a vicious speech on the Senate floor in which she implored House Democrats to kill the bill.

    “Now, the House of Representatives is about to show us the worst of government for the rich and powerful,” she said. “The House is about to vote on a budget deal, a deal negotiated behind closed doors that slips in a provision that would let derivatives traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money and get bailed out by the government when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system.… This provision is all about goosing the profits of the big banks.”

    The provision has also garnered significant Democratic support in the past. In 2013, for instance, 70 Democrats voted for it in a bill that died in the Senate. Warren’s speech had made the issue toxic and persuaded other House Democrats to vote against not just the provision but a massive spending bill.

    This position put her at direct odds with the White House. President Obama not only supported the bill, but he and Vice President Joe Biden made calls to individual Democratic congressman asking for their votes and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough was dispatched to the Hill as well. In the end, Obama prevailed. Fifty-seven Democrats sided with 162 Republicans and the bill barely passed. But Warren had taken on the Democratic establishment and came within just a few votes of winning.

    What’s striking about these two battles is that they mean much more politically than substantively. Weiss’s nomination is for a technocratic position that requires experience in financial markets, for instance. “I don’t know the long history of this position but at least since I’ve been paying attention, it’s typically been filled by someone with precisely the market experience that Weiss brings to the table,” Jared Bernstein, the former chief of staff to Biden, wrote on his blog. Four former under secretaries for Domestic Finance released a letter Thursday in support of Weiss as well. Even the provision in the spending bill, while certainly harmful for financial regulation, does not undermine Dodd-Frank. “In the grand scheme of things,” Matt Yglesias writes at Vox, “Section 716 is not earth-shattering in its impact.”

    But these two issues hold significant appeal for the Democratic base that believes Obama has grown too close to Wall Street and worries that Clinton will be more of the same. This has given Warren an opening to gain even more influence in the party as the primaries approach, and she’s taken it.

    This doesn’t mean that she will run. On Tuesday, her press secretary said, “As Senator Warren has said many times, she is not running for president.” But note the present tense—Warren could still run in the future.

    It’s a tough decision, since Warren still has little chance of winning the Democratic nomination. A CNN poll released on December 2 found that 65 percent of Democrats support Clinton, with just 10 percent favoring Warren. For comparison, Clinton’s current lead is about three times as large now as it was over Barack Obama during the comparable period before the 2008 election.

    That may not matter, though. Warren can have a significant influence on Hillary Clinton and the Democratic primary even if she doesn’t come close to winning. In fact, she could lose the primary and come out an even larger force in the party. That’s exactly what happened with her losing battle this week. It could be a sign of bigger fights to come.

    White squaw speaks with fork-ed tongue.

  109. Food for thought: “The CBO now says that it can no longer determine the full impact of the law.”
    ————
    Here is more food for thought . . . .

    Abolish the CBO.

  110. Hell, its just like the FED

    Judge Posner makes this point in his book on the causes of the crash.

    He regards it as remarkable that they would have 38 economists on staff, many of them Harvard trained . . .

    Well, that part is to be expected—featherbedding for our best and brightest

    The part you might not expect is this:

    None of them, according to Posner saw the real estate crash coming.

    Oh, 10 years back that man in the tuxedo who looked like a corpse

    You know, the spouse of Andrea–clearly the better half

    Did mumble something about irrational exuberance.

    Now that may have been his feelings for Andrea before heart by pass

    It may have even been about the thrill of having so many people working for him

    But the one thing even Greenspan did not see either was the tulip bulb factor

    So what you say?

    Well, you are right.

    He and Andrea are the toast of the Beltway.

    And ain’t love grand/

  111. Warren’s dance of the seven veils is just the short of thing big media will like

    Rules for Big Media Radicals:

    1. the truth be damned

    2. print whatever you want so long as it advances your narrative.

    3. print nothing that conflicts in any way with your narrative.

    4. and when legend becomes fact, print the legend.

  112. The GOP is now filled with “moderates”—what I call a RINO.

    These “moderates” have no coherent philosophy, and no particular commitment to the constitution.

    They are nothing more than errand boys for their donors.

    They have no interest in the welfare of the American People.

    The one thing that hit me hard in recent days however is this.

    When the GOP takes control of Congress they will not fight Obama.

    That is the fine point I missed.

    Until I saw what they did on Cromulus.

    Willing to shut down government for Wall Street.

    But unwilling to shut down government to prevent amnesty.

    I now believe that far from fighting Obama, they will work with him and seek to vindicate him.

    That is reality, and within the next six months this will become apparent to everyone.

    Mark Levin calls them Vichy Republicans–a false flag French government controlled by the Nazis during world war II.

    These moderates are in fact collaborators with a man who hates this nation and is doing all he can to destroy it.

    Until now, I had believed that a change of control would be a path back to democracy.

    Boy, was I wrong.

  113. WTF? “But these two issues hold significant appeal for the Democratic base that believes Obama has grown too close to Wall Street”
    ————
    Obama has GROWN to close to Wall Street???

    What fools those democrat voter are:

    Messiah Obama was always a Wall Street shill.

    One of their own pointed this out the them in the very beginning.

    Which only goes to show that Gruber was right.

    These people are, in fact, stupid.

    There are nicer ways to put it–like intellectually challenged, naiive, hopeful, etc.

    But why mince words.

    Stupid is as stupid does.

    Towit:

    Buying Brand Obama, by Chris Hedges (2008)

    Barack Obama is a brand.

    And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, our elected officials continue to have their palms greased by armies of corporate lobbyists, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East.

    Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, we are being duped into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest.

    What, for all our faith and hope, has the Obama brand given us?

    His administration has spent, lent or guaranteed $12.8 trillion in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street and insolvent banks in a doomed effort to reinflate the bubble economy, a tactic that at best forestalls catastrophe and will leave us broke in a time of profound crisis.

    Brand Obama has allocated nearly $1 trillion in defense-related spending and the continuation of our doomed imperial projects in Iraq, where military planners now estimate that 70,000 troops will remain for the next 15 to 20 years.

    Brand Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan, including the use of drones sent on cross-border bombing runs into Pakistan that have doubled the number of civilians killed over the past three months.

    Brand Obama has refused to ease restrictions so workers can organize and will not consider single-payer, not-for-profit health care for all Americans.

    And Brand Obama will not prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes, including the use of torture, and has refused to dismantle Bush’s secrecy laws or restore habeas corpus.”

    http://thegitmos.com/2010/05/14/buying-brand-obama-by-chris-hedges/

  114. In the grand scheme of things,” Matt Yglesias writes at Vox, “Section 716 is not earth-shattering in its impact.”
    ————-
    This jackass

    So now he is an expert on Dodd Frank.

    Has he read it?

    No.

    Then how does he know it is unimportant?

    If it is unimportant, why did Citibank attorneys insist on its inclusion?

    Could it be that he does not know what he is talking about.

    And is simply looking to support Obama as he does with everything else.

    Just remember this is a juronlister

    Furthermore, he is one of the little humps who is pulled into the White House to communicate their talking points.

  115. Cruz and Lee took a stand against amnesty, Reid blocked it, and Reid is holding the Senate over into the weekend.

    Reid is worried that if these senators could force a vote on their amendment then Pocahantus will follow suit.

    It seems that a small group of Republican senators are furious, not with Reid, but with Cruz and Lee.

    Who are these Senators who are so imperious that they cannot spare a Saturday to do their job?

    McCain, Graham, Rubio and that airhead Jeff Flake.

    And what do they have in common?

    They are the Republican half of the gang of eight who were all for amnesty etc.

    What a surprise.

    They have been working with Obama behind the scenes to push this whole thing through.

    And two senators threw a monkey wrench in their plans.

    Consequently, they have to spend tomorrow away from home.

    Pathetic.

    Schumer is there too with putting his ugly puss in front of the camera.

  116. One more reason why we need to hold the 2014 Olympic Games in North Korea. I wonder whether our own elites are thinking along the same lines . . .

    The dictatorships of the world have a fire sale on humans right now, like they were getting rid of excess stock. ISIS is trying to sell James Foley’s headless body for $1 million probably to pay for their dinar coins. And North Korea has become the human experimentation capital of the world. They have got to find a use for those useless mouths. So “a former officer in North Korea’s special forces says disabled people in the country are used for chemical weapons experiments.”

    “The regime wants to do this ‘legally’ so they offer to buy disabled children from their parents and they say they will take care of them. If that doesn’t work, they threaten them. They use them for chemical weapons experiments, not only children, they also use disabled adults.”

    Another defector, Ji Seong-ho, told the paper that “people with disabilities are considered a stain on North Korea’s image and a humiliation to the ruling regime”.

    But whether humanity is regarded as useless in the Western sense of “having no utility” or according to the North Korean definition of not measuring up to the perfect standard of manhood set by Kim Jong-Un, it’s an interesting time to be a human being. We caught the car, now what do we do with it? The future is here, the only problem is whether we have any place in it.

    It was said that the microprocessor doomed the USSR. The second technological revolution — smarter software — is only now coming into the offing just as we are adjusting to the effects of the first. Self-driving cars, delivery by drone, robotic home care workers, burger flippers … what will it do to Russia, to China? What will it do to Detroit?

    http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/12/12/the-second-wave/#more-40841

  117. I will say it one more time.

    Establshment political figure, aka rinos and dino–or moderates as they now call themselves serve their donors

    Not the American People.

    A massive political realignment is in the works.

    The two party system is too corrupt to go on.

  118. More conventional wisdom:
    http://thehill.com/opinion/ab-stoddard/226720-ab-stoddard-dems-sick-of-obamacare

    It’s the very definition of the door hitting them on the way out. Four years after the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed by only Democrats, the law has contributed to giving Republicans their strongest hold on Congress in more than a century and a half.

    What’s even more frightening than the law’s unpopularity is the prospect of ObamaCare being dismantled by a coming Supreme Court review. Should the court rule that a suggestion by Gruber — an economics professor and healthcare expert credited with building not only the ACA but also the Massachusetts program said to have inspired the ACA— is true, the law will implode. Gruber has said in secretly videotaped comments that the intent was always to provide subsidies only to states operating their own exchanges, as an incentive for participation. That would make the subsidies now provided in 37 states with federal exchanges illegal.

    The cumulative damage the Democratic Party has suffered, as well as the casualty rate — half of the 60 senators who supported the bill are since deceased, defeated or retired — has brought its leaders to an unhappy inflection and reflection point. Two years ago, President Obama was reelected to the surprise and delight of Democrats who believed that, not only would his unique coalition provide them with dominance in presidential cycles for the foreseeable future, but that perhaps the ACA backlash had passed. After losing their Senate majority and watching the GOP cement gains across federal offices, statehouses and regions Democrats might have lost for generations, however, buyer’s remorse on healthcare reform has led to angry division inside the party.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) now blames the debacle of the healthcare rollout for the GOP winning a 10-seat majority over Democrats last month. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) came out in the days following the ghastly midterm election losses to declare Democrats hadn’t listened to the voters when they passed reform in 2010. “Americans were crying out for the end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs — not for changes in their healthcare,” Schumer said in a speech blasted by several high-profile Democrats.

    Schumer’s catharsis was followed by comments from retiring Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa.), also instrumental in drafting the bill, who lamented how “complicated” it was and said a single-payer system would have been better.

    This dread was anticipated by some before the bill was even passed. Back in August of 2009, as the economy continued to suffer despite the promises of “recovery and reinvestment” of the $831 billion stimulus, both Vice President Biden and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel counseled against passing a large, comprehensive bill and advocated a more incremental approach because they worried the ambitious task was, as The New Republic described, “sucking the political life out of the presidency.”

    But the dissenting view was rejected, the ACA passed, and it remains politically toxic nearly five years later.

    Now Democrats hope a better website, more enrollees, some bipartisan fixes and a second affirmative Supreme Court decision can save the law before Hillary Clinton or another Democratic nominee has to finesse a position on it two years from now. If not, these four years are just the first in what could be decades before the Democratic Party is cured of its healthcare ills.

  119. Krauthammer is more than happy to prop Warren up against Hillary. He has a pathological dislike of Hillary bordering on the crazy. But Warren is Obots’ second chance wet dream because they know they made a mistake with Obama. She may very well get swept up in a frenzy just like Obama. She will have the benefit of the ‘magic’, the same magic that got Obama into the WH. Obots don’t want Hillary because it reminds them of how stupid they were to hoist Obama. How stupid were they? It was Gruber stupid.

  120. yeah because the last time a senator who’d been in office for 2 years before running worked out real well……..total loons.

  121. I hope the Dems do nominate Warren. A moonbat Harvard prof, from Massachusetts, with fake Indian credentials, ultra-left ideology and zero political experience has the potential for a McGovern or Dukakis style blowout.
    ————-
    That would solve only half the problem.

    The other half would require the republican base refusing to support the establishment candidate.

    Now that I understand the corruption of the political system today, it would be in the best interests of the country, defined as those living outside the beltway who are not joined at the hip with the federal government, to see it crash and let the states take over those duties.

    The first job of the federal government is to secure the country, and the federal government is so abysmally corrupt that they cannot perform even that much.

    …………..

    Warren is about to learn there is a big difference between a man running and a woman running…..

    A woman running for the Presidency with ZERO and i mean minus zero war or defense or political experience…..she is going to get her ass handed to her on a platter. Personally i think she’s aiming for the leadership of the senate and that is probably more suited to her but the Presidency…Fuck off.

  122. and another thing Warren is not even using her real name……….why she keeps using Warren is beyond me.

    Her name is Elizabeth Mann.

  123. Warren the hypocrite….

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/18/elizabeth-warren-champion-of-the-people

    Elizabeth Warren, Hypocrite, Supports Ex-Im Bank

    Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren—a leading progressive populist, possible Democratic presidential candidate, self-proclaimed champion of the poor, and enemy of greedy corporations (not really, as you will see)—supports the Export-Import Bank.

    That’s right: The woman best known for demonizing big businesses nevertheless wants to maintain an outlandishly generous subsidy package for them.

    Warren’s support for Ex-Im was revealed Friday after the Heritage Foundation reached out to her regarding a possible partnership on the issue. Libertarians and Tea Party conservatives are noted opponents of the subsidy, which they see as crony capitalism that helps politically-connected businesses cheat the free market. Liberty-inclined Republicans are working with the left on a host of issues, including NSA spying and marijuana legalization—why not make common cause with Warren on corporatism as well?

    Looks like the joke is on Heritage. From Bloomberg:

    “Senator Warren believes that the Export-Import Bank helps create American jobs and spur economic growth, but recognizes that there is room for improvement in the bank’s operations,” Warren spokesman Lacey Rose tells us in an e-mail. “She looks forward to reviewing re-authorization legislation if and when it is introduced.”

    The irony of Warren rejecting an offer from the right to fight Ex-Im together was not lost on The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney:

    Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren loves to shoot barbs at Wall Street. She also enjoys forcing taxpayers to absorb Wall Street’s risks while the banks pocket the profits.

    … At Ex-Im’s annual conference, one Wall Streeter described Ex-Im’s loan guarantees to me as “free money.” Is Elizabeth Warren really fine with free money to Wall Street?

    Warren was in Detroit on Friday morning speaking at Netroots Nation 2014, where unaffiliated activists waved signs and led chants urging her to run for president. They even filmed this cringe-inducing music video (you can watch it here, but fair warning: you will beg for death before the end). Here are some of the lyrics:

    Americans want our next president to be a woman. Hey babe, here’s looking at you Sen. Elizabeth Warren. The planet is warming and the power is shifting. We need a leader who won’t stand for all the corporate bullshit the lobby’s grifting.

    People think the system is rigged because it is. And it’s time that we stand up. We need a leader who won’t stand for all the corporate bullies and political phonies.

    If they knew Warren supported Ex-Im, would they admit that she is a political phony who absolutely stands for all the corporate bullies? Yeah, I doubt it.

    Thankfully, there are some politicians who do stand up to corporate bullies. Check out Reason TV’s interview with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) on his opposition to the Ex-Im Bank.

  124. moononpluto
    December 14, 2014 at 10:25 am

    and another thing Warren is not even using her real name……….why she keeps using Warren is beyond me.

    Her name is Elizabeth Mann.
    __________________________—

    And here I thought her name was Wigwam. 😆

  125. Comulubus = Crony capitalism on steroids

    Here is one of the corrupt anti democratic provisions in that bill which Boehner and his fellow RINOs ushered through the House, that RINOs like Toomey, Corker, Flake, Houevan (back benchers all) will pass through the Senate, and which the liar in chief will sign into law.

    Question: what conceivable public purpose can be achieved by giving billionaires complete control over our political system. If you subscribed 1.6 million dollars to the Democrat party, and you called them and asked for taxpayer money in one form or another, or relief from a regulation grounded in public good, do you really believe they would say know. The answer is obvious and so is the fact that any pretense of democracy is gone.

    This, from the Cromulous Bill:

    CAMPAIGN MONEY:

    Allows more money to flow into political parties. Under the new rules, each superrich donor could give almost $1.6 million per election cycle to political parties and their campaign committees. The comparable limit for 2014’s elections was $194,400.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/13/look-inside-massive-11-trillion-spending-bill/?intcmp=trending

  126. wbboei
    December 13, 2014 at 8:06 pm

    Cruz and Lee took a stand against amnesty, Reid blocked it, and Reid is holding the Senate over into the weekend.
    ______________________-

    And so the Drama continues. 👿

  127. WOW!!!! 😀

    For better or for worse, “Saturday Night Live’s” humorous treatment of national issues is a pretty good barometer for how seriously the country as a whole tends to take them.

    And if Saturday’s night’s cold open is any indication, Democrats should be furious at how badly their so-called “torture report” has failed in its main goal of making the Bush administration’s war on terror look like some rogue operation that’s lowered America’s intelligence agencies to the animal level of the country’s Islamist enemies.

    Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/12/14/snl-cold-open-mocks-senate-dems-torture-report-hysteria-self-service-checkout-customer-service-lines-165225#ixzz3LtCIopty

  128. The next time anyone tells you the GOP Senate leadership opposes either Obamacare or Obama’s egregious power grab you can laugh in their face. The CRomnibus bill passed because the majority of the GOP went along with it. Indeed, most of the GOP leadership was more interested in making utterly bull**** allegations against Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and keeping the pork moving than in doing their duty and opposing unconstitutional actions and executive overreach.

    Here are the offenders. (Note: I was wrong about Corker supporting the bill, although it may well be that he voted against it only after it was certain to pass. I would like to ask him WHY he voted against the bill, to see what he says.)

    http://www.redstate.com/2014/12/14/cromnibus-passes-gop-support/

  129. Looks like Lizzie’s schtick got a big chunk chopped out of it, judging from the Reason article Moon posted. I hope someone takes an axe to that pathetic song, as well.

  130. “Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) came out in the days following the ghastly midterm election losses to declare Democrats hadn’t listened to the voters when they passed reform in 2010. “Americans were crying out for the end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs — not for changes in their healthcare,” Schumer said in a speech blasted by several high-profile Democrats.”

    _________________

    Democrats didn’t listen to the voters in 2008, when Hillary Clinton garnered more votes in a primary than any other candidate evaah. Had Hillary been president since 2009, the country would not be in the shape it’s in today. The party would still have it’s little group of disgruntled, Clinton-hating limo-libs , but there would not be the massive crack in it there is today.

    The progs hate Bill Clinton, in part because he passed welfare reform. But, as Clinton has said repeatedly, everyone has a stake in this country, conservatives and liberals alike. It cannot be run according to the ideology of just one group. The problem with the progressives is that they actually believe that their way is the ONLY way because they’re smarter, better educated, more concerned with equality than any other group in the country, and everything needs to be done according to their views.

    That whole inclusive, concern-for-everyone, bullshit they spew is hypocrisy personified. They hate whole groups within this country. They don’t give a damn about women’s rights, and we have heard how they feel about Southerners.

    If the party is on the brink of self-destruction, it’s because that’s where it belongs, thanks to the Progs.

  131. Looks like the Dem Party was hijacked by the wimp ass progressives and they really do need to have their wings clipped fast. They have sent it down in a ball of flames with added petrol, the Kos kids and the moveon brigade need running out of town.

  132. “‎While the president’s executive actions on immigration are reprehensible and deserve a strong response, I value the oath I took to support and defend the Constitution too much to exploit it for political expediency,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said. “The Constitution gives Congress the power to fund the government so to assert that the House-passed spending bill is unconstitutional is not only inaccurate but irresponsible.”
    ———
    I took an oath to support the Constitution.

    Then, I took a superceding oath to support my donors.

    To my donors: mi casa es su casa

    But first, SHOW ME THE FUCK–ING MONEY!!!

    —Senator Bob Corker (R-Tn)

  133. “‎While the president’s executive actions on immigration are reprehensible and deserve a strong response,

    ————
    Oh come now Cork ass

    Obama’s actions are “reprehensible”????

    Why don’t you simply tell the truth?

    Obama’s actions are unconstitutional.

    Answer: because then you would have to stop him

  134. Political science 101, Corker:

    If the underlying action by Obama i.e. the executive order granting amnesty to 5 million illegals and giving them work permits and benefits, is unconstitutional, then congressional action in furtherance of that act, i.e. funding the executive order is likewise unconstitutional. It therefore follows that his claim that the Constitution requires him to fund an unconstitutional act is pure sophistry, which any first year law student could see through. If Corker were honest about it, the only real defense he has it that the unconstitutionality of the act is cured ex post facto though congressional ratification. But ratification is an affirmative act, and, for political reasons, Corker does not wish to tell his constituents what he as told his greedy donors, namey that he supports and voted for amnesty.

    Corker makes a mockery out of Constitutional law to cover up his treason.

  135. I worry now that Corker has given Roberts all he needs to vote to duck the amnesty issue. If I were on the other side, I would argue that the case brought by the 24 states is not moot.

    What do you think JB?

  136. moononpluto

    December 14, 2014 at 1:39 pm
    Reports are saying that both Jeb Bush and Romney are in for the 2016 fight…..this could get fun.

    ————
    To beta males with overbearing fathers . . .

    After you Jeb . . . no no no after you Mitt . . . no no no no no after you Jeb

    Color them forceful

    Color them inspirational

    Color them in touch with the common man

    Where is that goddamned erasure when I need it.

  137. If we can just get the honey badger in the middle of that fight, they would both skeedatl to the hills.

    It is too bad we never got a chance to see Cruz mop the floor with Obama in a debate over an issue.

    When you are managing a boxer with a future, there are certain possible matches you want to avoid.

    None of his RINO opponents relish the thought of getting in the ring with him.

    Particularly Corker who turns and runs in terror at the sight of him.

    But he loves to talk trash about him and Lee behind their backs.

    The reason I am focusing so much on Corker is because they are moving him into a top leadership position.

    The contributions he is receiving from the banking and insurance lobbies are staggering for a freshman senator.

    He is a bad omen for the American People.

  138. I will give you an example of the mootness argument:

    30 years ago, Marco De Funis applied for admission to the University of Washington Law School. He was well qualified in all repects—top grades, high LSAT score, but he was denied admission. The reason for denial? He was white, and the university had a voluntary affirmative action quota they sought to fill. The case went to the state supreme court, the Republican Attorney General and later senator and now big ticket attorney with Preston Gates, Slade Gordon argued against DeFunis and in favor of the quota. The Chief Justice of the Washington Supreme Court made the salient point that the circle of inequality in this nation will never be broken by shifting the inequities from one man to another on account of race. The case was then appealed to the US Supreme Court, and while it was pending before that forum, the University of Washington abandoned its prior position and let DeFunis in. Whereupon Justice Douglas speaking for the Court ruled that there was no longer an issue and the case was moot. If that case had concerned just DeFunis he would have been right. But in fact, it concerned all qualified candidates in the future who would be denied admission on account of their race. But the court, not wishing to decide the case did what the Boss of Tamany Hall said: I seen me opportunities and I took em.

    Where the lawsuits by the 24 states over illegal amnesty are concerned that is the worry. If they approach it properly, they will freeze the facts as they existed at the time the case was filed, and will understand that the funding of that illegal program by Congress does not constitute a ratification of the action itself. Roberts however take the same approach as Douglas did in the De Funis case, taking the easy way out, rather than upholding constitutional principles.

  139. Warren still has little chance of winning the Democratic nomination. A CNN poll released on December 2 found that 65 percent of Democrats support Clinton, with just 10 percent favoring Warren. For comparison, Clinton’s current lead is about three times as large now as it was over Barack Obama during the comparable period before the 2008 election.

    ————
    If Forked-Tongue did run against Hillary, she would be sent off the reservation.

    She only has a chance to win the primary IF Hillary decides to not run. The Kooks and Media had their chance, and were bitch slapped in Nov 2014.

    Hillary is the most popular politicization, and has been for year.

  140. Moon
    A woman running for the Presidency with ZERO and i mean minus zero war or defense or political experience…..she is going to get her ass handed to her on a platter. Personally i think she’s aiming for the leadership of the senate and that is probably more suited to her but the Presidency…Fuck off.

    —> I agree!

    moononpluto
    December 14, 2014 at 10:25 am
    and another thing Warren is not even using her real name……….why she keeps using Warren is beyond me.

    Her name is Elizabeth Mann.

    —-> Is ‘Warren’ from her days on the reservation? 😉

  141. Warren was from her first husband who she divorced in in 1977, Mr Mann is her 2nd Husband who she married in 1980…

    So why the fuck she is using still Warren is a bit ridiculous.

    Her maiden name is Herring, then Warren and she should be using Mann or Herring……..so the question is why does she not use it?

  142. some nitwit on Fox just saying Warren is more qualified than Hillary … WTF is wrong with these people?

    I actually think Ted Cruz came out smelling like a ROSE in all of this. His stature is growing as a fighter for the people .. I don’t know where this is going but we shall see

  143. Warren more qualified than Hillary, seriously, what muppet said that, the opportunistic tart has barely been a politician for 2 years…….and wouldn’t know executive office if her ass depended on it.

  144. “some nitwit on Fox just saying Warren is more qualified than Hillary … WTF is wrong with these people?”

    __________

    They’re scared shitless of Hillary, which is why both the left and the right keep finding reasons to slam her or to promote Warren.

    You know you’re in trouble when nitwits are singing your praises.

  145. of COURSE media is framing the sudden Warren fame as a way to get Hillary to move towards the party BUT you know what … it’s just too justify in the spring when they all try to make the public believe that Hillary won’t have a “come to Jesus” moment with the party and they will all move to Warren

    Do NOT forget how all the delegates were lined up solidly behind Hillary and then they all stabbed her in the back and ran for the “hopium”

    Actually if not for Hillary I’d love to see the whole party on it’s effin knees

  146. Demonstrating the level of honesty and forthrightness we have come to expect from POS Schumer, he says he’s betting on Hillary in 2016, but not ready to rule out Warren.”

    This article goes on to say that in recent days the interest in Warren has increased drastically. Wanna know why? It’s because of former O aides. Well, that just about says it all, doesn’t it? What more could anyone need? Approximately 300 former Obama aides sent a letter Friday urging Wig Wam to toss her head dress in the ring and run against Hillary. Oh please, Wig Wam, they beg. Being a presidential aide is the best job ever, and we know Hillary will never consider us. And even if she did, we wouldn’t want to work for her. She’s really serious. She works like non-stop. She never takes days off. She’s just too much for us. We’re counting on you, Liz. We don’t know shit about government, which is pretty evident since we supported for O in the first place. But, what the hell, you’re not Hillary. That’s all that matters.

    Schumer is a POS if ever there was one.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/sen-schumer-bet-hillary-2016-article-1.2045052

  147. I agree with you Wbboei. Roberts was just given a very easy way to avoid addfressing the overreach of the executive branch.

  148. If it will make any of you feel better, the US situation regarding immigration is not unique to just us.

    Watch this BBC clip. Sound familiar? And look at the parties involved. An entertainer in the guise of “great thinker” and an actually elected politician from the new majority.

  149. Interesting that you posted that video VH. I was just reading an article from The Guardian about Brand’s less than stellar performance on Question Time, and his rambling, progressive rantings which were neither relevant nor sensical. The article also said Brand was no longer funny.

    Why don’t entertainers stick to entertaining, and stop trying to govern. I think most of them who use their theater stage or movie/TV camera to rail against economic privilege and wealth must do so out of guilt. There are better ways to assuage that guilt – ways that don’t effect other people.

  150. These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting.

    Read to the end.

    * Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy — $445 million annual savings.
    * Save America ‘s Treasures Program — $25 million annual savings.
    * International Fund for Ireland — $17 million annual savings.
    * Legal Services Corporation — $420 million annual savings.
    * National Endowment for the Arts — $167.5 million annual savings.
    * National Endowment for the Humanities — $167.5 million annual savings.
    * Hope VI Program — $250 million annual savings.
    * Amtrak Subsidies — $1.565 billion annual savings.
    * Eliminate duplicating education programs — H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon , eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
    * U..S. Trade Development Agency — $55 million annual savings.
    * Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy — $20 million annual savings.
    * Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding — $47 million annual savings.
    * John C. Stennis Center Subsidy — $430,000 annual savings.
    * Community Development Fund — $4.5 billion annual savings.
    * Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid — $24 million annual savings.
    * Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half — $7.5 billion annual savings
    * Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% — $600 million annual savings.
    * Essential Air Service — $150 million annual savings.
    * Technology Innovation Program — $70 million annual savings.
    *Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program — $125 million annual savings..
    * Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization — $530 million annual savings.
    * Beach Replenishment — $95 million annual savings.Â
    * New Starts Transit — $2 billion annual savings.

    * Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts — $9 million annual savings
    * Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants — $2.5 billion annual savings.
    * Title X Family Planning — $318 million annual savings.
    * Appalachian Regional Commission — $76 million annual savings.
    * Economic Development Administration — $293 million annual savings.
    * Programs under the National and Community Services Act — $1.15 billion annual savings.
    * Applied Research at Department of Energy — $1.27 billion annual savings.
    * Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership — $200 million annual savings..
    * Energy Star Program — $52 million annual savings.
    *Economic Assistance to Egypt — $250 million annually.
    * U.S.Agency for International Development — $1.39 billion annual savings..
    * General Assistance to District of Columbia — $210 million annual savings.
    * Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority — $150 million annual savings.
    *Presidential Campaign Fund — $775 million savings over ten years.
    * No funding for federal office space acquisition — $864 million annual savings.
    *End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
    * Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act — More than $1 billion annually.
    * IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget — $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
    *Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees — $1 billion total savings. WHAT’S THIS ABOUT?
    * Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees — $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
    * Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of — $15 billion total savings.
    *Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT???
    * Eliminate Mohair Subsidies — $1 million annual savings.
    *Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — $12.5 million annual savings. WELL ISN’T THAT SPECIAL

    * Eliminate Market Access Program — $200 million annual savings.
    * USDA Sugar Program — $14 million annual savings.
    * Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) — $93 million annual savings.
    * Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program — $56.2 million annual savings.
    *Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs — $900 million savings.
    * Ready to Learn TV Program — $27 million savings..
    * HUD Ph.D. Program.
    * Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
    *TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

    My question is, what is all this doing in the budget in the first place?!

    Please Send to everyone you know

  151. wbboei, please list the source for the programs the new Republican House has proposed to cut December 15 6:55 a.m. Thanks

  152. moononpluto
    December 14, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    Looks like the Dem Party was hijacked by the wimp ass progressives and they really do need to have their wings clipped fast. They have sent it down in a ball of flames with added petrol, the Kos kids and the moveon brigade need running out of town.
    _________________________

    On a rail Moon after the tar and feathers. 😆

  153. Southern Born
    December 15, 2014 at 10:27 am
    ————-
    It was sent to me via email. The reference point was only this:

    PAUL RYAN’S PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS

    A List of Republican Budget Cuts

    Notice S.S. and the military are NOT on this list.

    These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting.

    (Note: I did go looking to see whether it was posted somewhere. I found mostly left wing stuff—like Grayson (a good argument for euthensia, starting with him), that HuffPo rag, etc.

    I used to read what the other side was saying to see what the side I believe in is not telling me. If logic and common sense appear to support a republican position, I have to figure out the problems with it myself. I CANNOT RELY on the left wing pundits or big media for anything, and here is why.

    THE MOYNIHAN RULE: You are entitled to your own opinion, BUT NOT YOUR OWN FACTS.

    Now there’s the rub. Big media is IN THE BUSINESS of citing, censoring and, when in a real pinch fabricating facts to fit a pre existing narrative. All this sturm and drang about this nit wit writer from Rolling Stone who wrote a fictional piece on gang rape by some frat rats at UVA has caused big media to put on these airs on how shocked they are that there is gambling, plagiarism and fabrication going on in their genre, and while they themselves are gang raping the truth on a much larger scale. That this would prove to be the end game of the feminist agenda, and that mob violence over faux racial grievances would prove to be the end game of the NAACP agenda is on the one hand ironic, since both of these movements had a very legitimate purpose in the beginning. But it is also inevitable, because of that phenomenon noted by Justice Cardoza namely, the tendency of democratic institutions, ideals, and grievances to expand themselves well beyond the limits of their logic–and even to the point where they offend the original principle. For example the black small businesses who were destroyed by looters who were encouraged by the NAACP. Praise the lord and pass the ammunition.

  154. My profound skepticism in re. Harvard and the elitism it stands for is a matter of record.

    Nevertheless, I have to concede that it has produced, albeit in much smaller numbers than you might expect from the common perception, some of our very best minds.

    Whether those people achieved greatness because of Harvard or because of it is an imponderable. What is obvious is that a Harvard degree is the golden handshake in big media, all three branches of government and big media, more so today than ever before as we move with lightening speed toward a winner take all nation.

    The Senator who preceded Hillary, Daniel Patrick Moynihan is a sterling example of the kind of leader I am talking about. A great man. Yes, he was a politician, before that a Harvard Professor, and was Irish for most of his life.

    Yet, unlike so many others of his kind, he overcame those disabilities.

    In the final analysis, and we can say this about him now because he is dead, Moynihan was a visionary, and leader on a par with the founding fathers. Billed as a Roosevelt liberal and vilified sometimes as an arch conservative, truth to tell he was neither. He was a free thinker. And before anything else, race, class or party, he was an American, which is rarely seen today.

    The quote above in my above post is one of many examples.

    Here for your reading enjoyment are a few more:

    1. The liberal left can be as rigid and destructive as any force in American life. (Note: exactly what we are seeing today)

    2. The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself. (Note: ditto)

    3. The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States. (Note: yet we continue to pursue Einstein’s definition of insanity, i.e doing the same thing wrong over and over, expecting to achieve a different result.)

    4. Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from life what conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers of government agencies to do good. (Note: that is because so many of them see government as god, and left wing politics as a secular religion.)

    5. The single most exciting thing you encounter in government is competence, because it’s so rare. (Note: the second most exciting thing you see in government is loyalty to the people, as opposed to the institution).

    6. Citizen participation is a device whereby public officials induce nonpublic individuals to act in a way the officials desire. (Note: the Sandra Fluke rule.)

    7. If you don’t have 30 years to devote to social policy, don’t get involved. (Note: the Zuckerberg rule)

    8. The great corporations of this country were not founded by ordinary people. They were founded by people with extraordinary intelligence, ambition, and aggressiveness.

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/daniel_patrick_moynihan.html

  155. jbstonesfan
    December 15, 2014 at 1:28 pm
    —————————————————
    Birds of a feather flock together. I wouldn’t mind seeing those loony birds become extinct.

  156. wbboei
    December 15, 2014 at 6:55 am

    These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting.

    —–

    Proposed cutting – I want to see the list that they actually do cut. They propose a lot of $hit and pass nothing so far.

    I wonder what they do not plan to cut?

    No wonder we are broke. The working class can barely survive, and yet…this is what we end up having pilfered from our hard earned money? No wonder they don’t let taxpayers see the fine print.

  157. Free

    Seriously? There’s a Mohair subsidy? As in goats”!

    ——-
    As in wigs. Subsidy for MO to have her hair wigs washed and styled.

  158. The blog works fine on my work T! line, but at home, with my normal DSL connection, my computer runs so poorly at times on the blog that I have to reboot.

  159. Warren a contender, not according to this…..

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/12/nc-still-looks-like-a-swing-state-for-2016-clinton-and-carson-lead-primaries.html

    On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton continues to be pretty dominant. She’s at 52% to 18% for Joe Biden, 7% for Elizabeth Warren, 5% for Bernie Sanders, 4% for Andrew Cuomo, 2% for Jim Webb, 1% for Martin O’Malley, and less than half a percent for Brian Schweitzer.
    What’s particularly noteworthy in Clinton’s numbers is how consistent they are across various demographic lines. She’s at 55% with ‘very liberal’ voters, 55% with ‘somewhat liberal’ ones, and 52% with moderates. She’s at 57% with African Americans and 52% with whites. She’s at 53% with seniors, 52% with middle aged voters, and 52% with younger voters. The only place where you see a real divide is along gender lines where she gets 56% with women and 48% with men.

    At least at this very early stage it looks like North Carolina will yet again be a swing state in 2016 if Clinton is indeed the Democrat nominee. She is very closely matched with all of her potential Republican opponents, leading Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie each by 2 points at 46/44 and 44/42 respectively, while tying Bush and Carson at 46% and 44% respectively. Those numbers show there isn’t a big electability difference between the Republican candidates at least at this point. We also tested Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren in head to head match ups with Bush and Carson, and they fare a good bit worse than Clinton. Biden trails Bush 47/42 and Carson 45/40, while Warren trails Bush 46/39 and Carson 44/37.

    ……………….

    Warren polling 7% and trails both Bush and Carson……thats some saviour.

  160. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/republicans-senate-committee-seats-113581.html

    Sen. Jerry Moran’s got his reward for leading Republicans’ Senate takeover: a trio of plum committee assignments.

    The Kansas senator, who as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee oversaw the GOP’s sweeping midterm election gain of nine seats, was rewarded for his loyal service with a seat on the Senate Commerce Committee, to go along with spots on Banking and Appropriations. In addition to having a say in yearly federal spending and a plum fundraising position on the Banking Committee, Moran will be able weigh in on aviation policy that’s critical to Kansas’ aviation industry on the Commerce Committee.

    “I was very well treated in my committee assignments,” Moran said in an interview Monday. “Hard to think that there is any set of committees that are more valuable and useful to me in the Senate.”

    It’s not the first time Moran had asked to be on the Commerce Committee — but winning the Senate sure seemed to augment his prospects this time around.

    Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), who was in charge of developing the new committee roster along with GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said Senate Republicans are “deeply grateful for his hard work and strong leadership as NRSC chairman, which is reflected in these important committee assignments.”

    And though Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) was ultimately defeated by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) to succeed Moran as NRSC chairman, Heller was rewarded nonetheless for vying for the difficult job with a plum spot on the Finance Committee as he tries to persuade Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval to run against Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in 2016.

    Overall, the incoming Republican majority is poised to gain as many as three seats on the most powerful committees in the Senate.

    The Finance Committee — one of the most influential in Congress, with jurisdiction over health care, taxes and trade — is picking up three GOP members: Heller, Dan Coats of Indiana and Tim Scott of South Carolina. So is the Judiciary Committee, which oversees major legal issues such as immigration and will hold confirmation hearings for attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch. It’s adding David Vitter of Louisiana and incoming senators David Perdue of Georgia and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. The Environment and Public Works Committee also gains three GOP seats.

    The following Senate panels will gain two Republican seats: Agriculture, Appropriations, Armed Services, Banking, Budget, Commerce, Energy, Foreign Relations, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Indian Affairs, Joint Economic, Rules and Administration, Small Business, Select Committee on Aging and Veterans’ Affairs. The Intelligence Committee picks up one GOP seat, while the split on the Ethics Committee remains the same.

    Republican leadership awarded four incoming Senate freshman with plum spots on the powerful Appropriations Committee: Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, James Lankford of Oklahoma and Steve Daines of Montana. And the Budget Committee’s two new Republicans — Perdue and Bob Corker of Tennessee — will also have the additional task of choosing who their new chairman will be: Mike Enzi of Wyoming or Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the current ranking member.

    …………….

    Also

    The Senate Banking Committee will have a handful of new Republicans in the next Congress, according to GOP committee assignments released Monday.

    Republican Sens. Tim Scott (S.C.) and Tom Cotton (Ark.) will join Sens.-elect Mike Rounds (S.D.) and Ben Sasse (Neb.) on the powerful Banking panel.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.) is expected to chair the committee, taking the gavel from retiring-Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.). Last week, it was announced that Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) would become ranking member.

    Returning GOP members will round out the Banking panel. They are Sens. Mike Crapo (Idaho), Bob Corker (Tenn.), David Vitter (La.), Pat Toomey (Pa.), Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Jerry Moran (Kan.).

    Elsewhere, Sen.-elect Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) will join the Appropriations Committee, as will Sens.-elect Steve Daines (R-Mont.), James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.).

  161. Warren polling 7% and trails both Bush and Carson……thats some saviour.

    —–
    Indeed.

    The 7% equals the Kooks…they are almost non-existent.

  162. Why someone hasn’t thought of this before me is beyond comprehension.

    The Spanish greeting is: “mi casa es su casa.” Literally, my house is yours.

    By contrast—

    The Amnesty activist says: “SU CASA ES MI CASA”. Literally, your house is mine.

    And, the leadership of both political parties agrees with them.

    Because they are paid to.

  163. Let me just say, I have no faith in the Republican Senate to work for the betterment of the nation. None.

    As my dad used to day: it ain’t gonna happen.

    All they will do is work for their donors–just like the DINOs.

    That handful of Senators who work for the American People—-Cruz, Lee, Sessions.

    Are being vilified by McConnell’s team of back benchers who are bent on having the corruption continue.

    I will tell you for a fact, and this is one you can take to the bank

    If you strip away the bullshit, the Republican Party leadership is a fraud on the American People

    Second only to Obama.

    This is why ALL ROADS lead to a third party.

    There is no hope whatsoever for the two existing parties.

  164. Except for Langford, Cotton, Lee, Cruz and Sessions, the rest are a waste of protoplasm.

    Hueven, Heller, Corbett??

    Are these jamokes the future of the Republican Party??

    If brains were fuel, there is not enough intellect in that RINO threesome to drive a go cart around a cheery-o.

    They are messenger boy, in effect bag men for their donors.

    That is who they represent.

    Not us.

  165. The poll numbers mean absolutely nothing at this point. Pure name recognition. Nothing else. Check back after the Iowa caucus.

  166. Why do you think Feinstein released the Torture Report?

    1. Door 1: Because she wanted to say we never torture enemy combatants, even to save American lives.

    2. Door 2: Because she was miffed that she had been spied on and monitored by the CIA and wanted to get even.

    3. Door 3: Because she wanted to make a splash before she stepped down as Committee chairman.

    4. Door 4: Because even though other Americans may be killed in retaliation, she and her family are safe.

    5. Door 5: Because she wants to undermine the potential 2016 Republican nominee Jeb Bush.

    It is reasonable to assume that each of those was a contributing factor.

    But if there is any validity to Door 5, and it was done to help Hillary, then it was a major miscalculation.

    For if they think Bush is Hillary’s most formidable competitor they are wrong.

    It is quite true that the Bush machine fights dirty.

    If you have any doubt about that ask W’s former opponents, i.e. McCain and Perot, who complained bitterly about this.

    But the real problem is the Bush family lost the confidence of the American People and are not trusted.

    The torture memo provides one of those a ha moments that would unite the base, and give Hillary momentum.

    The problem they do not see is that to the extent that plan succeeds and Bush does not get the nomination

    It simultaneously solves Romney’s problem because he knows what the Bush family is capable of

    And it makes it more likely that Romney will win the nomination

    If that happens then it will be more difficult for Hillary to win the general election.

    There is a lot of buyers remorse about Obama, and they would welcome the opportunity to elect Obama.

  167. Correction: There is a lot of buyers remorse about Obama, and they would welcome the opportunity to elect Romney the second time around.

    Interestingly this is the reverse of the definition of a second marriage, i.e. the triumph of hope over experience

    This would be the triumph of experience over hope.

  168. (Note: I have heard tell that Romney is not certain he wants to run because he does not want to drag his family through that ugly ordeal a second time. And, he does not want to go against Bush because they play dirty. Again, if this report is followed up by the killing of an American abroad on account of it, that death will be imputed to Jebediah on account of his last name. That would clear the path to the nomination by Romney.

  169. I am having a hard time thinking that Romney is thinking about another run. I chalk most of these rumors up to trial balloons from consultants and money men.

  170. hwc
    December 15, 2014 at 11:41 pm
    I am having a hard time thinking that Romney is thinking about another run. I chalk most of these rumors up to trial balloons from consultants and money men.
    ——-
    That was my reaction too until I spoke with someone tonight.

    If you follow what I reported, he is not thinking of running now, for the reasons stated, but if that obstacle is removed by this torture report then I think he is apt to reconsider. There are other weaknesses in candidate Bush which I was also told about, including the fact that he is “manical”, and his wife is a bit of kleptomaniac, so much so that they have an agreement with certain stores, that on those occasions where she gives herself a five finger discount, the items will be returned. If Jeb does run these stories will come out. But the other point is also valid, that if the torture report results in American deaths, the media and left will be all over Jeb like stink on shit, and it will make no difference—because big media deals in perceptions rather than facts, that he was not president when those torture techniques were approved. In sum, and regardless of how it seems now, I think it is quite likely that Romney will run, and big media will systematically eliminate the candidate which they say are fringe, but I believe stand for the American People instead of Wall Street.

  171. gonzotx
    December 15, 2014 at 8:44 pm
    American party wbb…been saying that for 6 years.

    ————–

    Well now there’s a novel idea.

    A party that stands for the people rather than the klepto-maniacal ruling class.

    They have a new name for Boehner: ‘Old Yellow Stain’

  172. moononpluto December 14, 2014 at 10:25 am

    Warren is not even using her real name……….why she keeps using Warren is beyond me.

    She uses “Warren”, the name of her first husband, because that is the name of her children and she wants it to be clear to them that she is their mother. Her husband, Bruce Mann, accepts that. Besides, it’s not our business to say what her “real” name is.

  173. wbboei December 15, 2014 at 6:55 am

    … all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting.
    …. TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

    My question is, what is all this doing in the budget in the first place?!

    Side-stepping your question for a moment, I notice in the list that:

    (1) $2.5 trillion over a decade = $250 billion per year, i.e., about half the Defense budget. It’s strange how Republicans are willing to strike $420 million per year for the Legal Services Corporation but never propose a cut in the bloated military budget. That’s a historic Republican penchant. Obama wants to save on the Defense budget, not legal services; and I’m sorry to say that on that subject, I side with Obama against the Republicans.

    (2) Republicans are willing to strike $250 million per year to Egypt but send ten times as much to Israel with nary a thought to trimming it down, while Israel is one-tenth the size of Egypt (by population).

    (3) As to your question, I admit there are a dozen ridiculous-sounding allocations that might be done away with; and also, I have no way of measuring the efficiency of all these programs, if they really serve their stated purpose well, etc.; but Congress has voted for these measures in the past, so there is a rationale for each of them and Republicans have no alternative but to stomp them out.

    Would we be better off, for example, without a National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities? Or wouldn’t it be better to cut funding for the Joint Strike Fighter?

  174. moononpluto December 16, 2014 at 10:09 am

    J ……you can just go jump……

    Look at it this way then, moon: We could make the same sort of picayune criticism of a woman who styles herself Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her “real” middle name is not Rodham but “Diane”, which she never uses any more.

    If memory serves me, in fact, Hillary didn’t use this name “Clinton” either until the 1992 campaign, when I guess she thought it was more fitting to carry her husband’s (and child’s) name when running for the White House. Until then, she signed “Hillary Rodham.” As far as I know, she has never used “Diane”.

    I also knew a woman in Florida who was married and divorced three times. She didn’t use her maiden name because (i) she had issues with her mother and (ii) she didn’t like the funny-sounding Polish name. She didn’t use her last husband’s name either, but that of her second husband, because it was a really cool name: “Chance”.

    Changing names midlife is a privilege reserved for women and I’d be the last to strip them of that privilege. So, Elizabeth Warren is not “really” Elizabeth Mann — or Elizabeth Herring — unless she wants it to be.

Comments are closed.