Skip to main content

House Speaker John Boehner and other House Republicans hold press conference aimed at blaming President Obama for the sequester with a sign reading
House Speaker John Boehner speaks at a Wednesday morning press conference aimed at blaming President Obama for the sequester by using the Twitter hashtag #Obamaquester
Dear Speaker Boehner,

If you don't like the spending sequester, then you should repeal it. Holding press conferences about calling it #Obamaquester on Twitter won't do a damn thing except make you look sillier than Marco Rubio swilling Poland Springs on national TV, especially since you said you got 98 percent of what you wanted from the deal that created it in the first place.

Sincerely yours,
Common sense

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 07:50 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  looks silly especially because in the SOTU (21+ / 0-)

    Obama just last night explained what the sequester was and why he disliked it and how it was a "bad idea".

    I think "bad idea" might stick with people.

  •  Why, then they'd have to work! n/t (7+ / 0-)

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:04:29 AM PST

  •  The answer is pretty simple. (6+ / 0-)

    They think it's their best chance to get significant spending cuts -- that the President and Senate Democrats won't agree to spending cuts otherwise.  And they obviously think that bad spending cuts are better than no spending cuts.  

    They'll only give it up for alternative spending cuts in an equal amount.  As one Republican said on last Sunday's talk shows, "Why would I give up spending cuts for tax hikes?"

    And since the idea for the sequester came from the White House, specifically Jack Lew, they think they will be able to blame the President.

    •  Cuts in entitlement spending (6+ / 0-)

      They want not just cuts but cuts in particular programs. Any program that helps the weak and the poor. Especially Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The only way to avoid sequester is to accept large cuts to all three. Sequester is a form of blackmail. "If you don't give up helping the weak and the poor we will destroy the economy and blame it on you."

      •  Pretty much. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The problem is that it was Jack Lew's suggestion to have the sequester -- so he gave them the blackmail tool.  

        His mistake was in thinking that Republicans would be willing to give up the other cuts in exchange for reversing the defense cuts.  Republicans have now effectively called his bluff, saying that they are willing to accept the defense cuts if it means they keep the other cuts.  

        •  they'll freak about the defense cuts (on camera) (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The GOP will work to reverse the defense cuts... in exchange for more cuts to Medicare and Social Security and other programs where cuts will hurt people.  If they don't get those, they will hold out for something else and hold more press conferences fear-mongering and blaming the Democrats for destroying our Economy and our National Security.

    •  Who is dependent on the dole? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I think the mistake conservatives make is underestimate who is more dependent on government transfer of wealth.  That lead them to a deal where not only broad based assistance to people who need help to eat and find housing were cut, but also targeting spending to military contractors.  The assumption was that if both sides had something to lose, then both sides would negotiate.

      However, both sides did not have something to lose.  Obama, as the Tea Party so vocally acknowledged, was willing to find efficiencies and make real cuts to social programs like medicare.  He thought we could do this without cutting critical services

      OTOH, the firms and people who suck at the military teat are so dependent on the government that they can't stand any cuts at all.  Look at the data from the last quarter that suggests the lack of growth came from lack of military spending.  These people have no idea how to operate in a free competitive market.

      So conservatives are in deep trouble because the military cannot even make simple cuts.  Cuts like removing unfit soliders, defunding over budget programs, requiring contractors to give realistic budgets, posting bonds to cover over overflows, defining and enforcing and publishing a limit on the total compensation of every person in the military.

      Austerity is seldom the solution, so sequestration is a dumb idea.  But on the bright side it is the one way we may be able to cut a military budget that equals the total of most of the rest of the world.

  •  Not enough Americans know anymore that the (18+ / 0-)

    House holds the power of the purse.  The House is responsible for making decisions about, and taking action on, many of the things that Boehner, Cantor and Co. are accusing the President of not doing.  And most Americans are too ignorant to know that House Republicans are full of shit when it comes to all these complaints about the sequester, the budget, the deficit, raising revenue, etc.

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:12:15 AM PST

  •  Do they understand how much like High School (16+ / 0-)

    this looks?

    I mean we're talking C-Team levels of marketing.  This is worse than that lame "We Built That" campaign that their Convention was based upon.


    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:12:47 AM PST

  •  This is what the GOP has been reduced to (17+ / 0-)

    Hashtags, slogans, and intransigence. They aren't interested in governing. They are interested in getting on TV.

  •  boneher (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, shoeless, ontheleftcoast


    •  Common sense and Boner are like two ships (5+ / 0-)

      that passed in the night, never meeting...

      then crashing into icebergs and sinking to the ocean floor.

      What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

      by ontheleftcoast on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:19:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And someday, some explorer (3+ / 0-)

        will dive down deep to look at those ships. They will discover that their cargo was guano.

        What is truth? -- Pontius Pilate

        by commonmass on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:20:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The GOP is like a Carnival cruise ship (5+ / 0-)

        Adrift, without power, and only five toilets for three thousand passengers and probably 1000 crew.

        Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

        by darthstar on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:35:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But not to fear... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          They have planned budget cuts in place which they will not alter.

          Planned Budget Cuts on the GOP Closet Maricón Cruise Line:

          1. Mothball the rescue & support fleet, fend for yourself, it's the GOP Closet Maricón way.

          2. Massive layoffs of the ship maintenance personel onboard all ships.

          3. Selling off all ship maintenance tools and parts to a private company at a massive loss, which will be repurchased as needed at whatever price the private company demands.

          4. Closing 50% of the toilet facilities onboard all ships except in 1st class which comprises 1% of the ship, but not to worry the items in #5 will reduce the need.

          5. Reduction of food & water consumption except it the 1st class section of the ship.

          6. Reduction of the 1st class passenger fare for certified Millionaires & Billionaires.

          7. Refitting a section of the ship to accomodate corporations travelling on board as 1st class passengers.

          8. Cutting the number of lifeboats on board to carry just the 1st class and corporations carried on board.

          Are you ready to go on a cruise?
          It's going to be sooooo much fun!

          "Do you realize the responsibility I carry?
          I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
          ~John F. Kennedy~


          by Oldestsonofasailor on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 10:09:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The GOP is deeply out of touch. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Lugar and Barbour have been reading the riot act, and rightly so.

    But as far as Poland Springs is concerned, at least that water is from Maine. Where we have a Tea Party governor. So it must have tasted extra tasty.

    What is truth? -- Pontius Pilate

    by commonmass on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:14:54 AM PST

  •  Notice the 2 women flanking Boehner (3+ / 0-)

    Look they include womenfolk in there press conferences! They're so inclusive.

    •  Yeah, their "boy, girl, boy, girl" scheme is going (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to exhaust their supply of female GOP members. I'm sure they could double it but how much further could they push it. Of course it appears everyone is "white" so they're still appealing to their base. :P

      What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

      by ontheleftcoast on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:22:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Love The Photo (7+ / 0-)

    For it's collection of do-nothing Republican a-holes. The smile on Cantor's face is the same one he had when he was a nasty little kid and thought he got one over on you -- right before you pushed him into the mud. I expect to see him running to his mommy in tears any moment.

    This head movie makes my eyes rain.

    by The Lone Apple on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:17:25 AM PST

  •  They really are children (5+ / 0-)

    I think their entire "strategy" meetings consist of things like, "Ooh! Ooh! We can create this super awesome hashtag, and - BURN! That'll show 'em!"

  •  "Obamaquester"? Really?? (11+ / 0-)

    Hey Boehner: kindergarten called -- they want their taunts back.

    Ship of tools.

    Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank.
    Give a man a bank and he can rob the world.

    by here4tehbeer on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:21:20 AM PST

  •  Tools leased or sold to the highest bidder (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass what they are told to do.

    Wrecking the economy doesn't even enter the equation.

  •  The Republicans won't repeal it. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, JerryNA

    Just like the debt ceiling, they will just kick the can down the road for a couple of months. These things are just theatre for the teabaggers. It makes their dumbass base feel all warm and fuzzy inside to think that they are screwing the country.

    Just when you thought there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, the Republicans go and prove you're wrong.

    by shoeless on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:23:33 AM PST

  •  While the sequester may be bad, I don't see (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    any proposals that could pass Congress that would replace it.

    After all there was a special committee that failed to form a replacement.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:25:04 AM PST

    •  That's precisely the point. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nextstep, VClib

      Jack Lew came up with the sequester in 2011 as a way to assure the Republicans that there would be significant cuts in exchange for their agreement to raise the debt ceiling.  

      The only way to avoid those cuts, under Lew's sequester, was for the supercommittee to get something together that could pass Congress.  

      Since the supercommittee failed, what incentive is there for Republicans to give up the spending cuts?  It would mean giving back the concessions they got from the administration in 2011.  I don't see it happening.

      •  Excuse me, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The Obama administration has proffered a gazillion ideas that have been utterly ignored.  Is there a reason that this one merits "#Obamasequester"?  I mean did he actually have a vote? Did he bring it to the floor for a vote? Did he brag like the boner that he got 98% of what he wanted?

        •  That's why the Republicans are insisting (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, Whatithink

          that the Senate "bring it [the President's ideas] to the floor for a vote" -- because that way there has to be a concrete proposal, with numbers associated with it, that is labeled as the Democratic alternative.  For some reason, the Senate Democrats haven't done that.  They haven't even introduced a bill, as far as I know.  They could have taken one of the House passed bills on the sequester and amended it to comply with their views on a sequester alternative, but they haven't done that.  

          The Republicans have twice committed to a Republican alternative - brought something to the floor of the House for a vote, and it twice passed on a partisan basis, because it was unacceptable to Democrats.  It includes Medicare cuts, which is why the President said last night the part about them wanting to get rid of the cuts "on the backs of the elderly."

          Frankly, if the President wants his sequester alternative to be seriously considered, HE ought to insist to Harry Reid that the Senate Democrats bring it to the floor for a vote.  

          It's called "Obamaquester" by the Republicans because (1) Jack Lew came up with the idea on behalf of the President; and (2) an Presidential/Democratic alternative has never made it to the floor of the Senate for a vote.  

        •  I am sorry, but (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk, VClib

          if this was such a bad deal why was it the administration's idea and why did Obama sign it?

          •  Because it was never intended to go through (0+ / 0-)

            It was a bludgeon from the start to force Republicans to the table

            •  It was a miscalculation by the administration, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib, Whatithink

              I think.  When Jack Lew proposed it, his calculation was that the Republicans would never be willing to accept the defense cuts.  That's what the administration means when it says, "It was never intended to go through." When the administration proposed it, they thought that Republicans ultimately would cave so as to preserve the defense budget.

              Apparently, the Republicans are now going to call the administration's bluff -- and what the administration is now saying, in effect is, "I never expected that the Republicans actually would accept the legislation I proposed!"

              If "it was never intended to go through," the administration had no business proposing it in the first place.  

              •  You know what? You're missing something here: (0+ / 0-)

                The defense cuts.

                That's not bluffing.  Republicans call the President's bluff?  Their Military Industrial Complex friends will be waterboarding them.

                Of course, the President won't allow any proposal to come through that strips those out, say, without getting rid of the sequesters in general.

                That's probably one of the Reasons the Republicans disliked the deal in the first place.  Unfortunately, they were too stupid to give themselves a rational way out, and that pattern is repeating here.

                Simple question: In the years since Republicans successfully urged the disempowering of workers and unions in the Midwest, what has happened to those states economies?

                by Stephen Daugherty on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 01:27:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The defense cuts are the point. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib, Whatithink

                  The Administration -- who says they never wanted the sequester to go through -- was counting on the defense cuts being so unpalatable to Republicans that the Republican would never let those cuts go through.  It was essentially a bluff by the Administration -- pretending it was willing to have the sequester happen UNLESS Republicans caved and went along with the President's proposal on the "grand bargain" being floated at the time.  

                  It now appears that the Republicans ARE willing to let the defense cuts go through.  (The next couple of weeks will make it clear whether that's really true.)  

                  So, the Administration is now stuck with a deal that it proposed but now says it didn't want.  

                  That's what I meant by Republicans "calling the Administration's bluff."  

                •  SD - I think the GOP are willing to live with the (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Defense cuts to see spending reduced. They certainly aren't going to trade spending cuts for tax increases. As long as the President is demanding new revenues there is no hope that the sequester won't happen.

                  I think the GOP would be willing to have fewer cuts and a different allocation rather than an across the board plan if one was proposed without revenues.

                  "let's talk about that"

                  by VClib on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 05:41:49 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Asked Wednesday (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, cactusgal, tb mare

    if House GOP leaders intend to wait for the Senate to act, Boehner said, "We do. We do. We do."

    mrspeaker, your ass is showing

    "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

    by Sybil Liberty on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:25:22 AM PST

    •  So, this is SO URGENT, that SOMEone MUST act, ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... just not us in the GOP-controlled House.

      Obama must act, for after all, it's his Quester. The Senate must act, for after all, they go first on revenue measures. Oh, well ...

      ... but not us. We in the House did our part in getting here, by getting 98% of what Speaker Boehner, leader of our GOP-controlled House, wanted in his/our Grand Bargain.

      This is the cant of the willfully ignorant, the appeal to the Low Information Constituency, the non-policy of a so-deeply-divided House that no leadership will bring them around.

      There are several answers, ranging from no sequester, to a mini-sequester, to a grander proposal that will pass the GOP-controlled House. The first admits the whole deal was not implementable. The second is hard to do, but is the most sensible for what the GOP itself says is vitally important - addressing the deficit and growing debt. The third is not doable because it means the Republicans will have to propose and pass spending cuts that their own constituency will realize are unacceptable.

      Tough to be a Republican these days, isn't it?

      2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:47:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  senat-a-quester either (0+ / 0-)

        "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

        by Sybil Liberty on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:54:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The House has already passed two bills (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        proposing substitute cuts for the sequester, most recently in December. Those substitutes, of course were completely unacceptable to Democrats.  

        I would imagine anything the Democratic Senate passes would substitute some tax increases in place of some spending cuts, which would be completely unacceptable to the Republicans.  

        Which is why the sequester will likely happen.  

        •  Those bills looked like bogus stalking horses... (0+ / 0-)

          So it's all the more important for Democrats to be SOMEwhat reasonable.

          I think we have been, more than most of the Progressive community likes. And Yes, I agree the sequester is getting more and more likely.

          A raft of opportunities are coming up for dealing with the budget, the debt and spending levels. That's why I believe the President spent so much time - relatively - last night on the sequester and spending priorities, personalizing the message by mentioning specific proposals to help the middle class.

          As for sequester cliffdom, frankly I'm for it for a while, because it will cut the military budget more then we'll ever get by any other means.

          Austerity cuts are not sensible in this economy. But if we must have them, matching them up between domestic and military spending is splendid discipline for the Republicans. The "match" principle being very roughly 1 (entitlements): 4 (other domestic cuts): 4-plus (military). And it might make revenue raising more palatable.

          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 10:31:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree that what the House passed (0+ / 0-)

            was never going to get any Democratic votes, and the House Republicans knew that when they passed it.

            I think that it is, however, incumbent on Democrats, if they want to avoid the sequester, to put on the table, in concrete terms (like bill) their proposal for avoiding the sequester.  Unless they do, it will be hard for them to blame the Republicans for a sequester that was a White House proposal in the first place.  

            The White House saying, "Yes, we proposed it, but we never expected that Republicans would accept it" is not going to fly, I think.  

            •  So, you're treating the House bills as the GOP's (0+ / 0-)

              ... bona fide proposal, and it's the Democrats' turn now.

              OK, the response might be to make concrete revenue increases from specific tax code changes, some military cuts (such as those projects the Pentagon itself as proposed but Congress votes to keep) and no subsidies for oil companies (as a spending cut), for example. That wouldn't advance the state of the art much, but it would put concrete proposals on the table ... as they have been before. These need not total the sequester amount, but I doubt the end result of whatever negotiation eventually takes place will either.

              Now what?

              Given Boehner's foolish 98% braggadocio, I don't think the public will put the blame on Obama for the sequester. And I'm pretty sure the administration doesn't think so, either.

              I think the Presdent should order readiness to implement the Congressional sequester. Whosever originally proposed it, Congress passed it with austerity zeal; it can live with the constituent reactions or it can fix it. In either case, it's Congress who is responsible and accountable whether its members like it or not.

              2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

              by TRPChicago on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 11:29:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The President treated the House Bills (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                as the Republican proposal when he said that they wanted the elderly to bear the brunt of avoiding the sequester.  

                As a matter of public relations, I think, if the Democrats want to blame the Republicans for  sequester that was proposed by the administration, they need to come forward with a concrete alternative proposal that will seem reasonable to the majority of Americans, put it to a vote (it will have to happen in the Senate), and have Republicans reject it.  

                Otherwise, the story is that the Administration proposed the sequester, and Republicans accepted the Administration's proposal, and the only side that has brought a bill to the floor of Congress that would eliminate it is the Republican side.  

                •  We disagree who'll get the blame and, I suspect, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  ... we also disagree who's actually responsible for it.

                  Politically, it's quite clear that the House doesn't want to take the heat for proposing what it knows will be constituency-distressing spending cuts. It has realized that while its deficit/debt/sky-is-falling rhetoric works for its conservative base at a very high altitude, life gets sticky fast when specific things are in jeopardy, such as disaster relief for hurricane and tornados.

                  Boehner doesn't lead in the House because he can't - it's too fragmented. He is effectively paralyzed by his Republicans, feeling scorn and unwilling to bring more bills to the floor that the Democrats have to "help" him pass over Tea Party/Far Right Republican objections.

                  He backed off the "fiscal cliff" deadline because he knew the heat would be on his party ... and Mr. 98% Boehner will try as hard as he can to shift the blame for the sequester on ANYbody else. This is proving difficult, despite the gimmicky clocks the Republicans display at press conferences.

                  Two clips played side-by-side will explain where Boehner and the President stand:

                  "When you look at the final agreement, I got 98% of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy." (Boehner to Scott Pelly on CBS TV News, August 1 2011)

                  "Is this the deal I would have preferred? No. But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year." (Obama after signing the Budget Control Act on August 2, 2011)

                  It's going to be tough to be a Republican if they won't change the music or the lyrics.

                  2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                  by TRPChicago on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 12:12:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think it remains to be seen who will be blamed (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    by the public. I think both sides will do little but point fingers over the next three weeks, as it become more and more obvious sequester will happen.  

                    As for who IS to blame, I'm of the "a pox on both your houses" view.  Republicans threatened to hold the debt ceiling hostage, and the Administration came up with the Sequester to woo them off of that position, and is now trying to disavow their own political strategy.  

                    Plenty of blame to go around.  

                    •  Few Americans will feel impact of Sequestration (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      Those who lose their job because of defense and non-defense cuts will certainly feel it but I expect 90% of citizens will not be able to identify any difference in their life.

                      So those directly impacted will choose who to blame based on their politics.  Republicans will blame Democrats and Democrats will blame Republicans.  

                      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                      by nextstep on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 01:08:05 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

  •  this showdown reminds me of a line from (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, pamelabrown

    the remake of "Heaven Can Wait", with Warren Beatty.

    Beatty 's character comes back to life in a different body, and wants to play quarterback for the Rams, but the owner won't sign him.  So he buys the team:

    Former owner: "He got my team. The son of a bitch got my team."
    Advisor to former owner: "What kind of pressure did he use, Milt?"
    Former owner: "All I asked was sixty-seven million, and he said "okay."
    Advisor to former owner: "Ruthless bastard."

    The Republicans have asked for this, and the Dems could simply accede to their wishes.  That would be ruthless...and the Repubs would be hoisted on their own petard.

    They could be left twisting in the wind for about 30 days, and then Congress could undo it with the grimacing, reluctant cooperation of a minority of GOP members.  That's how hardball is played.

    Oregon:'s cold. But it's a damp cold.

    by Keith930 on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:27:25 AM PST

  •  What I find odd about (5+ / 0-)

    this particular silliness is that the GOP's demographic is basically old white people.

    I'm an old white people and many of my friends who are not corporations are old white people as well.  Not one of us uses Twitter -- and frankly, I can't even understand the #, @, clutter to know what the hank is being communicated.

    Democrats can successfully use that medium because their voters are younger, more diverse and savvy.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:30:11 AM PST

  •  Hey...a lot of taxpayer dollars went into that (0+ / 0-)

    hashtag. That stimulates the economy.

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:32:33 AM PST

  •  When does this foolishness end? (0+ / 0-)

    Mix the blood and make new people!

    by Yonkers Boy on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:33:57 AM PST

  •  The White House has certainly poll-tested (0+ / 0-)

    American sentiment that we're sick of manufactured crisis deadlines and found widespread agreement.  Putting up a clock that says "Countdown to #Obamaquester" seems like gross political malpractice.

    The GOP must be under the thumb of a couple of dozen shady, misanthropic multi-billionaire interests, or they wouldn't flog themselves in public so mercilessly.

    "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

    by Mogolori on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:34:33 AM PST

  •  Republicans don't hate the sequester... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...they hate working Americans.

    Only the weak & defeated are called to account for their crimes.

    by rreabold on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:35:19 AM PST

  •  GOP=Clown Show (0+ / 0-)

    It's really sad that almost half of our elected offical have no desire in actually governing.  It also doesn't help that we have a media which thinks that "both sides" are equally to blame for not getting anything done.  If only President Obama would drink more beer and play more golf with the GOP then everything would be a  good.  Maybe he can go to the gun range with the NRA and the GOP and then we would see tougher gun measures get passed.  

  •  #theblackguyquester (0+ / 0-)

    would be less disingenuous.

    Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. ALL ROYALTIES BETWEEN NOW AND MARCH 1, DONATED TO THIS SITE, DAILYKOS!! @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:35:35 AM PST

  •  Send those clowns to the circus (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Of all the juvenile, moronic, half-assed stunts, this one takes a prize.  Yesterday it was some Texas half-wit bringing a certifiably insane rocker to the SOTU address.  Before that it was John "Yellow-Belly" Boehner calling POTUS a coward.  And now this bullshit.  These clowns don't belong in Congress.  They belong in a fricking circus, and not a good one.  These half-ass clowns might, just might, be able to make it in one of those travelling carnival shows you see setting up for about a week far out in the back parking lot of some fourth-rate suburban mall.  They don't last much more than a week because by then, most of the staff have been arrested for public drunkeness or molesting the customers.  These GOP congress-critters would fit right in at an operation like that, but they sure as hell do not belong in the U.S. Congress.  

  •  #Obamaquester (0+ / 0-)

    From Rove's ass to God's ear.

  •  Republicans are "cancer" throughout the land (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and truthfully they are led by white men whom in earlier times would have worn hooded sheets. Just check the Senator's from confederacy states that filibuster...

  •  Facts are irrelevant to them (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb mare, JerryNA

    but they should pay attention to this one:

    President's approval - over 50%
    Congress's approval - under 20%

    That's going to make a difference when it comes to who the public believes is responsible.

    That said, is there a secret clause in the Republican contract that says 'you must act like a jerk at all times'?

  •  What? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    Just a guy made of dots and lines.

    by BobX on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:49:26 AM PST

  •  Educate the people (0+ / 0-)


    Email your #spendRep



    The road to excess leads to the palace of Wisdom, I must not have excessed enough

    by JenS on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:56:42 AM PST

  •  Don't they mean Teaquester? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pamelabrown, a2nite, Icicle68, Jorybu

    98% of what the GOP wanted.

    I'm no philosopher, I am no poet, I'm just trying to help you out - Gomez (from the song Hamoa Beach)

    by jhecht on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:58:56 AM PST

    •  It ought to be Lewquester (0+ / 0-)

      since it was Jack Lew's idea.

      His miscalculation was in thinking that Republicans would take almost anything to avoid the defense cuts.  The Republicans have essentially called his bluff by being willing to accept the defense cuts so as to keep the other cuts in place.  

  •  Power play. (0+ / 0-)

    This is the only reason to keep that fucking sequester thing. That's it. This is the last piece of power that Republicans can hold onto, and they'll use it -- even if it hurts them.

    What they fail to understand is that Barack Obama wasn't talking about "government" in its classic sense. Obama is saying that the vast majority of Americans are so on his side on everything -- that we will simply steamroll over anything that Republicans want.

    If they think that they can effect any real change -- if they think that they have any power -- then we will have to prove them wrong. We can do that -- because we have the greatest leader of free people that civilization has ever seen.

    We have Barack Obama.

    And they don't.

  •  40+ votes to repeal Obamacare... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pamelabrown, JerryNA

    not one to repeal Obamaquester.


    Keep trying to sell that one, Boehner.  And POTUS is the one with no "guts".  Sure.

    Cake or DEATH? Oh, I'll have cake, please.

    by wmtriallawyer on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 09:15:57 AM PST

  •  Such a Simple Question (0+ / 0-)

    "If Republicans hate the sequester so much, why won't they get rid of it?"

    That is SUCH a simple question, and the answer is equally simple.

    The Republicans love the sequester to death; it's just that they don't have the guts to say so.

    •  Maybe insofar as they believe the threat of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      economic damage gives them leverage, and that actual economic damage would give them an advantage in 2014. Other than that I'm sure they don't believe it cuts enough from anti-poetry programs, wish it included cuts to the big three, and regret the defense cus.

  •  Seems like it would be an easy thing to do (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    How hard can it be to pass a quick and simple bill to eliminate something that (nearly) everybody in Congress doesn't want?

  •  Patronizing the electorate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It's obvious they think voters are stupid. I can't imagine this "obamaquester" nonsense catching on with anyone except within the rightwing bubble. "The sequester" is such an arcane inside game that it's actually comical how they've latched on to an issue that carries no resonance at all.

    This could be a big political winner for Obama, as long as he keeps on keeping on making the case to the public: Republicans are protecting tax loopholes and corporate subsidies to extract cuts from unpopular programs. The longer it takes for Republicans to act, the more damaged their brand will become.

    How this will affect Democratic prospects in 2014 if the Republicans force us into recession, well, we'll see, but the Republicans are basically betting against America in counting on a sputtering recovery trickling up to the President. We will see how that theory holds up in the OFA era.

  •  Bottom line is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Lew came up with an awful last-ditch idea to resolve the crisis and Congress voted to approve it and the President signed it but let's not make any mistake about this.  If the Republicans had just voted to raise the debt ceiling in 2011 like they had done multiple times- and with no conditions- under George W. Bush and every other President before him, we wouldn't even be here right now.  I don't really blame Lew for his proposal, given that it finally helped seal the deal to get the debt ceiling raised but obviously he had a lot more faith in Congress to figure out and agree upon a replacement for the sequester than what was warranted but then again, Congress hasn't really been functioning as intended since at least 2009 either, particularly in the Senate, so..........................:facepalm:

    •  Lew miscalcuated (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA, VClib

      The defense cuts were in there because Lew, and the Administration, figured that the Republicans will back off on the other cuts, and maybe even agree to tax hikes, in order to avoid those defense cuts.  

      Well, the President got them to agree to tax hikes in a way that was not linked to getting rid of the sequester.  And they've called the administration's bluff on letting the defense cuts go through.  Lew's miscalculation was not realizing how far Republicans would be willing to go to keep those cuts in the sequester.  He expected them to compromise to save the defense budget, and they aren't doing that.  

      •  Still (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        A majority of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for this and Boehner told everybody that he got 98% of what they wanted, so all their moaning about the sequester is a bit hypocritical IMHO

        •  Both sides are hypocritical, in my opinion (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The President is being hypocritical for complaining that something his administration proposed is now unacceptable, and the House Republicans are equally hypocritical in complaining about something they agreed to go along with.  

          Neither side has any standing to complain about the sequester, since they were both complicit in putting it in place.  

          •  Both sides ARE to blame (0+ / 0-)

            I can't argue that point and, yeah, both sides are being somewhat hypocritical about the whole thing but if they seriously wanted it to go away, all they have to do is pass a quick bill eliminating the sequester.  Republicans, however, seem to think that they now have President Obama and the Democrats over a barrel.  What happens if the sequester goes into effect remains to be seen.  I ultimately will hold the Republicans more responsible for whatever mess occurs as a result of the sequester, however, since they decided to pull the hostage-taking over the debt ceiling that prompted the creation of the BCA in the first place.  If the Republicans had wanted to be responsible about cutting spending, they would've raised the debt ceiling and kept working separately with President Obama and Democrats on spending cuts (and accepted some revenue increases).  We have GOT to get Republicans out of any serious control of Congress or we are simply doomed.  :puke:

  •  Folks, this is easy to explain to people: (0+ / 0-)

    The sequester is a penalty in a compromise that only ever got instituted because the Republicans insisted on austerity as the price of raising the debt ceiling.

    In other words, if these jackasses had just stuck with the status quo, there wouldn't be a sequester!  It was entirely the result of the debt ceiling fight, because something needed to be there to force the Republicans and Democrats to hold true to the promise to come up with a plan later.  However, Republicans weren't willing to compromise on anything, so that's why the Sequester is hitting.

    In short, it's there simply because the Republicans weren't mature enough, either at the beginning of this Congress, or the beginning of the last one to come to sensible compromises with anybody else.

    Republicans have no one else to blame if the sequester comes in and gores all their sacred cows in the defense establishment.  They're simply too adolescent and stupid to come to a rational deal with Democrats.

    Simple question: In the years since Republicans successfully urged the disempowering of workers and unions in the Midwest, what has happened to those states economies?

    by Stephen Daugherty on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 01:21:55 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site