Skip to main content

Sen. Ted Cruz and House Speaker John Boehner
Here's what's got Republicans worried about the looming government shutdown: The possibility fact that they might would get blamed. So:
With time running out before the government closes for the first time since 1996, congressional Republicans are rallying around the same message: A shutdown won’t be our fault.
But will it work for Republicans to be rallying around a message that so obviously flies in the face of reality? Well, based on these numbers from a new CNN poll conducted over the weekend, the early results are in:
Do you think the Republicans in Congress have acted mostly like responsible adults or mostly like spoiled children during the recent debate over the federal budget?

Like spoiled children: 69
Like responsible adults: 25

Congressional Democrats aren't in great shape either, but those numbers are absolutely dreadful for Republicans, and deservedly so, because they are on the wrong side of this battle:
Which do you think is more important for Congress to do:

Avoid a government shutdown: 60
Defund Obamacare: 34

The one bit of good news for Republicans: There are 200 House Democrats. Because even if the House GOP can't get its collective act together, 17 Republicans plus 200 Democrats is all it would take to get out of this miss. The Democrats are ready and willing. There are certainly enough Republicans ready and willing. The question is: Will Speaker John Boehner or someone else let the House work its will?

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

    •  Psst, that's already happened (13+ / 0-)

      2000, and probably earlier.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 06:37:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you mean 2001 and USA PATRIOT, I get that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shoeless, Louise

        Perhaps my comparing to the Enabling Acts is false on its face: Because usually such a party has to WIN the preceding election to moot elections going forward.

        That, and act hot on the heels of a major freakout to grant itself emergency powers through legislative writ.

        Thing is, Republicans asked for those powers on the notion that they'd never, ever have to hand them over to a Democrat.

        That's why it's tyranny to them. They know what they asked for and received. They know it well.

        And the idea that a Democratic president has those powers now and exercises them diligently freaks them out big time.

    •  Second time is 13 years. 2000 was a success.... (9+ / 0-)

      because they had the SCOTUS do it for them.

      2013 they don't even have that.

      Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

      by LiberalCanuck on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 06:37:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But they WERE voted into power (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      of one chamber of congress, and it happens to be the one with the power of Origination for legislation related to revenue.

      No one is disputing that the Democrats rightfully have the power of the presidency and its affiliated power of the veto, and that we have control of the Senate by way of an 8-seat majority (plus the tie-breaking vote) with the affiliated power to control the Senatorial agenda and amendment process.

      Why are WE disputing that the GOP has control of the House?  Elections have consequences.  We won the Senate, we won the White House and they won 20+ more seats in the House then we did.

      They are not doing anything outside of their power as the House majority.  Everything has been completely constitutional.  

      This is not a coup; this is brinksmanship.  This is a pursuit of ideological purity with no regard to collateral damage.  This is exactly what most of these far-right reps explicitly promised to do if they were elected; and they were.

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 06:40:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no (16+ / 0-)

        If you want to undo law--you pass a new law--you don't hold your breath until you get your way.  It is not a constitutional power to stop government.

        Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. John Kenneth Galbraith .

        by melvynny on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 06:43:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No.. thats not true (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          They certainly have the "power" and "Authority" to do this.

          I agree its childish and completely dismissive of the very real damage it will cause to many of our citizens specifically and our economy in general.  But do not conflate "constitutionality" with "the better way to do this".

          This is not a new idea, just more extreme.

          At one point in 2007 Speaker Pelosi floated the idea of withholding funds for the military to force the Bush white house to agree to a withdraw date from Iraq.

          Congress withholds funds from the states in order to enforce compliance with any number of regulations on transportation or education policy.

          In the 70's Congress used fund withdraw to dictate terms of five different overseas conflicts.

          In 1986 Senators Ted Kennedy and Lowell Weicker even tried to attach amendments to a pending debt ceiling raise to inpose sanctions on South Africa in their fight against apartheid.  

          Congress, and more so the House specifically, has, and has always had, the power of the purse.

          Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

          by Wisper on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 06:56:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again, in that case let the pain begin (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shoeless, wesinCA

            The House funds but the Presidency implements.

            It's going to be a darn shame when differential cost savings accrue to Republican House districts.

            As you say, elections, consequences. Too damn bad.

          •  not really (0+ / 0-)

            Threats don't create precedent.  If this succeeds, no law is immune to party politics--40 senate votes--one branch of government.  This would give us the worst aspect of a parliamentary system with none of the benefits.

            Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. John Kenneth Galbraith .

            by melvynny on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 07:52:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Unfortunately it IS because the constitution does (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          divide power in a way that makes this idiocy possible. I think one error on the part of the founders was to assume the new freedom from a King, realization of the errors of the Articles of Confederation and loyalty to the new United States would ensure a modicum of sanity and good faith dealing. Well, our Civil War and this sort of thing showed their crystal ball to be a bit foggy.

          I think we over rate our system's ability to constrain human folly. Like any mechanism it takes maintenance and we've failed to maintain it well. In particular we citizens too often shirk our responsibility to vote in every election and vote with some knowledge and wisdom. We are in this predicament because after some dislike of the Bush years and a bit of a win with Congress and a big win with the first Obama victory too many celebrated and then goofed off or let irritations and disappointments distract them from consolidating and maintaining gains. Thus, and yes elections—particularly ones just before the decade's redistricting—have consequences, we have the TP/GOP victory of 2010 that they seem to think gives them ultimate power. As I once wrote, Wouldda, couldda, shouldda has zero application and they in fact have the power to shut down the government, wreck the economy and even destroy the nation's international credit rating.

          People that don't maintain their constitution's operation, use its tools to at least keep malicious idiots out of office, are kindred spirits to those that drink themselves into hospital, drive cars without brakes and otherwise recklessly endanger themselves and others.

          The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

          by pelagicray on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 10:31:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  responsibility (0+ / 0-)

            Obama deserves some responsibility for our wayward actions, he tried to cajole the insane, ignored their bigotry, and  wouldn't build on the momentum his victory supplied.  When he elevated Geithner, he lost the left.   Before that, he refused to campaign for a Senate seat still to be filled in Georgia--showing his bipartisanship.  Put another way--we were fooled.

            Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. John Kenneth Galbraith .

            by melvynny on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 12:13:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Excuses, excuses—shift the blame for TP/GOP (0+ / 0-)

              capability to shut down the government from ourselves not voting strategically and every time, regardless of how frustrating, on Obama's failings.

              My car crashed and killed a passenger and someone else because the brake job I got two years ago was disappointing and I didn't feel like having them checked again?

              Not buying it for a minute. We do our best in each election to at least keep the shit from building up by voting against the worst. We do it by trying to vote for a promise. We have to do it every time or we are not doing our job.

              The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

              by pelagicray on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 12:40:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  De facto coup, not de jure (24+ / 0-)

        That is, they are attempting to use procedure to gain power that they did not win at the ballot box - the repeal of the ACA.

        They did not in any way win a mandate to do that, nor have they the power to do it. So they are using the limited power they do have to threaten to disrupt the normal functioning of the USG. That is why it's a de facto coup. They are threatening to not let the government function unless they get more power than they won at the ballot box.

        I'm on a mission! Testing the new site rules.

        by blue aardvark on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 06:47:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  mandate is a squishy word (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shoeless, wesinCA

          typically defined by the person trying to use it to justify their own cause.

          Tell me this,... there are 233 Representatives that ran and won on the Republican ticket.

          How many of them do you think actively campaigned on and promised to do everything they could to repeal Obamacare?

          So if Representative John C. Conservofuck runs on a platform about repealing this socialistic attack on our Freedomz, gives speeches, speaks at town halls, mails out literature, talks on the TV, etc... and SWEARS he'll go to DC to stop this from ever going into effect and then WINS by 25 points in his district, what do YOU think he has a mandate to do?  What did he promise people in order to get their vote?  What do you think the tea-bag constituents back in his BRIGHT RED district want him to do?

          This is why I have always thought we'd have a shut down.  This isn't some arbitrary line in the sand of some ginned up FOX News cause du jour... this is THE SINGLE ISSUE most of these fucksticks used to get themselves into office.  They are doing exactly what the promised they'd do.  They are not going to let their wingnut supporters down.

          Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

          by Wisper on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 07:05:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Democrats got more votes (10+ / 0-)

            in total than the Republicans did. That majority is an artifact of how the district lines are drawn, and since most districts are safe for one party or the other, and primaries have much lower turn out than the general ...

            those 233 Republicans were chosen, for the most part, by the most conservative 20% of the electorate.

            Nothing that even remotely begins to resemble the possibility of anything that any sane person ever using the word "mandate" would describe as a mandate exists to overturn the ACA.

            However, for the same reason, those 233 Republicans have to abase themselves before the most conservative 20% of the population.

            That is, each individual representative benefits from acting in a manner which harms the country and the party as a whole.

            I'm on a mission! Testing the new site rules.

            by blue aardvark on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 07:09:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Clean CR has the votes to pass today (6+ / 0-)

            Not all members of the R House caucus are baggers. Two New Yorkers voted against the 1-year delay of the ACA on Saturday and more have said they would vote for a clean CR or have openly disagreed with party strategy.

            The tea party extremists clearly want to bully the "moderates" in their own party to take up jihad with them.

          •  There are 233 republicans in the House (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Judge Moonbox, TXdem, Minnesota Deb

            but there are just 80 republicans in the House who want to use the CR as a bargaining chip to un-do legislation that they've tried and failed to repeal.

            The other 153 republicans probably feel caught between a rock and hard place. They don't like Obamacare, but they don't agree with shutting down the government to try and (unsuccessfully) get their wish. But if they oppose the Tea Party faction, they will make themselves targets to be "primaried' next year.

            And John Boehner is in the hardest, rockiest place of all, since he stands to lose his speakership over this if he doesn't go along with the Tea Party faction.

            To be clear, the Tea Party faction represents 12-18% of the American public. How would those very people react if the 12-18% of the most liberal districts' representatives used this tactic to get single-payer healthcare? They'd say the same things about it as are being said about their ploy. It's outrageous. It's not the way our system is supposed to work. It's extortion and it won't succeed - it will just hurt a lot of people its way down.

            Women do 2/3 of the world's work, receive 10% of the world's income and own 1% of the means of production.

            by LibrErica on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 07:41:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Venue shopping for voters. (0+ / 0-)

            Even if you accept a tyranny of the majority as the will of the people, there is a limit to what can be proclaimed democratic. A government cannot shield itself from a time when it ceases to be a majority and still proclaim itself to be majoritarian.

            Gerrymandering, mainly by the GOP has insulated too many Republicans from their constituents, and that has given the House to the GOP when districts drawn to be competitive would have given the House to the Democrats.

            Freedom's just another word for not enough to eat. --Paul Krugman's characterization of conservative attitudes.

            by Judge Moonbox on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 07:53:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  In which case, fine. Let the pain begin. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP, a2nite, shoeless, LibrErica, blueoregon

        Tea Wees have this notion that their pain threshold is much higher than that of  Democrats, that they'll be the last ones standing in a fight.

        Let's test the hypothesis all the way.

        Because, it's going to be a shame when red districts that sent Tea Wees to Congress lose every Federal dollar come tomorrow.

        Now, they could of course bring suit that the Federal government isn't fulfilling its duties under law...

        But I have to think that would have very interesting consequences in such a stand-off.

        "Hey! You have to do your jobs!"

        "We can't. You cut off our funds."

        "We're suing!"

        (Later the Courts: Sorry, Feds you gotta get back to work.")

        "Oh, gee, fine, I guess the money's coming now from the House."

        "No.. no! You can't win! We won the lawsuit! You have to work and not get money!"

        "Uh...see that looming debt ceiling? No we can't unless you fund us..."


        "And raise the debt ceiling..."

        "Derp again..."

      •  Only because of gerrymandering (9+ / 0-)

        They got 1.2 million fewer votes for House seats than Democrats.  But because they did well in the states in 2010, they gerrymandered the districts so that 1.2 million vote loss translated to a 33 vote majority in the House.

        "Don't be defeatist, dear. It's very middle class." - Violet Crawley

        by nightsweat on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 07:06:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The schadenfreude inherent in gerrymandering (9+ / 0-)

          is that it's very hard to make a district 'safe' from challenges from both the left and right simultaneously.  So all of the old school conservative Republicans who thought they were being so clever by gerrymandering the districts so that Democrats had no chance of winning instead have been getting ousted time and again by 'Tea Party' nutcases on the right, who have no interest in actually having a functioning government.  The 'old school'ers just wanted to be able to perpetuate their power, privilege, and cronyism, and didn't realize they were creating a monster that would turn on them too.

        •  So? How did they get the power to do that? (0+ / 0-)

          Excuses, excuses and why I'm using this twice in this thread—Wouldda, couldda, shouldda has zero application from my comment back on New Year's Eve of 2012:

          They kept the House and that is all the power, even idiotically directed power, to ensure TP/GOP obstructionists will be alive and well at least through 2014.

          Civics 100, not even 101, is that unless people speak in all elections, in every race, with a strong voice pockets of obstructionists power will remain in a system such as ours. The fact enough retrograde or ignorant people spoke, and enough on our side couldn't be bothered to vote in the last mid terms put into state legislative power gerrymander crazed TP/GOP types. Then enough of their side voted for these same types in those neat little safe districts to ensure we have die hard obstructionists at least through 2014 in the House.

          How the "American people spoke" in the one moment that counted in 2010 and 2012 in those CDs outweighs all the meaningless, hot air opinion polls and number citing about where they actually stand.

          Yeah, elections, every damn one of them, have consequences! Only one moment counts. That is when the American people speak casting a vote.

          Everything else is hot air and opinion. Regrets are just regrets since federal elected officials cannot be recalled. A moment of inattention or laziness lasts two years for the House, four for a president and six for the Senate. Our opinions, once they are safe in office, are effectively meaningless unless they choose to respect them. Right now, due to those safe districts, GOP office holders are way more afraid of primary challenges from TP and wingnuts than the "American people"!

          We get to opine, whine and even campaign and educate every day of every year. We get to actually make a solid difference in very brief moments when we cast a vote. At no other time does our opinion really matter in a practical way. Any of us throwing away that moment, even in a down ticket race or in an off or local election are negligent in maintaining our system. We can grouse all we want about "majority Democratic votes" for the House and gerrymandering and that is about like grousing about loss of our car due to faulty brakes when we knew they were faulty.

          The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

          by pelagicray on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 10:42:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

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

        is what allowed them to keep the House.  In actuality, the Dems received many more votes than the Repubs throughout the country.

        Without the gerrymandering, the Dems may well have taken the House back.  

      •  Elections have consequences. (0+ / 0-)

        While I agree with that, the only reason the Republicans have control of the House is gerrymandering.

    •  How does the Haastert Rule figure into this? (0+ / 0-)

      GOP Wars against: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Immigrants, Mexicans, Blacks, Gays, Women, Unions, Workers, Unemployed, Voters, Elderly, Kids, Poor, Sick, Disabled, Dying, Lovers, Kindness, Rationalism, Science, Sanity, Reality.

      by SGWM on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 11:14:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If ever there were time for a discharge petition.. (27+ / 0-) might well be now.  Normally, that would spell the end of the careers of the Republicans signing onto it, but in this case, it would have the effect of entirely neutering both John Boehner and the Tea Party nuts.  Sort of a 2 for 1 deal.

    If a shutdown isn't bad enough to warrant a discharge petition, then a debt default sure as hell should be.

  •  WWBD? (3+ / 0-)

    This morning I was wondering about the option that Boenher is most likely to take: What is the least damaging option for Boenher? And what's the least damaging option that's possible?

    "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

    by Stude Dude on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 06:34:51 AM PDT

    •  I read a couple times over the weekend (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Empower Ink, Stude Dude

      (on dKos) that no one else wants Boehner's job. So he doesn't have to worry about losing it. His only real option then is to put the Senate bill on the floor for a vote. That's if he cares anything about this country.

    •  It depends on how long Boehner wants to (4+ / 0-)

      remain Speaker as opposed to his extremely lucrative future career as a K Street lobbyist - so long as he does not incur the wrath of the Masters of the Universe.

      A brief shut down, he's set for life.
      An actual default? He doesn't get that sinecure from the big money and instead has to rely upon wingnut welfare, working at American Enterprise or Faux Noise at about 1/10th the money.

      I'm on a mission! Testing the new site rules.

      by blue aardvark on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 06:41:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Do they NEED Boehner to avoid a shutdown? If so... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    can't they then say "Boehner is responsible for shutting down the government" without contradiction?

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 06:36:30 AM PDT

  •  The fact that the public blames Dems too (15+ / 0-)

    is not a good sign, because it reveals that it's not really paying attention, as usual, and that the media has taken it easy on Repubs, as usual. I can't think of anything that Dems have done to bring about a shutdown, at least that they shouldn't have done, or that they should have done but haven't.

    What do the people who don't want Obamacare defunded but still partly blame Dems want Dems to do that they haven't, or vice-versa? Why are so many Americans fucking morons who think like 3 year olds?

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 06:36:49 AM PDT

  •  So what we need is for someone to file a motion (12+ / 0-)

    (I forget the name ... need COFFEE!) to bring the Senate bill to the floor, and gain 217 signatures to that motion, and then those 217+ signatories vote for the Senate bill.

    Takes things completely out of Boehner's hands, which is a good thing for things.

    This is no way to run a railroad, folks. The country is in danger of being paralyzed by approximately 20% of the voters - the GOP primary electorate.

    I'm on a mission! Testing the new site rules.

    by blue aardvark on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 06:38:40 AM PDT

  •  the impending shut down (7+ / 0-)

    Republicans are trying to shut down the government for the same reason they accuse Obama of being intransigent - Obamacare.  The ACA was enacted, by Constitutional authority and legal process, found to be Constitutional by a conservative SCOTUS, and is being implemented with the full consent and appreciation of Americans.  By circumventing the Constitutional process as established by BOTH parties over the process of developing procedures for passing legislation through both houses of Congress and the President, the Republicans are trying to get around the fact that they do NOT control the legislative process and they are unwilling to both abide by the will of the people AND to wait on the electoral process to take its course.

  •  Don't (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, mwm341

    Don't count Mike McIntyre as one of the 200 Dems to vote in unison.  He is a shit--a proud DINO--who always ran against Dem policies--and especially against Pelosi.

    Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. John Kenneth Galbraith .

    by melvynny on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 06:41:34 AM PDT

  •  those are horrible questions. (9+ / 0-)

    Acting like a spoiled child?  WTF kind of question is that to put on a poll?  CNN continues to rival the Onion for the least serious news organization.

  •  This diary is misleading... (3+ / 0-)

    As much as I would like to believe that Americans were smart enough to blame Republicans, take a look at the CNN poll that the diarist is citing...

    Question 15..."If the federal govt. shuts down, do you think that Barack Obama or the Republicans in Congress would be more responsible for that?" 36% Obama, 46% Republicans, 13% both. How is that good news?

  •  Have we seen any legitimate talk from the House (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chitownliberal7, GeoffT

    about a Discharge Petition?  

    I know this got talked about on our side during the Immigration debate and on their side at some point about Benghazi, but has anyone floated the idea of bringing one to the floor for the CR?

    We all know there are divisions within the GOP, but I don't know if they are deep enough for the moderates to openly vote for discharge against the majority of the majority.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 06:43:10 AM PDT

  •  They are a combination of spoiled brats and mean (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mwm341, a2nite, tb mare, TXdem

    bullies: cut food stamps, tank the economy, essentially ruin people's lives. They need a permanent time-out but their buddy gerrymander keeps saving them!

    There is just as much horse sense as ever, but the horses have most of it. ~Author Unknown

    by VA Breeze on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 06:46:32 AM PDT

  •  The Boehner shutdown (8+ / 0-)

    That's what it is and that's what the Dems should be calling it every day.
    If Boehner brought the Senate's CR to the floor of the House it would pass. The end.
    He owns any shutdown because he won't bring a bill that can pass to the floor, and the Dems need to be shouting that into every microphone they see.

  •  Another worry is Cruz will be front and center (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Empower Ink, a2nite, TXdem

    over the whole of the shutdown, as he loves grandstanding and the camera, so who knows what he'll do or say - but it will continue to raise his stature for the teabaggers in the House that look at him as their leader already.  

    GOP voting 42 times to repeal the ACA and now want a one year delay - something they have proven they can't do legislatively they're now willing to shutdown the economy over.  And why now?  Why not a year or two years ago?  Because they thought Romney would win?  And what do they say about the aspects of the ACA already up and running?  When they say a one year delay - what are they talking about? The exchanges? So on the eve of the exchanges opening when businesses spending millions to get ready.  It's ridiculously late in this process for this demand - impossibly late.  

    And I think most rational people can understand that.  

    Glenn Greenwald promotes far-right fringe extremist group The Oath Keepers -

    by Jacoby Jonze on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 06:51:30 AM PDT

    •  Does anyone really think (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TXdem, PorridgeGun

      that the one-year delay is all they want? No, it gives them another year to find and try different ways to repeal it - that's all. The only way to end this BS is to implement it NOW. Good luck repealing it after that happens, Losers.

      It's not the breaths you take - it's how you breathe.

      by frsbdg on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 07:51:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Hastert Rule... really ain't working now is it (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    saluda, Empower Ink, TXdem, ferg

    A rule is only as good as the results that come of using it. In this case, the Hastert Rule just proved itself totally FUBAR.

    Time to throw that rule on the old trash heap, Boehner. And move on to actually governing as Majority Leader of the House. But that thought is way beyond your situation right now. Just give up the gavel and let the Democrats run the House for the rest of the year.

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 06:52:26 AM PDT

    •  I agree, but... (0+ / 0-)

      The rank and file have made it clear, privately and publicly on the record... if Boehner breaks the Hastert Rule and passes this with Democratic votes against the majority of the GOP they are formally moving to elect a new speaker immediately.

      If he does it I will actually be impressed because it is effectively him turning in his resignation as speaker for the good of the country.

      but before you start cheering that idea, realize that the CR is only good until Nov so we'll be doing this AGAIN in 6 weeks with a NEW speaker elected by the Tea Party specifically on the promise of NEVER NEVER NEVER breaking the Hastert Rule again.

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 07:10:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Doesn't every member of the House (0+ / 0-)

        get to vote for Speaker? So theoretically, couldn't the Dems and "sane" Republicans (the same ones who would vote for a clean CR bill) vote for a non-bagger? Even if it's not a Democrat, it would be preferable to Speaker Louie Gohmert. Perhaps Dems would go that route if the new Speaker would publicly pledge to not follow the Hastert rule.

        I know this is an unlikely scenario, but the idea that Boehner would be replaced by a Teahadist is not necessarily a surety.

        It's not the breaths you take - it's how you breathe.

        by frsbdg on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 07:56:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  theoretically yes (0+ / 0-)

          OR... the GOP and the Tea Party split the vote and the Dems vote in Speaker Pelosi.  

          LMAO.... not going to happen, but would be hilarious.

          Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

          by Wisper on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 07:58:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Newsflash.... (5+ / 0-)

    If there is a government shutdown, there is only one party at fault.  
    The 'R's.
    And if they don't want to own that, then they shouldn't shut the government down.
    I'm so very tired of the 'both parties should compromise' meme.  The 'R's do not compromise, they hold hostage, until they get their way.  They have done NOTHING to help or support this country for years.  They obstruct.  And with the lunatic tea Baggie fringe they're a danger to themselves as well as every single one of the rest of us.
    The ACA is law.  It was voted on, decided AND enacted several years ago.  And supported by the SCOTUS (which isn't the most liberal court).
    Compromise is over.

    I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

    by Lilyvt on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 06:56:17 AM PDT

  •  No such thing as bad press (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I am worried that all the press the Repubs are getting fie their shenanigans simply feeds into "there is no such thing as bad press."  Yes, they are getting (in some places at least) negative attention - but they are getting attention. And to some people who may not have the background or reasoning skills to see what an outrage this is - the sheer amount of exposure could be a net positive.

  •  Thank the Republicans (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, blueoregon, PorridgeGun

    The stock market is already down and so it's likely your 401K is too. Republicans sure know how to help the economy.

    “I guess we hunted the dildo into extinction..." Jonathan Mann, CNN host during a segment on climate change and global warming recently.

    by wild hair on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 07:17:20 AM PDT

  •  It looks like all the recent polls (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    including this one barely blames Republicans more than Democrats for the possible shutdown. There is almost no reason for Republicans to capitulate. You keep showing the most favorable numbers of these polls, but it's not that great.

  •  Article (0+ / 0-)

    It is indeed the their fault!

  •  The kicker here is they ran on stopping (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TXdem, tb mare, Vetwife

    Obamacare, they're shutting down the government to stop Obamacare, and the exchanges still open Oct 1, people sign up despite the government shutdown and the Tea Party realizes it's been lied to- no way Democrats get blamed for that.  They've been playing the RW for decades, getting them wound up about gays, god and guns then doing nothing.  This could be the tipping point and the split of the party.  

    Once Obamacare becomes popular even the Tea Party can't shut that whole thing down.  This is the stupidest move Republicans could make, forced on them by their southern strategy.  I'm not worried at all about Dems taking the hit here.  The media will feed the intraparty battle because it's exciting, they won't care to cover a united Dem front.  

    This will all be about the Republicans lying to their base.

    I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

    by I love OCD on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 07:24:04 AM PDT

  •  200 Democrats (0+ / 0-)

    I think Obama on Tuesday morning should push the 200 Democracts meme.

    He should say to the American people, "Today the government is shutdown.  Why?  I don't know if I even understand.  Maybe, because a handful of radicals in the Republican party, have for the 42nd, 43rd, 44th time, have said that they are going to now hold their breath until the Affordable Care Act goes away.

    We can stop this.  A clean CR is ready to go before the House.  It says that the government will continue to appropriate funds for the bills the government has previously agreed to.  There are 200 Democrats ready to sign that Bill today.  Today, I am asking Speaker Boehner to stand with us, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, and find 16 other fellow Republicans who will vote to keep our government open."

  •  becasue they are in bed with major media (0+ / 0-)

    networks, because they  have massive  pipelines of private  money flowing through pseudo public entities to firebomb the waves with total BS political propaganda, these crooks feel like they have an open field to rig the game then call the the game as they see it.
    They are not disconnected to reality, they are trying to bind and gag reality and stuff it into  a cement locker.
    despicable and chilling.
    i consider these people criminals. they are not worthy of the offices to which they have been elected. they are flim flamming, hoodwinking, destroying  the workings of the nation and crapping on it's citizenry

  •  Can control of the House switch? (0+ / 0-)

    If Boehner is ever going to have the intestinal fortitude to let a clean CR come up for a vote, to be passed by unanimous Ds and at least 17 Rs, he's going to do it before his party takes the hit of forcing a shutdown.  After a shutdown, it's only going to be harder to persuade his crazies to allow a clean CR, and pragmatically, there won't be as much push to do so, since they will have already taken that hit for causing a shutdown.

    Conventional wisdom right now is that the shutdown will only be brief, because, like the last time under Gingrich, they will take a hit in the media and the polls in the aftermath of a shutdown, and thus be motivated to come back in from the cold.  But what people forget is that they crossed the line into shutdown last time under Gingrich's leadership.  When things went sour for Gingrich's plan, he was able to lead them back in from the cold.  This time it's happening precisely because the Speaker is unable to lead them.  The crazies crossed into shutdown on their own, oblivious to pragmatic politics, and Boehner and what passes for pragmatic moderates in their party couldn't or wouldn't stop them by accepting help from across the aisle.  How does the accomplished fact of shutdown do anything but further diminish the control Boehner and the moderates have over their caucus?  Who leads the R House back over the line this time?

    Nothing in this situation is set in stone, but we need to start facing the real possibility that nothing will get the R House back over the line and end the shutdown, that this ends only when 17+ Rs defect and team up with the Ds to force a vote on a clean CR.

    My question is, how can that happen?  Does the Speaker have absolute sole control over what comes up for a vote, or could a temporary coalition of the House Ds plus 17 Rs somehow force a vote on just this one bill, the clean CR, after which those 17+ Rs go back to their caucus?  Or if the Speaker does have absolute control over what comes up for a vote, what, if any, are the provisions for majority control to switch, as the Rs permanently defect to the D caucus to make up a new D majority?

    All of this is a matter of House rules, and is not governed by the Constitution or law.  As such, changed rules can be voted in at the start of every biennial Congress.  On these questions, what was true 10 years ago may not be true now.  Anyone know what the current House rules say on these subjects?

    The states must be abolished.

    by gtomkins on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 07:51:06 AM PDT

    •  I too would like know (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      what "rule" prevented the senate bill from being voted on.  Rep Slaughter said something about a rule that allowed Boner to keep from it coming to a vote.

      •  Control of the House (0+ / 0-)

        In general, that's the main power and responsibility that goes with your party controlling either the House or the Senate, that you control what committees bills go to, what rule is used to vote on them, what kind of amendments are possible, etc, etc -- all the things that can kill a bill effectively, if not outright.  Any member of either party can throw a bill in the hopper, but without the leadership's approval, it doesn't get to the floor for a vote at all, or not in any form that hasn't had the stuffings amended out of it.

        I don't believe that this power is absolute, though, as you sometimes hear of Pelosi forcing consideration by getting x number of members to ask for a vote.  But I have no idea why this doesn't apply to the appropriations bills.  You have to conclude it doesn't, or our side would already have forced such a vote.

        The more interesting question is whether control of the House can and does pass to the other party in the middle of a Congress, should the controlling partly lose its majority.  I suspect that any Rs who defect just to help the Ds get a majority to force a vote on a clean CR (if that's even possible) will be kicked out by the R caucus, and/or face Teahadist primary challenges.  If they're going to defect on this vote, better to just switch parties.

        The states must be abolished.

        by gtomkins on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 10:19:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    Recommended by:

    Is it just me, or did Republicans write another check with their mouth that their azz can’t cash?

  •  Don't worry too much. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The republicans will end up looking like asses.

    This is obviously an internal power struggle with the republican party and (most of) "the people" will understand  the reason the government shutdown was because the republicans literally could not get their house in order.

    Roboton has been powered down

    by roboton on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 08:45:10 AM PDT

  •  The shut down will be your fault Blanche, it will, (0+ / 0-)

    it truely will.  So what, it is a fine day for  a glorious political suicide and you have nothing better to do like a jobs bill, an immigration bill or a women's health care bill.  So just do what we know you do best:  combust like a cheap firecracker, your reward awaits you.  After the wrath of the American people you can have a piece of apple pie, enjoy your Mom and fuck your country.

  •  17 sane Republicans? (0+ / 0-)

    17 sane Republicans?  I dunno... sounds like a stretch to me.

    In 2010 AND 2011, I paid more taxes than General Electric.

    by GrogInOhio on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 10:19:11 AM PDT

  •  Shutdown (0+ / 0-)

    Be sure you call your elected representatives.

  •  Can't SCOTUS toss the debt limit law on the basis (0+ / 0-)

    that the Constitution requires that the full faith and credit of the US may not be impinged?

    GOP Wars against: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Immigrants, Mexicans, Blacks, Gays, Women, Unions, Workers, Unemployed, Voters, Elderly, Kids, Poor, Sick, Disabled, Dying, Lovers, Kindness, Rationalism, Science, Sanity, Reality.

    by SGWM on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 11:17:18 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site