That's Rachel Maddow last night on the Republicans renouncing their own ideas, including taking away subsidies for oil companies in order to help fix the national debt and get a deal on raising the debt ceiling. She continued:
The worst possible thing you could think about what congressional Republicans are doing right now in this game of chicken they are playing on the debt ceiling, the worst possible thing you can think about them with what they are doing, with the threats they are making to cause another global catastrophe, if not another deep recession, the worst you could say about this is that they believe what they say when they talk about policy -- because if they believe what they say about policy . . . then they know that what they are doing will guarantee bad economic outcomes, huge risk to the entire American economy and maybe even the global one.
Ezra Klein praises Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for playing politics smartly and largely in full view:
The president sold himself as the great post-partisan hope, the leader who could bring comity and peacefulness to a town riven by partisanship and rancor. When McConnell refuses to come to bipartisan agreements with Obama, he damages Obama's brand. More than anyone else, McConnell has been responsible for his failure, and key in demonstrating how little any one leader can do to change the tone in Washington.
By withholding something the president so badly wants -- a bipartisan agreement in which "bipartisan" indicates compromise -- Republicans drag any agreement to the right. Exhibit A, Ezra writes, is health reform. Democrats won that one, but with a far more conservative outcome.
Leave a Comment:
Rachel was a bulldog on this story last night!
Great segment last night. Whatever the GOP is up to, it's not good! It is only a matter of how craven, cynical or evil.
Why are we being polite? Why bend over backwards to skirt around the issue? Becaused we were raised right? These people have no humanity. Their purpose is profit or corporate power, not common humanity. Why can't we lump them all together and call them out - once and for all. Without saying the phrase, "I'm astounded! or "I'm so angry!" We have to focus the message like a laser, and fire. The time is now. You and Chris Hayes, go have a beer and write it on a napkin. No more than 4 words or so. We're not stupid, we're trying to keep our noses above the water. No one with a job can understand. Unless you just got it. Then, nice goin'!!
Spend the cash, oh corporations you. Invent and move past the Chinese. Where's our superfast train? Why are the Chinese building our bridges?
Yes, I agree that it's "shameless, craven, unprincipled partisan hackery"...but we always have members of Congress and the Senate who specialize in this. We don't always have a Minority Leader who does it so shamelessly and with such tenacity for so long, though, so the 4 Trillion Dollar Question is...WHY?
McConnell's stated goal is to make the President a one-term president. Why?
It is racism? Classism? Creeping fascism? To whom has McConnell sold out? Come on, Rachel, give us some of your brilliant investigative journalism to go along with your scintillating punditry.
Simple fact, republicans do not like to lose. They see the world one way, win at all costs. No matter that they take the country to the brink of catastrophe. The fact that the party not in power in the White House will take the citizens of this great country on such a roller coaster ride when it comes to the economy is shameful. People can barely make it from week to week, are under such stress, and all the Senators such as McConnell and his like, can do is make matters worse and the stress level unbearable
for these American Citizens by playing games with the vote on the debt ceiling. Seems to me, they had no problems in the past voting to raise the debt ceiling. Why are they soooo stubborn now?
It kind've boils down to philosophies. You can't call yourself a liberal and have that actually mean something if you are an ends-justify-the-means person. It's the opposite of liberal philosophy. The ends justify the means is purely a neo-liberal concept. If you're wondering why Republicans don't hesitate to hold a gun to the economy's proverbial head it's because the party operates under neo-liberal and neo-conservative dogma. That's not to suggest McConnell personally feels this way, but the party itself as a machine operates this way. You see the neo-con element whenever we talk about war, security screening, immigration, etc. We've moved so far right in the past half century that these ideas are becoming ever more pervasive and as a political machine ever more influential in the decisions the party makes as a whole. McConnell is just the tip of the spear.
FDR and Harry Truman both knew how to knee someone in the groin when the situation required it. I was very encouraged when Obama eviscerated Donald Trump on national TV-something that was long overdue and thouroghly deserved. I'm sad to say I haven't seen any more of it. If he doesn't get tough with these bastards soon, they will roll him like a drunk, he will be a one term president, and some moron like Bachman who usually doesn't know what STATE she is in will be President. of. the. United. States. That can only lead to an unparalleled disaster for every American. Obama, for the love of God, grow a pair!
Great job Rachel. I will get the next round!
I agree with Rachel and most who watch her show agree with Rachel. problem: how do you get the message about the hypocrisy of the republican party to the independents? they are the ones who will decide the election IMHO. the seniors have the power to collapse any movement by the left or the right. they as a group are the power horse of voters. they too are fence sitters at the moment IMHO. I caught the tail end of an AARP add on CNN that basically slammed any GOP cuts to Medicare/Medicaid. surprised me in that it was a stand openly. so again, how do you reach many fence sitters outside of your circle?
And you will notice that as soon as AARP began going after repubs when they talked about cutting Medicare, repubs began going after AARP by saying Congress needed to investigate them. The brownshirts are hard at work to establish their fascist paradise, aided by the Supreme Court and the Koch brothers.
again how to get the message to people outside of the circle of agreement? we agree but those on the fence need a push. glad to hear they went after AARP. now everyone has a stake in this. you mention the brownshirts. I'm old enough to remember when blacks could not drink out of the same fountains as whites. I can see this attitude beginning again. except this time, it's the fountain of citizen equality. the fountain will be for those that qualify monetarily and are of a different class.
Well now that is and interesting statement AL....now I have to think about that one. I wonder...a lot of the elitist right seem to be the same exact people who decades ago favored segregation. I wonder if they actually haven't evolved from thinking segregation is good, but have rather decided it's about class. The upper class should be wholly removed from the lower. And the lower cannot complain about it this time because it's "their fault" for not working hard enough, not going to school, etc. Hmm
How can we get the message across when the media is a tool of the oppressors? We had countless stories about the Tea Party, and had live coverage of their events, as if they were a major force representing millions of Americans, yet the numerous protests against the Iraq War were largely ignored. You will never get the message out using the traditional media....it'll be up to the internet and social media to do the job, as it has done during the Arab Spring.
The republican agenda is to bring this nation to its knees for political gain. I hope the voting public are paying attention to the game being played. Do we want leaders? in office that are willing to put this nation and its people at risk of failure simply because they want to win the damn game? Thier willingness to play this game gives us a glimse as to how this country will be run.
In addition to all Rachel's examples, I seem to also recall Republicans like McCain cheer-leading for military action in Lybia, then criticizing the action that was taken as too feeble, and then criticizing the president for taking any action at all without congressional approval -- approval from the very Congress that was demanding action against Qaddafi back in February.
They are not just negotiating in bad faith, they are setting a trap with every proposal or suggestion they make. I wish the president would recognize that if republicans support it, it's a trap. If he does what they ask, they will use it against him. There is no need to compromise with an opponent who has demonstrated its true nature over and over.
You bring up a good point. If Congress requests military intervention of the Commander-in-Chief, and the request is granted, is that tantamount to implicitly authorizing the use of force as stipulated by the War Powers Resolution?
Regarding the republican playbook on Libya, it's clear they are taking advantage of the 6 second attention span of average US citizens and our media.
The relationship republicans have established with President Obama is a retelling of the tale about the scorpion and the frog.
The scorpion and the frog, the president being the frog...great analogy, Dutchie6.
Mitch is saying look i have millions and well i will be ok went the USA fails, and be able to ride out the wreck of the USA.
so the hell with the Working/Middle class and lets get onto the new world order!!!
just so patriotic of them so american of them.
TeapubLIEcants ..... next to Benedict Arnold they are next best thing.
If not raising the Debt Ceiling is going to make the entire world collapse, what are the other countries saying about how the US is handling it? How many countries would the US pi$$ off if it isn't passed, and how many of those are or would turn volatile?
Benedict Arnold betrayed his country because he didn't get his way. Sounds familiar.
it's a joke really. possibly one-third of the country thinks Obama should also play the game of chicken with the GOP, avoid compromise, but does anyone really believe the GOP will back down? They are still in effect the minority party because without the Senate, the House appears more or less useless on implementing legislation, so they have no issues with any outcome, no matter how disasterous. Yet, another third of the country will think the president should have compromised.
At the end of the day, this country is simply not ready for anything to the left or right of center - a better way to say that might be the country has completely lost its ability to be ready for anything but the center, but the GOP doesn't even want that because it means measured success.
It does not matter one iota if you are left, right, conservative, liberal, democrat or republican - if you can't see the corporate interests are what 95% of the GOP and possibly 35% of the DEMs care about, then you're fooling yourself. Bad.
I'll remind you of Obama's inauguration speech when he said it was going to be hard. Don't you think THIS is what he was referring to?
Watching Republicans do the exact opposite of what's right is a true disgrace. When I hear "unamerican" I equate it with this type of "leadership". Damn the country, stop the President. It's disheartening and everyone should see what is going on here.
They did this same BS to Clinton. I pray for a House and Senate controlled by Dems and a second term for Obama. Both sides deserve it.
I am so dissapointed in the Republican Congress. The notion that we are all on the same team is so foreighn to them. It has become painfully obvious that their goal of hurting President Obama supercedes the goal of helping our country.
The Hypocrisey of it all makes me think that all seven of these Republican law makers need a new occupation. I thought, I hoped, that Senator MCCain was better than this.
Nice Work by Rachel Maddow.
I just keep trying to imagine what would have happened if, after, say, the 2006 mid-terms, Nancy Pelosi said -- more than once, in front of cameras -- that her caucus' number one goal was to destroy president Bush and ensure the GOP loses the 2008 election.
Anyone want to guess what the media's response would be to that? Does anyone here think it wouldn't be the "Scandal of the Century (Until The Media Is Distracted By Some Other Shiny Object)?" That all we'd hear about for weeks on end is how horribly mean and partisan Democrats are?
And yet, McConnell and the GOP can do just that, time and again, without almost no one bothering to point out that one in five working-age Americans are under- or unemployed, 50 million have no health insurance, and our infrastructure is crumbling all around us.
So maybe they should, ya know, do something about all of that, instead of deciding to crash the entire global economy -- yet again -- just for some petty, partisan gain.
I can't even express (politely) how totally disgusting I find this truth. Also, I find myself wondering if McConnell (he deserves no honorific title) is one of the "unamericans" in the Congress that Ms. Bachman was referring to during Obama's campaign? Seems to me his actions are anti-American and so totally PRO Repugnicant!
Here's a site that lists his top campaign contributors through 2010 - says it all:
http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator/593-addison-mitch-mcconnell
Why does Kentucky keep sending him back? Has he been that good for Kentucky? They have a great economy and plenty of jobs but it's a big secret?
This is the same old song-and-dance with the debt ceiling vote. Historically, it has always been divided along party lines based on which side is in office. Rachel shows the graph of Republicans voting for debt ceiling increases under Bush, but not for Obama. Inversely, the same graph would show Dems not voting under Bush, but voting under Obama. I don't see where there is anything new here. It's always been a political vote and not an economic one.
Do you have any facts to support your contention that the democrats did not vote for the debt ceiling under Bush? Equating democratic and republican intentions is the opposite of the point Rachel and Chris so brilliantly made last night.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/democrats_suddenly_regret_voti.html
"March of 2006, under President George W. Bush, when Democrats were in the senate minority, then-senator Barack Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling. So did every single one of his Democratic colleagues. The measure passed anyway, 52-48, due to near-universal Republican support."
From Politifact: "Typically, the party that controls the White House has had to take the difficult vote to raise the limit, while the other party was free to criticize. An analysis of the past 10 years of votes on the debt limit from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center shows the vote usually splits along partisan lines, with the president's party voting in support."
And Politifact's supporting evidence:
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/01/14/handicapping-the-debt-ceiling-debate/
My point is, this has always been a political vote and not an economic one. History shows strong tendencies on both sides to vote against an increase in the debt ceiling when their side is not in power, and versa.
And I will finalize with this:
I am a huge fan of Maddow. And I am a liberal. But I am tired of having to go to several sites to get the *full* story on an issue, sans the bias. Maddow has an excellent point with this story, but she needed to show along side the Republican votes, the Dems votes. Because without that full picture, this sounds pretty scary, right? When the reality is that the Dems do this too. Isn't this what we blame FOX for doing?
I want the full story because having to use Polifact as my news source these days is very limiting.
Objectivity isn't the liberal side + the conservative side.
Objectivity comes from facts not equally balanced opinions.
Yes, that is very true. Everything Maddow says and presents is absolutely factual. But it is misleading. Voting on the debt ceiling is nothing more than politics as usual, from both sides. But Maddow is pressing the panic button here depicting Republicans as crazed lunatics. When they are simply doing what they (and the Dems) have always done. THAT is the story here.
I interpreted Rachel's observations of republicans' apparent intention to let the debt ceiling be reached to mean they were acting as sane evildoers, not crazed lunatics.
Ok, fine. Sane evildoers. Either way she wants to figuratively jump of the ledge. Where is the outrage with the Dems when they have employed the same tactic? But back to my point (which is not arguing about the specific name we should call the Republicans): IF she had presented a blue bar (Dem votes) next to the red bar (Rep votes) in her graph showing the history of voting on debt ceiling increases, she would have destroyed her own argument -- the Dem voting record is mirror image (exact opposite) of the Reps.
You may get some argument that raising the debt ceiling again and again to enable unfunded tax cuts for fat cats and unnecessarily invading other countries is not the same as raising it to simply keep the government from defaulting on its obligations, some of which are leftovers from the irresponsible tax cutters and invaders who are now amoral obstructionists. It's more than just politics.
Take a look at the charts in this article again:
Maddow, on her show, accurately presented the red bars (GOP votes to raise the debt ceiling). She conveniently omitted the blue bars. My point is that to suggest the "evil" Republicans are resisting voting for the debt ceiling because a Democrat is in the White House, is just flat-out inaccurate, without pointing out it's what the Dems have historically done as well.
As for raising the debt ceiling itself? In the event, the GOP actually does obstruct the vote, that would be without precedent. And downright negligent, and borderline criminal (imo). But if history repeats itself, it also won't happen. Until then, it's political posturing as usual. No one (on either side) wants to go on record increasing the debt ceiling. At least not without looking like they are putting up a fight. Obama himself did this in 2006, and he admits to it.
So let's just keep it in perspective without the "OMFG, shameless, craven, unprincipled partisan hackery!!!" backdrop.
Sorry link to article didn't post:
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/01/14/handicapping-the-debt-ceiling-debate/
When the party-in-the-white-house controls both houses of Congress, it's pretty easy for the other party to take empty symbolic votes.
The rather more interesting question is, how have they voted when one of the Houses has a majority from the out-of-the-white-house party.
To your first statement, that's exactly my point D.C. Both sides have employed this strategy for political reasons.
To answer your question: Never in the history of debt ceiling votes has there been a majority vote to not pass the increase in the debt ceiling. Again, from the article I linked to above:
For the time period reviewed (2002-2010), it states: "When Republicans held both the Senate and the White House (2003, 2004, 2006), they provided virtually all the yea votes, while almost all Democrats voted no. When the Democrats were in power (2009, 2010), the roles reversed: the Democrats provided all but one of the yea votes, while Republicans voted no. Only when government was divided – with a Democratic Senate and a Republican president (2002, 2007) – has the vote to lift the debt limit been bipartisan."
If the Republicans choose to "buck" that trend for the first time in history, and vote to not increase the debt ceiling, they will have committed political suicide. I am pretty sure they know that, but it doesn't stop the "chest beating" up until that time -- the same way the Dems have done when the situation was reversed. However, whenever there has been a situation where bipartisan voting is required, suddenly those votes miraculously appear. I simply have no reason to think this time will be any different. Political posturing as usual (from both sides), which in my opinion, is the real story here...hypocrisy and game-playing on both sides.
There's political posturing going on here? I'm shocked. Yes, debt ceiling votes do fall along party lines, but the difference here is that the Dems, as a party, never threatened to hold the ecomomy hostage.
But what's really interesting, and which no one, even Rachel, is covering, is that according to Republican economist Bruce Bartlett writing for the thefiscaltimes.com, "The Debt Limit Option President Obama Can Use," (I can not enter in a url so you'll have to do a google search) Section 4 of the 14th Amendment renders the debt ceiling statute unconstitutional.
Also, in Perry v. United States (1935) the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. Stating that voiding a United States government bond "went beyond the congressional power."
Apparently this going to be a last-ditch dem option if an agreement to raise the debt ceiling isn't reached before the deadline, and according to legal scholars, has a good chance of success. If it does, repubs will be forced to argue against the very Constitution they claim to love and cherish and protect...the very same Constitution they want to shred to fit their own agenda.
"The pattern of posturing and then reluctant acquiescence has been the unbroken rule for the few occasions out of the 74 times that the debt limit has been raised since 1962 in which either Democrats or Republicans have chosen to use it simply as a political tool."
Most notable, were in 1981 when the Dems did it to Reagan, and in 1996 when Newt did it to Clinton. Both of which ended up being a game of "cry-wolf".
The author of the article ends with:
"As President Obama considers accepting some Republican demands to pass the next debt-ceiling increase, he'd do well to learn from the examples set by both Reagan and Clinton before agreeing to any Faustian bargains. The truth is Obama already has the winning hand."
This is the discussion we should be having (as well as what Uffdaguy and Rough Ground just pointed out). NOT about a completely contrived argument that the GOP has all of a sudden stopped voting for debt ceiling increases only now that Obama is in the White House. Non-story here, since both sides have consistently done this since the first debt ceiling vote dating back to the 1960s.
Let's discuss the real story, the history in its full context, and come up with some real solutions/options/strategies...and stop with all the contrived outrage. Because we are better than this.
Unless and until Obama steps up to the plate against these moronic and potentially lethal republican goals, we can expect nothing to happen that will benefit anyone in this country anytime soon, in fact it may already be too late. At the very least Obama should let the republicans win their game of chicken and then perhaps the wreckage of the US economy and the World at large will be directly attributable to the 21st century's new version of Nazi policies and tactics.... sorry, I cannot help calling it as I see it.....
"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country." Do not know who said it, only remember the line from typing class I back in the day. You typed it because it was simple and easy to type. Now it has much more meaning. Join the cause, save our country from insanity.
Evil or incompetent?
A little from Column A,
A little from Column B.
The current crop of GOP politicians remind me of the residents of Bizarro World. They're deficit hawks, so they come up with budget plans that will serve to worsen the deficit. They value life, but they'll cut WIC benefits so developing life can starve in the womb.
Can we please send them back from whence they came?!?
I'm not surprised at the Republicans' strategy. They want to re-take the White House and if that means an unprecedented financial crisis and more unemployment, then so be it. What concerns me are the rumors that once again the president will not stand up against their demands. Not even against extending the Bush tax cuts where he has most of the American people with him. I so hope the rumors are not true, but I'm not optimistic.
They get away with it because like it or not, the majority of Americans are far too interested in who is going to win "The Voice" and the outcome of the Casey Anthony trial. Five minutes from now, they will be interested in something else. You can guarantee though that it won't be noticing that the GOP is now bashing policies that it once advocated.
americanlost's Pont re: independents deserves a full and earnest discussion.
They are not just disgusting. Rachel is beginning to see the truth. They WANT the utter destruction of the economy, worldwide. People make the fundamental mistake of assuming the right wing of the republican party means no harm, that they are not evil. This is utterly wrong. If the economy were a patient dying on an operating table the republican party is a psychotic doctor who has taken out a personal life insurance policy on the patient with themselves as beneficiary in case of death.
"
They WANT the utter destruction of the economy, worldwide. People make the fundamental mistake of assuming the right wing of the republican party means no harm, that they are not evil. This is utterly wrong. "
I am afraid this may be close to the truth. Read "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Kline, if you haven't. It puts this into perspective. Republican politicians (and perhaps some Dem's also) doing the bidding of the wealthy and powerful so they can buy anything they want, on the cheap. Look at New Orleans after Katrina, or what many Republican Governors are attempting to do in their states.
The democrats need to raise the level of the rhetoric. Specificaly President Obama needs to call out the GOP. The GOP believes that government is evil and to destroy it they are trying to break it.
The GOP needs to be called what they are. I call it unamerican to be willing to destroy the economy on a principle. The American people believe that our leaders should work together for the common good. The GOP, as stated by Mitch McConnell, quit doing doing that when President Obama took office.