bitter

i have outlined in previous posts as to why no matter the deal the speaker had an uphill climb. the president and his team certainly have awareness to the barriers as well

i think the president should have recognized that getting the gop to vote for anything containing a tax increase would be the victory. period

instead he tied it to modest spending cuts that were insufficient for even non tea party folks to accept the deal

that is all i am saying.

now, once the calendar flips and folks get to vote for a tax decrease maybe the deal actually turns out better because the speaker has folks more motivated to vote for somehting since no 'tax increase' in included

flop

you know it's about context. the situation now is different now than it was then

and remember from the election cycle every candidate felt they had to state that they would reject a deal that had even one dollar of tax increase for 10 of spending cuts.

you know this stuff but post as if these things are not known to you so that you can argue for the sake of arguing.

Uh ... what?

The president thinks that the prior deal should count when discussing the balance of revenue to cutting spending. If you do that, the deal comes out to around 3-1. You seem to feel as though the deal should instead not include that, and the president should still accept 3-1 (making the two year process 5-1). The president won an election. That means he gets his frame.


I'm just pointing out that O isn't asking Boehner to eat ####, he's just sticking to the original terms of the negotiation.

HW - Sure and I agree, I just wanted to point out the Dem side (like you did the GOP side). It is pretty clear that those who said a deal was much more likely in the new year were correct.

Andy - 5099 is a great great post and I am jealous of it.

Okay, I can understand the value of immersing yourself in FOX or MSNBC for a day or three, which should (I'd imagine) give you a pretty good idea of what those two networks are all about and where they're coming from.

But after that, then what do you get out of it? Other than the same talking points you should be able to figure out for yourself if you keep up with other, and better, sources of information.

And if keeping up with Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity is so vital to an "understanding of the world", aren't their opinions widely available on liberal or wingnut websites**, and without all the commercials?

I bolded those words because they are not what I said. Not completely writing something off is not equal to immersion, and a lack of exposure being a hindrance does not equal something being absolutely vital. Perhaps I'm being the hated moderate here, but taking what I wrote to an extreme that I did not write will not necessarily be relevant to what I wrote.

I wrote "immersing" because in the context of that paragraph, I was actually endorsing the idea of doing just that, if only to inoculate yourself against any further urge to spend time on those sites. IOW it was supposed to be a general point, and not in direct response to you.

And I wrote "vital" as a way of introduction to the question of why you need to watch Maddow and / or Hannity with commercials, as opposed to simply checking them out at your leisure on any one of a number of websites that link to them. Again, I wasn't trying to direct this comment specifically at you, especially since I know you get the great bulk of your information from outside the realm of cable network gabfests.

i think the president should have recognized that getting the gop to vote for anything containing a tax increase would be the victory. period

That's no victory at all. That's completely detached from the reality that he'd just won an election where the country specifically backed his vision of a tax increase.

In the end, just because the other side has backed themselves into a corner of intransigence, is no reason to bargain with yourself solely to do something.

Far better to go over the cliff.

Can I just point out that cutting spending in the face of really low interest rates and crappy employment (just barely out of recession) is crazy and we should be spending more and not less. Gah the whole thing makes me crazy.

tship

please stop personalizing this

i am speaking to what i believe is the mindset of the gop house members. it is not about what harvey wants or doesn't want.

and if that is the president's position he is being too cute for his own good.

i would have thought he was above that stuff

bitter

i have outlined in previous posts as to why no matter the deal the speaker had an uphill climb. the president and his team certainly have awareness to the barriers as well

i think the president should have recognized that getting the gop to vote for anything containing a tax increase would be the victory. period

instead he tied it to modest spending cuts that were insufficient for even non tea party folks to accept the deal

that is all i am saying.

i think that betrays an understanding of the history that brought us to this point. there would be no fiscal cliff if not for the republicans forcing a deal 18 months ago, so i see no reason why they should get any benefit of any doubt here. A) they forced the sequestration as a condition of the debt ceiling deal that was never an issue in the history of the united states...until they made it an issue. then, B) they sunk the sequestration deal when they didn't get every single thing they wanted. and now, C) when trying to clean up a mess that is entirely of their doing, they're acting as if it's obama who's at fault.

bitter

let the private sector do the spending now that their house is in order. the govt should step in as the spender of last resort

I sort of doubt there's any deal. There's not enough time, and any deal would break the Hastert rule. The fact of the matter is that from the start a deal has been unlikely due to the lack of desire on the Republicans side to support any tax increases. Given that, Boehner was probably unable to make a deal that complied with the Majority of the Majority, and was remotely acceptable to the President.

But here's the thing -

Boehner's not even playing by the "Hastert rule"... He's playing by some jacked-up steroid version of it that doesn't just require a "majority of the majority" -- but a super-super-duper-duper majority of the majority (i.e., 218 of his 253).

Based on the comments we've heard from some House Republicans - including some that are from the conservative wing of it - do we even know the Senate-passed bill that's sitting in blue slip limbo wouldn't garner a majority (albeit a slim majority) of the GOP caucus?

Boehner simply cannot have it both ways -- he can't be the dutiful public servant bending over backwards to get something done and be the guy trying to hang on to his gavel.

There are three basic scenarios here:

1) Anything getting through the House requires 218 Republican votes, period. To anyone watching - that looks wholly and entirely impossible. The Speaker's own fig leaf bargaining - which was wholly unacceptable to the Democrat in the WH, and the Democrats that control the Senate - couldn't even get 218 votes (word I heard is that he was well short... the whip count barely made it to 200).

2) Anything getting through the House requires 127 Republican votes - and 91 Democratic votes. This is murky - and it means we then probably have a Senate mess to deal with... i.e., first - getting 91 Democratic votes in the House is going to mean some concessions that lures ~40% of House Democrats. Maybe they'll be more reasonable/amendable, maybe not... but does that deal then trigger a Senate-side GOP filibuster? How far will McConnell go to cover his own right flank? Remember - he's up in 2014 for reelection, too.

3) Anything getting through the House requires 218 House votes period, regardless of composition... This probably also presents Senate problems; at least - I can imagine anything garnering a majority of House Democratic votes triggers wholesale Senate GOP opposition if only to cover Boehner.

Option 2) is the only way I see forward...

But - it requires Boehner to take a hit... It also requires Boehner to show his damn cards! Clearly, he can't 218 votes for even something unpalatable to Obama/Senate, but perhaps within sight/shouting distance.

So how many votes CAN Boehner get? Does he even have 127 reliable votes he can marshal? Is he willing to have 126 angry House Republicans?

Until Boehner clearly states that he understands what everyone else already knows -- option 1) is a dead end -- and agrees to work within the confines of option 2), the buck has to continue to stop with him.

It's simple math... He doesn't have 218... Does he have 127, and is he willing to deal with the implications of having that much smaller number?

EDIT: My numbers are a bit off above... However, I'm not going to go back and redo the math on the 112th Congress and account for some recent resignations, open seats, et al.... The general idea remains the same -- but the numbers are a bit smaller...

That's no victory at all. That's completely detached from the reality that he'd just won an election where the country specifically backed his vision of a tax increase.

Unless the victory is reacquainting the GOP with the reality of the election. And hey I am willing to go over the cliff, but getting the GOP to vote for a tax increase would be a victory of sorts.

Who the hell is Bob Beckel?

He's notable because he paid his hooker by check.

When I blame the current GOP I am blaming the result, I don't know how to parcel out the blame. Though I would suggest that part of being a politician should be leadership. You need to represent your voters, but you also need to lead. And I am pretty sure all the federal officeholders swear an oath ...

I try to avoid high fiving, etc., but this reflects my view perfectly.

please stop personalizing this

I don't think he's personalizing anything. He's just pointing out that Obama is just trying to frame the terms of the debate and isn't trying to stick it to the GOP for personal reasons.

steagles

oh for heaven's sake. i know that stuff as well as you do

but the typical gop voter, or dem for that matter, do not make the connection between the current backdrop and how it came to be. they don't. they don't. they don't.

i have pointed this out repeatedly that no gop congressperson has to worry about being faced with the question on how he or she got 'us' into this situation. the typical voter thinks the fiscal cliff scenario just 'happened'

i am sorry if that annoys everyone but that is the case

let the private sector do the spending now that their house is in order. the govt should step in as the spender of last resort

Keynes is my man and that combined with the current economic climate, the fabulous counter example the European austerity movement is showing us (great job guys, you are killing your economies in real time), and the crying need for infrastructure improvements in the US I think it is terrible to ignore all that and cut just to cut.

Corporate profits are huge right now, companies are sitting on piles of money. We have demand issue in our economy and it is one the feds can and should address.

all

anyone who thinks that any gop congresspeson is 'not' going to face a primary challenge if he or she has explicitly voted for anything resembling a tax increase is loony

steagles

oh for heaven's sake. i know that stuff as well as you do

but the typical gop voter, or dem for that matter, do not make the connection between the current backdrop and how it came to be. they don't. they don't. they don't.

i have pointed this out repeatedly that no gop congressperson has to worry about being faced with the question on how he or she got 'us' into this situation. the typical voter thinks the fiscal cliff scenario just 'happened'

i am sorry if that annoys everyone but that is the case

if people fail to make the connection between the debt ceiling debacle and this fiscal cliff, that just means you need to keep talking about it.

all

just because you guys remember everything that has happened in washtingon the last 4,8,12,24,36 years does not mean the public has.

it's kind of like the movie where every day for the actor was a new day.

anyone who thinks that any gop congresspeson is 'not' going to face a primary challenge if he or she has explicitly voted for anything resembling a tax increase is loony

Well, then, the best thing to have happen is to go past the deadline (I'm ####### tired of this "Fiscal Cliff" framing ########); then most everybody gets to vote YES for a "tax cut" on everyone making (if I had to guess) less than say 400,000 or so a year, except of course for the "truly principled" who can safely hold out for "tax cuts" for everyone and smugly vote NO, secure in the knowledge that they've got enough cover to their left.

God help us.

cob

and what you described is something i have been listing as a very real possibility for the last 45 days

i just think it would be healthy for the gop to vote 'for' a tax increase in some form

declaring that an option is never an option rarely succeeds long-term

anyone who thinks that any gop congresspeson is 'not' going to face a primary challenge if he or she has explicitly voted for anything resembling a tax increase is loony

You really think any?

I'd accept "most" - and perhaps the exceptions are the sort who genuinely don't care and are sticking to ideological principle...

However - the Democrats have a base to please, too... and the left was already getting upset with Obama solely for what he had put on the table -- MoveOn petitioned against his counter-offer to Boehner and the blogs were already working themselves up with frothy high dudgeon over Obama not holding firm.

In a sense - yes - I agree... Obama has been politicking on the deal and has been campaigning on the deal.

However - in other sense - it's wholly unreasonable for Boehner to basically expect Obama to more or less substitute his (Obama's) own campaign stance for that of the guy that Obama just defeated handily in the election... and that's what Boehner's "deal" at this point amounts to: We (the GOP House) will accept a deal that is basically identical to the proposal of the guy you just thrashed in the election had put forward as his stance.

That's a fantasy world...

But does that describe the typical BTF Primate who keeps referring to those networks? Those were the ones my question was directed to, not some guy passing a kidney stone in a nursing home.

Fair point, although sometimes reading threads here is like passing a kidney stone.

zonk

grover and his pals sent out repeated notes to house members with warnings about voting for antyihng that had a tax increase. and grover and his pals have their stature because they do not make idle threats

as for the deal i think the speaker could have made a deal if there were more spending cuts. in return the gop votes for a tax increase

just because folks here think voting for the tax increase was a fait accompli doesn't make it so

but the typical gop voter, or dem for that matter, do not make the connection between the current backdrop and how it came to be. they don't. they don't. they don't.

Heaven forbid anyone ever try to govern a nation in accordance with the beliefs and assertions of the typical GOP voter.

HW -

I think part of the issue is between the inside talk and the external political considerations. I think it is OK that many of the posts here are inside baseball where we are much more knowledgeable than the typical voter, but it is also fine to mention those somewhat dim voters. I don't think there is a conflict between having both conversations.

However I admit I have a problem with a bit of the framing you are using. You are presenting things as if the typical voter reaction was completely exogenous from what the political establishment (formal and informal) says, does, or wants.It is not like the Tea Party sprung up out of nowhere in full bloom and decided to hijack the GOP and impose its anti-compromise anti-tax sentiment on Rockefeller's GOP.

The extent to which the GOP politicians are painted in a corner and fear primary challenges comes from the actions and words of many many politicians and others. They grabbed the tiger by the tail, fed it, told it how great it was, and now you can't act like they are victims when the tiger turns with a hungry look in its eye.

Yes the tiger is a problem, but the GOP elected officials are hardly innocent victims and even if they were Obama doesn't owe them anything. From a hardball stance letting them decide between taking the blame for cliff diving or letting them take the blame for raising taxes is great for Obama and much better than letting them wiggle out of the jam with his help.

If I thought they would be grateful for his help and he could use that gratitude to get stuff done in the future the calculation would change, but does anyone believe that if Obama gave the GOP a break and helped them out of their box by compromising further he would get any gratitude or future advantage from it?

Well, then, the best thing to have happen is to go past the deadline (I'm ####### tired of this "Fiscal Cliff" framing ########); then most everybody gets to vote YES for a "tax cut" on everyone making (if I had to guess) less than say 400,000 or so a year, except of course for the "truly principled" who can safely hold out for "tax cuts" for everyone and smugly vote NO, secure in the knowledge that they've got enough cover to their left.

I think that's exactly what's going to happen.

bitter

you have no argument from me on the party embracing the demint minions. i warned of the hazards as did others with way more clout and you see how far that went

but no, the president doesn't get any acknowledgement from the gop on any accomodations.

but the presidency is about leading. and when the other side is bereft of leadership he should work to fill the vaccuum.

yes, i am asking him to be the bigger man. i think it would be good for the country.

because i suspect that once we get past 1/1/13 and the world doesn't 'end' that will embolden the crazy from both sides

no gop congressperson has to worry about being faced with the question on how he or she got 'us' into this situation. the typical voter thinks the fiscal cliff scenario just 'happened'

i am sorry if that annoys everyone but that is the case

Whether the fact that Republican House members are not held accountable for creating this false crisis annoys some is irrelevant. It annoys others to be reminded that that Republican House members are in fact responsible for bringing this mess to pass, and that too is irrelevant. What's relevant is the current conditions on the ground. 18 months ago the President and Congressional Democrats had to eat sh!t and swallow a ton of spending cuts without getting any revenue, because they were in an impossibly weak negotiating position. Now the shoe is on the other foot and it's the GOP's turn to chow down.

If Boehner really wanted to strengthen his hand, he should have allowed a vote on Obama's proposal and worked like hell to whip the moderate members of his caucus to vote against it. If he'd won a straight up or down vote on that, he'd have had some actual negotiating power. Of course, he didn't do it because he would have lost. But those members of his conference who'd be endangered by any vote to raise any taxes would have been able to brag to their constituents that they'd held firm.

Heaven forbid anyone ever try to govern a nation in accordance with the beliefs and assertions of the typical GOP voter.

Heh...

In other words:

Prepare to be assimilated. We will add your ideological and philosophical distinctives to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

It's time like that I see no choice but to align myself with the uncompromisingly principles of my own party/ideology... I'd prefer compromise - even a middle split compromise, despite holding power in the Executive branch, and one of the two chambers of congress.... but that's clearly not going to happen if the predominant typical GOP stance is a mimic of the Indiana GOP Senate candidate who just lost (i.e.,

I certainly think bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view. … If we [win the House, Senate, and White House], bipartisanship means they have to come our way, and if we’re successful in getting the numbers, we’ll work towards that.

Let's be clear. The Second Amendment could have said "people should have the right to form a militia and bear arms in support of that militia," which would be a lot less supporting of an individual right than "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right protected is "to keep and bear arms," not to form a militia. The stated necessity of a militia to protect the security of the state is a reason, but it's not at all clear that it's the only reason.

We can play the game the other way too. The second amendment could have just said "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That would have been clearly more supportive of the right to bear arms than the text as written. Read the rest of the Bill of Rights - you won't find rationale embedded in the text of any other amendment. The 1st amendment does not say "A vigorous and open exchange of ideas being necessary to a functioning republic . . . " It just says "Congress shall make no law . . . " I think any originalist (or even strict constructionist) reading of the Constitution is borderline preposterous, but it's more preposterous to read the first clause out of the second amendment or to ignore the idiosyncratic phrasing of the 2nd Amendment completely.

I think we have to accept that after 225 years, the Bill of Rights is functionally meaningless. The Court has read in myriad exceptions to various amendments that allow the federal government and state govenments to pass laws and take actions that are clearly is contravention to the text of the amendments as written. The justices permit this on the basis of the prevailing pet theories of constitutional interpretation, but it's all just ######## that ultimately finds its way to organizing our rights to loosely match what prevailing public opinion thinks they should be. The Bill of Rights on the whole, and each amendment in particular, are brutally short, blunt objects that address fundamental questions concerning the nature of liberty and the relationship between a government and its governed in a few sparse words and phrases. It is, quite simply, nothing more than a Rorschach test.

5129 (because your posting handle is too long)

i do give the president credit for standing firm and keeping his caucus in line. i sense nobody 'getting wobbly' on the dem side

this is likely the most unique thing to happen in this entire discussion.

that is meant as a compliment.

for the record i think the discussion about fiscal policy is way more interesting than the gun nonsense.

courtesy wsj:

President Barack Obama telephoned congressional leaders from both parties with just a few days left to reach a deal to avoid the year-end tax increases and spending cuts known as the fiscal cliff.

Mr. Obama called House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) late Wednesday during his vacation in Hawaii "to receive an update on the ongoing fiscal negotiations," White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said.

but the presidency is about leading. and when the other side is bereft of leadership he should work to fill the vaccuum.

I agree, but leading doesn't have to mean cutting a deal. Sometimes leading is, for the good of the country in the long run, forcing the other side to confront reality even if the country takes a short term hit. I don't think the cliff is a big deal (it is a small cliff, more of a bump really) in the short term.

because your posting handle is too long

ca works for some; OTOH, it might be time for me to change it again.

for the record i think the discussion about fiscal policy is way more interesting than the gun nonsense.

We agree on that, although the nonsense is hard to resist sometimes.

bitter

there is that option.

but then the president has kind of tied himself to the 1/1/13 deadline so for him to pivot and thne say it's no big deal, that's a bit tricky.

HW

Since you have an ear to the internal workings of the Republican party, what do you think of the rumours of a "Conservative coup" via secret ballot against Boehner on 1/3?

no other nation -- aside perhaps a largely symbolic legislative nod to the UDoHR -- has an equivalent to the US Bill of Rights

Canada has a charter of rights and freedoms. It's relatively new though (1982) and the impact on the legal scene is not settled.

Thing is that it's relatively easy to get around if a government is truly determined. The "notwithstanding" clause allows a government to exclude a bill from judicial scrutiny.

But it's rarely done. There's always a PR hit (since Canadians have far greater trust in the judiciary than politicians) and it's really temporary. The notwithstanding clause has to be renewed every 5 years.

The big difference in the systems is the absence of veto points. If there's a majority government (far from a given) the Prime Minister can pretty much do what he wants. The Senate is basically toothless and members of his party must vote as instructed (except in the relatively rare "free votes") or face explulsion from the caucus and probable end to their political career.

Right now Stephen Harper has far more (relative) power than Obama. And is currently using it to ram a truly massive bill down the throats of the opposition.

cob

i stated weeks ago that one of the biggest barriers to getting a deal is the speaker wanting to keep his job.

he sent out a shot across the bow a while back when he purged some hard core folks from committees.

there is no secret that some regard him as 'too willing to deal' wiht the president

folks here can roll their eyes but them's the facts

5129 (because your posting handle is too long)

i do give the president credit for standing firm and keeping his caucus in line. i sense nobody 'getting wobbly' on the dem side

this is likely the most unique thing to happen in this entire discussion.

that is meant as a compliment.

Not in office -

I get the sense that Obama can pretty much count on getting Senate Dem votes for any deal and while Pelosi has been publicly drawing left-side lines in the sand; I also feel confidant that she could (and would) deliver whatever votes might be needed to reach the magic number in the House (be it 50, 75, or even 100).

However, again - the Democrats have their base and interest/influence groups, too.... and they, too, have NOT been happy.

The blogosphere, MoveOn, etc were grumbling back in 2009 when they felt that the Stimulus bill was far, far too weighted towards state block grants and tax incentives -- with far too little direct spending.

While they ultimately got on board with ACA -- they were also livid about 'single payer' not even functioning as a starting point in negotiations, and then felt that the "least" they would have accepted -- a "public option" -- was also given away with little to nothing in return. They felt the Senate should have employed reconciliation much earlier in the process.

It's odd... I can remember having many, many arguments with folks on Dailykos and other arguments offline with liberal friends stressing that even if you hold both chambers, you still have to be willing to compromise and that our government actually does work best when it works slowly and incrementally.

My concern here is that we essentially have now is an "influence arms race" --

You'll find no shortage of opinions on the left that believe a massive arms build-up is the only option... that it's necessary to have MSNBC become not just the ideological mirror image of Fox, but also the left-side influential version of Fox... that either Rush and company need to be utterly defeated via pressure on advertisers, or, left-leaning AM radio needs to become just as powerful... that we need an unyielding and consistent version of Heritage on the left (CPBB is probably the closest thing to that -- but I believe it would be fair to say that the CPBB is more a left-leaning version of say, AEI than it is Heritage)...

I just don't see that as being good for governance or good for the country... but increasingly, I feel like I don't see any alternative to present as a reasonable option.

I get that, I was just wondering if you'd heard anything about the potential response that Breitbart.com was reporting on over the last couple of days

The circulated plan is a comprehensive multi-step process.

According to the plan as drafted, the first step is to re-establish the election of the Speaker of the House by secret ballot, rather than by a public roll call vote. That’s because the members who would oppose Boehner, if there ended up not being enough votes to achieve their desired result or if Boehner scared via threat or coaxed via prize some of the opposition into voting for him, would be sitting ducks for retaliation in the near future.

As one hill staffer considering this path told Breitbart News, the members involved in an unsuccessful coup d’etat would be “toast.”

To establish a secret ballot election for Speaker of the House, one Republican member will need to step forward and introduce a resolution on the House floor on the morning of January 3, 2013, before any other business takes place. Those close to this plan are convinced that a member will step forward and introduce this resolution.

On January 3, the House of Representatives will convene for the first order of business for the 113th Congress. Normally, the first order of business is for the House to elect a Speaker.

But if a member introduces that resolution for a secret ballot, the whole House will vote on that first. That vote will need to have a public roll call, meaning the American people, the press, and Boehner will know who voted which way. Even so, those who are considering this path forward to unseat Boehner know that Boehner and other establishment Republicans can’t legitimately oppose the concept of a secret ballot election for a leader of a political body.

Why’s that? In a 2009 op-ed Boehner himself wrote for U.S. News and World Report, the then House Minority Leader bashed unions for their failure to employ secret ballot elections to protect those voting. Boehner’s op-ed was an attack on the Democrats’ Employee Free Choice Act, also known as “card check” – legislation that would have hurt the sacred concept of elections so badly that, in Boehner’s own words, “it would leave them [workers voting in union elections] open to coercion and intimidation.”

Card check legislation would have made unionization elections public – meaning everybody involved would know whether employees voted in favor of or against unionization. Boehner called such elections “undemocratic” because even “all 535 members of the United States Congress hold their offices thanks to a secret ballot.”

Boehner’s op-ed helped kill the Democratic effort for card check, as he warned that some who have “spoken passionately in favor of secret-ballot elections” have done so “only when it serves their interests.” Those hill staffers who drafted this plan note in their planning documents that a secret ballot against Boehner “is likely the ONLY WAY the Speaker can be ousted,” and find it ironic that the election for House Speaker isn’t done by secret ballot right now.

At the beginning of the Congress, the House will only have one officer: the Clerk of the House. House rule documents compiled by those staffers considering this plan show that the Clerk of the House is required to keep the legislative body’s secrets. The clerk takes an oath to “keep the secrets of the House.”

Since at that point the House would have just passed a resolution requiring who votes for whom as Speaker to be secret, the Clerk – who would keep track of such a vote – would be required by his oath of office to keep the roll call secret.

If a secret ballot election for House Speaker is established, step one of this plan against Boehner is complete.

The second step of the circulated plan would require enough GOP members to band together and vote for somebody other than Boehner as Speaker. Since Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., has resigned his position, there will be 434 voting members on January 3. For someone to win the Speaker election, they’d need to secure 217 votes – or a majority of everyone voting.

Since there are 233 Republicans heading into the next Congress, only 17 Republicans would be needed to unseat Boehner. The House would continue having multiple elections throughout the day on January 3 until it agreed upon a new Speaker.

cob

that's old news. the speaker has had a tenuous hold on his job for months.

the secret ballot stuff came out of the speaker flexing his muscles when he dumped folks off committee.

it's a coward's way out frnakly and i am disappointed though not surprised that it's being examined.

for the record i think the discussion about fiscal policy is way more interesting than the gun nonsense.

"Can I get an witness?"

"Amen brother, amen!"

cob

that's old news. the speaker has had a tenuous hold on his job for months.

the secret ballot stuff came out of the speaker flexing his muscles when he dumped folks off committee.

it's a coward's way out frnakly and i am disappointed though not surprised that it's being examined.

What's so interesting to me about all of this is that Boehner is - I think - actually reaping what he's sown...

One of the 'inside baseball' things Boehner promised to do -- and has done -- is more 'democratize' things within his caucus. This stands in stark, stark contrast to how Pelosi (really - Haster/Delay before her, and every majority leader before that) had run the show. He's trying to walk that back now - the committee purges for one, but there are other tools no longer at his disposal (earmkarks, for one) either.

This makes it really, really hard to coral a caucus. Give the inmates an inch, and they'll be expecting a mile (and note - when I say 'inmates' - I mean a congressional caucus generally, not just the current one). The House has traditionally run well - ideological tilt regardless - when it's had a strong leadership that commands a solid mix of fear and respect from the members. That doesn't mean one or two people run anything and everything - it just means you no longer have to play games on what should be pro forma stuff and every little piece of legislation doesn't have to turn into an ideological waterloo.

That's because movement on fiscal policy is possible. Bloody massacres are the new normal, and no anti-gun policy is going to change that because that's the price of freedom, or whatever.

I think we have to accept that after 225 years, the Bill of Rights is functionally meaningless. The Court has read in myriad exceptions to various amendments that allow the federal government and state govenments to pass laws and take actions that are clearly is contravention to the text of the amendments as written. The justices permit this on the basis of the prevailing pet theories of constitutional interpretation, but it's all just ######## that ultimately finds its way to organizing our rights to loosely match what prevailing public opinion thinks they should be. The Bill of Rights on the whole, and each amendment in particular, are brutally short, blunt objects that address fundamental questions concerning the nature of liberty and the relationship between a government and its governed in a few sparse words and phrases. It is, quite simply, nothing more than a Rorschach test.

A Rorschach test that keeps getting different results depending on the makeup of the Supreme Court. It's probably good for our national psyche that we still look upon the Supreme Court with a certain amount of reverence and respect**, but the truth is that the Supreme Court is a nearly 100% political animal, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights are often not much more than a set of platitudinous guidelines, subject to interpretation by the political whims of the members of the Court. Which is why the most important thing to remember about the Supreme Court is winning the next election.

**Unless we don't, but the general point remains.

That's because movement on fiscal policy is possible. Bloody massacres are the new normal, and no anti-gun policy is going to change that because that's the price of freedom, or whatever.

But in the long run, the only solution in both cases is to marginalize the wingnut Right, instead of letting them hold everyone else hostage. Until that time, you're never going to get gun control, and you're never going to stop these phony budget debates from periodically paralyzing the government.

la

i was speaking to the tone/tenor of the discussions on this board. the gun discussion that i have observed here is not constructive

the fiscal discussion i have found constructive

but if you want to accuse me of being pro gun violence have at it though you would be absurdly incorrectly

CrosbyBird 5086:

You are simply incorrect. There is not a gun out there that is intended by the founders to be used against the government even in threat. It is treason inside the country and war outside it. Among other things. The founders intended for the state to be defended and policed, hence "security of a free state." Guns pointed against the government make the state less secure.

Guns are the great equalizer, so the ownership of guns is more important in potentially getting your way that the purity of your ideas. Al Capone had greater access to guns than the slaves did, so, otherwise unchecked, he had far more opportunity to have his way than the slaves did.

Zonk 5074:

I am trying to determine whether the tacit tolerance of people like CrosbyBird is causing part of the problem in this country. Whether that tolerance is emboldening some of the more deranged citizens.

BTW -

One thing I find really interesting is that the idea that the "House Speaker" doesn't have to be a member of the House... This seemed to be a niche fantasy advanced solely by intellectual derelicts a few months, even weeks ago - but it seems to be picking up speed.

Thing is - if Boehner were to fall... I don't see who in the House replaces him.

Cantor seems to have picked up a fair bit of taint by the ideological true believers of late... McCarthy seems a bumbling fool. I hear Price, Mulvaney, Jordan, and Hensarling as options... and I'd laugh at those options, but I have no other.

Just to change to a topic from earlier, I went to a Barnes and Noble store last night to look for sales and was surprised to find that hardly any books were on sale that were not clearance crap. And this was at one of the stores that was going out of business! Not wonder B & N isnt doing well because their pricing sucks. Ok thats all I have...carry on.

#4889 I can think of a moderately interesting counter-example to conscription teaching useful societal values.

The biker wars in Scandinavia got spectacularly violent precisely because the bikers

a) had military training
b) had access to military weapons -- from the militia caches set up for rapid deployments.

First escalation over the "normal" levels expected in biker on biker violence was an attack using anti-tank rockets.

One thing I find really interesting is that the idea that the "House Speaker" doesn't have to be a member of the House... This seemed to be a niche fantasy advanced solely by intellectual derelicts a few months, even weeks ago - but it seems to be picking up speed.

Time to end the tyranny of RINOS once and for all! All hail incoming chairman Limbaugh! Megadittos!

Just to change to a topic from earlier, I went to a Barnes and Noble store last night to look for sales and was surprised to find that hardly any books were on sale that were not clearance crap. And this was at one of the stores that was going out of business! Not wonder B & N isnt doing well because their pricing sucks. Ok thats all I have...carry on

AFAIC there's only one remaining truly great brick & mortar book shop, and that's the Daedalus Warehouse in Columbia, MD. The reason it's so much better than any other place is that it has thousands of short list remainder titles where the quantities are too small to list in any of their catalogs. This means that (here's the catch) you actually have to go there to see what they have, but if you do, the combination of selection and prices is unbeatable. The only comparable store in my memory was the New England Mobile Book Fair in Newton Highlands, Massachusetts, but that place has gone way downhill in the past 10 years, whereas the Daedalus Warehouse has gotten better.

One thing I find really interesting is that the idea that the "House Speaker" doesn't have to be a member of the House... This seemed to be a niche fantasy advanced solely by intellectual derelicts a few months, even weeks ago - but it seems to be picking up speed.

More likely Platinum Coin (to avert debt ceiling "crisis") or non House member as Speaker?

I'll go with platinum coin, but neither is at all likely.

If Obama went down the platinum coin route, the foamings at the mouth would be epic. This has to happen.

I want the platinum coins to be enormous for the theater of it. Something like this.

If Obama went down the platinum coin route, the foamings at the mouth would be epic. This has to happen

Platinum has intrinsic value!

I am generally unsympathetic with carping to the ref about press coverage. We all see the other side's positive stories more acutely than our own. Nevertheless, I will admit I laughed aloud at both the story and Obama's PR team when the Times headline says "Obama comes home with Bo." He can't have his family so he has his dog!

I want the platinum coins to be enormous for the theater of it.

I think it's fairly obvious that a $2 trillion platinum coin should contain $2 trillion worth of platinum, just to appease the platinum standard folks.

(Just did the math. Such a coin would weigh about 82,000 lbs.)

HW, I wasn't addressing you with my gun comment. I was referring to what I believe will happen on gun control: Nothing.

I think it's fairly obvious that a $2 trillion platinum coin should contain $2 trillion worth of platinum, just to appease the platinum standard folks.

(Just did the math. Such a coin would weight about 82,000 lbs.)

YES. It's going to have to be multiple coins, otherwise it won't fit through the door.

la

ok

I think it's fairly obvious that a $2 trillion platinum coin should contain $2 trillion worth of platinum, just to appease the platinum standard folks.

(Just did the math. Such a coin would weight about 82,000 lbs.)

Do the Guinness Book of Records people offer any prize money for getting into the books for something?

The other upshot of a 82k lb coin is that we wouldn't even need to hide - we could put it somewhere on the national mall, thus ensuring to everyone that yes - it's real!

#5083 Tone is a chancy thing when it comes to the written word. I know Howie is a professional writer, but ... well God knows I've written a fair amount and sometimes things just don't come out the way I'd intended. (speaking of which, Ray if my recent post about your style of arguing came across as harsh or as a put-down, not intended that way and I apologize if it was offensive. I was more or less thinking aloud)

I'd support Mouse in asking Howie to elaborate his positions though.

The other upshot of a 82k lb coin is that we wouldn't even need to hide - we could put it somewhere on the national mall, thus ensuring to everyone that yes - it's real!

Over/under on how long it would take before "Does it have a lead center?" stories started appearing on Fox news? I say 24 hours from the announcement of the plan.

Over/under on how long it would take before "Does it have a lead center?" stories started appearing on Fox news? I say 24 hours from the announcement of the plan.

I say 24... minutes. This is the network with talking heads proclaiming that Obama did not have a mandate before all the votes were counted.

The other upshot of a 82k lb coin is that we wouldn't even need to hide - we could put it somewhere on the national mall, thus ensuring to everyone that yes - it's real!



Over/under on how long it would take before "Does it have a lead center?" stories started appearing on Fox news? I say 24 hours from the announcement of the plan.

Even better -

the platinum just needs to add up to 82k lbs... we make it into an intricately carved coin, with various tunnels, holes, and other passages through it to ensure that yes - all the platinum is there... this would make it even harder to steal/move.

I guess we should probably make it 83k lbs just to be safe -- we'll the pedestal to function as a scale and that won't come free.

Sooo...

a bit of silliness more on the cliff.

Obama is back in DC, apparently talked to Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, and McConnell.

CNN then reported that Obama was sending over a package to the Senate shortly... they reported it was basically holding rates on 250k under, no action 250k+, but with an estate tax sweetener (keeping estate taxes at current levels).

WH and Senate Dems adamently/angrily deny this was true. McConnell responded with basically a 'news to him, but we'll take a look'...

...and turns out - this was more than likely coming from Scott "I'm still here! Don't forget me! I can be the broker! I want to run again next year!" Brown.

Now... no one has any clue if there was something to this or not. The liberal blogs immediately lit up with outrage following the initial report.

But gotta say - if there was some movement here and something was close... Scott Brown is a real ####### for basically trying to inject himself as some sort lynchpin by breaking the not-yet-fully-baked news.

I mean, as much I think we'd be better off a few ideological Scott Browns in the GOP -- no one really needs half-term freshman that have an inflated sense of their own importance gumming up what I imagine are pretty delicate discussions.

zonk

you owe me a coke. i already posted that stuff courtesy of the wsj

I say 24... minutes. This is the network with talking heads proclaiming that Obama did not have a mandate before all the votes were counted.

Seems fair, considering that's about how long after inauguration it took before the 2000-2001 economic downturn was labeled Bush's fault.

I mean, as much I think we'd be better off a few ideological Scott Browns in the GOP -- no one really needs half-term freshman that have an inflated sense of their own importance gumming up what I imagine are pretty delicate discussions.

At this point, isn't that like worrying about a new GM coming in and screwing up the Minnesota Twins?

My policy is that if both Republicans and Democrats are upset, that's the time to smile ear-to-ear.

zonk

you owe me a coke. i already posted that stuff courtesy of the wsj

I'll give you half a coke - and you gotta supply your own rum...

The second part was newer - that there was some actual language/proposal on its way for consideration... All sides are now adamantly saying "not true, not true! But THEY do need to propose something!"

Based on the timeline of the last hour, and piecing together multiple sources -- it's sounding like the sides may have gotten somewhere with at least a framework to take back to their camps to see if it meant anything, but it was still an embryonic 'something' that wasn't yet ready to put out the door publicly... and it sounds like Brown basically flushed the quail and sent everyone scurrying by opening his (Facebook) yap.

There is not a gun out there that is intended by the founders to be used against the government even in threat. It is treason inside the country and war outside it.

This is true. In fact, there are 3 good examples from the period surrounding ratification: Shays's Rebellion; The Whiskey Rebellion; and Fries's Rebellion. In each case, these were put down by the militia and at least some of the rebels charged with treason.

Seems fair, considering that's about how long after inauguration it took before the 2000-2001 economic downturn was labeled Bush's fault.

By a cable news network?

At this point, isn't that like worrying about a new GM coming in and screwing up the Minnesota Twins?

My policy is that if both Republicans and Democrats are upset, that's the time to smile ear-to-ear.

Setting aside that this would seem to be your preferred outcome (or is it? As someone coming from an honest 'pox on both' POV, do you want across-the-board 10% spending cuts paired with pretty big across-the-board tax hikes to come to pass?) --

My issue with Brown here is that 1)he's gone in a week, but all indications that he'll be running for Kerry's seat, 2)he's NOT the right person to spilling any beans to anyone... He's not a big player - or even a well-liked player - within his own caucus.

In short - if there was some progress (and it's entirely possible there might have been), Brown mucked it up by basically getting out the bullhorn.... The GOP side - Boehner's house especially - are going to immediately HATE on principle anything announced by Scott Brown.

Again - I'm just guessing at a lot of things here, but it seems reasonable that if Obama really wants to get something done - the WH probably had to squelch this as a favor to Boehner. If Boehner is going to get anything passed, even on a majority of a majority basis -- it can't be RINO Scott Brown that acts as herald for a deal.

Regarding the platinum coin, one of the local museums had a $1 million gold coin on display. Pretty cool actually.

Read the rest of the Bill of Rights - you won't find rationale embedded in the text of any other amendment. The 1st amendment does not say "A vigorous and open exchange of ideas being necessary to a functioning republic . . . " It just says "Congress shall make no law . . . " I think any originalist (or even strict constructionist) reading of the Constitution is borderline preposterous, but it's more preposterous to read the first clause out of the second amendment or to ignore the idiosyncratic phrasing of the 2nd Amendment completely.

I think we have to accept that after 225 years, the Bill of Rights is functionally meaningless. The Court has read in myriad exceptions to various amendments that allow the federal government and state govenments to pass laws and take actions that are clearly is contravention to the text of the amendments as written. The justices permit this on the basis of the prevailing pet theories of constitutional interpretation, but it's all just ######## that ultimately finds its way to organizing our rights to loosely match what prevailing public opinion thinks they should be. The Bill of Rights on the whole, and each amendment in particular, are brutally short, blunt objects that address fundamental questions concerning the nature of liberty and the relationship between a government and its governed in a few sparse words and phrases. It is, quite simply, nothing more than a Rorschach test.

Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It's easy to overlook - courts and cops do it all the time - but that is an embedded rationale, right there.
The rest of the post, I agree with.

Do courts and cops overlook the Fourth Amendment all the time? I can accept that they act in a way counter to other potential views of the impact of the Fourth Amendment, but it seems to me that police and courts are basically obsessed with staying on the right side of the standing interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.

Do courts and cops overlook the Fourth Amendment all the time?

Overlook is probably the wrong word. The 4th amendment is pretty complicated and it's likely unreasonable to expect cops to be Constitutional scholars. For instance, I'm sure nearly every cop in New York City has violated the 4th amendment in a stop and frisk situation.

Do courts and cops overlook the Fourth Amendment all the time? I can accept that they act in a way counter to other potential views of the impact of the Fourth Amendment, but it seems to me that police and courts are basically obsessed with staying on the right side of the standing interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.

The rationale gets overlooked, not the amendment itself.
Courts and cops are obsessed with staying on the right side of the standing interpretation, but that only sounds good as long as you don't think about it too hard - they will come up with the most preposterous theories to explain why this or that govt action was "really" within the 4th, or why it wasn't "really" a search (or a seizure), or why this or that "exception" applies.

I want the platinum coins to be enormous for the theater of it. Something like this.

Or this

they will come up with the most preposterous theories to explain why this or that govt action was "really" within the 4th, or why it wasn't "really" a search (or a seizure), or why this or that "exception" applies.

I don't know if I'd say preposterous as much as rote memorization of the key phrases some instructor or higher taught them, as handed down by someone who read the case law... or then again, maybe I would say preposterous.

Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It's easy to overlook - courts and cops do it all the time - but that is an embedded rationale, right there

When I was reading the Bill of Rights before I posted to confirm my understanding, I stopped at the 4th amendment and considered that point, but I actually don't think that is an embedded rationale - it's setting forth the scope of the right. The 4th amendment protects "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects". Unlike the 2nd amendment, there is no argument in the text as to why that's a good thing.

Or this

Even better!

At this point, the various readings of the 2nd amendment is like patent trolls claiming that normal mundane things like shopping on the internet are violating their patents.

Or this



Even better!

Sort of the bizarro version of stories like these...

I did something similar paying off my last car note --

I have a rather large change bucket that I occasionally cash in, and when I was getting down to my last 5 or 6 payments - I figured I'd have enough to come close to paying it off by just turning my buckets, so I went down to the bank with them.

They also, initially at least, tried to hassle me about it - but eventually accepted the payment (and I ended up actually getting $23 back).

That's great. Me, I like to pay for calzones with pennies.

When I was reading the Bill of Rights before I posted to confirm my understanding, I stopped at the 4th amendment and considered that point, but I actually don't think that is an embedded rationale - it's setting forth the scope of the right. The 4th amendment protects "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects". Unlike the 2nd amendment, there is no argument in the text as to why that's a good thing.

You might be right. I have to argue about the 4th a lot, but I never really get into the policy behind it (because trial judges / cops / DAs, frankly, don't care).

Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It's easy to overlook - courts and cops do it all the time - but that is an embedded rationale, right there.

Sorry, but billy's right on this one. "The right of the people to be secure..." is the subject of the sentence. It is the thing that "shall not be violated" rather than a rationale for not violating something else.

Or this

Why think so small? Why not mint Ningis?

"A Triganic Pu is equal to eight Ningis, but since a Ningi is a triangular rubber coin measuring six thousand eight hundred miles a side, no one has ever collected enough to own one Pu." -- Douglas Adams

Although I love the visual of literally rolling an 82,000 lb platinum coin out to pay off the debt, does it have to be a circle? Wouldn't this be a great opportunity to introduce a say, triangle shaped coin? This could add to the theater of the absurd and give the conspiracy nutjobs another layer.

Although I love the visual of literally rolling an 82,000 lb platinum coin out to pay off the debt, does it have to be a circle? Wouldn't this be a great opportunity to introduce a say, triangle shaped coin? This could add to the theater of the absurd and give the conspiracy nutjobs another layer.

Why do coins have to be 2 dimensional? Why not sahped like a D&D 20 sided die?

As a card-carrying virologist, I have long been partial to the icosahedron.

Gallup's out today with the latest polling on where Americans stand on the issue or new gun laws. As you can see in the chart below, opinions appear to have changed greatly in the past year, no doubt largely due to the Newtown tragedy and a string of other recent high-profile mass shootings:

...

the numbers suggest that any effort in Washington to pass new laws is likely to run into strong headwinds. When it comes to specific proposals to ban certain guns, those in favor of the status quo remain strong:

•51 percent of respondents said they are against any law that would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess "semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles" compared to 44 percent who are for such a law. That's pretty much where things stood the last time Gallup asked the question toward the end of last year, when the split was 53-43 against. For comparison, prior to 2005 a majority of Americans said they were in favor of such a ban.

•74 percent said they are against any law that would make it illegal to own a handgun (except by police and other authorized personel) compared to 24 percent in favor. That's the largest recorded gap since the polling outfit began asking the question back in 1959.

Instead, gun-control advocates and their allies in Congress appear more likely to find some measure of success by targeting lower-hanging fruit, like closing the so-called "gun show loophole" or banning high-capacity magazines:

•92 percent said they support a law that would require background checks before anyone—including gun dealers—could buy firearms at gun shows compared to only 7 percent who oppose.

•62 percent support a law that would ban the sale and possession of high-capacity ammunition clips that can hold more than 10 bullets at a time compared to 35 percent who oppose

Link

Why do coins have to be 2 dimensional? Why not sahped like a D&D 20 sided die?

I like this idea. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Ok, but I and lots and lots of other people, many of which are highly intelligent/have strong moral convictions etc., strongly disagree with you with respect to the death penalty. So either (1) you have some astonishing insight that(more or less) half the country doesn't see, or (2) you're missing something, which is why you think the other folks are inexplicably wrong.

Or perhaps not a particularly astonishing insight, if a large group of people is particularly ignorant. For example, a significant portion of the American population rejects the theory of evolution. Also, a significant portion of the American population believes in the legitimacy of astrology. This doesn't mean evolution is a faulty theory or that astrology is a legitimate science; it means these people are painfully ignorant in these particular areas.

We already understand that there are a number of natural tendencies that interfere with rational decision making: self-serving bias, ignorance of control groups, inability to comprehend very large or very small numbers, desire to fill in gaps in knowledge, etc.

I'm pretty seriously opposed to the death penalty but I wouldn't say that it's irrational to support it. Just immoral.

Gallup's out today with the latest polling on where Americans stand on the issue or new gun laws. As you can see in the chart below, opinions appear to have changed greatly in the past year, no doubt largely due to the Newtown tragedy and a string of other recent high-profile mass shootings:

These results need to be unskewed.

Really? How many guns did the suffrage movement bring into play? What about the civil rights movement? What about the women's and gay movements? Were they sponsored by Winchester?

I really wouldn't call these revolutions, and I wouldn't call the government tyrannical here. The closest I can think of in US history that was truly large-scale tyranny post-slavery was Japanese internment, and I would have considered the Japanese justified in taking up arms against the government in that case.