Are Republicans Changing Their Policy Views to Fall Behind Trump?
The New York Times claims they are. In an article titled Republicans Now Marching With Trump on Ideas They Had Opposed, the Gray Lady paints a picture of a compliant GOP, abandoning core principles willy-nilly to conform to Trump’s policy views:
Republican lawmakers appear more than ready to open up the coffers for a $12 billion to $15 billion border wall, perhaps without the commensurate spending cuts that they demanded when it came to disaster aid, money to fight the Zika virus or funds for the tainted water system in Flint, Mich. They also seem to back a swelling of the federal payroll that Mr. Trump has called for in the form of a larger military and 5,000 more border patrol agents.
They have stayed oddly silent as Mr. Trump and Senate Democrats push a $1 trillion infrastructure plan, larger than one they rejected from President Barack Obama. Once fierce promoters of the separation of powers, Republicans are now embracing Mr. Trump’s early governing by executive order, something they loudly decried during Mr. Obama’s second term.
I’ve worried since May 3 that the Republican party would fall in line behind Trump’s policies, even when they contradicted their own past positions. But the reality is not quite the way the Times portrays it. Let me take a couple of examples from the above two paragraphs. Here’s Mitch McConnell on December 12, being somewhat less than “oddly silent” on the infrastructure plan:
“I think the details are really important, but I hope what we clearly avoid — and I’m confident that we will — is a trillion dollar stimulus that will take you back to 2009,” McConnell said, arguing that the projects the 2009 stimulus produced few tangible results to sustain a long-term recovery.
“So we need to do this carefully and correctly and the issue of how to pay for it needs to be dealt with responsibly,” he added.
That doesn’t seem like odd silence to me. Then we have the claim that Republicans are “embracing Mr. Trump’s early governing by executive order.” The claim has a hyperlink to this New York Times article, which portrays Republicans as divided, not “embracing” Trump’s policies in toto. Here’s a quote from that previous article. Remember, the article containing this quote was linked by today’s to prove that Republicans are embracing Trump’s executive overreach:
But some Republicans are wary too. Even as they welcome the opportunities opened up by having an ally in the White House, some worry that the continued emphasis on executive actions is just another step in the dilution of legislative power.
“We need to go back to being the legislative branch,” said Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican opposed to a potential executive order by Mr. Trump that would end a special program allowing younger illegal immigrants to remain in the United States. “We didn’t like this when Obama was doing it, so why should we accept it now?”
Other Republicans were hoping the start of a new administration would allow a reset between the executive branch and a legislative branch that has seen its influence steadily erode as lawmakers surrender power and responsibility to the administrative side. Mr. Trump’s broad assertion of executive power could make any rebalancing difficult to achieve, though lawmakers say they intend to keep pushing.
“The imperial presidency was not created overnight and it will not be undone overnight,” said Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, who is leading an effort called the Article I Project to try to recapture some lost authority for the House and Senate.
Even the claims in the previous article that some Republicans were caving on executive power were unconvincing:
The health care executive order issued by Mr. Trump last week directed federal officials to find ways to minimize the financial burden of the health care law on governments, health care providers and others. Many saw the move as a backdoor attempt by the new White House to undermine the current law of the land while Republicans try to figure out a way to repeal it.
It was the reverse of the type of action Republicans criticized President Obama for — using his executive powers to prop up the health care law without sufficient authority. But there were no loud complaints from Republicans this time, a fact not lost on Democrats.
Nothing about Trump’s executive order was the “reverse” of Obama’s orders, but the reporter did not seem to understand this. To the extent the order could be interpreted as constitutionally objectionable, it would be because it could be read as providing authority to delay certain parts of the law — the very same thing Obama did, not the “reverse.” I have urged a “wait and see” attitude regarding those executive orders, because we don’t know exactly what they would do . . . and nobody is accusing me of being a Trumpkin.
I guess the author of today’s hit piece didn’t expect us to follow the link. She also doesn’t seem to understand that reversing unconstitutional executive orders is not an abuse of power:
Also notable is the Republicans’ acceptance of something they have despised: the use of the executive pen to make policy. Several House Republicans dismissed the notion that Mr. Trump would abuse his power to issue executive orders in the way they complained that Mr. Obama did during his second term.
“What you do by the pen can be dismantled by the pen,” said Representative Tom Reed of New York.
That’s a Republican rejecting something he despised, not accepting it. He’s saying that if Obama signed illegal executive orders with his pen, they can be undone by Trump’s pen. Is this really so hard to understand?
It’s not all garbage, of course. This shot hits the mark:
Speaker Paul D. Ryan, whose own website this week still praised the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, now applauds Mr. Trump for putting the final shovel of dirt over the accord, with the president saying he is interested in bilateral agreements instead.
There are other points, too, about attitudes towards Russia and torture, that have some basis in reality. But overall, the reality does not match the portrayal by the Times.
The notion that Republicans will twist themselves into pretzels to line up with Trump’s agenda is a real concern. But this article doesn’t prove it has happened to any significant degree.
Vigilance is good. Let’s make sure we are honest as we remain vigilant. This article does not meet that standard.
[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]
The New York Times is owned by a fake news mexican guy what likes to do the fake news all up in it.
I don’t take them seriously really.
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/27/2017 @ 9:55 amThis is also why Trump always throws the inner city some bones – even if NeverTrump – Management Dem and Progressive Dem united as 1, he could go LBJ (in a hopefully less $$$ manner).
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:00 amthe new york times is authentically fraudulent
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:03 amThe wall will save over $100 Billion dollars in social services spending on illegal aliens.
So now who’s being conservative?
Plate of crow waitiing.
papertiger (c8116c) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:07 amThe wall was a last resort. It’s very sad those mexican peenerheads made it come to this.
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:08 am“The wall will save over $100 Billion dollars in social services spending on illegal aliens.”
– papertiger
Do you have an actual link to support that, or just the fake one to the Dr. Evil picture?
Leviticus (efada1) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:10 amFor the Chicago bureau, Carl Winslow fainted at a press conference this morning, similar to Mark Dayton.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:14 ampeople from all over the world visit china to see their great wall
america should build one and grab some of those tourist dollars, too
after all, the grand canyon, niagara falls, and disneyland don’t appeal to everyone
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:16 amNaw. That’s just me blowing smoke.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer
The real figure is $160 Billion.
papertiger (c8116c) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:17 amDisney-Land is like a Six Flags now, although if you dont like obnoxious South American Lusophones in Central Florida…
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:22 amDisney Whirl is the happiest place on erf it’s magical and you get to see pooh bear
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:24 amI am not going along with the proposal to add a 20 percent tax to tequila and mezcal.
AZ Bob (f7a491) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:29 am“When you open your heart to patriotism there is no room for prejudice.”
or fake news from CNN where they use a picture taken three hours ahead of time to portray the President as unpopular.
We have a time stamp on your prejudice. There’s three hours of room in your heart. [jpg]
papertiger (c8116c) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:31 amPapertiger, you’re assuming the “Wall” will keep out anything more than a few illegal aliens.
A, ahem, huuuge assumption not warranted by the facts.
The only probable result of the “Wall” will be increased coyote fees.
Kishnevi (8c413d) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:41 amI didn’t read the entire NYT article. Does it end with “We’re talking to you, Senator McCain”? I think it is intended for the “mavericks” in the GOP who give a sh!t what the NYT writes about them.
nk (dbc370) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:42 am12, AZ BoB: I think the 20% punishes the people who did the right thing and stayed in Mexico and produce a product for export, while letting the wire transfer crowd off scot free (hmmm, has Mnuchin gotten the dogs off for Money Gram, AMEX, Western Union?). I would not mind something like an 11% on remittances plus 11% on imports. Whatever ratio/split of tax rate produces the target $ and acknowledges the remittance end of it.
14, Kishnevi — that would be one hell of argument between Lt. Dan and Forrest Gump – do they “diversify” their operation?
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:49 am“if you build it, they will stop coming”
i wonder if we can get kevin costner to say that
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:50 amsomeone should contact his agent
AZ Bob
Kishnevi (8c413d) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:51 amTequila is one of those things which has to come from a specific area, like bourbon and burgundy. But mezcal is a bit different
http://www.foodrepublic.com/2012/03/12/a-mezcal-grows-in-brooklyn-sort-of/
And tequila’s special status in US law is part of NAFTA. If Trump tanks that, you can imagine made in the US tequilas.
Kishnevi increased entry fees keeps corporations out of the oil refining business (see global warming policy 1988~present).
If it works for them….
papertiger (c8116c) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:51 amYou raise coyote fees to that sweet spot where it’s cheaper to keep er, then you got it on the whoop.
papertiger (c8116c) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:55 amSo abc edited the tape to eliminate tramp’s reference to the march to life.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:56 amI am not going along with the proposal to add a 20 percent tax to tequila and mezcal.
Lindsey Graham made the same point, but he regrettably also added that god-awful Corona beer to something we would allegedly miss. Everyone knows that Tecate is the choice Mexican lager beer and Corona is the garbage they sell to yuppies in Manhattan taquerias owned by people who attended culinary school in Paris.
JVW (6e49ce) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:57 amNow taxing modelo would be fighting words.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:59 amfacebook propaganda slut mark zuckerberg believes that walls are effective
that’s why he built one
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/People-are-furious-down-here-Hundreds-of-10887585.php
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/27/2017 @ 11:01 amIve seen cacti (Nopal) grow in Joliet IL, so anything is possible.
Not only is Corona pissy-tasting, it and anything else made by its parent brewery Modelo causes this gas expansion condition near my clavicles when combined with tacos. The DosEquis/Tecate conglomerate brews dont do this to me.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 1/27/2017 @ 11:02 amCorona is what the busboys at our neighborhood Italian restaurant get drunk on in the parking lot at midnight after work. A six-pack each.
nk (dbc370) — 1/27/2017 @ 11:03 amBecause of my colitis,I can’t drink beer.:-(
So the whole Corona debate goes right by me.
Meanwhile,
Kishnevi (8c413d) — 1/27/2017 @ 11:08 amhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/26/border-patrol-chief-out-day-after-trump-border-fence-decree.html
The conventional wisdom in the Republican Party has always been that winning requires cutting the baby in half. That’s the whole point of “Compassionate Conservatism.” Now that Trump has demonstrated that we can win using unapologetic populist conservatism, the party’s center of gravity has shifted. There is every reason to expect the milquetoasts in the GOP caucus to shift along with it. That’s who they are. I don’t see it as a bad thing.
What’s the upside to elected Republicans standing their Compassionate Conservative ground anyway? One may not like Trump, but Paul Ryan and his GOPe cohorts are not a superior alternative. If nothing else, the election was a plebiscite on RINOs. With Jeb! at 5%, it’s fair to say that nobody wants them. I sure don’t.
ThOR (c9324e) — 1/27/2017 @ 11:10 amI’m actually OK with Modello Especial, though it is not nearly as tasty as Tecate. Pacifico is also a very solid Mexican beer, and Negra Modello is good on certain occasions. I’m not as big a fan of Dos XX as I used to be, but the Amber can be good if you find it on draft and don’t have to drink it from the bottle. Carta Blanca it seems to me used to taste better, but it’s become kind of bland. Maybe that’s just me. Mexico is now apparently starting to get into the microbrewery scene, so it will be interesting to see if any innovative breweries come out of it.
JVW (6e49ce) — 1/27/2017 @ 11:13 amMost of the Cacique, El Supremo, Herdez, Goya grocery shelf CPGs are made here, could that not happen with regard to brews?
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 1/27/2017 @ 11:16 am@12 AZ Bob
That’s when Tio Jose adds a NOS to his ’73 Pinto and makes a run for la Frontera. Mexican NASCAR is born.
We used to spend a lot of time in the Phoenix, Scottsdale and Carefree area. My dad said he saw a yellow Chevy pickup. On the tailgate it was spelled “Jello Cheby Peekup”.
Pinandpuller (d741c9) — 1/27/2017 @ 11:20 amNow this is disturbing:
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 1/27/2017 @ 11:26 amhttp://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/why-a-georgia-gas-station-stopped-selling-sam-adams-beer-before-super-bowl-51/
Waterboarding, not used indiscriminately is a valuable tool,
narciso (d1f714) — 1/27/2017 @ 11:37 amI recently developed a taste for a certain smokey mezcal. It has some qualities similar to scotch but mixes much better in fresh-squeezed lime.
AZ Bob (f7a491) — 1/27/2017 @ 11:41 amBow Andrew Mccarthy puts the interrogation memo in perspective,
narciso (d1f714) — 1/27/2017 @ 11:48 amIf I may, some words this Friday, January 27th about another Friday, January 27th.
The Fire.
That’s all you have to say to anybody familiar with America’s space program. They know the rest. And if alive at the time, likely remember where they were and what they were doing when they got the word. The date, January 27, 1967. The place, Cape Canaveral’s launch complex 34. The time, 6:31 PM, EST. The astronauts lost: Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee– the crew of Apollo 1.
Today marks half a century since they were killed in that flash fire inside their command module, testing systems to be used only weeks later in what was planned to be the first flight of America’s three-man Apollo spacecraft. The nation was stunned and the accident brought America’s $24 billion moon program to a dead stop. And the chances of reaching the moon by 1970 appeared bleak that cold, winter evening.
Space enthusiasts still wince recalling it. I was eating dinner with my family when the phone rang; a classmate called to pass the word. He choked up. I did as well. Sounds a little hokey today. But the space race was very much a part of the lives of America’s youngsters back then and loomed large in the schools, the pop-culture and the hobbies we pursued in that era.
The initial TV bulletins were curt and cryptic. By late evening, the network news specials aired, some of which can be found on YouTube today. It still stings to view them; the discomfort evident in the faces of the reporters. In the immediate aftermath, the crew was memorialized across the country. Grissom, one of the ‘Original Seven’ Mercury astronauts, and Air Force space rookie Chaffee, were interred at Arlington. White, America’s first spacewalker, was buried at West Point. A board of inquiry was established and the scorched spacecraft itself was carted off and dismantled, bolt by bolt.
Months of Congressional testimony followed as investigators sought to determine what happened and why. A massive report was written uncovering design flaws and shoddy workmanship. The crew had suffered burns but died of asphyxiation. The hatch was complicated, opened inward and pressure made it impossible to open fast. The fire itself was likely caused by a spark from frayed wiring and fueled by the pure oxygen of the single gas system used in the spacecraft to breathe and flammable items in the cabin. It was ‘go fever’ — a disaster waiting to happen.
The rest is history. A redesigned hatch that opened outward was installed; a safer, two gas system using oxygen and nitrogen to breathe was added and wiring bundles, along with other components, were enhanced and fireproofed. So by October, 1968, Apollo 7 orbited Earth; at Christmas, Apollo 8 reached lunar orbit and by July, 1969, Apollo 11 placed Americans on the moon. But ask any of the technicians, engineers and managers at NASA and their contractors at the time, and they will tell you that without the Apollo 1 fire, the United States would likely have not succeeded in reaching the moon before the end of the 1960’s.
Over the decades since, thousands of pages have been written and hours of film have been aired about an accident which began and ended in about 12 seconds. Most of the eyewitness descriptions have been brief, terse and as it turns out, accurate. In recent years the audio of the accident has become available on wikipedia and YouTube. Google ‘Apollo 1 audio’ to find it. It still grits the teeth to hear and elicits a feeling I’ve only experienced twice since that day- when Challenger and Columbia were lost.
Today the Apollo 1 spacecraft remains disassembled, locked in a government warehouse in Langley, Virginia. It is rarely seen by the public. Only this month, NASA announced plans to display Apollo 1’s ill-fated hatch alongside Challenger and Columbia artifacts. What remains of the Florida launch pad pedestal is now a cement memorial, with the words ‘Abandon In Place’ stenciled across it.
But the crew is remembered. And among the mementos left by Armstrong and Aldrin at Tranquility Base, is an Apollo 1 flight patch. For they knew they’d never have gotten there without the sacrifice of their colleagues, Grissom, White and Chaffee, fifty years ago this day.
Ad Astra, guys.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/27/2017 @ 12:04 pm17, that would be such a turn from McFarland USA….(although props to the City of Fresno whose Mayor announced that it isnt going sanctuary). Maybe John Hamm after a convo from fellow Cardinal-lander Jim Hoft.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 1/27/2017 @ 12:05 pmThere are a lot of signals coming from GOP leadership in Congress that they are not on board with some of Trump’s ideas. Yesterday 3 free traders in the Senate were critical of the suggestion of a tariff with Mexico to pay the expense of the border wall.
Since there are only 52 GOP senators, 3 defections — assuming united Dem opposition — means anything in the Senate dies.
Its going to be Pence’s job for 4 years to marry up Trump’s “wish list” with what the GOP in Congress is willing to go along with.
But, again, this is an aspect of Trump that makes many things “doable” — he’s about getting the deal done, even if that means making compromises along the way.
In “politics” this is seen as lacking principles or core values. In Trump’s world, its seen as getting the deal done rather than doing nothing.
I think we are going to see many examples in the months ahead of Trump staking out an extreme position vis-a-vis Congress, but its going to be his opening “bid” on those issues.
For it to work, however, the GOP leadership in the Congress is going to have to be a “willing partner”.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/27/2017 @ 12:10 pmNot at all. For it to work they need to learn The Art of the Deal.
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 1/27/2017 @ 12:23 pm@SWC:Yesterday 3 free traders in the Senate were critical of the suggestion of a tariff with Mexico to pay the expense of the border wall.
I can understand why they would be. Free traders don’t like tariffs. That being said, a tariff that is not intended to be protectionist, and is not portrayed as something that helps the domestic economy, is much less objectionable. It is being done for non-economic reasons, and so criticism of it should not be based on that it violates free-trade principles. You can be in favor of free trade and oppose, for example, the importation of human flesh for human consumption and not be in contradiction of your principles.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/27/2017 @ 12:25 pmAnd when reading the NYT now I can never get too far away from the former reporter’s story that, unlike when he was at the LAT, the editors at the NYT drive all the story ideas, set out the narrative they want to see in print, and then dispatch the reporters to dig out facts and get sources quoted in a way that supporters the pre-determined narrative.
The reporter — and I’ve looked for the article again but can’t find it online — previously worked for the LAT, and said the environment there was completely the opposite. Within their area of assignment, the reporters themselves determined what stories they wanted to chase, and kept the LAT editors informed of what they had.
This story seems to fit the description of the NYT MO perfectly. The editors developed a narrative for a story that conservatives in Congress were going to have to abandon years of conservative small government activism in order to support Trumps big government market interventions. They sent the reporters out looking for facts to fit that narrative. And as you point out, there examples are less than compelling.
This plays right into what Bannon said yesterday — and which was widely and wildly misreported — he said the Dem party in Congress is not the “opposition” (they are powerless basically), the dominant main stream media is the embedded opposition for any GOP administration. Its the same press that was the embedded cheering section for the Obama Admin. for 8 years.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/27/2017 @ 12:35 pmSo say we all DCSCA.
papertiger (c8116c) — 1/27/2017 @ 12:38 pmThere’s a tragic accident every 16-20 years, Apollo 1, challenger, Columbia,
narciso (d1f714) — 1/27/2017 @ 12:40 pmTouch Connors RIP.
Chuck Norris before there was a Chuck Norris.
Trump is like President Mannix.
harkin (afc7a6) — 1/27/2017 @ 1:12 pmThe federal government has far too much power, and too much of THAT is concentrated in the Executive. Folks like me have wanted to change this, so that no one has to fear that this incredible power be placed into “the wrong hands.”
HOWEVER…
If this is not possible, and if the federal government has metastasized into a monster beyond control and the people don’t seem to care, then TO HELL WITH IT, and let us have someone who is willing to hammer the crap out of it from the top down. And accept that all hammers are blunt.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/27/2017 @ 1:23 pmThat’s a Republican rejecting something he despised, not accepting it. He’s saying that if Obama signed illegal executive orders with his pen, they can be undone by Trump’s pen. Is this really so hard to understand?
Well, it requires 1) an understanding of what IS constitutional, 2) knowing the limits to executive power, and 3) a willingness to follow facts to their conclusion (rather than follow conclusions back to supporting facts).
So, yes, it can be hard for some.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/27/2017 @ 1:27 pmThe TPP, like most other “free trade” deals was just a collection of protections and advantages hammered out by multi-lateral special interests. For example, it including several pernicious global controls on the internet to protect the infinite copyright terms now in effect. How is this “free trade”?
These international agreement bodies are just more sausage factories and should not be given and special deference.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/27/2017 @ 1:31 pmFrom the article:It was the reverse of the type of action Republicans criticized President Obama for — using his executive powers to prop up the health care law without sufficient authority. But there were no loud complaints from Republicans this time, a fact not lost on Democrats.
I am convinced this is not being made in good faith.
If the objects of Trump’s executive orders are limited only to a) Obama’s executive orders, or b) regulations where Congress has delegated authority to the executive, then there IS “sufficient authority” and it is dishonest to claim otherwise.
The media position appears to be that if you believe Obama overreached with his orders, then there is “no backsies” and it is inconsistent to support Trump rescinding those orders by executive order.
But if Obama did in fact overreach, those executive orders were not valid. No one should have been following them in the first place. Yet the media says “no backsies”. It’s fallacious. If the original order was illegal, than how can the rescinding order be illegal?
Strictly speaking it might have no legal effect. But what it would do is clarify how the executive understands the law and plans to implement it, by repudiating an authority it should not have had, and it would remove from the departments the excuse that “hey we’re following Obama’s executive order because nobody has said it’s not legal and it’s the last thing we’ve had on the subject”.
Now if Trump were to issue orders that contradict Acts of Congress that were signed into law, or that establishes an authority that a law or the Constitution did not grant, then Trump himself is overreaching and should be opposed.
But the media is trying to have it both ways, arguing that there is “no backsies” on Obama’s overreach because rescinding Obama’s overreach is defined by them as an overreach, fallaciously.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/27/2017 @ 1:32 pm“Fewer typos than narciso”
–my new motto.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/27/2017 @ 1:33 pmThe wall will save over $100 Billion dollars in social services spending on illegal aliens.
If so, Mexico will automatically pay for it.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/27/2017 @ 1:34 pmYeah, apart from the 2 Patterico boards, Mike Connors isnt getting his requisite due. Did he have any purported beef with Gail Fisher (Mannix’ on-screen black secretary) – trying to think of a reason why no social media drink pouring.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 1/27/2017 @ 1:35 pmIf I may, some words this Friday, January 27th about another Friday, January 27th.
The irony about the Apollo 1 fire is that they died because the hatch could not be opened quickly. In 1961, Grissom had claimed that the explosive bolts on his Liberty Bell 7 hatch had “just blown” early, causing his unsecured capsule to take on water and sink. Few believed him. The Apollo 1 capsule did not have explosive bolts — the risk of inadvertent firing half-way to the moon seemed too great — it had an inward-opening hatch which could not be opened quickly in an emergency and could not be opened at all with full internal pressure. And so the three astronauts were trapped in the burning capsule.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/27/2017 @ 1:49 pmMr. Trump is the number one best president my whole life.
He’s also a lovely person.
God has truly blessed our little country, and i am humbled and astonished by His Grace.
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/27/2017 @ 1:49 pm#53 Mr happyfeet, what about that fellow who used to be married to Jane Wyman?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/27/2017 @ 2:08 pmJan 27 Apollo 1
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/27/2017 @ 2:19 pmJan 28 Challenger
Feb 1 Columbia
The biggest piece of DJT’s agendae is the immediate repeal of the ACA in its entirety. Countless GOPe congress critters ran with him on this. Now? A new Declaration of Independence, from DJT, behind closed doors in Philadelphia on the repeal per the WaPo which says it has tapes to that effect.
Could the NYT be more wrong?
Watch Pence, y’all.
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 1/27/2017 @ 2:19 pmMr. Trump is the number one best president my whole life.
I thought you were older than 8.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/27/2017 @ 2:20 pm“God has truly blessed our little country, and i am humbled and astonished by His Grace.”
Hallelujah, happy!
ThOR (c9324e) — 1/27/2017 @ 2:26 pmPence = Brutus? I thought he used up his Frank Lopez chance in October. He might not want to risk a 3rd potential travel mishap.
urbanleftbehind (3576eb) — 1/27/2017 @ 2:28 pmThe media has been opposed, on the basis of abuse of executive authority, to Trump’s use of executive orders rolling back Obama’s executive orders. Breathtaking.
John S. (fff469) — 1/27/2017 @ 2:31 pmOT — different Trump kefluffle of the week — the whole “vote fraud” debate.
And ODU professor has released a report today saying that based on wide sampling of polling from after the election, approximately 6.4% of the 20 million non-citizens in the US cast votes in the election. His analysis says about 81% of all non-citizen votes went to Clinton, so doing the math she received a net gain of 834,000 votes from ineligible voters — or roughly 30% of the popular vote margin she enjoyed.
Trump’s claims go beyond the single aspect of non-citizen voting — he talks about illegal voting which can included felons, dead people, multiple cast ballots, etc.
But his conclusions are a bucket of ice water on the head of all the GOP members of Congress who have come out to say there’s “no evidence” of widespread voter fraud.
To me this is simply maddening. You don’t know if there is “FRAUD” unless you examine the circumstances under which non-citizens are able to access the ballot, and then look into whether or not they did.
For example, we now have multiple states that issue driver’s licenses to non-citizens. In states where only a state ID is needed to register to vote, what is the control mechanism that prevents a non-citizen from registering with their valid driver’s license or other state-issued and acceptable ID?
But, beyond “validly” issued IDs, what about fake IDs?
About 15 years ago I prosecuted a document forgery group operating at various places in Calif. I learned that for $50, you could get a Calif. DL and SS Card in the same name at any California swap meet. You pay the $50, have your picture taken, and then come back 30 minutes later to pick up your documents. Only with careful inspection, knowing what to look for, was it easy to spot them as fakes.
So don’t tell me that people not eligible to vote in California didn’t do so. I’m 100% confident they did so, and in large numbers, because the ruling political class in California has no incentive to stop them — in fact, just the opposite.
Rant over.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/27/2017 @ 3:35 pmDo you have a link for that ODU professor’s findings, shipwreckedcrew? I’d be interested to see them.
Leviticus (70ca80) — 1/27/2017 @ 3:39 pmThe Washington times, had the piece.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/27/2017 @ 3:42 pm“Like so much on this issue, this posting has taken on something of a life of its own, and I want to emphasize and clarify some points that seem to be generating confusion as echo chambers pick this up and re-post it.
This post is not intended to make a specific claim on my part concerning how many non-citizens voted in 2016. It has a much narrower aim. My goal was to show that an extrapolation from my coauthored work on the 2008 election to the 2016 election did not support the arguments some seemed to be making that the entire popular vote margin for Clinton was due to illegal votes by non-citizens. In this post I do my own calculation of that extrapolation for the purpose of demonstrating that this extrapolation would not support that claim.
There are a number of reasons why one should be cautious about extrapolating from the 2008 CCES data to 2016.
Many things can and have changed over the course of eight years. For example, a number of states have made efforts to use matching of records to remove non-citizen registrants from voter rolls. For example, on this blog I have recently highlighted data from Virginia and North Carolina concerning such matching efforts. These non-citizens are no longer on voter rolls. There are other states that have been even more aggressive about the issue of attempting to verify that registered voters are citizens. Furthermore, although the evidence from our 2014 paper suggests that it is only partially effective, many states have moved to adopt tighter identification requirements.
The 2008 estimate is inherently uncertain. It depends upon a number of assumptions including assumptions about the validity of the survey data. Our critics have made a variety of arguments and I encourage readers to evaluate those arguments along with our responses to them. The underlying study on which the extrapolation is based has been the subject of some cogent criticisms, and this leads me to believe that the actual rate of non-citizen involvement is on the low end of our initial estimates rather than anywhere close to the high end.
In the absence of other data, arguably an extrapolation from the earlier (2008) numbers is the best one can do. But one should recognize that this is an extrapolation fraught with a great deal of uncertainty.”
– Jesse Richman, author of the report that everyone’s misusing
Here’s the link, by the way. You know, so people can actually see the source material?
But by all means, keep arguing that Prof. Richman’s extrapolations from inherently uncertain 2008 estimates that don’t account for subsequent mitigating measures and still show Trump in the hole by something like 1.5 million votes are somehow a validation of the moronic rantings of people like Jim Hoft.
Leviticus (70ca80) — 1/27/2017 @ 4:12 pmYou people are shameless.
Leviticus (70ca80) — 1/27/2017 @ 4:13 pmWhere did I say that the professor’s work validated Trump’s claim?
But you have misstated Trump’s claim.
“Illegal votes” isn’t the equivalent of “illegal voters”.
The ODU Prof. work looks at one aspect of voting by persons ineligible to vote.
There are many other avenues by which the ballot is accessed in a way that leads to an illegally cast ballot, and those other ways are not within the scope of the Professor’s analysis.
And since the issuance of valid state IDs to non-citizens — and “Motor Voter” registration laws in many of the vary motor vehicle licensing bureaus where those IDs are issued — is a new development, his analysis wouldn’t necessarily include efforts — and there level of success — in screening out ineligible voters from eligible voters when each presents the same form of ID to register.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/27/2017 @ 4:32 pmSo long as Democrats oppose strict voter ID laws they are aiding and abetting election fraud.
ropelight (59f18e) — 1/27/2017 @ 4:35 pmhttp://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mike-connors-dead-star-mannix-was-91-969213
it says Mike Connors was the highest paid TV series actor of his time, commanding $40,000 an episode.
Also it says “Mannix” was the last tv series produced by DesiLu, and that Connors has sued CBS for millions of dollars in unpaid royalties – I’m guessing for reruns but it’s not specified.
Feature this. A long dead tv series, created and written by long dead writers, directers, and a long dead production company, finally the dead big name star.
A star who felt chiseled out of his just due up until his dying breath.
Is it fair that CBS, an immortal monopoly born with the kiss of government on it’s cheek, should have controlling rights over this product that it had no hand in the creation of from this time into perpetuity?
papertiger (c8116c) — 1/27/2017 @ 4:39 pmWhen if ever should Mannix take it’s rightful place as Americana heritage in the public domain?
“And ODU professor has released a report today saying that based on wide sampling of polling from after the election, approximately 6.4% of the 20 million non-citizens in the US cast votes in the election.”
– shipwreckedcrew
You don’t think it’s important to note that “the election” at issue there is the 2008 election, not the 2016 election?
Leviticus (70ca80) — 1/27/2017 @ 4:40 pmThe only reason Democrats oppose voter ID is because they know it will affect their vote tallies.
A person has to show photo ID to open a bank account, rent a car, rent a hotel room, board an airplane, or get a library card.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/27/2017 @ 4:46 pmBut for some reason, we never hear the civil rights industrial complex impugning Bank of America, Enterprise-Rent-A-Car, Marriott, Delta Airlines, or the local library for being so damn raaaacist toward people of color and poor people.
Wasn’t the aggregate vote for GOP Congresscritters bigger than Trump’s, too? How many illegals voted for them, do you think?
nk (dbc370) — 1/27/2017 @ 4:49 pmLook! Trump said it first! This f***ing election was rigged! The results cannot be trusted and we need to take action to elect a legitimate President! Lebenty!1!!
nk (dbc370) — 1/27/2017 @ 4:52 pmOooh, here’s another one from Professor Richman titled “I do not support the Washington Times piece,” which he says is “deceptive.”
So is the Times piece “fake news,” or a set of “alternative facts”? It’s hard to keep it straight.
Leviticus (70ca80) — 1/27/2017 @ 4:58 pm69 — I think its important that you pointed that out. I read the newspaper article, I did not go to the source material.
But i didn’t say the Prof. analysis validated Trump’s claim that he would have won the popular vote. I said specifically that the professor’s analysis suggested that 30% of the popular vote margin enjoyed by Clinton was the result of ineligible voters casting ballots.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/27/2017 @ 5:00 pmAnd the Prof. in his “objection” “doth protest too much.”
From the WaTimes article:
“Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes,” Mr. Richman wrote. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.”
Seems to me that the WaTimes included the vary caveat that he would want — that his analysis does not support the view that Trump would have won the popular vote if ineligible voter ballots were excluded.
The WaTimes didn’t say that, and I didn’t say that.
The point the WaTimes is making is that based on the Prof. work, anyone who says there isn’t any voter fraud involving ballots being cast by ineligible non-citizens has their head in the sand.
How many and to what effect are separate questions.
But Clinton won Nevada by 27,000 votes out of 1.1 million cast. She won NM by 70,000 out of 750,000 cast.
Should we look at the gross increases in hispanic voter totals in California over the last 4 election cycles, and compare them to the widening victory totals for Democrats? Is there any doubt that a huge percentage of non-citizen ballots are cast in California?
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/27/2017 @ 5:09 pmHow much (additional?) fraud would have been necessary in Florida to elect Gore? 537 vote plurality out of over 5.9 million votes cast. So long as this is a FACT, quibbling over the actual degree of fraud is itself, a fraud.
John Fund documented widespread, systemic, and significant fraud and wrote a book about it. If a small fraction – very small – of what he wrote is true today, the electorate are INSANE to not demand a thorough investigation.
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 1/27/2017 @ 5:17 pmSo long as Democrats oppose strict voter ID laws they are aiding and abetting election fraud.
So long as any politician does nothing about absentee ballot fraud, they are aiding and abetting election fraud.
In fact, absentee ballot fraud is much easier to do and apparently more common than the sort of fraud targeted by ID laws. (Among other things, fraudulent registration does not automatically equate to a fraudulent vote but a fraudulent absentee ballot by definition is a fraudulent vote.) But the only anti-vote fraud law I recall in recent years which addressed absentee ballot fraud was Wisconsin under Scott Walker. (I will be happy to be corrected on this point.)
There is also the sort of philosophical point being adopted by proponents of strict ID laws: that votes by ineligible voters are a greater danger than not allowing eligible voters to vote solely because of a lack of documents.
Kishnevi (1f8073) — 1/27/2017 @ 5:21 pm75
Is there any doubt that a lot of Hispanic immigrants became citizens and voted for the Democrats because the media, both Spanish and English, made them think the GOP is anti-immigrant?
76
Kishnevi (1f8073) — 1/27/2017 @ 5:29 pmFlorida demographics being what they are, votes by ineligible felons undoubtedly were more important than votes by non-citizens.
Congressman Ami Bera won re election by like 12~15 votes. Something like that anyway. Why quibble?
papertiger (c8116c) — 1/27/2017 @ 5:35 pmIf this is true, if we assume a significant plurality of 864,000 noncitizen votes were in CA and NV/NM, this also was the margin over Sanders (365,000 or so C over S in CA) in the primary (if they had been deployed then).
urbanleftbehind (847a06) — 1/27/2017 @ 5:40 pmThat’s entirely possible I’m rancho in hillsborough has been a strong opponent of voter id
narciso (d1f714) — 1/27/2017 @ 5:48 pmEvery fraudulent vote cancels out a legitimate vote negating the legitimate voter’s right to participate in self government – which is the bedrock of our republic. Fraudulent voting is a cancer on the body politic and should be among the top priorities of the Department of Justice.
ropelight (59f18e) — 1/27/2017 @ 6:45 pmI think more felons voted for Trump than voted for Clinton. Or for Cruz. In the 41 states where it is legal for them to vote but not possess firearms. Second Amendment!
nk (dbc370) — 1/27/2017 @ 7:03 pmRight the candidate with the police union’s endorsement, you’re reed Richards here.
narciso (162b2f) — 1/27/2017 @ 7:08 pmFlorida is one of those states where felons can not vote, unless their rights are restored on an individual basis by the governor. Hence lots of felons who aren’t supposed to vote but might well have voted. And given Florida demographics, one can assume such votes went mainly to the Democratic candidate.
Kishnevi (1f8073) — 1/27/2017 @ 7:10 pm.Every fraudulent vote cancels out a legitimate vote negating the legitimate voter’s right to participate in self government – which is the bedrock of our republic. Fraudulent voting is a cancer on the body politic and should be among the top priorities of the Department of Justice
It does do indirectly. Not allowing a legitimate voter a vote because of lack of ID does so directly.
It’s a philosophical point, so you are not “wrong”. But I do think people who hold to your opinion should realize the import of what they are saying.
Kishnevi (1f8073) — 1/27/2017 @ 7:17 pmPeople need Id for another transactioms, one has to consider an ulterior motive.
narciso (162b2f) — 1/27/2017 @ 7:24 pm86 Kishinvi:
Your second example is nothing more than a citizen’s failure to do the bare minimum required of him/her by the government to safeguard the regularity of the voting process.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t mention anything about needing a license to carry a gun — “bear arms” — but there’s never many tears shed on the “burden” imposed on that Constitutional Right.
The first example is the ILLEGAL canceling out of a legitimately cast ballot.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/27/2017 @ 7:54 pmSWC
You underestimate what is required to obtain those documents.
For the last three years of her life, I preferred the use of an expired DL for my mother to the necessities needed to obtain an up to date ID (including getting a fresh official copy of her birth certificate from out of state and having her sit for who knows how long at the DMV) because the Fedgov demanded Florida make sure she was not a potential terrorist.
She was at that point in the middle to late stages of Alzheimer’s, so voting in person was a moot question by then. The expired ID btw was enough for all other purposes.
Tangential: I could have gotten and cast an absentee ballot for her, but did the honorable thing and refrained. It does raise the question of caretakers in that situation who choose otherwise (see my reference to absentee ballots earlier).
Tangential 2:. Broward County deleted her from the voter rolls rather efficiently once she died.
Kishnevi (1f8073) — 1/27/2017 @ 8:17 pmTutsi o. Tucker points out what we already suspected, mind you the ssnp and hezbollah aren’t moderate either.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/27/2017 @ 8:27 pmAnd Paul teller, will be heading up congressionalmliasin
narciso (d1f714) — 1/27/2017 @ 8:30 pm“And the second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark — the name of the beast or the number of its name.”
What you guys consider normal and usual ID requirements are a relatively recent thing, the last twenty years if that, and in my opinion not a good thing.
I’m particularly pissed off because while renewing my Illinois Forearm Owners Identification, which I need to buy or possess firearms or ammunition including blackpowder and antiques, I noticed that the first three digits of the number were 666. That’s just rubbing it in.
nk (dbc370) — 1/27/2017 @ 8:30 pmWell that’s chinatown Nk, Shirley they mean well.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/27/2017 @ 8:33 pm*Firearm*. Forearms, whether the one your hand is attached to or “the shoulder thing that goes up”, are not covered by the FOID law.
nk (dbc370) — 1/27/2017 @ 8:43 pmYes that’s probably illegal in the abyss as jack London noted more than a hundred yeafs ago.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/27/2017 @ 8:48 pm@kishnevi:You underestimate what is required to obtain those documents.
For the last three years of her life, I preferred the use of an expired DL for my mother to the necessities needed to obtain an up to date ID (including getting a fresh official copy of her birth certificate from out of state and having her sit for who knows how long at the DMV) because the Fedgov demanded Florida make sure she was not a potential terrorist.
State-dependent. My state makes it easy to order a legal copy of my birth certificate–and I once renewed my driver’s license over the phone from out of state, and they faxed me an extension document so I could board a plane.
If a state takes the trouble to verify voters’ IDs then the flip side is it has a responsibility to make it easy to obtain the documents. Most opponents of trueing the vote are not willing to make the trade.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/27/2017 @ 10:15 pm#29 -”
JVW (6e49ce) — 1/27/2017 @ 11:13 am”
Those mexican beers may be slightly better than the US mass production beers (michelob, coors, bud) but they are pathetic in comparison to the vast majority of US craft beers,
Joe - A leading beer snob (debac0) — 1/28/2017 @ 6:54 amDon’t know how many read Kim Strassel’s column in yesterday’s WSJ about POTENTIAL to undo almost entirety of regulatory state created by Obama after 2010.
Remember, he crammed through Obamacare at end of 2010 once he knew Dems had gotten crushed in midterms, had lost the House majority in the election, and the Senate had gone to the GOP when Kennedy died and the GOP won the seat in a special election.
Because the Dems never had the Congress after that, everything that Obama built his legacy on was done on the regulatory side.
A law called the Congressional Review Act provides for Congressional review of agency regulations. Its been widely reported that the Rule was going to be used to wipe out the rush of agency rules and regulations passed during the last 60 days of the Obama Admin, because it provides that new rules and regulations don’t become effective until 60 days after they appear in the Federal Register, so by majority vote of each house of Congress — both controlled by the GOP — all regulations within the past 60 days can be easily wiped out.
But, as Strassel’s column — based on her interview with a key Cong. staffer who worked for the Committee that passed the CRA in 1996 — there is another provision of the Act that is being widely overlooked, and which may provide a vehicle to pretty much undo a huge amount of the regulatory framework put in place by the Obama Admin since 2010.
Here is the section at issue, from 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801 (edited for clarity0:
There are reports that various Admin. agencies during the Obama Admin basically ignored the “report” filing requirement of the law, and simply went about rule-making in the typical “notice and commentary” fashion with publication in the Federal Register. That’s the way Administrative Procedures for promulgating regulations have developed over decades, as more and more governmental involvement in the economy and elsewhere has been done by regulation rather than legislation.
So, anywhere Congress finds that regulations put in place by the Obama Admin. were not supported by the filing of the necessary “Report” with Congress as outlined in the statute, those Regulations are not yet deemed to have taken effect, and are still subject to the 60 day period within which Congress may repeal them by majority vote of both Houses since the 60 day period doesn’t start until the LATTER date of 1) filing the report, or 2) publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
The Kicker to all this is the same rule or regulation that is repealed in this fashion CANNOT be resurrected by rule making in a later Administration. For any rule or regulation rejected by Congress, the only way it can be restored is by legislation originating in Congress.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/28/2017 @ 9:37 amtrashy-ass low-class secret service thug Kerry O’Grady is getting her some taxpayer-funded funemployment
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/28/2017 @ 9:49 amshipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/28/2017 @ 9:37 am
It is a damning indictment on some of our commenters that you MUST capitalize some words, SWC, I’m feelin’ ya.
felipe (023cc9) — 1/28/2017 @ 10:48 amshipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/28/2017 @ 9:37 am
This is how congress takes back their “balls.”
felipe (023cc9) — 1/28/2017 @ 10:51 amfelipe — that’s exactly what it was designed for.
Clinton wins Pres. in 1992.
But GOP takes over House for first time in 40 years in 1994. They also won back the Senate, so GOP controlled both Houses of Congress.
So, the Clinton Admin, just like the Obama Admin., resorted to implementation of the Clinton agenda through regulatory rule-making by the federal agencies.
When the full implications of that became understood — basically the Admin could make rules and regulations with the force of law, all without Congressional approval, and much of which flew in the face of Congressional majority opposition, they created the 1996 Congressional Review Act, which Clinton really had no choice politically but to sign, because he was up for re-election.
Its only really been put into use to invalidate the “midnight rule-making” that took place in the change over of the Pres. from one party to the other — Clinton to Bush; Bush to Obama; and now Obama to Trump. So the provision that has now been raised has never really been employed before, but its right there in the text of the statute, and one of the architects of the statute in 1996 says the provision means exactly what it says.
Congress has 60 days to reject the rule by majority vote. If a report with the required info is not submitted to Congress by the Agency as required by the Act, the 60 day period does not start to run.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/28/2017 @ 11:19 am