Justin Amash’s Response to the SOTU
The essential error of the Obama presidency is an unfounded belief that greater government power—in our pocketbooks, in our private lives—will make America more prosperous and free. President Obama’s faith in concentrated power was on full display in tonight’s State of the Union address.
Working families feel squeezed by higher health care costs and tuition bills. Those fortunate enough to hold steady jobs haven’t seen a raise in years. They worry about their children’s future and their country’s.
The president seems to have only one answer for them: enlarge the size and scope of the federal government. To help middle-class Americans, the president demands more than $300 billion of tax hikes and a new round of stimulus spending. To rein in education costs, the president creates a federal education entitlement, the type of which led to skyrocketing tuition in the first place. To fix our health care system, the president touts the same law that has caused prices to rise and stripped families of access to their doctors. To make the financial system more stable, the president threatens to veto reforms to Dodd-Frank, his law that made banks bigger than ever. And to protect Americans’ privacy, he offers yet another report instead of reining in his own spies.
Higher federal taxes, more federal spending, and greater federal control of our lives haven’t worked over the past six years. Our country is beginning to turn the corner not because of government but in spite of it. Instead of faith in Washington, let’s put faith in Americans to determine their own lives. Let’s give liberty a chance.
Here’s what I want from a GOP Presidential nominee: the ability to imagine them delivering that message consistently, and meaning it.
That scratches Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Huckster off the list.
To me, it puts Ted Cruz squarely at the top of the list.
I understand he may be serious about running. Please, let it be true.
Well said, Rep. Amash.
I have high hopes for this Justin Amash fellow. He’s young yet, but he could really make a mark.
Patterico (9c670f) — 1/21/2015 @ 7:37 amFor now, Congress has to lead. Vote down his budget next week. Declare his agenda dead and move on.
Find things that are popular enough that every veto diminishes Obama. Repeal the medical device tax. Approve Keystone. Repeal the insurance mandate. Enjoin spending on legalizing illegals. Stop releases from Gitmo. Build the rest of the wall.
After a while, Obama’s vetoes will grate on the public, so long as the Congress does not overreach. Deprive him of a place to stand. Then, when he is weak, there will be some successful overrides, even in the House.
Treat him as the powerless lane duck that he is.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/21/2015 @ 7:52 amI have some hopes for Joni Ernst but she needs time, just as Amish does. Walker and Jindal are promising although Jindal just got ambushed by the lefty media in England. He has to be agile as they will go after him as though he were a black conservative and after Ernst because she is female.
Cruz is a bomb thrower and a one term Senator. Rand Paul is another one-term Senator and has unpleasant echoes of his father.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 1/21/2015 @ 7:53 am“Build the rest of the wall.”
The present bill in Congress proposes 72 miles of fence suggesting they are not serious. They had better figure it out fast.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 1/21/2015 @ 7:54 amTo me, it puts Ted Cruz squarely at the top of the list.
I’m so desperate that anything or anyone that’s not a liberal/leftist like Obama will be acceptable. I say that partly in jest, of course, since squishes can drive me up the wall in certain ways that make them even worse than flat-out “progressives.” But ideology doesn’t exist in a vacuum, which is why the purely non-political, purely social aspects of a candidate have to enter the equation.
Cruz is philosophically easily better compared with a squish-squish like (bleech) Christie, but his weak point is based on the purely superficial aspects of such a politician. IOW, he has a face reminiscent of a cronish old uncle, which may scare off the large number of squish-squish voters throughout America. Simply put, I don’t have much faith in the average person in the US entering the election booth, who, after all, put “Goddamn America” into the White House. If they can be as foolish as that, they can be foolish in even more astonishing ways. So I can easily see them musing about Cruz and saying “he looks crabby and cheap and doesn’t sport enough good-looking compassion to win me over.”
Mark (c160ec) — 1/21/2015 @ 7:56 amA foreign-born half-American first term minority Senator good at demagoguery? Haven’t we already tried that?
nk (dbc370) — 1/21/2015 @ 8:04 amRe Jindal…the information I get is from a fervent Demicrat, so obviously biased…but apparently there are reasons to question his competence at managing..IOW, he may be serioysly flawed in the one area that makes governors preferable to legislators as candidates for POTUS.
kishnevi (a5d1b9) — 1/21/2015 @ 8:18 amIn a nation that came within a whisker of electing Al Gore in the backwash of Bubba Clinton, and then Vapid John Kerry, and then elected Barack Hussein Obama to two terms (as he reminded us last night) Sen. Cruz is unelectable to the office of President so its not much use getting a school-girl crush on him no matter how cool he is.
Mark Johnson (77a382) — 1/21/2015 @ 8:20 amI have no idea where we will be in November 2016. If you asked me in 2007 if a hard left activist with almost no experience could be elected President over a centrist Republican, I would have thought you crazy. It’s really not supposed to work like that. And yet…
Would I like to see a President Cruz with a solid GOP majority in Congress? Yes, I think so, but I worry that the changes he would make would be rushed and painful to many. They would end up as unsustainable as Obama’s will turn out to be, and engender the same kind of reversals. I also don’t think things are bad enough that he can be elected (the 2008 October surprise of a market crash was unusual, to say the least). Time will tell.
I will settle for a competent, steely-eyed center-right president with a strong GOP majority in Congress. Someone who spends four years slowly diminishing the domestic government, carefully closing several departments with sustainable change that doesn’t scare the public spitless. A Romney with balls.
I understand the urgency of Cruz’ partisans, but I put a higher value on stopping the digging and not giving them back shovels any time soon.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/21/2015 @ 8:35 amapparently there are reasons to question his competence at managing
I would like to know more about Jindal, too. He seems to have done well with school vouchers. He seems to be at war with Obama and Holder on that matter.
Jindal blasted the DOJ’s letterbecause the central component of the lawsuit still stands: DOJ is still aiming to keep the program from granting vouchers next school year unless a federal court first approves parents’ decisions about where they want to send their children to school.
“The Obama Administration’s latest maneuver is nothing more than a PR stunt,” Jindal said in a statement. “While attempting to rebrand its legal challenge as merely an attempt to seek information about implementation of the scholarship program, the administration’s real motive still stands — forcing parents to go to federal court to seek approval for where they want to send their children to school.”
Politico and your Democrat friend obviously don’t like him.
Jindal’s bold policy proposals in Louisiana come at the same time he’s raising his profile nationally, both through his new post as head of the Republican Governors Association and his frequent commentary on the future of the Republican Party. He turned heads last month when he warned the GOP needs to “stop being the stupid party.”
After first getting elected in 2007, Jindal kept his policy agenda relatively tame: His hallmark first-term accomplishments were an ethics reform package and a workforce development program. Both were big parts of his campaign platform and enjoyed wide support in the Legislature.
This looks like the Democrats game plan to stop him rather than any serious criticism.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 1/21/2015 @ 9:10 amCruz needs to simmer in the slow cooker for at least another cycle if it looks like he’s getting dry though just dump a mexican coke on him
happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/21/2015 @ 9:13 amI thought that Jindal’s claim to fame was being an excellent manager who fixes whatever he is put in charge of, starting with some govt. health agency when he was 28 or so.
And then the knock on him was giving a bad speech when given the chance some years ago.
But, everything is subject to doubt until it survives a cross-exam by our host.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/21/2015 @ 9:22 amMy Dem friends tell me
Elizabeth Warren IS all that, and think she will make a better first woman president than Obama made as a first black president,
and they think he did a great job but was limited by obstructionist repubs,
and Scott Walker is the devil,
and supported only by knuckle dragging troglodytes…or worse
yes indeed, that is what I hear
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/21/2015 @ 9:27 amsorry about the italics miscue
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/21/2015 @ 9:27 amClinton was the first black President and Obama was the first woman President.
nk (dbc370) — 1/21/2015 @ 9:35 amEither Ted Cruz is running or I’m not voting.
CrustyB (69f730) — 1/21/2015 @ 9:49 amRepublicans need to act like Democrats in the media to take the focus off Obama’s meaningless SOTU. Otherwise, the more they talk about about it, the more coverage it gets and it causes them to respond more and take the focus off what a Republican Congress wants to do.
The tactic is easy, when an interviewer asks “Congressman what is your reaction to President Obama’s proposal on ____ that he made in the SOTU Tuesday”
The answer should be a pivot to what we want to talk about along the lines of “Well Bob, Chuck, etc., that’s an interesting question and you no doubt noticed once again this year that the president’s address contained a laundry list of non-specific ideas as in the past that are unlikely to move forward, while we think what is immediately important is to focus on putting this country back on track by………., which by the way was why voters overwhelming rejected this presidents agenda in November.
Boom. Done. Reject discussion of SOTU.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/21/2015 @ 9:58 amObama claims his policies are designed to help middle-class Americans – what a ridiculous hoot, it’s a demonstrably transparent and obviously absurd lie designed to conceal the destruction his policies have produced over the last 6 years, deflect opposition criticism, provide talking points for his enablers, and buy time by placating the somnolent naive who refuse to notice the hand of evil picking their pockets.
Understanding Obama’s deceptions means understanding the political dogmas of his communist background. He was raised by committed Leninists who subscribed to the doctrine that before the proletariat would rise up in open revolution, an elite professional cadre of revolutionary leaders would first have to engineer the suppression of the bourgeoisie (the middle class). If ordinary workers could aspire to the economic security and physical comforts enjoyed by the middle classes they would never develop the degree of working class consciousness necessary to unify and act decisively.
Pitting the working class against their rich bosses is an impossible task if the workers are earning satisfactory wages, can buy a home and a new car, see their children achieving social advancement, and have generous retirement programs that depend on stable economic and political futures.
Consequently, before professional communist revolutionaries like Obama and his ilk can engineer the second stage of the social upheaval they desperately seek the essential element, the sine qua non, is to squeeze the middle class into economic impotence and ultimately into political insignificance. The abject destruction and demoralization of America’s once strong, prosperous, and expanding middle class is an indispensable step on the road to revolution. The first steps included electing a community organizer to the presidency, controlling the colleges and universities, dominating the media, and directing the cultural agenda.
Ignore Obama’s words and consider the effects of his policies on America’s middle classes. He raises their taxes, regulates an end to their businesses, borrows money they’ll never be able to repay, obligates them for expensive government entitlement programs, uses the IRS to stifle grassroots opposition, blames everyone except the ones responsible for Islamic terrorism, and all the time claims he’s trying to help the American middle class. And, although he may be a little behind schedule, he’s succeeding because our elected leaders are too cowardly to call out a black man for fear of being called names.
ropelight (e65ab1) — 1/21/2015 @ 10:19 amre: #13… you need a better class of friends, MD. What a bunch of yahoos.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 1/21/2015 @ 10:23 amId rather have a bomb thrower than a lying smart-ass rino.
mg (31009b) — 1/21/2015 @ 10:24 amHave any of you Cruz bashers listen to him defend liberty and freedom? Team rino has talked about it, but has yet to do a gosh darn thing to remedy the problems. Cruz seems to give a #2. That matters to me.
mg (31009b) — 1/21/2015 @ 10:32 am“Have any of you Cruz bashers listen to him defend liberty and freedom?”
Talk is one thing that he and Obama do well. Govern ? I dunno about Cruz.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 1/21/2015 @ 10:39 amThis is a Democrat talking in response to Obama’s ridiculous claim that Iran’s nuclear program has been halted, on which Prom Queen touched last in in the SoTU:
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/01/21/menendez-obama-iran-rhetoric-sounds-straight-out-of-tehran/
Perhaps they are coming straight out of Iran. Reuters is reporting that the Yemeni President is expected to agree to Iranian-backed Shiite rebel terms within hours.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/01/21/uk-yemen-security-idUKKBN0KT1JP20150121
Last night I was wondering if a hostage crisis would break out during the SoTU as the Houthis were taking charge in Sanaa. But as all the commentators noted Obama was “defiant” and “calm.” It’s almost as if he (or, more likely, President Jarrett assured him) the embassy wouldn’t be touched.
I said on an earlier thread that Obama is acting exactly like Iran’s agent, not an American President. I’m increasingly convinced that’s what he is. That’s why he’s negotiating in such bad faith, from a US perspective. That’s why he threatened to veto any bill Congress sends him that would impose sanctions when negotiations fail by the deadline. Not if, when.
No wonder the Iranians have been saying with such confidence for the last few years that the US has , “not only have failed to gain any power, but also are forced to leave the region. They are leaving their reputation, image, and power behind in order to escape….The [American] government has no influence [to stop]….the expansion of Iran-Syria ties, Syria-Turkey ties, and Iran-Turkey ties–God willing, Iraq too will join the circle….”
It seems the Preezy (Valerie Jarrett, I mean) has decided to fundamentally transform the region, and cede it to the Iranians.
This is what he meant last night by, “The shadow of crisis has past.”
Steve57 (4ce020) — 1/21/2015 @ 11:02 amThe crisis being US presence and influence in the region.
Steve57 (4ce020) — 1/21/2015 @ 11:04 amMike K,
The only way Ted Cruz will be a one-term Senator is if he’s elected President.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2015 @ 11:08 amDRJ–I took Mike K’s comment to mean that if Cruz runs for president in 2016 he will still be in his first term as a U.S. senator like Obama was –not that Cruz would not be re-elected by Texans should he run for his senate seat again in 2018.
elissa (f3718e) — 1/21/2015 @ 11:14 amDRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2015 @ 11:08 am
Or Vice President, or named Attorney General, or appointed to some other job.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/21/2015 @ 11:15 amSpeaker Boehner has invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of congress. WH response is predictible and juvenile.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/boehner-invites-israels-netanyahu-to-address-congress?bftw&utm_term=4ldqpgc#.eqEJV2Yzbq
elissa (f3718e) — 1/21/2015 @ 11:25 amThat’s probably true, elissa, but I couldn’t resist.
By the way, Mike K, that bomb-thrower is now in charge of overseeing NASA and NOAA. He’s smart enough to actually hold their feet to the fire about NASA’s Muslim outreach program and NOAA’s climate change agenda.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2015 @ 11:26 amSenator Robert Menendez: “The more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran.”
Steve57: Perhaps they are coming straight out of Iran
They don’t make sense any other way.
Some of it must be exactly what the United States is being told by the Iranian negotiators. (or perhaps triple agent spies)
Or could it be foreign countries that may not really be on our side?
I don’t know. But somebody’s telling him this:
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/21/2015 @ 11:26 amPutin maybe?
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/21/2015 @ 11:27 amCorrection: Rubio has NOAA and Cruz has NASA, and how they handle their oversight will be interesting, don’t you think?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2015 @ 11:27 am“He’s smart enough to actually hold their feet to the fire about NASA’s Muslim outreach program”
DRJ – I have been truly amazed at the dividends that program has been generating. 🙂
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/21/2015 @ 11:32 amWhile everyone else discusses what should happen two years from now, I hope no one minds if I amuse myself by discussing what’s unfolding right now. Which are directly related to remarks in the SoTU.
http://www.jns.org/news-briefs/2015/1/20/obama-condemns-anti-semitism-and-terrorism-at-state-of-the-union-but-will-veto-iran-sanctions#.VL_6Tx1KSOI=
At the Senate Banking Committee even the Democrats, as I’ve mentioned, are taken aback by the administration’s representatives. They’re actually pressing the Congress to sit on their hands. Not that any bill that would impose sanctions would violate any agreements the US has with Iran. But the administration reps are arguing that the Iranians would perceive that they would violate those agreements.
Bob Menendez (D-NJ) can’t quite believe that the administration is telling Congress to put aside its own perceptions about security and instead adopt the Iranian position (video at the link):
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/01/what-bob-menendez-said.php
It’s mind boggling. Yesterday even Feinstein was saying the US should evacuate the embassy. At first I thought they didn’t because of the “optics.” It would look bad for Obama to take a victory lap at the SoTU while we were evacuating the embassy. But the situation was deteriorating so badly that even last night we’d be looking at another Blackhawk Down type scenaria, with the USN/USMC providing air cover as embassy personnel did the “Mogadishu mile,” running a gauntlet of Houthi rebels to try and get to the airport.
Now it looks to be different. Last weekend even the WaPo editorial board was wondering about the logic of a President wanting to go into negotiations with absolutely no leverage in the form of sanctions that would force the Iranians to actually make real concessions.
Now it looks like the Preezy not only didn’t want the US to have leverage, he wanted to give the Iranians leverage. Gift-wrapped hostages at the US embassy.
Benghazi II, only bigger.
Steve57 (4ce020) — 1/21/2015 @ 11:36 am@28, nteresting how the Israelis just killed an Iranian general just on the other side of the Israeli-Syrian border this weekend. Clearly the Iranians are trying to tighten the noose around Israel. Clearly the Iranians weren’t just sightseeing from the border.
Now the speaker has invited Netanyahu to speak without informing the WH first.
Meanwhile, in the Senate Banking Committed the WH is advancing the Iranian case and Bob Menendez, a Democrat, is pushing back and having none of it. And the WH ignored Diane Feinstein’s plea to evacuate the US embassy in Sanaa.
Strange days. Obama threw down the gauntlet in last night’s SoTU. It appears Congress picked it up. It appears Congress and the Preezy are going to have a showdown.
With the Congress backing Israel, and the WH backing Iran. And the Democrats may split with the Preezy over it.
Steve57 (4ce020) — 1/21/2015 @ 11:43 amWe finally have some bright, articulate Republicans who speak truth to power and they get labelled “bomb-throwers.” Sometimes I think the GOP, in the main, is suffering from some sort of political Stockholm Syndrome.
More Cruz, less cowbell, please.
ThOR (a52560) — 1/21/2015 @ 11:45 amMy senator sent this video about Iran and Obama in email this morning. It’s actually pretty well done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ncVKMnlfNQ
elissa (f3718e) — 1/21/2015 @ 11:45 amIt appears the Obama administration is more willing to fight tooth and nail against its own Congress to prevent sanctions against Iran than it is to fight on the international front to prevent sanctions against Israel if it doesn’t make a disastrous deal with the Palestinians.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/11/john-kerry-pretty-much-threatens-israel-to-concede-key-issues-to-palestinians/
I don’t want to get too far in front of the evidence, because I realize there are huge holes in what I have in front of me, but it really appears that Obama is ready and willing to betray US interests, influence, and our only real ally in the region (although SA will be none too happy with an Iranian proxy on its southern border while its contending with ISIS to the north, and the gulf states won’t be happy either). How many times, such as recently with Cuba, have we gotten the lecture from Prom Queen that the rest of us dumba$$es been doing it wrong for the past 50 or so years and he’s going to fix it?
It looks like he’s fixing it.
Obama calls this his fourth quarter. I said this was his Zelaya moment. But not even I expected this, if things really are as they appear.
But Menendez all but came out and accused the WH of acting on behalf of the Iranians, not on behalf of the US. Which has been pretty much the stink of it to me, too.
Steve57 (4ce020) — 1/21/2015 @ 12:02 pmit’s as if she was prescient,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCDxXJSucF4
Obama had his first campaign secured through fraud, and his Senate campaign was similar streamlined, he’s as much a knave as Lurch or Dean,
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/21/2015 @ 12:14 pmSo Boehner invited Netanyahu? How pleasantly surprising. Next Boehner should invite the widow of the late editor of Charlie Hebdo and his replacement. The Republicans now have hold of two vital bully pulpits. They should use them.
ThOR (a52560) — 1/21/2015 @ 12:16 pmI think there are going to be congressional showdowns with the president on a number of issues. And when many of them turn out to have some bi-partisan support, the old “Republican obstruction!!!!!!” mantra is going to look more and more lame. And his vetoes, if he actually has the gall to use them as threatened, are going to demonstrate ever more clearly who’s been “obstructing” and who’s trying to do the nation’s business.
elissa (f3718e) — 1/21/2015 @ 12:18 pmAP is reporting that the Yemeni President has reached a deal with the Houthi rebels.
http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/world-news/2015/01/21/questions-answers-on-yemen-as-agreement-reached-between-shiite-rebels-and-president/
Key point?
Hasn’t that been the goal of Obama’s entire foreign policy? To leave the US without reliable partners worldwide?
I’d say mission accomplished for President Rasputin Jarrett.
Steve57 (4ce020) — 1/21/2015 @ 12:28 pmRe:37, 41.
Via Hot Air
elissa (f3718e) — 1/21/2015 @ 12:29 pmelissa, the Preezy has been saying that such a bill and veto override is tantamount to an expression of war.
That, too, is a talking point straight out of Iran. It only makes sense if, like his reps before the Senate Banking Committee, he is advocating for the Iranian P.O.V.
I half expect that should the Houthi rebels take the US Embassy personnel that he has left in Sanaa (presumably for their shopping convenience) hostage, he’ll angrily blame Congress for the situation and present the Iranian demands.
Steve57 (4ce020) — 1/21/2015 @ 1:30 pmThis President has a Captain Queeg moment in him just waiting to get out, if only those on the right were willing to play hardball. After coming close in debate #1 with Romney, I was eager for debates 2 and 3 to see if the President would cross the line when Romney pushed. For some unknown reason, Romney never pushed again.
I knew kids like him on the playground. Lots of talk. Lots of bravado. All show and no go. In a society of delicate flowers, he’s the delicate-flower-in-chief. It’s time to do some pushing.
ThOR (a52560) — 1/21/2015 @ 1:36 pmYes he does, ThOR. And the best way to get him to crack up in public is to make fun of him. Show him zero respect, ignore him, treat him as completely irrelevant.
I think the Netanyahu invite was a good start. That gets the point of the dagger in.
Steve57 (4ce020) — 1/21/2015 @ 1:41 pmWhen I say ignore him, I don’t mean for purposes of mockery. Just ignore him and treat him as irrelevant for serious purposes.
Steve57 (4ce020) — 1/21/2015 @ 1:42 pmFor some unknown reason, Romney never pushed again.
It’s not unknown. His handlers decided to play it safe, thinking they had the election in the bag. IF Romney is seriously thinking of running again, that kind of packaged candidacy has got to go. He needs to come out swinging, or stay home.
Kevin M (56aae1) — 1/21/2015 @ 2:42 pmJust so you know guys,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/jim-inhofe-ted-cruz-and-marco-rubio-just-voted-to-say-climate-change-is-real-20150121
elissa (f3718e) — 1/21/2015 @ 3:07 pmEven I would vote for an amendment that says climate change is real.
I’m not about to dispute the fact the Bering land bridge once existed.
Steve57 (4ce020) — 1/21/2015 @ 3:18 pmComing up next, a law saying the sky is orange.
nk (dbc370) — 1/21/2015 @ 3:22 pm“The more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran…via ValJar’s desk!”
askeptic (efcf22) — 1/21/2015 @ 3:30 pmFTFY
Steve57 (4ce020) — 1/21/2015 @ 11:43 am
Where is it written that the Speaker has to clear all invitations to Capitol Hill through the White House?
askeptic (efcf22) — 1/21/2015 @ 3:33 pmSeparation of Power?
elissa (f3718e) — 1/21/2015 @ 3:07 pm
“Climate Change” aka Global Warming, has been real since the end of the Little Ice Age, that doesn’t mean that it is man=caused, and I think that is the position taken by Inhofe, Cruz, and Rubio – plus dozens of top climatologists who are labeled as “Deniers”.
askeptic (efcf22) — 1/21/2015 @ 3:37 pmNetanyahu isn’t just some guy off the street, askeptic. He’s the PM of Israel.
Apparently Boehner invited Netanyahu, and Netanyahu accepted, all the while keeping Obama out of the loop.
When a head of state visits another country, typically the head of state being visited would by the first official to know.
But Obama didn’t hear about until Boehner announced it. Booyah!
Steve57 (4ce020) — 1/21/2015 @ 3:39 pmA later XL pipeline amendment — “climate change is real and human activity contributes to climate change,” although a printed copy of the amendment shows that the word “significantly” was crossed out before it reached the Senate desk—did not pass.
elissa (f3718e) — 1/21/2015 @ 3:41 pmaskeptic you are addressing me as if I am Carlitos. I am not. I know my history. I think the 98-1 vote and Sheldon Whitehouse’s flub-up are hilarious.
elissa (f3718e) — 1/21/2015 @ 3:46 pmAccording to several reports I’ve seen the State Dept. knew about the Netanyahu, invite by Boehner. Sounds like if the White House has a beef about miscommunication it’s with their own Dept. of State–not Boehner. I’m loving this whole thing more and more!
elissa (f3718e) — 1/21/2015 @ 3:54 pmOh, and it looks like officer Darren Wilson had a pretty good day, too.
Justice Dept. to Recommend No Civil Rights Charges in Ferguson Shooting
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?_r=0
elissa (f3718e) — 1/21/2015 @ 4:04 pmOff-topic slightly (although maybe not to Alito):
Seven people stood up in today’s Supreme Court session to protest Citizen’s United. Then, according to CNN:
Did the President conspire with this group to criticize the SC?
Kevin M (56aae1) — 1/21/2015 @ 4:06 pmProps to Speaker Boehner and the GOP leadership for inviting Netanyahu, and especially for announcing it right around/after the SOTU speech so it took some of the shine off Obama.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2015 @ 4:08 pm==Did the President conspire with this group to criticize the SC?==
I’m sorry, Kevin M. that insinuation about our president is just a bridge too far for me……
elissa (f3718e) — 1/21/2015 @ 4:15 pm…………………………………………………………………………………….
……………Bwahahaha!
The only way Ted Cruz will be a one-term Senator is if he’s elected President.
My comment was that he has about as much experience as Obama had in 2008. I think he is a fine lawyer and has argued cases before the Supreme Court. That makes him a great AG or maybe a nominee to the USSC. President ? Not now.
I consider myself libertarian with the additional foreign policy concerns of moderate neocons. Rand Paul has pretty much ruled himself out for me with his crazy statements about Dick Cheney who I would have voted for for president in a second.
I was not a Bush fan and was much happier with Cheney as VP. Cruz would be a much better candidate after another term or a term as Texas governor. Jindal took that route and is one of my favorites along with Walker who needs seasoning.
I am not a fan of Senators as president, especially since the federal government has become such a monster.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 1/21/2015 @ 4:15 pm“Props to Speaker Boehner and the GOP leadership for inviting Netanyahu”
Agreed. One reason why Bibi is so hated by Obama is that he has known Romney for years and endorsed him in 2012.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 1/21/2015 @ 4:16 pmSteve57 (4ce020) — 1/21/2015 @ 3:39 pm
Remember, it is the Speaker who invites the President to address joint-sessions of Congress.
askeptic (efcf22) — 1/21/2015 @ 4:26 pmAbsent that invitation, it is a POTUS-free Zone.
elissa, I would never confuse you with carlitos.
askeptic (efcf22) — 1/21/2015 @ 4:27 pmGood question, Kevin M. Let’s explore it.
First, the protests at the Supreme Court today were by a group called 99Rise. Here is the group’s twitter feed with a note the 7 protesters will be spending the night in jail. They were protesting because it’s the 5 year anniversary of the Citizens United decision, so it could be Obama noted the same anniversary. (Too bad he misses so many other anniversaries, like Gettysburg.)
Someone named Curt Ries claims to be an organizer for 99Rise. The 99Rise group appears to be the successor to the Occupy movement, a movement Obama embraced In addition, 99Rise is composed of former Occidental College students — the same college Obama attended during part of his college career:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2015 @ 4:27 pmI bet Obama has many loyal supporters among the Occidental faculty. Maybe someone like Roger Boesche, faculty member at Occidental who was given a “rare drop-in visit” to see Obama at the White House — apparently Obama’s favorite professor.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2015 @ 4:38 pmIn an LA protest in 2012, “about 20 members” of 99Rise were identified as Occidental College students or alums.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2015 @ 4:51 pmAbsent that invitation, it is a POTUS-free Zone.
I’ve always thought he should have to knock three times* and beg for admittance.
*(and no, not “Boehner …. Boehner … Boehner”)
Kevin M (56aae1) — 1/21/2015 @ 4:59 pmNot so. He is obligated to report to Congress, from time to time, on the state of the union and make recommendation. He also has the power to convene a joint session of Congress under extraordinary circumstances.
nk (dbc370) — 1/21/2015 @ 5:02 pm“Not so. He is obligated to report to Congress, from time to time, on the state of the union and make recommendation.”
nk – He is not obligated to report on the state of the union in person.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/21/2015 @ 5:34 pmA president cannot convene a joint session of Congress. He can call Congress back into session, and in the past sometimes that was limited to the Senate (for confirmations)
http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/full-text
Article II, SECTION. 3.
Washington and Adams (1) delivered an address in person, from Thomas Jefferson on it was a written text, and Woodrow Wilson started the practive again of delivering speeches in person, and they have been, with a few exceptions.
A newly inaugurated president sometimes (actually, it’s standard now) delivers a speech not labeled “State of the Union” in February and some outgoing presidents have delivered them in January.
The last president to have a “State of the Union” message right before leaving office was Jimmy Carter in 1981 (Like Truman’s in 1953 and Eisenhower’s in 1961, it was purely a written message, but Johnson and Ford both spoke in 1969 and 1977.)
The first to deliver a message similiar to, but not labeled “State of the Union message” shortly after being inaugurated was Reagan in 1981.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/sou.php
So any message in the days before leaving office stopped with Carter in 1981.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/21/2015 @ 5:51 pmThat’s correct. Also, I knew that. Aaand, what does that have to do with anything I’ve said on this thread or ever?
Steve57 (4ce020) — 1/21/2015 @ 5:58 pmPost on Boehner’s breach of protocol up now.
Dana (8e74ce) — 1/21/2015 @ 6:01 pmWe are manifestly not “turning the corner”.
In my little corner K-Mart left in Dec. This week six more big box stores announced they are quitting this largest market in more than an hour’s travel led by Sears and JCPenny.
Conceding Lord of the Flies anything is thoroughly asinine and ignorant.
DNF (dddc46) — 1/21/2015 @ 7:10 pmI want to know a lot more about Scott Walker
IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 1/21/2015 @ 8:08 pm#33… small ball, daley.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 1/21/2015 @ 8:19 pmRe Jindal…the information I get is from a fervent Demicrat, so obviously biased…
Yep, that would be like saying “the information I get is from Helen Keller, who told me yesterday that the big soiree was a flop since the banquet hall wasn’t nicely decorated, the guests were shabbily dressed, and the band played off key.”
Mark (c160ec) — 1/21/2015 @ 8:46 pmMike K,
I’m curious why you call Ted Cruz a bomb-thrower. I assume it’s because of his 2011 debt ceiling filibuster. Did that action threaten the country or the GOP?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2015 @ 9:06 pmMy bad. Cruz’s filibuster wasn’t about raising the debt ceiling, was it? That’s Boehner who claimed he was against raising the debt ceiling. Cruz’s filibuster tried to stop the Senate Democrats’ (ultimately successful) efforts to block the House bill that eliminated funding for ObamaCare. How did trying to stop ObamaCare funding hurt the country? If you think it did, why didn’t Boehner’s opposition to raising the debt ceiling hurt the country far more?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2015 @ 9:37 pmCould it be that you think Cruz’s actions hurt the GOP, rather than the country? If so, the 2014 election results suggest he didn’t.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/21/2015 @ 9:41 pm“That’s Boehner who claimed he was against raising the debt ceiling.”
DRJ – Remember Obama refusing to negotiate with Congress over the raising the debt ceiling and the brinksmanship as the government exhausted its cash at the end of July beginning of August 2011? The House on a bipartisan basis had earlier voted down a clean debt ceiling increase by a significant margin – 300 something to 90 something as I recall. Boehner insisted that any debt ceiling increase be coupled with spending/deficit reductions. Obama remained aloof until the last minute, a $900 billion increase was agreed to along with the supercommittee whose failure led to sequestration. Cruz was not yet in Congress. How did Boehner harm the country rather than Obama?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/21/2015 @ 10:34 pmOnly a complete idiot thinks Cruz qualified to be President. He’s a lawyer, and well accomplished at that. His principle non-legal experience was being appointed Ag Commissioner of Texas, which isn’t much. His only electoral experience is in being elected by a state that last elected a Democrat to the Senate in 1986, and last elected a Democrat not named Lloyd Bentsen in 1966.
He has no administrative experience to speak of.
With all the Governors/former Governors with real records of success, several in big states and/or purple states, it is simply laughable to suggest we need to find someone whose main accomplish is throwing red meat.
HMMM . . . First term Senator, no record of accomplishment, but a great speaker who inspires the base to a frenzy. Sounds like Obama to me. No thanks, Zippy.
Estragon (ada867) — 1/22/2015 @ 5:23 amEstragon, I realize beating that when you’re on the ballot for US Senate in Texas then beating the Democrat isn’t much of an accomplishment. But the Republican who was supposed to just sit back and get elected in a state that last sent a Democrat to the Senate in 1986 was David Dewhurst. Just so you know.
Steve57 (1f76bc) — 1/22/2015 @ 5:55 amEven all that aside, Bonnie Tyler has dibs on him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBwS66EBUcY
nk (dbc370) — 1/22/2015 @ 6:22 amCruz was Solicitor General of Texas, not Ag Commissioner.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2015 @ 6:29 amdaleyrocks,
Brinksmanship over the debt ceiling risks defaulting on government debts. If we take him at his word, Boehner was willing to risk default that would hurt the country’s financial standing and credit. But I think he (and all of us) knew he wasn’t willing to risk that and would back down. Obama knew it, too, so Boehner was grandstanding to fool the base. Nevertheless, if Boehner meant what he said, then he was willing to risk default over raising the debt ceiling.
Meanwhile, Cruz was willing to risk a government shutdown over ObamaCare. Critics would say he was also grandstanding but he was doing it to motivate the base. That would risk hurting the Party but it wouldn’t hurt the country or its core functions because the law provides basic services will continue during a shutdown.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2015 @ 6:41 amThe 2014 elections show Cruz did’t hurt the Party.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2015 @ 6:43 amThe problem isn’t Cruz, it’s that the GOP has no spine. Pick someone other than Cruz if you want, but at least pick someone who is willing to fight instead of leaders who plan how to give in. Scott Walker seems like a fighter and I’m sure the anti-Southern, anti-Texas folks prefer him. Pick him if he impresses you during the primaries, but please pick someone who will fight.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2015 @ 6:58 am“The 2014 elections show Cruz did’t hurt the Party.”
DRJ – With the benefit of hindsight I agree. At the time it was not clear there would be no effect. In any event, your question was ” If you think it did, why didn’t Boehner’s opposition to raising the debt ceiling hurt the country far more?”
Nobody, including Obama, wanted a government shutdown in 2011 and there was bipartisan sentiment in the House for deficit reduction in conjunction with a debt ceiling increases. My position was that Obama’s imperious negotiating position was untenable and he had to blink. He did. What harm was there to the country?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/22/2015 @ 7:42 amNone, but I don’t have a problem with using shutdowns or defaults to stop the growth of government. What I object to is spinelessness.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2015 @ 7:54 amBut for the people who think some actions are simply too dangerous for the GOP to take, then they should have a problem with Boehner, not Cruz.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2015 @ 7:55 amAlso, hindsight helps us decide what we should do in the future, right?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2015 @ 7:56 am“Also, hindsight helps us decide what we should do in the future, right?”
DRJ – In some cases. With respect to the 2011 Debt Ceiling Showdown, I don’t see the spinelessness you evidently see. Obama came to the negotiating table and agreed to $900 billion of spending cuts in return for a $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling. He did not get the clean debt ceiling increase he sought. The supercommittee was formed to negotiate $1.2 trillion of spending cuts in return for debt ceiling freedom.
The government did not shut down but as a result of Obama’s negotiating position and Republican’s refusal back down our debt was downgraded by one agency. Republicans were branded terrorists who would shut the government down.
In 2013, 13% of the government shutdown and Obama intentionally inflicted harm on Americans during the shutdown. Obama and the media blamed Republicans for the shutdown. I would argue it had no effect on the 2014 midterms because of continuing Obama miscues. Nobody even talked about the shutdown. That could not be foreseen.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:15 amMy point was that it was Boehner, not Cruz, who was taking a risk with the country. Cruz’s actions only involved the Party. But I’ll give Boehner credit for taking risks in 2011. He tried to be firm and got something in return. His spinelessness on the debt ceiling was after that, especially in 2014.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:28 amCruz’s shutdown could also have energized the base to oppose liberals and to offer more conservatives in the primaries. It could have hurt the Party or it could have helped.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:32 amI think Boehner was trying to do a grand bargain in 2011 that would not have been fiscally conservative, but more of a Bush-style deal. He ended up with sequestration by luck, not design, but we’ll probably never know for sure. So I’ll give him credit but it comes with an asterisk.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:36 am“His spinelessness on the debt ceiling was after that, especially in 2014.”
DRJ – OK. I was going to ask you what “spine” would have looked like with respect to the 2011 debt ceiling showdown.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/22/2015 @ 11:41 am“It could have hurt the Party or it could have helped.”
DRJ – I agree. I think the disastrous rollout of Obamacare, the success of ISIS, Russia and Ukraine, the VA scandal, and a host of other Obama related made the shutdown a distant memory for most people by the time of the mid-terms.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/22/2015 @ 11:46 amDRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2015 @ 6:41 am
Since the Treasury receives more than enough monthly income from taxpayers to meet the servicing requirements of the National Debt, how is any shutdown (or refusal to raise the Debt Ceiling) risking a default by the government?
askeptic (efcf22) — 1/22/2015 @ 12:35 pmAll either do is to put at risk most (if not all) of the discretionary spending of the government, and some of the entitlement (non-discretionary) spending, requiring the administration to prioritize it’s spending over and above Debt Service.
if Cruz wins Iowa and SC without getting too bashed – he’s going to be hard to beat – if Huckabee runs Cruz cant out talk him
EPWJ (64d941) — 1/22/2015 @ 12:52 pmJeb Bush and Mitt Rmeny are meeting in a previously scheduled meeting (this was scheduled before Romney had said he was thinking about running and was supposed to be Jeb Bush paying his respects to the last Republican nominee foor president)
Donors are now all confused. Some have them been asked twice for money by people representing both persons within hours.
Meanwhile Joe Biden he is thinking about running for president – not doing anything about it that anybody can see, but thinking – and thatHillary runnimng wouldn’t stop him.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/22/2015 @ 1:27 pmYou and I think the 2011 sequester was a good thing and yet Boehner never tried to repeat it in subsequent debt ceiling negotiations. Either he thought risking default in another debt ceiling showdown was bad for the country or it was bad for the GOP. I’d guess the latter, and if so that’s spineless.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 6:03 amboehner manages failure, not success
he’s got the same basic mindset as mitt romneycare romney
happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/23/2015 @ 6:09 am“You and I think the 2011 sequester was a good thing and yet Boehner never tried to repeat it in subsequent debt ceiling negotiations. Either he thought risking default in another debt ceiling showdown was bad for the country or it was bad for the GOP. I’d guess the latter, and if so that’s spineless.”
DRJ – You are making assumptions on my behalf and dodging the question.
Your complaint was about Republican spinelessness but also putting the country in danger. My questions to you was what is it the Boehner should have done in the 2011 debt ceiling showdown to demonstrate to you he had spine. My impression from your comments is that you believe he should have caved in to Obama’s demands to a clean debt ceiling hike to avoid potentially harming the country. I consider that a gutless, spineless position.
With respect to the 21 hour filibuster of Ted Cruz in 2013 on Obamacare I disagree that he was risking harming the GOP or the country. It was personal showboating with no procedural value to potentially motivate conservatives. He could not stop the budget bill from being sent back from the Senate to the House, where the shutdown would have to be initiated by the spineless Republicans there.
When I look at descriptions of current issues with the administration at one extreme and conservatives at the other extreme and think about how many negotiations I have been involved in over the course of my life and how few of them had only binary outcomes, that is where I see irrational expectations from conservatives for binary outcomes rather than outcomes along a spectrum of possible solutions.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:23 am