October 21, 2015

"The best thing I can assume is that [Paul Ryan' really doesn’t want the job [of Speaker of the House]."

"You put forth a list of conditions that nobody is going to throw their weight behind, and force people to tell you ‘no,’ rather than the other way around . . . that’s the only thing that makes sense to me."

Said Representative Tim Huelskamp, of Kansas, speaking to The National Review, who is "put off" by the "list of unmeetable conditions," especially getting rid of the motion to vacate the chair, which lets the members of the House vote to oust the Speaker.
"It was my understanding that Thomas Jefferson thought that was good for the House," Huelskamp says, "and Paul Ryan thinks he doesn’t have to live by that?"
So now there's a concept that whatever Thomas Jefferson thought was good we the people of the present ought to stick with? Speaking of lists, help me make a list of things Thomas Jefferson thought that we'd hate to have to live by today.

IN THE COMMENTS: Crossett offered for the list of things Thomas Jefferson thought:
That Jesus wasn't divine. The Jefferson Bible would make a few of the current Congressmen squirm.
Fully human Jesus was good enough for Thomas Jefferson and Paul Ryan thinks he doesn’t have to live by that?

73 comments:

Brando said...

Why would Paul Ryan want that job? It's a setup for failure.

I wonder if it's a possibility that the GOP caucus splits into two sub-parties.

damikesc said...

Freedom of Speech isn't much supported by the Left.
Nor is gun ownership.
Nor is unreasonable search and seizure.
The 10th Amendment isn't too beloved.

Hagar said...

It would have been better - for him and for us - if he had just said no.

MikeR said...

Thomas who? Link please.

Douglas said...

The poor, poor Freedom Caucus, poor babies, they can dish it out but they can't take it. Cue the world's smallest violin.

damikesc said...

The poor, poor Freedom Caucus, poor babies, they can dish it out but they can't take it.

What did they dish out that they cannot take?

Thomas Jefforson thought that we would have hated to have a rule where you could not just tap your purchased black woman on the shoulder and command her to share your bed.

Ironically, still no evidence that Thomas fucked Sally. A Jefferson did so, but there were about 27 of them in the area at the time. Thomas doing so has never been actually demonstrated.

C Stanley said...

I'm not a fan of the Freedom Caucus and I admire Paul Ryan, but i thnk demanding the removal of the provision to vacate the chair is a bridge too far. Not because Thomas Jefferson wanted it that way, but because the Speaker should serve at the pleasure of the House members. If he at some point isn't serving their interests, of course they should be able to unseat him.

I think he goes a bit too far on the weekend thing too. He's absolutely right to stipulate less fundraising (how and why did that ever become part of the job description??) but there are certainly times when the job of wrangling votes will demand some long hours including weekends, he should base his own decision to run on whether or not he's willing and able to do that.

Bob Boyd said...

"...whatever Thomas Jefferson thought was good we the people of the present ought to stick with?"

No, but it puts it in perspective. Its more of a Chesterton's Fence type of argument.

rcocean said...

Ryan is an open borders - we can't put fences around people - freak. His other big thing is cutting social security. Wow, there's a winner. Lower wages and less social security benefits - who wouldn't vote for that?

Now we know why Romney made him VP, Ryan is another Jack Kemp type.

rcocean said...

Jefferson said a lot of stupid things. He once said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God"

Yeah right, because religion doesn't ever,ever, influence how people vote. If Jefferson had 100 Orthodox Jewish neighbors or 100 Muslim neighbors it would've made one hell of a difference.



Quinn Satterwaite said...



Jefferson–Jackson Dinners

Phil 3:14 said...

Guns and borders. Can my party see beyond guns and borders?

damikesc said...

Guns and borders. Can my party see beyond guns and borders?

If you have no borders, you have no country.

Is there a line you won't cross?

Alexander said...

For all the stupid things that Jefferson may or may not have said or done...

I am going to bet that if forced to take an all-or-nothing approach, we're significantly better off taking the 'all'. One notes that Jefferson for all the rhetoric did not seek to settle hoards of no-doubt innocent Algerian males seeking to flee the Barbary Pirates.

I'm also certain that if today's leadership thinks a rule that governs Congress needs throwing out, that rule serves some excellent purpose, even if that purpose is not readily apparent to me.

Tank said...

"Paul Ryan = another shit sandwich," Thomas Jefferson forecast in 1780.

Something I would not hate to live by.

I looked at a dozen of his quotes, and they all looked pretty good to me. I must be a Jefferson fan.

Crossett said...

That Jesus wasn't divine. The Jefferson Bible would make a few of the current Congressmen squirm.

Hagar said...

I would think Jefferson and his children - in and out of wedlock - acknowledging each other is sufficient proof of parentage.

Todd said...

He should go for it, go for it all... cause as another famous politician once said, "At this point, what difference does it make?" Also, Harry Reid has shown that it is "good to be the king" and can also do pretty much as he likes even though he is a piker compared to the whiner in chief with his phone and pen so, Paul should shoot for the moon and get all he can so he can try to get the things he thinks are important, done.

I could really get to like these new "rules" that the dems have shown us...

David Begley said...

Jefferson probably thought the absence of DNA tests was a good thing. Plausible deniability.

MadisonMan said...

Ryan is negotiating from a position of strength. Of course weaker people -- like a newbie-ish Rep from Kansas trying to make a name by insulting upwards -- will not like it.

Steve said...

Now that Jefferson has been deified, do we really need Jesus?

mtrobertslaw said...

Aaron Rodgers, Ryan's long lost brother, has been urging him to take the job.

Carol said...

Jefferson thought the Constitution should be changed every 20 years too, to suit the needs (desires) of each generation.

Come to think of it...

grackle said...

Here’s the question if I were a member of the House that I would be asking:

Will Ryan eliminate important votes on conservative-influenced legislation because of the threat of a veto from Obama as Boehner did? Will he allow pseudo-conservative politicians to serve in the House without having to vote on conservative-derived bills – as Boehner did?

I think the answer is, in light of Ryan’s demands, yes, he will. Ryan’s reign would be the same as Boehner’s. He will protect liberal Republicans and Democrats from having to vote on those pesky bills. Might as well just keep Boehner as Speaker.

Bay Area Guy said...

I like and respect the Freedom Caucus for their ideas and policies, but I'm not so sure they understand the rough and tumble world of politics, where compromises, deals, double-dealing, misdirection, broken promises, power plays, etc, etc are all par for the course.

Conservatives can be hopelessly naive - like virgins in a whorehouse - about how politics actually gets done. For example, simply adopting the most right-wing items from a Conservative check-list, may be principled and consistent, but it doesn't necessarily constitute a winning strategy. If it did, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh would be running for office, not merely running their mouths on the radio.

There are simply too many non-conservative voters in the country.

Ryan is a good man, but clearly he is wary of all the messy politics and deal-making that the role of Speaker entails.

Frankly, as long as the GOP keeps the majority in the House, I don't really care who the Speaker is. Ryan would be fine. Webster would be fine. Heck, bring back Bob B-1 Dornan. I don't it makes much of a difference.

Quaestor said...

Harry Reid wants Ryan in the Speaker's Chair. That should be enough to kill the notion deader than a hammer.

damikesc said...

I would think Jefferson and his children - in and out of wedlock - acknowledging each other is sufficient proof of parentage.

Not quite. If I claim Brad Pitt is my brother, it doesn't make us related, either.

The child he was accused of fathering he had, literally, zero lineage to. Another Hemmings child was tied to a Jefferson, but nobody knows which one and, given his age at the time, few believe it was Thomas.

Bob Ellison said...

Ryan simply gave his party his "FU" price. It's a standard negotiating tactic. He told the truth: give me all of this, or quit bugging me.

I have no problem with it.

William said...

Jefferson was no more a rapist than Karl Marx and far less of a rapist than Leo Tolstoy. Back in the day, if you had domestic help, such help was available for all your needs. They were like White House interns........Maybe Sally Hemmings reminded him of his ex wife--there was a family resemblance. Despite the power imbalance, there may have been feelings of affection on both their parts. There's objective evidence that he treated her better than Bill Clinton treated Monica.

MadisonMan said...

If I claim Brad Pitt is my brother, it doesn't make us related, either.

If you both acknowledged each other as siblings...

That's the hypothetical.

Tank said...

Bay Area Guy said...

I like and respect the Freedom Caucus for their ideas and policies, but I'm not so sure they understand the rough and tumble world of politics, where compromises, deals, double-dealing, misdirection, broken promises, power plays, etc, etc are all par for the course.

Conservatives can be hopelessly naive - like virgins in a whorehouse - about how politics actually gets done.


It's not naivete, we're sick to death of the way "politics actually gets done" and want to change it.

cubanbob said...

Ryan's position isn't necessarily one of strenght. This my way or the highway position smells more of bluff than of confidence.
The Freedom Caucus should be just as unreasonable, it may work at best and they would be no worse off if it doesn't.

Thorley Winston said...

If you both acknowledged each other as siblings...

It doesn’t make you siblings any more than Bruce Jenner putting on makeup and a dress and saying “I am Cait” makes him a woman.

garage mahal said...

The media sees Ryan as a dreamy wonk.

Economists see a complete joke.

Such is American politics

grackle said...

I like and respect the Freedom Caucus for their ideas and policies, but I'm not so sure they understand the rough and tumble world of politics, where compromises, deals, double-dealing, misdirection, broken promises, power plays, etc, etc are all par for the course.

If it’s all “rough and tumble” then why the heartburn about getting rid of Boehner? Is it “rough and tumble” for thee but not for me?

A correction is going on in the House. Boehner was dancing to Obama’s tune. There are members in the House who were elected to advance the conservative cause but they are NEVER forced and/or allowed to vote on conservative legislation to illustrate whether they are TRULY conservative because it never gets by the Boehner roadblocks. This system is NOT “par for the course” – it is a system of protection for imposters who are pretending to be conservative.

cubanbob said...

garage mahal said...
The media sees Ryan as a dreamy wonk.

Economists see a complete joke.

Such is American politics

10/21/15, 10:03 AM

Switch Ryan for Obama and your statement is even truer.

Michael K said...

"as long as the GOP keeps the majority in the House, I don't really care who the Speaker is."

No, that is a mistake. Denny Hastert, who is on his way to prison, was the worst Speaker in recent history.

Hagar said...

If Jefferson fathered one of Aunt Sally's children, he fathered them all.

And if a cousin or nephew was the father, it would have been an impossible situation for them to all live at Monticello together.

Bob Ellison said...

garage mahal said...

The media sees Ryan as a dreamy wonk.

Economists see a complete joke.


Leftists in America see Ryan as a complete joke. I have a Ryan "MATH" T-shirt, and twice people have told me they agree, because [something like] Ryan is an idiot whose numbers don't add up, and his plans were failures.

Economics/budget-wise, Ryan mostly pushes realism about expenditures and politics, while also pushing toward fiscal conservatism.

So the notion that "Economists think Ryan is a joke" is a no-thought leftist talking point. I'd like to understand why leftists think that, and whether folks like you, garage mahal, can back it up. It'll come up when he runs for President.

Sebastian said...

"it is a system of protection for imposters who are pretending to be conservative"

Yes, the system protects non-conservatives -- because there are more non-conservative GOPers plus lib Dems than actual conservatives. There are few "imposters" in Congress -- just a bunch of GOP hacks who represent mixed or moderate districts.

In running with Romney, Ryan did not exactly show a taste for hardball. My impression is that he's also a bleeding heart, Kasich-Bush type on immigration. Two strikes against him in my book. That he may be the best they've got is disconcerting.

I Callahan said...

It's not naivete, we're sick to death of the way "politics actually gets done" and want to change it.

Exactly. Look at the way "politics actually getting done" has turned out. Real bang-up job, status-quo'ers...

I Callahan said...

Economists see a complete joke.

Which economists would those be? And at least have the stones to answer the inquiry, as opposed to scurrying off after leaving a steaming pile in the comments.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Tank

It's not naivete, we're sick to death of the way "politics actually gets done" and want to change it.

Tank! Not to be obsequious, but I always enjoy your comments and perspective.

We probably agree on most issues, but here's 2 serious, but neutral questions.

1. In practical terms, how are you going to change it?
2. Do you think Donald Trump, if he wins the GOP nomination, will change it?

Maybe, I'm more cynical than you. "Change" is a mantra usually chanted by the Left, and when I see change, I usually see things getting more leftist, and worse.

@Michael K

Yeah, Hastert had a few skeletons in the closet, didn't he? But was he that bad a speaker? My memory is foggy, but I thought Newt (a great Speaker) was deposed for being too contentious, and then mild, modest Hastert was more of a placeholder Speaker for 6 years or so. You might be right on this, you are often right on this stuff.

GRW3 said...

Look, Tea Party and Freedom Caucus people know there are limits to what can be done. The problem is the Republican congress is not approaching these limits. For instance, we know the Senate Democrats might filibuster a law reestablishing 40 hours as the normal workweek, from the Obamacare 30 hours, but by making them act against it then there is a sign that that we stand for the average people. Currently, they don't do this because they know it won't pass, ignoring the PR value.

Or if they do move something forward from the house, the Senate mates it with something ambiguous enough to give demos cover for resisting. Yesterdays combo of sanctuary city money cuts and Kate's Law is an example. Despite the fact that all that was being cut was the federal money for immigration enforcement the demos and their media enablers portrayed it as a complete defunding from all federal programs. The public would not support something so harsh, thus giving cover. Kate's law should have gone up by itself.

Finally, there keeps being strain of "those conservatives aren't being very nice". Well that's really an example of what goes around, comes around. The demos have always supported, if not celebrated their extreme wing. The repub leaders have been openly embarrassed and critical of tea party and freedom caucus members. What they should have done is use them as leverage like the demos always did with their radicals. The republicans would offer a good middle of the road plan and demos would say "well, gee that sounds good but you know those guys will pitch a fit so we need a compromise..." so forever, the compromises always went left. With the republican leaders denigrating the conservatives, signaling no power, the compromises still go left. The demos never punish member for voting the interests of their constituents - do whatever is needed to keep the seat. Boehner, on the other hand, consistently punished members for acting on conscious or constituent interest instead of marching to his orders. So now everybody is surprised when given a chance to exercise power, the conservatives do so - what goes around, comes around. If Ryan gets their support it will be a result of a promise to be more considerate of their issues.

Tank said...

Bay Area Guy said...

@Tank

It's not naivete, we're sick to death of the way "politics actually gets done" and want to change it.

Tank! Not to be obsequious, but I always enjoy your comments and perspective.

We probably agree on most issues, but here's 2 serious, but neutral questions.

1. In practical terms, how are you going to change it?
2. Do you think Donald Trump, if he wins the GOP nomination, will change it?

Maybe, I'm more cynical than you. "Change" is a mantra usually chanted by the Left, and when I see change, I usually see things getting more leftist, and worse.


We're discussing strategy here bro, not principles.

1. Whatever the best way is to change the direction we're going in, doing the same thing is not it. Ryan = Boehner. Maybe worse. His record is atrocious.

2. Trump. Maybe. Maybe he's the only candidate who might change things. He's the only one really talking about immigration, and, if we don't fix that, if we don't stop the invasion, we won't have a country and all the other issues will be irrelevant.

We're really way passed the point of "nicely" and "conservatively" putting it all back together.

Brando said...

"We probably agree on most issues, but here's 2 serious, but neutral questions.

1. In practical terms, how are you going to change it?
2. Do you think Donald Trump, if he wins the GOP nomination, will change it?"

Those are worthwhile questions, as general statements like "we want people who fight" and "we're tired of getting bowled over" sound good but don't mean much in practical terms. What should the GOP leadership do differently, and what would that accomplish?

I agree that the problem, ironically, isn't really in the House, but the Senate where the "fillibuster" has been the main impediment. Harry Reid showed us that there really isn't much outcry when the majority suspends the fillibuster (as he did for judicial appointments). I get that the majority fears that without the fillibuster, they would lose their only weapon when they're the ones in the minority. But why not at least require it to be a "real" fillibuster--with marathon speaking sessions, and perhaps a rule that the debate have some relation to the legislation being fillibustered? (Remember, the point of it is that the issue still needs discussion, not simply a delaying tactic)

But to me the bigger issue--which a lot of rightists tend to downplay--is mobilizing popular opinion. The math simply dictates that Congress can't do much without 2/3 votes in both chambers, and they simply don't have that. It's simple math, no matter whether you have a fighter or a weakling in the Speaker chair. But if the issue you're fighting for is broadly popular, then the real work isn't done in Congress but rather in the media and on the ground, mobilizing opinion enough to pressure Democrats (and Republicans) in swing districts enough to get that 2/3.

As for what Trump will do, we may as well ask what President Lincoln Chaffee would do. Neither is going to be president.

Brando said...

"1. Whatever the best way is to change the direction we're going in, doing the same thing is not it. Ryan = Boehner. Maybe worse. His record is atrocious."

At least we agree that doing the same thing will change nothing. But if we're going to do something different, we'd better figure out what that will be.

"2. Trump. Maybe. Maybe he's the only candidate who might change things. He's the only one really talking about immigration, and, if we don't fix that, if we don't stop the invasion, we won't have a country and all the other issues will be irrelevant."

How is Trump the only one talking about immigration? Hell, Romney talked about immigration (and Trump 2012 criticized what Romney had to say, suggesting he was turning off Hispanics). It's hardly been a quiet issue until Trump showed up. And like above, HOW to "fix it" is the rub. Trump's plan is based on so much wishful thinking it's outside the realm of seriousness. But again, I don't see how he becomes president so our time would be better spent discussing what should be done when President Hillary tries to grant total amnesty and making everyone citizens.

Tank said...

Brando

... Trump's plan is based on so much wishful thinking it's outside the realm of seriousness...

If you are not talking about a plan that the mainstream accept as "serious," then you are not talking about a solution. You are part of the problem. We, and Europe are suffering an invasion. It must be repelled.

Brando said...

"If you are not talking about a plan that the mainstream accept as "serious," then you are not talking about a solution. You are part of the problem. We, and Europe are suffering an invasion. It must be repelled."

I'm not basing my take on what the "mainstream" accepts but rather on the fantasy that our government (1) can intercept all remittances going to Mexico and weed out the ones sent by illegal immigrants and seize that money, legal obstacles be damned; (2) can make Mexico pay us for this wall that will get built; (3) can find and deport all illegal immigrants, including U.S. born children. That's assuming even if the courts sat back and allowed all of that. It also ignores the fact that most people in this country illegally didn't walk across the Mexican border--it igrnoes the vast numbers who come legally and overstay, or enter through checkpoints and coastal areas or even via Canada.

That's why I don't consider it serious, and to be honest it's also the fact that it's coming from someone like Trump who seems to have decided this was his issue less than a year ago, and has a long history of ripping off those who trusted him and I don't wish to count myself among those duped by him yet again.

What would be a "serious" plan to deal with illegal immigrants? Expanded e-verify, increased penalties for employers who don't check employee immigration status, fast tracked INS adjudications, legal immigrant tracking, favoring skilled immigrants for legal immigration, and enhanced security not just at borders and ports but additional DHS agents enforcing immigration law within this country. Those are at least plausible ideas, though many would cost money.

eric said...

Brando, you kind of answered your own question about Trump.

You say Trumps plan is so much wishful thinking. A little above that GRW3 makes a few interesting points. Among them, is that Republicans always negotiate from the left. They start negotiating by throwing out the conservative idea and begin negotiating by giving the left half of what they want. Then they surrender the other half in the end.

This is why we say Trump is the only one talking immigration. It's more an expression. The others begin from a "reasonable" position on immigration. Once the compromises are in, the Democrats and RINOs will have everything they want.

But if you start with the extreme position, as Trump has, well hell, maybe, just maybe, that's a better negotiating position to start from.

eric said...

Brando claims this is an issue Trump found less than a year ago.

I invite the readers to see what Trump has been saying about immigration since 2000.
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Immigration.htm

Brando said...

"This is why we say Trump is the only one talking immigration. It's more an expression. The others begin from a "reasonable" position on immigration. Once the compromises are in, the Democrats and RINOs will have everything they want.

But if you start with the extreme position, as Trump has, well hell, maybe, just maybe, that's a better negotiating position to start from."

I get your point on that, but two things:

1) These arguments are in the context of an election where the GOP needs a lot of voters who aren't already in the bag. This includes people who may agree that illegal immigration is a problem, but don't believe what Trump proposes is realistic or desirable--even while also rejecting Hillary's opposite extreme. Turning off those voters and getting Hillary in there means starting from a far worse negotiating position.

2) A good negotiating position is not necessarily "ask for the stars and you may get the moon"--otherwise I'd try to sell my used TV for a million dollars and see what the highest offer I can get for it (when most serious buyers would not even bother to answer the ad). That doesn't mean negotiate against yourself, by moving towards your adversary's position before they even made a counteroffer--it means start from a position you would be happy with. It's more important to not drift too far from your position than it is to start so far afield that no one will bother negotiating at all. I'm never going to get a million dollars for my used TV, but if I think I can get $50 I might start closer to that and try not to go below $50.

Freeman Hunt said...

When you don’t want to invest significant time following politics anymore, one strategy is to get to know the players. Probably whatever Ryan wants is fine. Investigation into the issue only happens if the issue drags on and remains contentious.

Brando said...

"Brando claims this is an issue Trump found less than a year ago."

Did Trump not criticize Romney for alienating immigrants with his "self deportation" comments back in 2012?

damikesc said...

If Jefferson fathered one of Aunt Sally's children, he fathered them all.

And if a cousin or nephew was the father, it would have been an impossible situation for them to all live at Monticello together.


Given that cousins were living there at the time, I doubt it. And, no, I don't for a moment thing Thomas fathered anything with Sally. This is all based on the writings of a not terribly credible witness (Callendar) who named a child he allegedly fathered that we know, for a fact, no Jefferson fathered.

Economists see a complete joke.

Ask economists about the "Wage gap" between the sexes that the Dems prattle about so.

I'm not basing my take on what the "mainstream" accepts but rather on the fantasy that our government (1) can intercept all remittances going to Mexico and weed out the ones sent by illegal immigrants and seize that money, legal obstacles be damned;

Then charge a hefty surcharge on ALL of them. Make the remittances into pittances.

(2) can make Mexico pay us for this wall that will get built

Thought he clarified that to be that Mexico loses every dime of foreign aid from us and that aid is used for the wall.

(3) can find and deport all illegal immigrants, including U.S. born children.

I don't see Dems worrying about "HOW will we pay for Obamacare?" They just did it and didn't worry.

"HOW will we confiscate guns?" They'll just try.

Stop worrying about why. Toss 'em. If the kid is born in the US, their parents have the choice of taking the child to Mexico or losing all parental rights and the child becomes a ward of the state.

Harsh? Maybe. Mexico would be harsher to their Southern neighbors.

That's assuming even if the courts sat back and allowed all of that. It also ignores the fact that most people in this country illegally didn't walk across the Mexican border--it igrnoes the vast numbers who come legally and overstay, or enter through checkpoints and coastal areas or even via Canada.

Crack skulls on that. College student overstayed their visa? Then INS goes to the school and pulls the student out of class and punts them out. School doesn't want to cooperate? Then they lose every penny of federal money, including student loans. They'd be insolvent in no time flat.

1) These arguments are in the context of an election where the GOP needs a lot of voters who aren't already in the bag. This includes people who may agree that illegal immigration is a problem, but don't believe what Trump proposes is realistic or desirable--even while also rejecting Hillary's opposite extreme. Turning off those voters and getting Hillary in there means starting from a far worse negotiating position.

Conventional wisdom has failed here. I'd wager Trump does better with minorities than Republicans do. Hispanics, believe it or not, DON'T LIKE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION either. Making a play for legals is easy "You worked hard and played by the rules. You're being screwed over because Hillary and the Dems support allowing people who decided to ignore the rules to have the same rights you have without doing any of the work you had to do"

2) A good negotiating position is not necessarily "ask for the stars and you may get the moon"--otherwise I'd try to sell my used TV for a million dollars and see what the highest offer I can get for it (when most serious buyers would not even bother to answer the ad).

Obama has done well for himself by doing this exact kind of negotiation. Start with the moon and work down.

Brando said...

"Then charge a hefty surcharge on ALL of them. Make the remittances into pittances."

Even assuming the courts allow the feds to confiscate (or "surcharge") legal remittances to Mexico, you really think the Feds have the capability of going through every bit of mail and wire transfer between the U.S. and Mexico? And if this were to happen, why wouldn't the payors simply send via a third country to get around it? It's really not feasible, even beyond the legal problems.

"Thought he clarified that to be that Mexico loses every dime of foreign aid from us and that aid is used for the wall."

Well, it is possible to cut foreign aid, though politically the reason it's hard to do is that money is usually used to favor U.S. interests doing business in those countries. I'm personally opposed to such aid, but don't expect that to change.

"Stop worrying about why. Toss 'em. If the kid is born in the US, their parents have the choice of taking the child to Mexico or losing all parental rights and the child becomes a ward of the state."

How is this--simple deportation--different from what we're already doing? I'm not saying we can't deport anyone, I'm saying we simply don't have the resources to get them all out (even beyond the political and legal hurdles).

"I'd wager Trump does better with minorities than Republicans do."

We shall see--not that that's a high hurdle, with Romney getting only 27% last time. I've also seen polls showing Trump doing worse than typical Republicans with Hispanics. If he gets the nomination, this will go to the test. But I think he'd need close to 40% of the hispanic vote to win.

"Obama has done well for himself by doing this exact kind of negotiation. Start with the moon and work down."

Well, I don't think Obama's really one to emulate. His only legislative victories came at a time when he had large congressional majorities, and even then he had to pass his ACA through budget reconciliation. His deals on the budget and tax hikes were a lot less than most leftists wanted, and in the case of the latter the tax hikers would have been better off letting everything expire (in which case I think Boehner was unfairly blamed, because if the tax cuts all expired he'd have been in a much harder position to get any of those cuts reinstated--the real fault here is with Bush and Co. who set an expiration date on them in the first place).

My preferred strategy, both for the elections and in general, is stake out your position as one that can be sold to the public (as public opinion will help push the wobbly reps to your side) and not give unacceptable concessions.

libertariansafetyguy said...

Who was the last speaker anyone in the country likes?! Tip O'Neil?!! It's a suckers job.

Brando said...

"Who was the last speaker anyone in the country likes?! Tip O'Neil?!! It's a suckers job."

It's less about being "liked" and more about being able to advance the party's agenda in the House. The only people who have to "like" you are your district's voters and your caucus.

The reason it's a suckers game is that these days the job has a lot less power than it used to. Once, the power of earmarks, committee assignments and party fundraising could keep members in line. Now, earmarks are mostly gone, committee assignments are less in the hands of the Speaker, and fundraising is far more dependent on outside groups that don't care if you're a team player. So the job amounts to responsibility without control. Who wants that?

grackle said...

… there are more non-conservative GOPers plus lib Dems than actual conservatives. There are few "imposters" in Congress -- just a bunch of GOP hacks who represent mixed or moderate districts.

Sure, there’s a few “non-conservative” GOPers. But if they are truly representing their constituents in the House then they should have no problem voting against conservative legislation because voting that way would gain them more “mixed or moderate” votes back in their home districts. Right?

So … I’m not convinced by such an argument. No, they have been shielded from the view of their constituents by Boehner who has sought from the first to protect them from such revealing votes.

The main reason for legislation is to enact law. But an important secondary reason is to flush out imposters in Congress and force an arbitrary POTUS to veto popular legislation. Instead Boehner and the others have given them all a free pass.

And ALL Democrats are “lib Dems” who vote en mass for anything on the Obama agenda.

damikesc said...

Even assuming the courts allow the feds to confiscate (or "surcharge") legal remittances to Mexico, you really think the Feds have the capability of going through every bit of mail and wire transfer between the U.S. and Mexico? And if this were to happen, why wouldn't the payors simply send via a third country to get around it? It's really not feasible, even beyond the legal problems.

The legals would likely do that.

The illegals, let's be generous, aren't blessed with intellect.

Well, it is possible to cut foreign aid, though politically the reason it's hard to do is that money is usually used to favor U.S. interests doing business in those countries. I'm personally opposed to such aid, but don't expect that to change.


If Trump follows his plan to self-fund --- who does he owe anything to?

How is this--simple deportation--different from what we're already doing?

We're NOT deporting anybody. That is the entire problem. Deport the shit out of people. An illegal is busted on a traffic violation? Deport them, too. You're a guest. Act like it.

I'm saying we simply don't have the resources to get them all out (even beyond the political and legal hurdles).


Political hurdles are brutally overrated. People have been pissy about our lame immigration laws for years. Give them a choice of deport or amnesty and they will pick deport.

We shall see--not that that's a high hurdle, with Romney getting only 27% last time. I've also seen polls showing Trump doing worse than typical Republicans with Hispanics. If he gets the nomination, this will go to the test. But I think he'd need close to 40% of the hispanic vote to win.

I doubt he needs that much of the Hispanic vote. And I can see him doing well with blacks by simply pointing to immigration problems and the abysmal unemployment rate.

...then, when in office, cut all federal funds for any states that provide ID to illegals. Every nickel.

Well, I don't think Obama's really one to emulate.

For competency of policies, no. For competency in getting what he wants, he has been amazingly successful.

My preferred strategy, both for the elections and in general, is stake out your position as one that can be sold to the public (as public opinion will help push the wobbly reps to your side) and not give unacceptable concessions.

...except, you forget, the Republicans are pussies. They won't fight for a thing (again, the only time the GOP leadership has twisted arms was to pass TPP, which is a terrible treaty) So, stake a position way far out there and the GOP might surrender enough to only have the results be what you want.


Is it wrong to wish we'd repeal direct election of Senators?

damikesc said...

And ALL Democrats are “lib Dems” who vote en mass for anything on the Obama agenda.

Agreed. "Moderate" Jim Webb voted for Obamacare. He voted with Sanders about 84% of the time. Clinton about 91% of the time.

I'm not seeing moderate.

grackle said...

… we know the Senate Democrats might filibuster a law …

Yes, sure as hell, we know they WILL, if they are able. But why no “nuclear option” from the current Senate GOP leadership, which eliminates the filibuster and requires only a simple majority to pass bills, like Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats pulled when the Democrats had the majority? It’s almost like McConnell has no balls – like he is trying to shield the Senate Democrats and Senate GOP imposters from having to vote on pesky popular legislation.

This is why there is a “crisis,” which is not a crisis but simply a correction.

Brando said...

"If Trump follows his plan to self-fund --- who does he owe anything to?"

Techinically, nobody (if he does self-fund--which is no sure thing). But the congressmen who would have to vote to end foreign aid are another matter. Not impossible, of course, but the political hurdle is why I'm skeptical of getting rid of foreign aid.

"We're NOT deporting anybody. That is the entire problem. Deport the shit out of people. An illegal is busted on a traffic violation? Deport them, too. You're a guest. Act like it."

We are, though--maybe not enough, but deportations do happen. They are costly and take a while due to the legal hurdles, and could probably be sped up, but this takes legal changes and more funding to make a significant impact. As for getting localities and states to cooperate more, that again is a funding and legal issue--they don't want to take on more unfunded obligations.

"Political hurdles are brutally overrated."

That remains to be seen. Though if as I predict Hillary takes over next year, we won't have a chance to see if this can be done.

"I doubt he needs that much of the Hispanic vote. And I can see him doing well with blacks by simply pointing to immigration problems and the abysmal unemployment rate."

What number do you project? I note that Bush in '04 got over 40% of the Hispanic vote, and the Hispanic share of the vote has grown since then, and that was a very close race. The GOP would have to make it up somewhere else, and I don't see them doing much better than 12% of black votes. And Hillary may do better with women voters than the Dems' usual haul. All are reasons I'm pessimistic.

"For competency in getting what he wants, he has been amazingly successful."

I disagree--I can't see how he wanted the ACA in its current form (he won't even implement much of it), or keeping so much of the Bush tax cuts, and everything else he wanted (climate change legislation, card check, amnesty) has gone nowhere or been caught up in courts. I can't imagine he's thrilled with this.

"...except, you forget, the Republicans are pussies. They won't fight for a thing (again, the only time the GOP leadership has twisted arms was to pass TPP, which is a terrible treaty) So, stake a position way far out there and the GOP might surrender enough to only have the results be what you want."

Well, if they stuck with my preferred strategy they'd by definition have to not be pussies who give in. The same pussies would just as easily cave entirely on an extreme negotiating position. One thing they need is not just leadership who will "fight" but who know how to actually win, and that's going to take more than just legislative strategy but shaping public opinion. Otherwise, they're just not going to get the votes they need.

Brando said...

"Yes, sure as hell, we know they WILL, if they are able. But why no “nuclear option” from the current Senate GOP leadership, which eliminates the filibuster and requires only a simple majority to pass bills, like Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats pulled when the Democrats had the majority? It’s almost like McConnell has no balls – like he is trying to shield the Senate Democrats and Senate GOP imposters from having to vote on pesky popular legislation."

McConnell believes abandoning the fillibuster sets a precedent that will make the GOP lose power if they end up in the minority again, and he and others like him--I note Ted Cruz has also shared this reluctance to abandon the fillibuster--also sees it as a check on majoritarian power that in the long run prevents more leftist legislation.

However, Reid showed us that no one really cares, as the majority can take it away when convenient. At the very least, I think they should make it a real fillibuster--require nonstop talking, limited to only discussion about the legislation. And maybe put an upper time limit on it, or require a lower vote for cloture.

Todd said...

Brando said...

However, Reid showed us that no one really cares, as the majority can take it away when convenient. At the very least, I think they should make it a real fillibuster--require nonstop talking, limited to only discussion about the legislation. And maybe put an upper time limit on it, or require a lower vote for cloture.

10/21/15, 3:20 PM


Yep, the GOP has battered wife syndrome. Dems get control and they hit the GOP with nuclear. GOP gets control and thinks if we don't hit, the Dems won't hit us again. Dems get control and out comes the nuclear. GOP get control and thinks if we just show them how "fair" we are and don't hit them back, they will play nice next time too. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

It is SICKENING!

damikesc said...

We are, though--maybe not enough, but deportations do happen. They are costly and take a while due to the legal hurdles, and could probably be sped up, but this takes legal changes and more funding to make a significant impact. As for getting localities and states to cooperate more, that again is a funding and legal issue--they don't want to take on more unfunded obligations.

We are deporting so few that Obama had to cook the numbers to cover it up, by counting people we turn around at the border as "deportations". We routinely now release illegal CRIMINALS (crimes beyond just being here illegal, which is terrible enough) in prison. We're doing virtually nothing.

What number do you project? I note that Bush in '04 got over 40% of the Hispanic vote, and the Hispanic share of the vote has grown since then, and that was a very close race. The GOP would have to make it up somewhere else, and I don't see them doing much better than 12% of black votes. And Hillary may do better with women voters than the Dems' usual haul. All are reasons I'm pessimistic.

I see about 20-30% of Hispanic and between 15 and 20% of black vote. If he plays it right, which there is a good chance he can, he can also dice into her advantage in the unmarried women vote ("She defends and enables rapists!" will be hard to deal with) I see Hillary's vote dropping like a rock because what's in it for the minorities that she has, literally, nothing in common with?

I disagree--I can't see how he wanted the ACA in its current form (he won't even implement much of it), or keeping so much of the Bush tax cuts, and everything else he wanted (climate change legislation, card check, amnesty) has gone nowhere or been caught up in courts. I can't imagine he's thrilled with this.

He can take credit for its passage and blame all of the failures on a later President. "Well, when I left office, the program worked great" and since the press is downplaying how badly it is working, some will fully believe him. Amnesty is what he wants --- they are flooding in here in unprecedented numbers. Nothing is stopping it.

He gives two shits about unions (he'd rather voters be insanely rich or beggars --- a middle class is not what he or the DNC wants) and he will do something on his own about climate change.

Well, if they stuck with my preferred strategy they'd by definition have to not be pussies who give in. The same pussies would just as easily cave entirely on an extreme negotiating position. One thing they need is not just leadership who will "fight" but who know how to actually win, and that's going to take more than just legislative strategy but shaping public opinion. Otherwise, they're just not going to get the votes they need.

That's assuming that they disagree with the opposing view, which evidence is scant to show. The public HATED the Iran deal and the GOP still gave it to him rather than simply force it to be submitted as a treaty. People hated TPP and they still passed it.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Why "The National Review" and not "the National Review?"

I had to ask Steve Bartin over at newsalert this and don't remember if I got a response, but he still does it too.

Limbaugh has been criticized for, well for being, but aside from the lack of God attacks, for being juvenile or sophomoric or ya know immature or whatever, because he mocks names.

Is this capitalizing the "The" in the monthly "National Review" of the same sort of latent, passive ridicule?

I am starting to become more partial to the question Why put the sundry marks inside the quotation marks when other (nationality-wise) English writers don't?

There is a strong case the intention of the author is clearer when using grammar marks outside of quotation marks. I am unable to make that case at this time.

I'll not ask forgiveness for my failure to educate you but instead will become agitated upon review of the expectations placed on me, as though my time is infinite, a temporary-then-done commodity.



eric said...

Blogger damikesc said...
We are, though--maybe not enough, but deportations do happen. They are costly and take a while due to the legal hurdles, and could probably be sped up, but this takes legal changes and more funding to make a significant impact. As for getting localities and states to cooperate more, that again is a funding and legal issue--they don't want to take on more unfunded obligations.

We are deporting so few that Obama had to cook the numbers to cover it up, by counting people we turn around at the border as "deportations". We routinely now release illegal CRIMINALS (crimes beyond just being here illegal, which is terrible enough) in prison. We're doing virtually nothing.


One of the issues with these "Deportations" is that we cause the problem ourselves.

If you're from Brazil and we catch you on the Mexico/Texas border, what do you think happens? Because you're caught either entering the country or present in the country without admission, it's a pretty easy process to "deport" you.

However, because you're OTM (Other than Mexican) we release you into the United States. You're not legally entered into the United States, but you're physically present here. Approximately 97% of these released people vanish. Which means they don't show up for their "deportation" hearing and often times we don't even know their real name or information.

When they are caught, well, now they are present in the United States and have to go through a much more costly and expensive deportation process, the one to which you refer above.

How can this be fixed?

Well, it's not that hard really. Because they come from Mexico, we make Mexico take them back. It happens in every country in the world. If you fly to the UK and they refuse you admission, guess where you go? That's right, back to where the plane brought you from originally.

How we got into this mess where someone from a country other than Mexico can travel through Mexico into the United States, and when we catch them on the border Mexico can refuse to take them back because "They aren't citizens of Mexico." is ridiculous.

We could save tons and tons of money by telling Mexico they've got to suck it up and take the people back.

Think Mexico will refuse? Only if we are chumps. Because we can simply tell Mexico, ok, if you're going to refuse, then no more Visa's for you. No more border crossing cards. No more (Fill in the blank). Mexico needs us 100 times more than we need them. We just have to be tough. And Donald Trump is tough.

The other great thing about this is, it'll make Mexico think twice about allowing these people into their country. I can't tell you how many times Mexican officials came to tell us that X number of Iraqi's, or Iranian's, or Somali's, or whatever, were holed up in a Hotel in (Insert name of City here) and would be crossing the border soon and demanding asylum.

How does the Mexican government know where these people are, and that they are coming to the USA to request asylum but they do nothing?

Guess what? If we started refusing them at the border and making them go back to Mexico, Mexico wouldn't play this game with us anymore.

eric said...

What number do you project? I note that Bush in '04 got over 40% of the Hispanic vote, and the Hispanic share of the vote has grown since then, and that was a very close race. The GOP would have to make it up somewhere else, and I don't see them doing much better than 12% of black votes. And Hillary may do better with women voters than the Dems' usual haul. All are reasons I'm pessimistic.

I see about 20-30% of Hispanic and between 15 and 20% of black vote. If he plays it right, which there is a good chance he can, he can also dice into her advantage in the unmarried women vote ("She defends and enables rapists!" will be hard to deal with) I see Hillary's vote dropping like a rock because what's in it for the minorities that she has, literally, nothing in common with?


There is another factor here that some haven't considered.

Trump will compete in typically blue states. He will compete in California and New York and force Hillary to spend time and money there. He'll do it because it won't cost him much and he'll be able to get a lot of PR from trips to both places. This will significantly up his percentage of the minority vote. Remember, Republicans have all but abandoned these states, which I think has been a huge mistake.

I believe Trump will compete in them and if not win, come pretty darn close.

grackle said...

There’s at least one GOP candidate that knows the value of forcing votes on conservative-offered legislation:

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a presidential candidate and co-sponsor of Vitter's bill, acknowledged before the vote that the bill was likely to fail but said it would put Democrats on the record for voters to see. He urged Republican Senate leaders to try again later by attaching the bill to some piece of must-pass legislation.

http://tinyurl.com/oxua3u8

Phil 3:14 said...

"We're really way passed the point of "nicely""

We should never be past "nicely".

BN said...

"We should never be past "nicely"."

I agree.

So I'm going to say this nicely: Let it burn! ...please.

Brando said...

eric and damikesc--I understand where you're coming from, we just read the situation differently. Our discussion is probably moot though, as the next four years are likely to have as much gridlock as the last four, and we'll be discussing these same issues then.