The Commentariat -- Feb. 28, 2015

Internal links removed.

David Espo & Erica Werner of the AP: President Obama signed the one-week extension into law just before midnight. ...

... Night of the Jackasses. Sean Sullivan & Michael DeBonis of the Washington Post: "Congress passed a one-week stopgap funding measure late Friday to avert a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security at midnight, sending the bill on to President Obama for his expected signature. The last-minute deal came together after a whirlwind day of negotiations in which House Republicans suffered a humiliating defeat when their 20-day funding bill was rejected. After the House bill went down, the Senate sought to pull DHS back from the brink by swiftly passing the one-week bill. The House followed suit shortly thereafter." ...

     ... "Democrats to the Rescue." Daniel Newhauser, et al., of the National Journal report some of the Democrats' behind-the-scenes manuevering & grumbling. Democrats should use their headline in campaign ads. ...

... Gail Collins: "There was absolutely no agreement on what will happen next. We look back with nostalgia on the era when congressional leaders would get together in secret and make deals to pass big, mushy pieces of legislation that were littered with secret appropriations for unnecessary highways and a stuffed-owl museum in some swing vote's district. We complained a lot at the time, but that was because we didn't realize it was the golden age." ...

... Ashley Parker of the New York Times: "Republicans vowing to govern effectively as a congressional majority failed a fundamental test Friday evening, when House leaders could not pass a temporary measure to avert a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, leaving lawmakers scrambling for a solution before money was to run out at midnight. In a stunning and humiliating setback for Speaker John A. Boehner and his leadership team, the House voted 224 to 203 against their plan to extend funding for the department for three weeks. The bill was defeated during a tense evening vote on the House floor, despite leadership optimism that, after a day of arm-twisting behind the scenes, they had the muscle to win a narrow victory." Story has been updated several times. ...

... Banner headline at Politico right now (9 pm ET 2/27/15): "Boehner Fails Again." ...

... John Bresnahan, et al., of Politico: "After 52 GOP lawmakers brought down a three-week spending bill for the agency, House Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team were scrambling Friday to find a way to keep the Department of Homeland Security from shutting down at midnight.... The speaker's aides said he had no plans to give up his position, but there was widespread speculation in private among Republican lawmakers and aides about his future." ...

... Josh Hicks of the Washington Post: A "Democratic measure, sponsored by Reps. Brad Ashford (Neb.), Gwen Graham (Fla.), Scott Peters (Calif.) and Ami Bera (Calif.), would halt pay for members of Congress if they don't agree to a new round of funding for the agency by Friday.... The legislation is similar to several bills that would have halted lawmakers' salaries during the government-wide shutdown of 2013. Those measures never made it out of committee.... Federal statute only allows lawmakers to change the salaries of future members of Congress, so the new House bill would put their wages in an escrow account until the potential Homeland Security shutdown ends." ...

     ... CW: Hicks is understating/misstating the case. It isn't "federal statutes" that prohibit Congress from diddling with Congressional salaries; it's the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, "No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." Were the restriction a statute, Congress could change it with a new statute.

Natasha Singer of the New York Times: "The Obama administration on Friday proposed a wide-ranging bill intended to provide Americans with more control over the personal information that companies collect about them and how that data can be used, fulfilling a promise the president had talked about for years. But some privacy advocates immediately jumped on the proposed legislation, saying it failed to go far enough, particularly given the broad statements President Obama had made on the issue. They said the bill would give too much leeway to companies and not enough power to consumers."

Be Careful What You Wish For. Sandhya Somashekhar, et al., of the Washington Post: "Officials in several Republican states that balked at participating in President Obama's health-care initiative are now revisiting the issue, amid mounting panic over a possible Supreme Court decision that would revoke federal insurance subsidies for millions of Americans.... At least six states where Republican leaders had previously refused to set up state marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act are now considering what steps they might take to preserve the subsidies being paid to their residents. Efforts to try to hold on to the subsidies are even under consideration in South Carolina, which supported the challenge now before the Supreme Court. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) said in an interview that her state may consider setting up a marketplace...." ...

... Be Careful, Addendum. Caitlin MacNeal of TPM: "Former Arizona county sheriff Richard Mack, a fierce opponent of Obamacare and a leader in the 'constitutional sheriff' movement, is struggling to pay his medical bills after he and his wife each faced serious illnesses. The former sheriff and his wife do not have health insurance and started a GoFundMe campaign to solicit donations from family and friends to cover the costs of their medical care." Thanks to Haley S. for the link. Also, see yesterday's comments thread for a discussion of this story. ...

     ... CW: For more discussion, scroll down to the comments on Mack's GoFundMe page. (Better do it fast; I'd expect the comments to be disabled/disappeared at any moment). ...

... Margot Sanger-Katz of the New York Times: "Even if you don't receive Obamacare subsidies, you could still be harmed by the Supreme Court case that could take them away. A court ruling for the plaintiffs in the case, King v. Burwell ... could [cause] surging prices and reduced choice for health insurance shoppers across the income spectrum.... The loss of all those low-income, relatively healthy people could destabilize the individual health insurance markets for everyone else."

White House: "In this week's address, the President reiterated his commitment to middle-class economics, and to ensuring that all hard-working Americans get the secure and dignified retirement they deserve":

Portrait by Simmie Knox. CLICK ON PICTURE TO SEE LARGER IMAGE.Timothy Phelps of the Los Angeles Times: "As he prepares to leave office in the next week or two, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. called for new civil rights legislation, warned of the mounting threat of terrorism and described his worst day in office [-- the day of the Sandy Hook murders --] in a round of farewell media interviews Friday. Noting that the Justice Department said this week it would not prosecute George Zimmerman for shooting Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black youth in Sanford, Fla., Holder said the law needed to be changed to make such prosecutions easier. Before he steps down, Holder is expected to announce that the Justice Department will not seek to prosecute Darren Wilson, the police officer in Ferguson, Mo., who shot and killed Michael Brown last year in a confrontation over a jaywalking offense. The case sparked widespread public protests and clashes with police." ...

... David Nakamura of the Washington Post: "President Obama shed tears and soul legend Aretha Franklin gave a surprise performance as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. bid farewell to the Justice Department on Friday after a 39-year career, including the past six as the nation's top lawyer. During a ceremony to unveil his official portrait, Holder, 64, said he was proud of his accomplishments and praised hundreds of colleagues who turned out to honor him. He was the country's third-longest serving attorney general":

     ... CW: My favorite moment: when President Obama adjusted the stand for Franklin. A President and a Gentleman.

... Josh Feldman of Mediaite: "Attorney General Eric Holder is conducting exit interviews with many major news outlets -- CNN, ABC, NBC, CNN, and Politico -- but not Fox News. And Fox is not happy about this." Why Holder would pass up an opportunity to be on the O'Reilly Channel is beyond me, although Fox "News" veep Michael Clemente had a supposition: "Ultimately, however, we're not surprised that Holder would try to evade a thorough accounting of his record in office, including his decision to investigate our Chief Washington correspondent, James Rosen through an illegal seizure of emails and phone records of Rosen and his parents." ...

... In fact, Holder has said that he "regrets" his wording of the Rosen subpoena.

Prebuttal. David Sanger & Michael Gordon of the New York Times: "Just four days before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to a joint meeting of Congress, the Obama administration sought on Friday to refute the Israeli leader's expected critique, arguing that he has failed to present a feasible alternative to American proposals for constraining Iran's nuclear program. In a briefing for reporters, senior administration officials contended that even an imperfect agreement that kept Iran's nuclear efforts frozen for an extended period was preferable to a breakdown in talks that could allow the leadership in Tehran unfettered ability to produce enriched uranium and plutonium." ...

... AFP: "The United States set out what it called its 'bottom lines' to reach a deal with Iran to rein in its nuclear program ahead of new talks next week. Washington had stuck to its guns that it wanted a 'good deal' and had agreed to several extensions of the negotiations 'because we have held firm to certain bottom lines,' a senior US administration official said." ...

... CW: If Iran's negotiators were smart, they would agree to the deal 15 minutes before Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to give his big speech to the U.S. Congress. ...

... Michael Cohen of the Boston Globe on why Congressional Democrats should boycott Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress: Natanyahu has cast his lot with Republicans. "... his vision for Israel is hardly one that Democrats in the United States should be embracing. Netanyahu is ... an opponent of the two-state solution. He has unabashedly -- and in opposition to long-standing US policy -- expanded Israeli settlements in the West Bank." Democrats should not sit & allow themselves to be used as props in a campaign ad for a politician whose views they don't share.

Paul Singer of USA Today: "Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., has repaid the government $35,000 from his personal funds to cover the cost of redecorating his House office in the style of the PBS drama Downton Abbey.... Schock did not tell the Post or other news organization that his office had already paid $35,000 [from federal government funds to his decorator Annie Brahler] through the end of December.... After the Post story, [published Feb. 2,] Brahler reimbursed the U.S. Treasury $35,000, the documents show, and Schock then paid her the same amount from his personal account.... USA Today has reported that Schock had spent more $100,000 than of his taxpayer-funded account on office renovations in prior years. The expenses included thousands for leather furniture, hardwood floors and marble countertops for his offices in his central Illinois congressional district." ...

... Anna Palmer, et al., of Politico: "Illinois Rep. Aaron Schock is canceling fundraising events as he continues to face scrutiny about his spending and whether he accepted improper gifts." ...

... See also yesterday's Commentariat.

Annals of "Journalism," Ctd. USA Today Editors: Bill "O'Reilly stands exposed of the same kind of puffed-up truth-bending he so regularly derides on his show.... By journalism ethics, Fox should distance itself from its truth-challenged employee. But that's not likely to happen because for Fox and its fans..., having common enemies matters more than factual detail. That's why Fox has left a canyon-wide gap between its standards and those of NBC.... It's unfortunate that neither the network nor its star sees a need for allegiance to the truth. But for O'Reilly and Fox, the perceived vast liberal conspiracy that helped create the network two decades ago means not having to say you're sorry today." ...

... CW: There are two excellent things about the USA Today op-ed: (1) Rather than tiptoeing in with they-said/he-said qualifiers, the editors presents O'Reilly's lying as a given; (2) the paper's readership includes a lot of FoxBots.

Presidential Race

CPAC ♥ Randy. Ben Schreckenger of Politico: "A day after other Republicans tossed out hawkish lines that clashed with his own brand of more cautious foreign policy, the raucous response to [Rand] Paul's Friday afternoon speech from a standing-room-only crowd proved that CPAC remains friendly territory for the Kentucky senator. As he warned against an 'inept' government venturing overseas, he received standing ovations and supporters chanted 'President Paul.'"

Jonathan Topaz of Politico: "Jeb Bush survived his Conservative Political Action Conference appearance here on Friday, holding his own on immigration and education in front of activists who see him as the GOP's most moderate potential 2016 candidate. On immigration, Bush ... said the country 'first and foremost' must secure its borders. Still, he also defended his record of supporting in-state tuition and driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants in Florida." ...

... It's So Easy to Say "President Bush." Chris Cillizza, the Washington Post's Permanent Cub Reporter, swoons, "Jeb Bush was very, very good at CPAC today.... Bush was energetic -- maybe due at least in part to nervousness in facing a testy crowd -- and informed. He refused to back down -- particularly on immigration -- from positions that he knew would be unpopular with the crowd. He insisted that Republicans were good at opposing things but bad at 'being for things.' He was composed. He was up to the moment. He looked, in a word, presidential." CW: Remember, people, the Post fired Dan Froomkin & promoted this guy. ...

... CW: For a more comprehensive report on Jeb's performance, go to Andrew Desiderio of Mediaite. That's right, the personality-driven site Mediaite does a better job of reporting the story than does the Washington Post's Cuddly Cub Reporter. ...

... Ed Kilgore: "So Jebbie’s long-awaited Q&A session at CPAC has come and gone, and a lot of people who aren't conservative movement types (e.g., the entire WaPo contingent at the event seemed to be very impressed.) You can expect Jeb's many Beltway fans to make this a Game Changing moment in the 2016 cycle.... But he's still got a 'base problem' that cannot be conjured away, much as his fans wish he could." Also hilarious, Jeb dodges a question on the Congressional hoohah re: funding the DHS by saying, "I'm not an expert on the ways of Washington." ...

... Dana Milbank: "Bush, preceded onstage by 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson, who gave a speech that rambled from genital herpes to Nazis, deserves big points for bravery -- both for choosing to speak at CPAC and for standing up for his controversial views in his 20-minute tête-à-tête with Hannity.... The two men chose to stand on the stage, awkwardly.... Bush's attempt to affect a casual manner, by inserting a hand into a pants pocket, didn't help. He shifted and fidgeted his way through the performance, at one point losing control of his syntax by suggesting that we 'put ISIS around a noose.' Asked about securing the border, Bush replied with a jovial 'Let's do it, man!' And when Hannity said he had a final question, Bush blurted out, 'Boxers!'" ...

... Mollie Reilly of the Huffington Post reports on Robertson's rant. Robertson was at CPAC "to accept the Andrew Breitbart Defender of the First Amendment Award from Citizens United." ...

... Brendan Bordelon of the National Review: "... Robertson told a CPAC crowd on Thursday that the U.S.A. should be run by Christians, and not any others -- adding ominously that 'we got too many 'any others' in the White House.'" ...

... CW: If Bush wanted to demonstrate some actual "bravery," Dana, he could have remarked that Robertson was a hateful, ignorant crackpot bigot. ...

     ... Update: Looks like Bush let close ally & advisor Ana Navarro do the brave part. Luke Brinker of Salon has the details. Also, turns out Wayne La Pierre of the NRA spoke between Robertson's & Bush's appearances. What a warmup! (Bush, BTW, is a typical GOP Second Amendment-hugger. He signed Florida's notorious stand-your-ground bill into law, though after George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, he said the law did not apply to that case since Zimmerman chased Martin. He opined that "it's always good to review laws," suggesting some applications of the stand-your-ground law were, um, overkill.)

Marco's "Epic Error." Igor Volsky of Think Progress: "Potential 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) inexplicably told a conservative audience on Friday that President Barack Obama lacked a military strategy to confront ISIS because he feared upsetting Iran.... There's just one problem: Iran has been fighting ISIS just like the United States and has publicly urged America to take a larger role in the operation. Obama has even sent a letter to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei suggesting anti-ISIS cooperation." ...

... CW: Marco likes to differentiate himself from many of the other GOP presidential candidates by claiming that unlike many of them, he has foreign policy "experience": he sits on both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee & Senate Intelligence Committee. I guess "sits" is the operative word, because he sure hasn't been paying attention. This wasn't a "gaffe" on Marco's part; it was an extended display of ignorance. ...

... Steve Benen: "... for Rubio to criticize Obama for adopting a policy Rubio endorses, all while getting Iran's position backwards, is a bad sign for a guy whose 'clear view of what's happening in the world' is supposed to set him apart from his GOP rivals."

James Downie of the Washington Post: "... even [Scott] Walker knew that compari[ng Wisconsin union members to terrorists] was in poor taste: Afterward, he told reporters, 'There's no comparison between the two, let me be perfectly clear.' But what Walker said right after that clarification -- 'I'm just pointing out the closest thing I have to handling a difficult situation was the 100,000 protesters I had to deal with' -- shows just how deep the GOP's foreign policy problem goes. Across the board, the Republican field has no serious candidates with real foreign policy experience." ...

... Paul Waldman: "... what's alarming isn't that [Scott Walker] 'compared' a bunch of Wisconsinites to ISIS, which of course he wasn't trying to do. What's alarming is that he thinks that you need the same skills and approach to dealing with unhappy constituents as you do with terrorists.... All the Republican candidates ... will all be eager to tell you that on this problem, Barack Obama is weak and indecisive, whereas if you're sufficiently tough, the problem can be solved. But you know who was tough, uncompromising, and brimming with the 'confidence' Walker cites? George W. Bush." ...

... YEAH BUT. Laura Ingraham notices Scott Walker is just like Reaganus Maximus (even if maybe she had to make up the Reagan story). Also, too, never forget: the media hate conservatives. Steve M. comments. ...

... Scott Walker, the Pro-Rapist Candidate. Natasha Vargas-Cooper of Jezebel: "Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's proposed budget -- which would cut $300 million dollars out of the state's beloved public university system -- has a non-fiscal bombshell tucked in between its insane pages. Under Walker's budget, universities would no longer have to report the number of sexual assaults that take place on a campus to the Department of Justice. Under Walker's plan, university employees who witness a sexual assault would no longer have to report it. There are no policy recommendations in Walker's budget how or what would replace these reporting mechanisms." ...

     ... **UPDATE: The story is not true. The Walker budget removes the wording at the request of the University, because it was redundant.

... Brian Weidy of the Daily Beast: The language "may be the governor's ploy to pick a fight with the federal government. Under the Clery Act, any school that receives public funding must report sexual assault incidences to the federal Department of Justice, so Walker's proposal goes just short of explicitly violating Title IX regulations -- and it still may be crossing a legal line.... Even Republican Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel has expressed reservations about Walker's proposal." ...

     ... **UPDATE: This story is not true. See Jezebel correction above.

... CW: Now ask yourself -- Is seeking to nullify a portion of major federal civil rights law a good political move? Will the general public see standing up for rapists as a heroic effort by a little guy fighting evil federal regulations?

Simon Maloy of Salon on Rick Perry's "border security" scam. Yeah, he's still telling people -- including the CPAC crowd -- that he secured the border when Obama wouldn't. Facts, be damned.

Beyond the Beltway

** David Sirota, in a story republished in Raw Story, has figured out why former presidential contender Chris Christie settled with Exxon for a teeny fraction of the amount the state had sued for in a $9BB environmental disaster case. If you pay taxes in New Jersey, you should be outraged at the sheer audacity of this legalized theft. P.S. Christie has done this before. ...

... Here's more from Scott Fallon & James O'Neill of the Bergen Record. ...

... CW: Bridgegate was a prank. The deals with Exxon, Occidental & other comprise a multi-billion-dollar scandal.

Kevin McDermott of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Tom Schweich, Missouri's Republican state auditor and a leading contender for the governor's office in next year's election, died Thursday after apparently shooting himself in his Clayton home.... A 911 call was made from Schweich's home at 9:48 a.m., seven minutes after Schweich had left a voicemail requesting an interview with a Post-Dispatch reporter.... The Post-Dispatch interview, which was also to include an Associated Press reporter, was set at his Clayton home for later in the day.... On Tuesday morning, Schweich confided in Post-Dispatch Editorial Page Editor Tony Messenger that he believed that John Hancock, the newly elected chairman of the Missouri Republican Party, had spread disinformation about Schweich's religion. That topic was what Schweich wanted to discuss with reporters for the Post-Dispatch and the Associated Press Thursday. In several conversations via text and phone in the days leading up to Thursday morning, Schweich told Messenger that Hancock mentioned to people in passing that Schweich was Jewish. Schweich wasn't Jewish. He was a member of ... an Episcopal congregation in Clayton.... He said his grandfather was Jewish, and that he was 'very proud of his connection to the Jewish faith.'"

News Lede

AP: "The trial of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev can stay in Massachusetts, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. A three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said any high-profile case would receive significant media attention but that knowledge of such case 'does not equate to disqualifying prejudice.'... In its 2-1 ruling, the appeals court found that the defense did not meet the standards necessary to have the trial moved."

Comments

[Marvin Schwalb]

Looks like 2015 is going to be really special. A Republican induced total nightmare. In a way I was looking forward to the Republican control of Congess. Now I am thrilled. They are managing to screw up everything!
The new sticker for the rear of my car " Thank you Republicans, sincerely ISIS".

[Kate Madison]

Here is my comment on Facebook:
As that old saying goes: "What goes around comes around!" Why should it be any different for you, Sheriff Richard Mack? You would have denied health insurance for many, many other people. Now YOU need it--so are the rules supposed to change? Looks to me as if you are depending on the "kindness of strangers!"

P.S. Bibi is a racist, psychopathic asswipe and deserves nothing from the U.S. I hope Obama stands firm and that Bibi loses his re-election BIGTIME!

P.P.S. I am in the SoCal desert and have been taking a break from commenting, but these issues are returning me to the fray.
Hello Everyone. I have been following you and savoring your excellent comments each day--and your always stunning commentary, CW!

[Victoria]

Espo and Werner were not accurate in their reporting that the House's behavior was, "Bordering on dysfunction." No, that's incorrect; it was a flamboyant display of its dysfunction. I am also happy that the reporting also included quotes from republicans who admitted this. But I am furious that this is happening: it's MY congress, fellas. Straighten up and act right or I'm gonna get really mad!

[MAG]

Comparing commentaries in the WaPo by Chris Cilizza and Dana Milbank you'd think each had attended a different CPAC whence Jeb Bush spoke!

[Marvin Schwalb]

The scariest part of this DHS story is the fact that there are members of Congress so unbelievably stupid is that they would pick homeland security as their weapon of mass destruction. They had no idea that their threat using that format was actually a giveaway to Democrats?
You threaten to allow terrorists to attack America? Dumb, irrational? I need a new word.

[James Singer]

Any one else following Jeb Lund’s coverage of CPAC? It’s quite good snark.

[Marie Burns]

@James Singer: Thanks. I wasn't aware of Lund. Also, there was a sidebar that led me to this piece by Jill Filipovik, which should be required reading for every one of these marriage-will-save-us-all (Mitt Romney) advocates.

Of course Filipovik's column is chockful of statistical findings & facts, so I guess it's of no use to confederates. Also, no mention of God. Anywhere.

Marie

[Marie Burns]

@MAG: My thoughts also. BTW, I see you won the change-of-venue argument in the Court of Appeals.

Marie

[Akhilleus]

Victoria made a short but cogent comment on last night's thread that I think deserves further consideration, primarily for the danger it signals.

Her thought referred to the trouble we would all be in if the Katzenjammer Kids now in charge of congress had to act quickly and decisively in a moment of great need.

The answer, obviously, no...we can't count on them. For anything.

And no is the word they cleave to as the outward sign of their inward perfection as patriots. Patriots to what nation I have no clue. It certainly isn't America. Must be the Land of Idiots.

This No thing has been going on now since Reagan was putting people out of work, declaring government the problem and rich people the solution. It has gone far beyond mere intransigence and foot stamping. It has become a national embarrassment that an entire political party can do only one thing: Say No. They are for no taxes and no regulations. Other than that, they have no plan. No real direction. If you have a good, even a great idea, say, healthcare coverage for all Americans who need it (who, other than the lowest of the low and most craven ideologues could ever say that was a bad thing?), the answer is invariably NO.

And who believes in their heart of hearts that these infants could come together in a time of national crisis to forge a way forward for this country? None of them have ever learned--or care to learn--the art of political persuasion and or deigned to master the skill sets required to craft meaningful legislation that will work in the real world, meaning legislation that accedes to the requirements of realpolitik, of compromise and agreement in the interest of making the nation stronger. They have no use for such things, and ergo are ill suited for dealing with any form of crisis. A broken lawn sprinkler would be a challenge on the order of climbing Everest for these incompetent losers (I can't even use the word "amateurs" because at least amateurs love what they're trying to get good at. These people hate it, hate governing; despise government).

They were weaned on Reagan playacting and bought into a corrupt and useless ideology that demands absolute fealty to otherworldly tenets. They give no shrift to understanding the inner workings of governance and so see value only in grandstanding and drawing up risible legislation ("The UN will NOT own the Alamo!") that serves only to demonstrate to the Fox watchers that they will never give an inch, even if it's to prevent a terrorist attack or to ensure that citizens will not die from lack of affordable health care.

That'll show those whiny liberals!

The enormous waste of time that is CPAC is proof that none of these people are interested in political effectiveness. They specialize in claims of victimization, on the one hand, and obstinate inanity on the other.

This sheriff asshole is the perfect example. NO to healthcare, but when he's in need, his hand is out quicker than Louie Gohmert can say something stupid.

So, can we count on them when we need them? Just imagine what the monkey house would be like in the case of a true national emergency. Why, you might even see the Speaker of the House, completely give up, make kissy faces at reporters, and complain about members of congress not wearing the right shoes, while the Capitol Building burns down around him.

They said they could govern. I didn't believe them. You didn't believe them. A lot of people didn't believe them.

We were right.

All of us.

[Akhilleus]

A big thanks to James and Marie for links to the Lund and Filopovic Guardian articles addressing the Cloud Cuckoo Land wingnut demands, repeated this week at CPAC, that everyone be married, especially those no-good "urban" people.

Filipovic presents the facts in a dispassionate, clear-headed manner that gives the lie to the usual confederate pap about how liberals hate marriage. As she says, and as no one could possibly disagree with who wasn't already brain damaged, a stable two parent household is the best environment for raising children, but it's not always possible. And forcing people to marry for the sake of ideology and religious finger-wagging, is the worst possible solution, which makes it the solution of choice, natch, for confederates.

It's interesting, when you think of the attacks wingnuts have been making on multiple fronts in attempting to ram their view of marriage down everyone's throat. First, kill access to abortions which will drastically limit a woman's choice. If she decides to marry, ideology is served and it's up to her and her partner to make a go of it, because now our job is done, and if the marriage fails, well, they weren't good people anyway, so fuck 'em. If she doesn't, our social policies will make the bitch pay. She'll suffer because she isn't married, and so will her kids, but fuck 'em. Then we'll go after birth control and healthcare and family planning of any kind, because fuck all that liberal shit too.

So, effectively, what we're talking about here is enforced social engineering based on ideology, ie, Socialism, or something that could be called "The Right Wing Socialist State Enforced Marriage Program".

This is what the right is insisting on. A kind of Central Wingnut Committee control of marriage and child rearing. And, according to the Cloud Cuckoo Land Assumptions, everything will be fine. They'll be economically sound and everyone will live happily ever after.

But if they don't, fuck 'em. They're on their own.

Let's see how that works out in the Red States, where all this bullshit is a given, shall we?

A report published recently in the America Journal of Sociology, written by, funnily enough, the Barbara Bush Regents Professor of Liberal Arts, at the University of Texas, Austin, Jennifer Glass, concludes that red states have far and away a higher rate of marriage failure than progressive blue states like Massachusetts. It's partly socioeconomic, but Glass and her fellow researchers "...concluded that the conservative religious culture is in fact a major contributing factor thanks to 'the social institutions they create' that 'decrease marital stability.'"

So it appears that the same wingnut ideology that confederates are demanding be employed as the keystone in the Right Wing Socialist State Enforced Marriage Program, is the one that has caused enormous numbers of divorces and marriage instability in red states. Shit. Facts are so fucking inconvenient, aren't they?

And my final broadside at the Right Wing Socialist State Enforced Marriage Program, is this:

If marriage is such a boon to economic stability, how come of all the states in the nation, the biggest moochers, those with little economic success, are red states which have all subscribed to the Right Wing Socialist Enforced Marriage Program?

Huh?

Okay, Palin, Huckabee, Jindal, Bush, Santorum, Trump (ho-ho--a little Snafu, there, eh?), Li'l Randy, Cruz, Rubio, and the rest of you Socialist Central Committee Marriage Control fuckers: You're up.

[Akhilleus]

Oops. Hold on. I think I said the CPAC ass-scratching monkeys were insisting that everyone raising kids be married.

That's not quite accurate.

You know what I mean...

Because on Planet Stupid, children raised in a family where both parents are dysfunctional in some way, and keep loaded weapons under their pillows and bags of Oxy in the fridge, as long as they're a man and woman, are way, way better off than children raised by same sex parents in a stable marriage, both good people with good jobs, who will shower their kids with love and affection, and not threaten them with beatings or shootings.

Because Jesus. And Ronald Reagan! Dammit!

Don't you sumbitch lib'ral bastards know anything?

You're all goin' ta hell.

Now put on that Tammy Wynette song, D-I-V-O-R-C-E. I love that song! I been dee-vorced three times, praise Jesus, my kids are just fine. Only two have done time, neither more than 10 years. The other makes a ton-a money doing something down in Nashville. I don't know what, but she works late nights and sleeps all day. She wears skimpy clothes but at least she wasn't raised by no queers who hate Jesus.

P.S. I read somewhere today, and I don't care to go back and find out where, because it would mean crawling through the muck of right-wing crazy again. Anyway, some wingnut imbecile was ranting about how the gay and lesbian "agenda" (who the fuck even knows what they mean by this? I've always thought it meant "let us live like everyone else") would very soon make saying the phrase "Father's Day" a hate crime because it would be so insulting to lesbian couples.

This is the sort of thinking that wingers think is self-explanatory, but it's like saying "Of course everyone knows that unicorns don't come out on Sundays."

[Barbarossa]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/27/1367408/-Between-the-llamas-and-the-dress-you-may-have-missed-Fox-News-reaction-to-Net-Neutrality-decision?detail=email

The Daily Kos article about Fox "news" makes me despair about our country's future, especially the Facebook comments.