THE G.O.P. has blinked

Speaker Boehner and the sane majority of Republicans look like they might make a move to send a clean bill to the Senate and negotiate afterwords. In the meantime Mccain and others in the Senate are now very outwardly going after the nut jobs like Cruz and Paul, and rightfully so. I think we are about to find out the tea party is not as strong as they think they are.

The tipping point IMHO (in addition to the President's admirable refusal to go along with the fiction that there is anything to negotiate right now) was Paul Ryan's op ed in the WSJ yesterday. Ryan, who has kept his mouth pretty much shut during this is trying to pick up the pieces and set himself up for a run in 2016. In his op ed he talked about putting a lid on taxes and spending, which are basic conservative ideas, but he went out of his way not to mention the ACA or "Obamacare." This sent a few wing nuts around the bend apparently. It shows these people are crazy and totally out of touch. When someone challenges Paul Ryan's credentials and insinuates he is too far to the left, its pretty plain they are way too far to the right.

DT,

I don't know if this is in Ryan's proposal or from elsewhere, but I heard there was a condition in which Rs do NOT want the Treasury to take any extraordinary measures????? Not quite certain what that means but do you think it's referring to this "Minted Coin" that they talk about in which as I understand it, the President can request for any amount without Congress approval? Just wondering....if you know about it.



TIS

I do know about the "billion dollar coin," but I don't think that is it. I believed Ryan was trying to move toward some kind of compromise and got criticized for it from the right.

I guess I'm wondering WHY, and IF the Treasury department had the legal means to help avoid the shutdown, why they wouldn't want it? Don't know how "extraordinary" these measures are. LOL



TIS

First you complain they won't compromise, now when they do you say they blinked, as if they are cowards. You can't have it both ways. You also keep saying conservatives are right wing nuts, and out of touch. So much for you being civil.

I think its time the country and politicians stop the right-wing, left-wing crap and do what's right for the COUNTRY. STop the partisan bullshit.

Could not agree more

TIS, they are talking about minting platinum coins or using federal government revenues to manage payment of US debt interest and perhaps fund some government operations.

When you hear right wingers pointing fingers at each other for this mess they're in for picking the wrong fight at the wrong time, the outcome is self-evident. (Ted Cruz over a week ago was the darling of the right, now he's their whipping boy over this. He deserves some blame but he didn't make those assholes join him in that fight.)

Boehner is trying to get his party to escape this fucking mess made by the crazy assholes he's stuck with, and really he has no option but to eat humble pie and accept in the short-term a humiliating defeat. Maybe he should take a page from what Obama similarly had to do in 2011, which pissed off liberals (like Lilo). By making that tactical withdrawal (with Republicans thinking they had him), Obama was able to regroup and win re-election a year later. Thus he went from being "Jimmy Carter 2.0" according to the Right-wing blogs and became the first Democratic President to win the popular majority vote twice since FDR.

They never should've raised the issue in the first place. I don't think it will cost them the House, but it only reinforces the view held by many Americans: that the GOP is nothing more than a party run by a couple of crap apples and the tea party. This isn't true obviously, but for God's sake, Boehner, Charles Dent, Susan Collins, Lydnsey Graham, John McCain, Portman, Ryan, Rubio and the rest need to distance themselves from these extreme righties, because those extreme righties are ruining the reputation of an otherwise respectable party. The Democrats went through the same thing in the 80's, the Republicans have to do it now.

A real bunch of pezzonovantes!!!!

True. McCain began setting himself apart by pointing the finger at the extreme fringe and stating, as you have, that this stunt should never have taken place. There was no legitimate legislative basis for it.

Christie (if he runs in '16) might be the beneficiary as he can accuse his rivals of being part of the problem. Then again, in three years will the people still remember or care about this?

But in any event the GOP has seen their approval rating fall to an all-time low, and Congress' approval is said to be in single digits. There are many respectable Republicans, but the party has allowed its voice to be that of the Limbaugh-type conservative, and it hurts them as a party when the filtering process for the party's presidential nominee is subjected to input from the far right that tries to compel them to deny evolution, global warming, etc.

What? I never said "conservatives are wing nuts." I have always differentiated between legitimate conservatives like John McCain, and certain house members and the 80 or fewer tea baggers who held the country and John "Not A Wartime Consigliere" Boehner hostage. The 80 or fewer are totally out of touch, and have no clue what they are doing. Boehner thad to blink because it was the right thing to do by the country. It will probably cost him his job, but it was the right thing to do. The upshot of this could be the end of the Republican party as we know it. What sweet revenge that would be!

Rather than lurching from demand to demand the GOP would be better served to figure out why they lost in 2008 and 2012 and if they can change this for 2016.

They have most of the governor's seats so they are far from done as a national party. But making all or nothing demands when you control neither the Senate or Presidency and can't stop the PPACA is foolish.

They are now in it DEEP. This episode will not be forgotten. Doms will hold the Senate and maybe pick off McConnel's seat. They will also gain governorships in Virginia and Florida.

I doubt McConnell looses his seat, I don't see Kentucky voters getting rid of him even in this situation. In addition I don't see why the Democrats would pick up governorships when A) they don't have anything to do with this shutdown B) Rick Scott is doing fine. Although McDonnell is at risk for allegedly receiving improper funds from a Virginia businessman, the unemployment rate has dropped under his tenure.

Fact is the Republican party isn't going away, but they do need to sort out their priorities.

No the governors have nothing to do with the shut down, but right now Scott and Cuccinelli are in serious trouble. Scott has a long time to go and he wll ooutspend anyone, and the one thing he has going for him is that his opponent will probably be Charlie Crist, but still it is hardly a safe seat.

they were willing to tank the country because the sitting president is black

he only has about 2.5 years left, calm down folks

Disagree. Stop playing the racist card

I won't pass judgment on the faction of the Republican party that forced the shutdown, but as for those tea party yahoos that marched on the White House waving Confederate flags and yelling, "Go home, Muslim Socialist," well, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that they are as racist as they are ignorant.

The shutdown is over,when will the government learn to work together.

Sorry Schmo, it IS racism. Not by all people who disagree with him but with enough of them, and people like Cruz who share the microphone with wackos
who say Obama is a Muslim, and who should drop his Qu'ran and come out of the White House with his hands up because he is "not the president of We the People" they are aiding and abetting this racism.
There is plenty of legitimate issues about which people can argue. As anyone here knows I am a huge Obama supporter, yet I would like to see an investigation into what the 200 million dollars to set up the ACA computers was used for. Heads should roll. These racists are not the mainstream GOP, and the sooner the sane people in the GOP get rid of this cancer, the better off the country will be.

IMHO and you all will probably disagree with me but I believe we need term limits for the house and senate. The POTUS has term limits why shouldn't they? The ones in office now are ruining our country and I am talking about both sides. Maybe 1 term of 4 years then your out. I figure after 4 years they are corrupt enough and don't give a damn about the country anymore just their agenda's and lining there own pockets.

As you yourself once said DT they're all pigs at the trough.

Term limit for members of congress would mean abolishing parties. I understand that many here are fed up with partisan politics, but you should see lack of parties to know that the devil you know is better than the one you don't. I think what is to blame here is the lack of transparency and lack of limit for donations to certain candidates. If they relied on their constituents to donate to their campaign fund as much as they relied on big companies, people wouldn't be left in the cold.

We have term limits for elected state officials in California and it hasn't meant an end to parties. It just means that after so long they run for different positions, but they are just as partisan as ever.

The left wants campaign limits only for corporate donations while special pleading for union donations. Libertarians argue against limits because of the First Amendment and the right to free speech. Donations are considered political speech. If there are going to be limits they should be across the board with no exceptions. However the reason for the high costs that require high funding is advertising, especially television ads. They are hugely expensive.

Not sure I understand why it would mean the end of the parties, and I am also not sure that if it did end the parties that it would be a bad thing. See the George Washington statement below. We certainly have many cunning, ambitious, unprincipled men in Congress today. It is probably easier to count those in Congress that are not among those Washington warns about.

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/w/washington_george.html#qYkacxOtsVUQYOSp.99

First, let me defend parties. Coming from a political climate that doesn't let parties grow, I've seen its disastrous consequences firsthand. Parties vet their candidates. They don't put their support behind a candidate which they don't know what he/she stands for. Result of having no prominent political party can be a president like Ahmadinejad. Nobody knew what his deal was. When he got to office, it was too late to change anything. Parties have platform. People can support the one with the platform they like and be sure that their elected representative doesn't stray a lot from their values.

As for the term limits, if you know you are going to be elected twice at most, what keeps you loyal to your party?

OHHH HOGGGGGGGGGWASHHHH11111

When is the first official day of winter this year lilo? Is it the same every year? I Like your aviator btw too

Two problems with term limits are:

1. Politicians serve out their terms that are limited, and then they sort of play musical chairs and get eleted to something else. It keeps them in office and destroys the idea of getting rid of them after a certain time.

2. For positions like Senator or Congressperson, it takes several years to really understand the job, and to specialize in some area or another and then rise up on committees. My usderstanding in both houses in D.C. is that the real "work horses" are long term representatives who have really learned their subject matter. To me these people protect us from an entrenched bureaucracy. The true "leadership" in both parties are folkd I personally would not like to see out of office. It was a shame, for instance to lose Richard Lugar in the Senate, beacuse he had gained so much knowledge and expertise.

That said, those "show horse" politicians who make a career out of politics and really do nothing, do not deserve what amounts to lifetime positions.

Maybe some kind of "up or out" limitation could be worked out. For example if someone developed expertise in military matters, after a term they have to be on the Armed services committee, and after two they have to move up to Chair or opposition leader on the committee, and/or have to have introduced and passed some kind of meaningful legislation that either reforms something, or changes something for the botter. How this is measured, I have no idea, but the gist of it is to require them to accomplish something or get out.

What about age limits then? Most Americans retire at age 65/67 average right? For example wasn't Strom Thurmond still in office when he was in his 90's? That's crazy IMO.

Set a age limit. I mean they get a great pension for life anyways. Something has to be done cause the bunch who is in now ain't worth a hill of beans.

Yeah, an age limit might work, certainly Thurmond stayed on too long, but guys like John McCain and Bernie Sanders (trying to be bi-partisan) aren't exactly spring chickens, but they bring a lot of institutional knowledge to the table and they still seem to have it together.

One of the real problems is the breakdown of the way it used to work in Congress. Freshman were supposed to keep their mouths shut, and maintain low profiles. there ahve always been exceptions including JFK, Obama and now Cruz who clearly never had any interest in being long term Senators, but were using their seats as platforms to run for president, but even Hillary kept quiet for two years in the Senate, made friends in both parties and then got a plum committee job.

The other thing that is missing is that it used to be that members and their families would spend most of their time in D.C., and not running to their districts all the time to raise money. This caused members to forge friendships with people with different points of view. Nowadays it is two armed camps, which is nuts.

I like the Reagan - Tip O'Neill rule that after six in the evening they would never discuss politics.

Wow DT, we agreed on a political matter.

Tip O' Neill and Reagan were a good combo. They did not always see eye to eye but they got shit done in the name of the people they served. I believe if both men were alive today they would be ashamed of their respective parties

I'm reading "Killing Jesus" by Bill O'Reilly. As I read the events leading up to Jesus' "conviction", I couldn't help but think the Republicans were acting like a bunch of Pharisees. (Disclaimer: I didn't think of Obama as Jesus).

Their loyalty shouldn't be to the party, it should be to the American people. They should do what is best for all.

Let's just assume that we never put in term limits for the President - who do you think would have been elected to a third term? Eisenhower likely defeats Kennedy and JFK waits until 1964 or even 1968? Do you think Reagan could have been the first to win all the states against Dukakis? Clinton against Bush (W) in 2000? Obama in 2016?

Putting aside the question of whether congressional and senatorial term limits are a good idea, it can only happen through a constitutional amendment. It is unconstitutional for a state to impose any term limits on federally elected officials.

An amendment would require 2/3 of both houses to approve the amendment, which isn't going to happen, or a constitutional convention called by 2/3 of the state legislatures. And none of the Amendments to the constitution resulted from the latter.

But for those, who want term limits, the best answer is we already have them. The members of congress and senators are subject to election and reelection. If there is a problem with bad people in office getting reelected constantly, there is then a bigger problem with the people, who keep installing them in office.

The problem is if members of congress decide to vote as they please, again parties mean nothing. But as I said, they mean something, at least to me. I don't like unpredictability in politics. I like to vote for a certain platform and know that the party I vote for would be loyal to those values. Those values are what I think is for the good of the people.

If that is the case - why is there a need for term limits for the President? I think we should either have them for all, or not at all.

The XXII amendment limits the terms of the president. The difference is that the presidency is an executive office with considerable power vested in one person.

A senator or congressperson works in the legislative branch. Singularly his or her power is comparatively minor; its strength rests entirely in its body composing many people. As such, there is more of a need for term limits for the chief executive.

James Madison spoke out against term limits for congress in the Federalist Papers. Again, the people have the power of term limits in the ballots they cast.

Of course the wonderful people that we elected would not vote themselves out of a job. They want to keep the millions they make meanwhile screwing you out of your job with the wonderful decisions they make.

But there in itself lies the problem. If you think one particular branch of ideology is right then you get what we have today. The answer (except in extreme circumstances) usually lies somewhere in between the right and left. Something most people don't seem to understand

This is something i agree with. Senators amass so much power as they build up time in Senate, they have too much of an edge over newer Senators, and become almost impossible to defeat in an election. They also become out of touch. If any political body needs term limits, it's them. A 75 year-old man in same seat for over 20 years cannot have any idea of life on outside. They are in own thier world, and become a closed club.

I agree Kly. It takes effort to learn about candidates and to vote. Some Americans don't want to make the effort. In addition, there is a paucity of knowledge among so many Americans about national issues. Those with so littel knowledge insist on looking at those issues in elementary terms. They neglect to consider the effects of our pluralistic society.

I might if you eliminate the gerrymandering that takes place to ensure that incumbents are re-elected.

Some excellent points being made here

And that's why we review our positions every couple of years. We get to vote again and change our position. I never said a certain branch of ideology can be right all the time. But you certainly can identify with one, in a certain period of time, in a certain political environment. The important thing to me is that when I vote for a party, I get exactly what their platform claim should that party win the election.

Gerrymandering was rampant after the 2010 elections that brought Republican majorities to the state houses, which coincided with the national census that compelled redistricting. Pennsylvania, like other states was carved up into congressional districts that defied fairness and geographic sense. The intent was actually to eliminate Democratic incumbents by marginalizing their districts.

They then pushed to overhaul our presidential electoral process by allocating electoral votes by individual district, claiming this was more fair. They knew they were very unlikely of beating Obama in 2012, and had their ruse succeeded, this past election, which Obama won by a comfortable margin in 2012, would have produced the ludicrous result of 14 votes for Romney and 6 votes for Obama. Of course, the voter ID law was rushed through to further reduce the voting impact of the poor, elderly and urban minorities, all of whom typically vote Democratic.

LOL!!!

When did the republicans compromise? The entire time they kept insisting on the president agreeing to defund, delay or repeal the ACA. And why us being truthful not acting civil? The teabaggers are the lunatic fringe and are out of touch. They are also a threat to our republic and way of life. They didn't have the votes to overturn the ACA or to pass new legislation to do it so instead, they hold the entire country hostage, shut the gov't down and cost us $24 billion. Tell me why they're not extremists please.

how do rubio and ryan distance themselves from themselves?

This is one Republican for which this Democrat could vote:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/11/jeb-bush-defends-immigration-remarks/?hpt=hp_t2