Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.
You probably saw Ted Cruz talking to Chris Wallace yesterday. At the end of the segment, he says if his plan A fails in the Senate, he wants the House to pass portions of the budget with an ACA defunding provision to the Senate and then see if the Senate and Obama will reject them.
The first would be a bill funding the military. He says that Reid and Obama will have trouble going against that one in the particular.
Here's the problem with that: The majority in the Senate won't vote "no." They'll vote "yes" on proceeding to vote. Then they'll vote "yes" to amend the bill to strip defunding the ACA from it. And then finally they'll vote "yes" to fund the military or whatever funding the provision concerns.
The only way that won't happen is if Republicans stay united and filibuster it.
In either case, Obama hasn't vetoed anything. And it won't be Senate Democrats who stopped consideration of the funding/defunding, but the Senate Republicans. It's quite clear Cruz has not thought out his legislative strategy.
The renewed push by Cruz and conservatives also puts the squeeze on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky Republican is already in a tight spot between fending off an anti-Obamacare GOP challenger for re-election and averting a government shutdown that could hurt the party in the November 2014 elections.
Many Republicans recognize that Cruz and his cohorts are on a fool's errand. It's one thing to filibuster and block Reid from advancing a funding bill. But passing a continuing resolution that defunds Obamacare in the Senate requires Reid's complicity along with the votes of 13 other Democrats. And that's still not enough: to enact such a bill into law, they'll need a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress to overcome a promised veto from President Barack Obama. It's a fantasy of the highest order.
The government shuts down next week on Oct. 1 if Congress doesn't act. Senate Democrats believe that even if they do get six GOP votes, completing the bill may take all week, bringing the country perilously close to a shutdown by the time it ping-pongs back to the House. Polls suggest Republicans, being the party out of power, will be blamed. That means once the lights go out, they'll have no choice but to fold. The only question is whether Cruz destroys what's left of the GOP brand in the process by shining a national spotlight on its radical tactics. He's laying the groundwork to escape from the battle with his reputation in tact by preemptively blaming his colleagues -- colleagues who remain skeptical of his plan.
It’s true Obama’s “commander in chief” qualities have slipped. But even here they remain in solid majority territory. Fifty two percent say he’s a “good commander in chief of the military,” which is down a few points but only within the margin of error. Fifty four percent say he’s a strong leader — down from 61 percent in January, but the drop could reflect any number of things (such as the economy), and indeed, it’s now higher than it was at other points in Obama’s presidency. These variations just don’t mean much in the real world. They certainly don’t confirm elite pundit conclusions.
Indeed, yesterday’s Pew poll finds overwhelming support for the diplomatic deal, and also finds a plurality sees Obama’s change of course as “leadership and a willingness to adapt to changing circumstances,” rather than “weakness.”
How do you square all this with public disapproval of his handling of the mess? Simple: Obama proposed strikes, and the public opposes them. As the Fix notes, Obama still has not made the “sale” on Syria. That is unquestionably true. But the way to look at that failure is not as one of process, but one of policy. Strikes were a bad idea. The public continues to say so. The opportunity of diplomacy presented itself. Obama took that opportunity. The public supports that decision. Does anyone really imagine Americans care whether it was a verbal flub by John Kerry — or a changing of mind in response to new circumstances — that put us on the road to the outcome they want?
There is just no evidence Americans see this through the prism favored by elite pundits — that adapting to shifting circumstances is not “resolute” or :decisive,” and is therefore inherently a bad thing that has “weakened” the presidency and the country. In the Post poll, only 32 percent say it weakened the country (which is higher than say we’ve benefited but is still a distinct minority). Indeed, a plurality of 46 percent say Obama’s handling of the situation “has not made much difference to U.S. leadership.
"I hope people will get the message this guy is bad for the party," King said Friday, talking about Cruz, a potential 2016 presidential candidate. King is also a potential White House contender, as he has said he's thinking about running for president.
Asked if the House vote was more of a message to conservatives than to Obama, King said the vote is a signal that the GOP has "to take more realistic and practical approaches."
The congressman has said before that he can start ignoring the senator from Texas after the vote. He reiterated Friday he hopes that's still the case.
"We can't be going off on these false missions that Ted Cruz wants us to go on. The issues are too important. They're too serious, they require real conservative solutions, not cheap headline-hunting schemes," he said.
9. The Concern. When an individual acts in such a way as to indicate a preference for a foreign country over the United States, then he or she may be prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States.
10. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
(a) exercise of any right, privilege or obligation of foreign citizenship after becoming a U.S. citizen or through the foreign citizenship of a family member. This includes but is not limited to:
(1) possession of a current foreign passport;
(2) military service or a willingness to bear arms for a foreign country;
(3) accepting educational, medical,
retirement, social welfare, or other such benefits from a foreign country;
(4) residence in a foreign country to meet citizenship requirements;
(5) using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country;
(6) seeking or holding political office in a foreign country;
(7) voting in a foreign election;
(b) action to acquire or obtain recognition of a foreign citizenship by an American citizen;
(c) performing or attempting to perform duties, or otherwise acting, so as to serve the interests of a foreign person, group, organization, or government in conflict with the national security interest;
(d) any statement or action that shows allegiance to a country other than the United States: for example, declaration of intent to renounce United States citizenship; renunciation of United States citizenship.
C. People who Lost their Citizenship Between 1 January 1947 and 14 February 1977 Because they or their Parent Acquired the Nationality or Citizenship of Another Country
A third group of “lost Canadians” ceased to be citizens between 1947 and 1977 because, in general, dual citizenship was not permitted during this period. Under the 1947 Canadian Citizenship Act, Canadian citizens who voluntarily acquired the nationality or citizenship of another country lost their Canadian citizenship.(13) In addition, the minor children of such persons could also lose their citizenship if the children were, or also became, a citizen of another country.(14)
WASHINGTON — Today’s front page story explores what it means to be born in Canada to an American parent in 1970, as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was. Bottom line, Canadian legal experts say: dual citizenship, a conclusion that Cruz thus far has not taken Iissue with.
Curious about whether you’re a Canadian citizen? The country’s immigration ministry, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, offers a user friendly online tool. Take the “See if you may already be a Canadian Citizen” quiz here.
Cruz was kind enough to release a copy of his Canadian birth certificate to The Dallas Morning News.
He has never formally renounced Canadian citizenship, aides tell us. With the information on his birth certificate, that leads to this result on the CIC quiz: “Based on your answers, you are likely a Canadian citizen.”
Question 1: Have you ever renounced your Canadian citizenship with Canadian authorities? (No)
Question 2: Was your Canadian citizenship ever revoked for fraud? (No)
Question 3: Where were you born? (In Canada)
Question 4: When were you born? (Between Jan. 1, 1947, and Feb. 14, 1977)
Question 5: At the time of your birth, was one of your parents employed in Canada by a foreign government or international organization and did that parent have diplomatic status in Canada? (No)
CIC’s website then offers this:
WHAT DO I NEED TO PROVE MY CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP?
If you were born in Canada, a birth certificate issued by the province or territory where you were born is often enough to prove that you are a Canadian citizen. You can also use a citizenship certificate (Certificate of Canadian Citizenship), issued by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, as your proof of citizenship.
So let’s say it again: This is not a standard Washington negotiation, in which each side is demanding concessions from the other. Democrats are not asking Republicans to make any concessions. They are asking Republicans to join them in not destroying the U.S. economy. House Republican leaders — who have themselves conceded not raising the debt limit would jeopardize the full faith and credit of the U.S. government — are asking Democrats to make a series of concessions in exchange for not unleashing widespread economic havoc that will hurt all of us. But agreeing not to destroy the economy doesn’t count as a concession on the part of Republicans, and no one should expect it to be rewarded with anything in return. Just because Republicans are trying to frame this as a conventional negotiation doesn’t mean folks have to play along with it.
To be sure, there’s been some legitimate debate over whether lawmakers have ever tried to attach extraneous items to debt limit hikes. Glenn Kessler did a deep dive into the history and found a few examples of this. But they are rare, and in any case, as Kessler himself notes, that is separate from the question of whether lawmakers have ever explicitly threatened default in order to extract a long list of concessions, which is even more rare and may be unprecedented, particularly the way Republicans are doing so here.
At any rate, the grab bag of demands Republicans intend to make this time is almost comically extensive and off point, and as such, should be enough to get folks to recognize the basic absurdity of what’s happening here. I say “should” because you’d think the basic absurdity of demanding multiple concessions in exchange for not destroying the economy would be apparent enough on its face. But thus far, it’s been mostly treated as business as usual. Hopefully the outsized and buffoonish nature of this round of GOP demands will change that. Hopefully.
In broad strokes, it's a book advocating openness to experience—one of the key moral dimensions on which liberals and conservatives differ.
In the specific context of the health care debate, though, I'm reminded of Nancy Pelosi's much-mocked remark that "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
What she was expressing was the idea that while the health reform bill may not have been popular, the health reform law would prove popular in practice once it was in effect. People would like their subsidies and their regulatory protections, and wouldn't want to see them repealed. She was making, specificaly, a kind of Green Eggs and Ham argument. The narrator keeps insisting that he hates green eggs and ham, but he's never had green eggs and ham. When he finally tries them—he likes them!
The Democrats' bet on the Affordable Care Act is that it's like green eggs and ham—they're convinced the public will like it when they try it.
Conservatives like Cruz claim that this is wrong. That Americans will taste the green eggs and ham and they're going to hate it. But their actions speak otherwise. They're desperate to repeal the law before it's implemented. And in terms of the 2012 elections, that was fair enough. But they lost in 2012. Now instead of acting like they're confident that the voter backlash to the green eggs and ham will power them to victories in 2014 and 2016, they're engaging in flailing desperate tactics to make sure nobody tries the green eggs and ham. Because deep down they fear that Dr. Seuss was right.
That’s their opening demand: implement Romney’s economic plan or melt down the economy.
Now, everybody realizes that the Republicans won’t stick to this demand in the end. The strategy is to begin by demanding everything they want, so that when they “compromise” to merely destroying Obamacare, it seems reasonable. But two aspects of this approach are immediately striking. The first is its tactical wisdom. John Boehner seems to believe that the way out of the shutdown problem is to make extravagant promises for the debt ceiling crisis, which is a much more dire threat, and on which Obama has committed himself not to negotiate. Why would making more extensive promises make this easier for Boehner in the end? Won't it make conservatives that much angrier when he ultimately has to give up the things he promised?
The second point is a normative one. The fact that a major party could even propose anything like this is a display of astonishing contempt for democratic norms. Republicans ran on this plan and lost by 5 million votes. They also lost the Senate and received a million fewer votes in the House but held control owing to favorable district lines. Is there an example in American history of a losing party issuing threats to force the majority party to implement its rejected agenda?
Connelly isn't the biggest fan of Cruz. What's more, he is actually a beneficiary of the very health care law that Cruz was protesting during his speech. And in an appearance on MSNBC Friday morning, Connelly explained just how ironic it was that the senator would use his story to bludgeon the president and the Affordable Care Act.
"A friend of mine called me the next morning as I was on the way to an optometrist appointment .... [and said], 'While Ted Cruz was talking about why the ACA's bad, he mentioned your name.' And I said, 'Well, that's funny. I'm heading to an appointment I can only go to because of Obamacare.'"
Cruz had apparently gotten Connelly's story from a recent Wall Street Journal article that focused primarily on student debt, not on health care reform.
« Older In 2013 the U.S. Semi finals took place in Vegas. ... | But that didn't prevent... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt