American Politics Thread 2013: I'm a cool Rodham grandma in the USA

being all o_O and smh over bachmann has been a cottage industry around my way for a looong time now and i don't think we've ever seen the bottom of it, or will. just one of those kinds of people. fwiw my impression of her is that she doesn't really have the gritted-teeth meanness of, say, palin. just one of the lord's servants on earth, concerned, happy, energetic forever...

a pat buchannan for the 21st century

a camera whore of no importance who keeps libs from thinking too long about what scum the Democrats are

So while Reid and Senate Dems are debating whether to get rid of the filibuster for nominations to agency positions and the NLRB(the even scummier Republicans won't let Dems get a vote on a nominee that is necessary to have a voting quorum on the board); the Republicans have already responded that if they take over the Senate they will get rid of the filibuster for legislation including Obamacare. I assume they'll try to find a way to get rid of it if they get majority status in the Senate anyway.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_07/may_cooler_heads_not_prevail045838.php

yeah the funny thing about all the OMG over reid possibly using the nuclear option to slightly curtail use of the filibuster is that everyone know's it's effectively dead as soon as the gop takes the senate back next year.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/nate-silver-predicts-gop-holding-50-51-senate

Following former Gov. Brian Schweitzer's decision not to run for Montana’s open U.S. Senate seat this weekend, New York Times polling guru Nate Silver predicted Monday that Republicans will hold 50 to 51 seats in the upper chamber after all ballots are counted in the 2014 Congressional mid-term elections.

Silver hedges in his prediction by reminding his readers that the outcome will be affected by several factors, namely local variables, the quality of candidates yet chosen by both Democrats and Republicans, economic indicators and President Barack Obama's approval rating.

Meanwhile Reid's gambit looks like it's working

“When McConnell met with Reid, he said we’ll let these guys through if you unilaterally disarm, and Reid rejected the offer,” the Democratic aide said.

“It sounds like an array of options were talked about, but no commitment from Reid to not just keep using the threat of nuclear option over and over again,” the GOP aide said.

It’s a remarkable move by Reid, who issued his threat to nuke the filibuster for executive branch nominations on the basis of whether the seven nominees would receive a vote. Three nominees would serve on the National Labor Relations Board and the rest would lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Labor Department, Environmental Protection Agency and Export-Import Bank. The primary lingering dispute is over the fate of two NLRB nominees whom President Obama appointed while Congress was in recess.

It remains possible the nuclear option will be avoided this time around as a group of Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), are easing up on the stalled nominees. As Reid sees it, he’s calling the shots over McConnell.

“We’re fighting for the principle that executive nominees should get up-or-down votes,” the senior Democratic aide said. “If Republicans will give us that, there’s a chance we won’t go nuclear, but we will maintain the ability to go nuclear if they start filibustering nominees again.”

Sen. John Thune (R-SD) all but admitted that Richard Cordray had the votes to be confirmed to the CFPB. The remaining discussions are about confirming the two NLRB picks — Sharon Block and Richard Griffin. If they go through, Reid will have no incentive to go nuclear this time around, but people close to him say he refuses to give up his right to do what’s needed to make sure the Senate functions in the future.

“This would also be a rebuke to McConnell from his caucus,” the aide continued, “since the group [of Republicans] we’re talking with is so sick of the obstruction themselves that they’re basically willing to give us everything we’re asking for with no conditions on future action.”

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/07/reid-rejects-mcconnell-offer-nuclear-option.php?ref=fpa

“It sounds like an array of options were talked about, but no commitment from Reid to not just keep using the threat of nuclear option over and over again,” the GOP aide said.

amazing

No surprise how lazily the media is reporting this. On CNN and FOX anchors talk as if Reid wants to eliminate filibuster for judges too.

Not reid's hugest fan obviously but he is a canny motherfucker

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/07/16/19503136-making-the-transition-from-light-bulbs-to-ceiling-fans?lite

How dare that Obama try to set energy-efficiency standards for ceiling fans! First it was lightbulbs, now this...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/07/nuclear-option-filibuster-deal-nominations.php

In short, Republicans would confirm nominees to all seven positions, a big concession for the GOP. But in a concession for Democrats, they would replace two recess-appointed nominees to the National Labor Relations Board — Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, pictured below — with new nominees under the following condition: Republicans pledge to confirm any two replacements by President Obama to the board by Aug. 27.

morbs for NLRB?

anybody read NY Mag's Boehner feetch?

http://nymag.com/news/features/john-boehner-2013-7/

nice to see for once a portrait of JB where they don't act like his dad owning just one ohio bar means he grew up disadvantaged. love the bit too about a 'cologne and no jeans' kind of guy -- now there's a rugged conservative american

The deal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/16/the-senate-didnt-go-nuclear-but-actually-it-kind-of-did/

there’s no way Majority Leader McConnell will permit Democrats to routinely filibuster or otherwise obstruct President Christie’s nominees

Umm?

good lord i hate the whole "nuke" metaphor for this. anyway,

The Senate didn’t actually go nuclear today. But the majority took out a nuke, put it on the table, and made clear they can detonate it whenever they feel like.

It’s clear now that Reid will change the rules if he believes it necessary. But so too will McConnell. If Republicans retake the Senate in 2014 and the presidency in 2016, there’s no way Majority Leader McConnell will permit Democrats to routinely filibuster or otherwise obstruct President Christie’s nominees. If they do, he’ll throw Reid’s words back in their face and make the change Reid threatened to make today.

The result is that the minority's ability to filibuster executive-branch nominees was weakened, even if it wasn’t fully eliminated. The minority can use the filibuster against particularly objectionable nominees that the majority isn’t overly committed to confirming. But they do so with the express indulgence of the majority. If the minority uses it too often, or chooses a nominee the majority really wants to confirm, the privilege of filibustering nominees — and that’s what it is now, a privilege granted by the majority — will be taken away. No majority is going to take that nuke off the table.

i agree with klein's take on this, and i think that it's a good thing. even if when republicans take over the senate, it's fine that democrats won't be able to abuse the filibuster to block nominees. that's how govt. is supposed to work. you're not supposed to gum up the works every time your team isn't in power. you're only supposed to do it the majority nominates someone who is truly an abomination.

why didn't reid pull the trigger on this back in 2009?

xpost

If Republicans retake the Senate in 2014...

even if when republicans take over the senate, it's fine that democrats won't be able to abuse the filibuster to block nominees.

before someone freaks out, i meant that the minority party won't be able to block filibusters routinely, as a default approach, like it is now

xp I know. I just thought it was odd that the forgone conclusion that the next GOP president is Chris Christie.

Supposedly McConnell reneged on a deal he made on nominees with Reid in 2009.. go figure.

how to improve the experience of reading politico by a factor of approximately 50,000:

http://cat.www.politico.com.meowbify.com/

take montana to town

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/311199-tribes-lawsuit-could-decide-who-controls-senate-in-2015

in which Elizabeth Warren kicks ass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONEcoq9pjac&feature=player_embedded

president warren

we get the presidents we deserve

*hangs head*

there was a good article, I forget where, that was talking about whether warren was proposing this stuff in order to 'move the goalposts' (good) or if she actually believed anything she was proposing was more than just a PR stunt at this point (bad)

Check out the Lamar Alexander quote.

wow.

Halle-fuckin-lujah! You election nerds need never think of him again.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/brian-stelter-reports-nate-silver-leaving-new-york-times-to-join-keith-olbermann-at-espn/

Olbermann needs to be left on the side of a highway somewhere

Halle-fuckin-lujah! You election nerds need never think of him again.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/brian-stelter-reports-nate-silver-leaving-new-york-times-to-join-keith-olbermann-at-espn/

― playwright Greg Marlowe, secretly in love with Mary (Dr Morbius), Friday, July 19, 2013 10:00 PM (Yesterday)

glad to see that he'll be focusing on the more important things now

Olbermann needs to be left on the side of a highway somewhere

― dude his voice is soooo much more tolerable than danny brown (President Keyes), Friday, July 19, 2013 10:49 PM (Yesterday)

tbf this describes most of connecticut

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/artattack/2013/07/perry_voodoo_doll.php

i know we must have talked about this somewhere, but this is an amazing thing for the speaker of the house to say:

“We should not be judged on how many new laws we create. We ought to be judged on how many laws we repeal.”

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/21/19596802-boehner-judge-congress-by-how-many-laws-it-repeals-not-passes?lite

not by itself an inflammatory remark. I'd have felt the same if I'd been elected to Congress in 2006.

yeah, maybe. and it's true that for about 1/3 of americans, he IS judged by how many laws he repeals, or how much he can freeze the workings of the government.

That is a horrible thing to say

how many laws have they repealed?

Zero

Well I guess they repealed some stuff that was blocked by the senate

they're doing even worse than we thought

sure would be nice if the GOP had a president signing their legislation!

lol weiner

now that 'thedirty.com' is in the news again, let's look back at the OTHER time a site to talk about banging chicks in scottsdale, ariz. made its mark on the american polity

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/ben-quayle-denies-writing-for.html

hi goole!

Obama Seeks to Reset Debate Over Direction of the Economy

In remarks to supporters on Monday night, Mr. Obama acknowledged what the speech wouldn’t do: it would not “change any minds,” he said. And it would not offer any new proposals. The president said the address on Wednesday would be “thematic” rather than prescriptive. Any new ideas will come in a series of other speeches in the weeks to come.

What’s the point?

because everyone is paying attention to political news in the summer