U.S. Politics January 2023: Kevin McCarthy's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Life

I don't disagree, your lordship. I am on record - voluminously - as saying Newt is the founder of our current predicament.

He has had many enablers. And he even got demonized from the right as a squish/melt for being open to bipartisanship and sitting on a couch with the alleged enemy.

I won't go so far as to say he invented evil (obviously, evil preexisting Newt). But in my lifetime he is the person who did the most to kick off the weaponization of palarized politics.

There were precursors, like the Confederacy and Massive Resistance and Reaganomics. Later practitioners went further into nihilistic horror territory, white male grievance, and undisguised racism.

But in modern terms the Contract with America is a clear through-line to the Tea Party and Trumpism.

Totally! I was responding to Dan S.

Gore Vidal called it the Contract On America.

Nicole Hemmer's recent book Partisans makes a case for Buchanan's influence as well.

https://www.basicbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/9781541646872-1.jpg?fit=435%2C675

John Ganz is writing a similar book, about how the early 1990s set the stage for today.

The Know Your Enemy interview with Nicole Hemmer gets into a lot of this.

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/know-your-enemy-1990s-partisans-nicole-hemmer

I don't listen to her own podcast, but she's a very good podcast guest.

This was the first time I'd heard her, yeah she's smart.

caveat: exclusive interview with raw story. but this tracks

In an exclusive interview with Raw Story, California’s senior senator announced she’s not not running. In fact, she has no plans to decide—let alone announce—her 2024 intentions until next year.

“I need a little bit of time, so it's not this year,” Feinstein told Raw Story at the Capitol Wednesday.

The 89-year-old incumbent says she isn’t fazed by her current—or potential—Democratic challengers.

“Oh, I don't mind it,” the senator smiled. “The more, the merrier.”

“Yeah?” I ask.

“Yes,” the former mayor of San Francisco replied.

“Do you think there’s gonna be a lot of people jumping in?”

“Oh, I have no idea,” Feinstein replied. “But however many there are, that's fine. I mean, I'm a big girl. I've run in a lot of races, so I know...”

“So you’re not worried?”

“Not particularly.”

“Are you going to be running?”

“Umm,” Feinstein thought aloud, “I don't know…”

https://i.imgur.com/odvcRwh.png

There's more than one answer to these questions

Pointing me in a crooked line

The less I seek my source for some definitive

Closer I am to Feinstein

Manchin proposing raising the FICA cap, surprised to see this coming from him. IMO doing this is a fucking no brainer.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/manchin-proposes-easiest-social-security-182706704.html?guccounter=1

what's up with this crazy GOP talk about a 30% national sales tax?

I mean.. some kind of VAT is probably not a bad idea - those who spend more will pay more tax.. but 30%??

kiss 30% of my ass

Sales taxes are regressive. "those who spend more will pay more tax" is only true in terms of total amounts not relative to income

they want to eliminate the income tax completely and move to VAT. agree that income tax needs to be overhauled in some non bullshit way but moving to VAT is preposterous.

right, the GOP long game is replacing income taxes with sales and use taxes.

how about a VAT only on items that cost more than $100K.. I'd be down with that

consumption taxes on everyday goods are inherently regressive

it sounds good for about one second b/c it's easy to explain

https://itep.org/whopays/

these super old ppl standing for office again piss me the fuck off

nice dick cake man https://t.co/TiaAjRSMLV

— kilgore trout, death to putiner (@KT_So_It_Goes) January 27, 2023

are those hands are macaw's claws

He reverts to his natural form for rituals.

Sorry if this has already been discussed and I missed it, but curious what Alfred or others on the ground think of Schiff's senatorial run. Can he really run statewide?

Sorry, not Alfred, the California contingent.

He probably is as well known as Katie Porter or Barbara Lee. Didn't he get a lot of national coverage during Trump's reign?

Schiff was the lead representative during the first impeachment of Trump both during the House committee sessions and during the senate trial. He did the job pretty well, even if the outcome in the senate was foreordained.

He is also hated by the GOP.

yea Trump called him out a ton, he's def one of the most recognizable faces in the party right now

Well, he wants my money.

yeah i've gotten three texts from three different Schiff numbers today.

Proposed campaign slogan: "Make Schiff Happen!"

Good morning!

When not jailing gays is more problematic for you than kidnapping a Black woman and her children and enslaving them or allowing contraception worse than Japanese internment and a case about forced sterilization, you might just not be unserious thinkers but also morally depraved. https://t.co/s8oKN32kIF pic.twitter.com/CrqXskfcQq

— Anthony Michael Kreis (@AnthonyMKreis) January 27, 2023

which of those is "sound, solid"

the Law & Liberty tweet is p much a solid

well ok not the tweet, but the people quoted in the article are basically dookie

I'm surprised they think Lochner's an abomination.

I find Schiff really irritating regardless of his work on the impeachment. I suspect voters will support either Lee or Porter. I'm undecided; Lee is my rep and I'd hate too lose her.

idk he's good on TV, though I watch less of it now. Has he served his district well?

probably. I disagree he's good on TV though, he comes across as incredibly insincere to me.

He would habitually overpromise on Trump-Russia evidence on MSNBC

I will concede that he's yet one more politician who looks like a deep sea creature.

one of those cases where trump's insults ('pencil neck') was sadly OTM

not that that is a reason not to vote for him

He would habitually overpromise on Trump-Russia evidence on MSNBC

but this is a reason not to support him. he's forever twinned with Mueller now in my mind.

Conservatives also rank three cases involving privacy and LGBT rights as among the Court’s worst decisions: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965, our number 6), Lawrence v. Texas (2003, number 10), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015, number 5). The first two rulings invalidated statutes prohibiting the use of contraceptives and homosexual sodomy, and the third required legal recognition of same-sex marriages. Some of our respondents are surely opponents of same-sex marriage; few would wish to criminalize anyone’s sexual activity; fewer still (perhaps none) would seek to restore the prohibition of contraceptives. We surmise that our respondents’ criticism of these decisions probably has less to do with the outcomes and far more to do with the fanciful legal reasoning used by the justices who reached them.

Funny how the only cases where innovative legal theory bothers these creeps are ones where said theory works to enshrine the rights of people they despise.

They made a video together.

Look, the opponents suing to stop my plan are the only thing standing between millions of Americans’ crushing student debt and relief. It’s frustrating, and I won’t stop fighting to get it done in the courts.

Allow me and my friend to explain. pic.twitter.com/h1mvaZPCwU

— President Biden (@POTUS) January 27, 2023