Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

A lot of Dems talk about what the media tells them to talk about. Not helpful.

I did not have this on my fuck 2022 bingo card.

Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Let there be snark.

This has so much WTF written all over it that it is hard to comprehend.

I conferred with the team and they all agree – still not tired of winning!

Ron DeSantis, the grand wizard, oops, governor of FL

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

As long as McCarthy is Speaker, the House will never be in order.

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

In short, I come down firmly on all sides of the issue.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

Consistently wrong since 2002

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

We’re not going back!

You can’t love your country only when you win.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

You are here: Home / Open Threads / Obama Urges GOP Not to Extract Pop-Tarts from Toasters with Tongues

Obama Urges GOP Not to Extract Pop-Tarts from Toasters with Tongues

by | 141 Comments

This post is in: ,

And the foul stench of burning hair and roasted flesh filled kitchens nationwide. Via MSNBC:

In a jarring break from the George W. Bush era, the Republican National Committee voted Friday to adopt a resolution demanding an investigation into the National Security Agency’s spy programs.

According to the resolution, the NSA metadata program revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden is deemed “an invasion into the personal lives of American citizens that violates the right of free speech and association afforded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.” In addition, “the mass collection and retention of personal data is in itself contrary to the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Titled a “Resolution To Renounce The National Security Agency’s Surveillance Program,” it was passed by a voice vote as part of a package of RNC proposals. Not a single member rose to object or call for further debate, as occurred for other resolutions.

Bobby Fischer? Deep Blue? Morons. Clearly, we are dealing with the greatest Eleventy Dimensional Chess Grandmaster of all time.

Reader Interactions

141Comments

  1. 1.

    piratedan

    Next up, Obama launches national moratorium to stop operating all motorized vehicles while eyes are closed……

  2. 2.

    Baud

    So Obama is talking about actual reforms, while the RNC (an unelected body) is proposing investigations.

    Because god forbid we do anything to tie the hands of the next GOP president (apparently to be nominated on the 4th of July, for good measure).

  5. 5.

    Mobile Grumpy Code Monkey

    That’s a comfortable fantasy, but I don’t think this is part of some master plan; Obama’s been quite happy to perpetuate some of W’s less savory policies.

    Reigning in domestic surveillance is a Good Thing, regardless of the motivation.

  6. 6.

    Mnemosyne

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    You funny.

    Personally, I can’t wait to hear what the caveat is on this one. It’ll be hard to beat Rand Paul’s I’m against domestic use of drones, except if someone is seen robbing a liquor store, because fuck that guy.

  8. 8.

    eric

    Seventh Rung of Hell (AP) Reports have emerged out of Hell that United States President Barack Hussein Obama has declared the pits of hell off limits to members of the GOP. In response, the Republicans, led by long time resident, Richard Cheney, have vowed to stake their claim to Hell and force out the uppity democrats. President Obama responded that he was disappointed, but not surprised by the GOP efforts.

  10. 10.

    Baud

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    That hope just died. The only chance reform had was that the GOP would be pressured to take the issue seriously. Now they’ve settled on an “investigations” strategy — which no small number of people will eat up — they can’t afford to actually accomplish anything.

  11. 11.

    Ben Franklin

    It’s not rocket science. They read polls, thassall. Someone had to take the lead, but the Big Mo belongs to Snowden, hero or no.

  12. 12.

    BGinCHI

    “When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor….”

    The GOP is about to go streaking by itself into the cold, cold night.

  13. 13.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    I thought Rand Paul might actually prove useful in this matter, then he responded to Obama’s speech last week with a dumbass quip for the Limbaugh crowd. “If you like your privacy, you can keep your privacy”

  14. 14.

    Mandalay

    @Baud:

    So Obama is talking about actual reforms

    The “reforms” that Obama talks about are not meaningful, and full of loopholes.

  15. 15.

    Mandalay

    @Baud:

    So Obama is talking about actual reforms

    The “reforms” that Obama talks about are not meaningful, and full of loopholes.

  16. 16.

    jl

    Whatever it takes to get them through the night, I guess, or until a better fake scandal pops up. If the House takes this up, I am sure Issa and his buddies will include a conscientious and very thorough examination of Congressional oversight of the NSA.

  17. 17.

    Cacti

    Nothing’s stopping the House GOP from introducing a bill to repeal the Patriot Act.

    Wake me when it happens.

  18. 18.

    Corner Stone

    Clearly, we are dealing with the greatest Eleventy Dimensional Chess Grandmaster of all time.

    I’m sorry, but who are you referring to?

  19. 19.

    BGinCHI

    BTW, didn’t all of the GOP members of Congress who were around vote for exactly this kind of surveillance under Bush?

  32. 32.

    jl

    GOP not sure it can quit its debt limit blackmail habit.
    They are considering more debt limit blackmail, plan to use it to take a another crack at wrecking health reform.

    GOP wants to do away with risk adjustment for exchange insurance. They figure calling risk adjustment an ‘insurance company bailout’ will sound populist, and make people realize that, hey, it’s counter intuitive, but the GOP has been the one looking our for the regular people all along, we’ll vote for them.

    Maybe some GOP PR whizz gave them clever hook and they couldn’t resist.

    GOP May Use Threat Of Default To Sabotage Obamacare
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/paul-ryan-debt-limit-obamacare-insurer-bailout

    Edit: I see the quantum cat beat me to it.

  36. 36.

    Mandalay

    @Baud:

    They’re more substative than anything the GOP — including Rand Paul — has put forward.

    BFD.

    Obama should focus on showing that his proposals would be legal and worthwhile. He’s ducking that right now.

  41. 41.

    Ash Can

    So the Republicans are shocked — shocked — to discover spying in this establishment. They can all just go eat shit and bark at the moon.

  42. 42.

    Villago Delenda Est

    Obama to GOP: Whatever you do, don’t mix Prestone with Scotch. I’m talking to you, John Boner.

  43. 43.

    jl

    @BGinCHI: If we see a pic of some GOP nutters dragging a huge ACME foolproof debt limit blackmailer (patent pending) into the House, we’ll know it’ll be fun.

  44. 44.

    Betty Cracker

    @Corner Stone: President Obama, of coursE. He dispatched his personal valet to pack Snowden’s bags. A Medal of Freedom will be forthcoming; you mark my words.

    But seriously, I’m with Omnes; if the GOP’s new-found appreciation of the 2nd Amendment +2 can be harnessed to dial back ineffective and needlessly intrusive practices, huzzah. It’ll never happen, though; they’ll forget all about their qualms if, FSM forbid, they regain power.

  45. 45.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @Betty Cracker:

    they’ll forget all about their qualms if, FSM forbid, they regain power.

    Just as they only had qualms about deficits and the national debt starting about 8PM PST on 4 November 2008.

  46. 46.

    Corner Stone

    @Betty Cracker:

    can be harnessed to dial back ineffective and needlessly intrusive practices, huzzah.

    How about we actually try doing something about that? And not depend on the mendacity of the R’s.

  48. 48.

    Roger Moore

    @Corner Stone:

    How about we actually try doing something about that? And not depend on the mendacity of the R’s.

    Considering that anything needs some Republican votes to get through Congress these days, that seems unlikely. Of course, the need for Republican votes to accomplish anything legislatively seems to be a fact that is incapable of registering in your brain on other issues, so I don’t expect it to in this case, either.

  49. 49.

    Mandalay

    @Baud:

    We’ve only just started the process. No one Sid the conversation ended with Obama’s speech.

    True, but look at Obama’s opening position: mild concessions, but essentially maintaining the status quo, with holes in his proposals a mile wide.

    The core problem is that politicians have a vested interest in having absurdly high security measures. It’s CYA for when something badass happens. Politicians are not honest brokers; they are looking out for themselves. They don’t want to be seen as removing legislation that might have prevented some future terrorist act. There is no dispassionate cost-benefit analysis being done by politicians; they generally adopt a security-at-all-costs position. This advisory panel is at least taking a realistic look at the current situation.

    Congress used to determine their own pay increases until everyone realized that was like the fox guarding the hen house. The same applies here – politicians will do what is best (or safest) for themselves, rather than what is best for the nation, with respect to national security.

  51. 51.

    Villago Delenda Est

    OT but related, Noismax gives us this headline/link:

    Noonan: ‘No One’s Listening to Obama Now’

    It’s always projection with Rethugs. Always.

  52. 52.

    Ben Franklin

    @Roger Moore:

    This may be the multi-dimensional chess game I keep hearing about. If Obama had actually proposed concrete solutions last week, any reform would die the death of a zygote.

    Let’s hope he can continue to be the goat for Authoritarianism.

  53. 53.

    Cassidy

    @Roger Moore: No, no, no. If Obama doesn’t wave his magic wand from the bully pulpit then it’s the death of freedom and we live in a police state.

  54. 54.

    Tommy

    I am watching MSNBC. I am 44. Talk of sex. I think I have had sex with a few women in my life. 99.9 percent of the time I used a condom. Just seemed to be respectful.Well 95% percent. I say this cause I am so sick of hearing all this BS. I respect women. I care for them. My mom is my best friend. I have an unlimited respect for women.

  58. 58.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Mandalay: you also have remember that anything Obama does off his own bat would be in the form of executive orders and policy setting. The legislative framework would remain and any successor could reverse the EOs and policies immediately upon taking office. Any real change must come from the courts or involve Congress.

  64. 64.

    Baud

    OT: A possible Friday Evening Open Thread topic for Anne Laurie.

    House Speaker John Boehner used his first-ever appearance on to talk politics and, as and others have also done on late-night TV, have some fun at his own expense.

    Asked Thursday if he has any presidential ambitions, the Ohio Republican joked that:

    — “Listen, I like to play golf. I like to cut my own grass. You know, I do drink red wine. I smoke cigarettes. And I’m not giving that up to be president of the United States.”

  66. 66.

    shortstop

    @Baud: Now I’m laughing again. If he’d only said “bourbon” (which is what he drinks all day long anyway) instead of effete red wine, he could have had the 27 percent bellowing, “Fuck yeah!” along with him.

  67. 67.

    Mandalay

    @Baud:

    I’m not sure what your point is.

    I thought it was pretty clear: the political consequences of decreasing national security are potentially so high, that few politicians are ever going to go down that path, even if decreasing national security is the more appropriate option.

  70. 70.

    kc

    @Baud:

    So Obama is talking about actual reforms, while the RNC (an unelected body) is proposing investigations

    Obama’s reforms are pretty lame, imo. Of course if he had proposed really significant changes, the GOP would strive to find ways to block them, but at least he’d have the political advantage.

  71. 71.

    Ben Franklin

    @Mandalay:

    potentially so high

    That’s the Straw bundled into the Scarecrow. The measures they take to protect us have produced no evidence of success.

    It’s a lot like the foolishness of ‘Duck and Cover’ during the 50’s. All they can really provide is the perception. of being safe…nothing more.

  74. 74.

    danielx

    @Betty Cracker:

    It would be nice to think so, but…the powers that be shot the Fourth Amendment full of holes three decades ago because Drugs, and the Patriot Act pretty much did away with what was left. It’s…convenient for government agencies (federal, state and local) not to have to worry about things like warrants, or limitations on what can be searched for, etc etc. Or, for that matter, habeas corpus, and the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments aren’t doing real well either.

    What our solons seem to forget is that the Bill of Rights was designed to make things more difficult for the government and those government agencies* charged with enforcing the law, and there were a lot of good reasons why those at the 1789 convention set it up that way. (Lettres de cachet, anyone?)

    *Or what I’m starting to think of as the “justice industry”.

  75. 75.

    Tommy

    @BGinCHI: The world is comlpex.I tried to talk about that.Clearly I wasn’t clear. Sex is a tough issue. I thought I tried to talk about that in a sensible manner, that I have pissed off so many folks shows I didn’t have a clue I thought I did. nI am sorry.

  76. 76.

    CaseyL

    The RNC vote has about the same power to affect anything as one of Jonah Goldberg’s farts. Probably less, in fact.

    The resolution will go into their party platform and maybe get mentioned a few times. It’s symbolic.

    The GOP has a majority in the House, right? And bills originate in the House, right?

    Let’s see them put up, and pass, a bill ending the NSA surveillance program. Or revoking the AUMF. Or even rolling back the Patriot Act.

    Frankly, I’d love to see that. I’d particularly love to see the Patriot Act go bye-bye, and the Department of Homeland Security get dismantled back to its original component parts.

    It’s not going to happen.

  77. 77.

    Cervantes

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    It actually would be cool if we can use this to rollback the Patriot Act.

    It would.

    Recent revelations appear to have given Sensenbrenner second thoughts. Let’s see how real those second thoughts are.

  78. 78.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Tommy: When a comment like yours appears, context free, in a thread about an unrelated subject, it will tend to puzzle readers. Just sayin’.

  79. 79.

    Mandalay

    @Ben Franklin:

    The measures they take to protect us have produced no evidence of success.

    Exactly so. This is what the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board just reported…

    The threat of terrorism faced today by the United States is real. The Section 215
    telephone records program was intended as one tool to combat this threat — a tool that
    would help investigators piece together the networks of terrorist groups and the patterns
    of their communications with a speed and comprehensiveness not otherwise available.
    However, we conclude that the Section 215 program has shown minimal value in
    safeguarding the nation from terrorism. Based on the information provided to the Board,
    including classified briefings and documentation, we have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation. Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack.

    Let’s see how many politicians have the balls and integrity to talk about that inconvenient truth in the next few days.

  81. 81.

    WaterGirl

    @Omnes Omnibus: Tommy is watching MSNBC, where I’m sure someone is talking about Huckabee’s stupidity yesterday.

    I’m pretty sure the context of tommy’s comment is huckabee & women & sex & birth control and respect for women (or lack thereof).

  83. 83.

    Roger Moore

    @IowaOldLady:

    The training for these guys to talk about women should consist of one word: Don’t.

    That’s the disadvantage of being the party of id; they have very poor impulse control. They have a very hard time resisting saying whatever pops into their heads, especially because they’re viewed as bold truth tellers by the rest of the clique who already agree with them.

  84. 84.

    Mandalay

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Any real change must come from the courts or involve Congress.

    Of course, but my point is that we need third-parties to dispassionately review the data relating to national security to better inform the decisions that are ultimately made by our politicians.

    If Congress is deliberating over whether to reduce the head count at some remote military base, or close a certain post office, they don’t pretend to be fully informed – they frequently defer to the opinions of those non-politicians who have researched the matter.

    Well I just wish that situation also applied more to national security. I suspect most politicians are fearful of voting to kill some existing security measure that might later be shown to have been able to prevent a terrorist attack. That fear should not be a determining factor in forming our national security policy.

    Congress could reduce road deaths by introducing legislation requiring us to wear crash helmets in cars, but they don’t. Yet they make similarly absurd and arbitrary decisions relating to our national security in the name of “keeping the nation safe”.

  85. 85.

    VincentN

    @Tommy:

    There’s nothing wrong with what you said. You just didn’t explain that you were talking about Huckabee’s comments on birth control and women. Without that context, somebody could assume that you were randomly talking about sex.

  86. 86.

    Cervantes

    @Mandalay:

    Well I just wish that situation also applied to national security. I suspect most politicians are fearful of voting to kill some existing security measure that might later be shown to have been able to prevent a terrorist attack. That fear should not be a determining factor in forming our national security policy.

    A good comparison might be the way base-closings are handled.

  89. 89.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Mandalay: You, yourself, cited the Congressional advisory panel. Do you want a blue ribbon commission to be assembled? That’s the most effective way to pretend to do something about an issue.

  91. 91.

    burnspbesq

    The only way anything of lasting good will happen in this area is if the Dems get control of both houses of Congress.

    If you’re serious about reform, get your ass out of that chair and go get out the vote.

  93. 93.

    mk3872

    This is funny because most Republicans in Congress SUPPORT NSA surveillance. There is no subject that the GOP won’t try to use for short-term political gain. The GOP is absolutely not serious about reforming the NSA. But they are serious about finding ways to win the next election.

  95. 95.

    Betty Cracker

    @IowaOldLady: The RNC should heed your advice and cut you a $100K check for providing it. It’s the best guidance they could possibly receive. How do you like being a high-powered political consultant?

  97. 97.

    RaflW

    @CaseyL:

    The RNC vote has about the same power to affect anything as one of Jonah Goldberg’s farts. Probably less, in fact.

    Yeah. But I am enjoying the optics of the mega-pro-Patriot Act party suddenly discovering that endless spying is bad. I remember these asshats taking the position “If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if we see your library checkout record?”

    Dipshits. All of ’em.

  98. 98.

    Mnemosyne

    @RaflW:

    It’s very simple, silly:

    Spying on white patriots who belong to militia groups: bad
    Spying on brown people who are up to no good because just look at them: good

    ETA: As we all know, liberals and other anti-conservative folks are honorary brown people no matter what their race is.

  99. 99.

    WaterGirl

    @IowaOldLady: Some blog or link yesterday posted a tweet from some old white guy (R-somewhere) suggesting that it’s never a good idea to talk about “libido” in public. Duh.

  100. 100.

    Ben Franklin

    @mk3872:

    But they are serious about finding ways to win the next election.

    We enjoy derogating conservatives for their impurity, while we excuse our own with the same rhetoric. The DNC has no dirty tricks for keeping a district or the the WH, do they?

  102. 102.

    Ruckus

    @Betty Cracker:
    The sentiment is 100% correct but she doesn’t use anywhere near enough words to describe it to collect a big check. Also the answer had too much logic and truth to it to be used as a resume for the job.
    IOW, not enough bullshit involved with the added fact of being true.

  104. 104.

    Ignaz Playel

    Its odd that the party the controlls the house has decided to declare the NSA unconstitutional. We have another body that determines that. Couldn’t they pass laws allowing citizens harmed by the survellance state easier access to the courts so that they could decide the matter publicly?

  105. 105.

    Ben Franklin

    @Corner Stone:

    I thought it was full of sound and fury with a temperance worthy of Job; who also would have waited patiently for Congress to humanize to the extremes of the wimmens and negroes having access to the Vote.

  106. 106.

    Cassidy

    If only Obama would eve his magic purity wand to make the suburban progressives happy. Who cares about health care and women’s rights and voting rights….oh no, the white left insist only corporations who give them free shipping get their personal information.

  109. 109.

    Cervantes

    @Felonius Monk:

    And a resolution from the RNC means exactly what? Bupkis, I think.

    It means nothing by itself, you’re right.

    But it can be utilized by those who are so inclined.

  110. 110.

    Corner Stone

    @Ben Franklin: Heh. Is he doing his usual drunken incoherent rage posting? One where he talks about things people care about but may not be the one thing he thinks they should care about? And so no one else has availability to do two things at the same time?

  116. 116.

    Cassidy

    @Corner Stone: You two are just so adorable. I smell rom-com. Two starry eyes idealists, one an entitled twit, the other a drunk constantly battling the demons of the wife who left and the child who despises him….Has Oscar bait all over it.

  117. 117.

    Ben Franklin

    @Cassidy:

    the other a drunk constantly battling the demons of the wife who left and the child who despises him

    Just one thing disturbs me. I can’t tell which one I envy more; the entitled or the drunk?

    Drunk will do. I’m adorable when drunk.

  118. 118.

    Suffern ACE

    Yep. Obama on the NSA phone record support is burning up a lot of air that could be used for other things. He has not made the case that this is a vital program. He hasn’t made the case that it is worth the money. I hope it is worth it for him personally.

  119. 119.

    IowaOldLady

    @Betty Cracker: There isn’t enough shut-up in the world to keep these guys quiet. That’s part of what makes it so offensive. They think they have to tell women what to do and how to think and feel.

  122. 122.

    Cassidy

    @Corner Stone: You’re funny. How long ago did your ex make a good decision? How terrible were you that she left everything behind? Go have another drink.

  123. 123.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Cassidy: It is perfectly possible to care about those issues and to deplore the expansion of surveillance. Quite a few people manage to do it every single day.

  125. 125.

    Ted R

    This is Obama’s Waco. Some tea-party cracker will blow up a federal building because Snowden/Bengazi. I do hope not, but they’re doing their best to encourage the fringe…

  126. 126.

    Ted R

    This is Obama’s Waco. Some tea-party cracker will blow up a federal building because Snowden/Bengazi. I do hope not, but they’re doing their best to encourage the fringe…

  127. 127.

    Corner Stone

    @Ted R:

    This is Obama’s Waco. Some tea-party cracker will blow up a federal building because Snowden/Bengazi. I do hope not, but they’re doing their best to encourage the fringe

    Wow.

  128. 128.

    Cervantes

    @Ted R:

    This is Obama’s Waco. Some tea-party cracker will blow up a federal building because Snowden/Bengazi.

    Wait … what does “This” refer to?

  129. 129.

    Cervantes

    @IowaOldLady:

    There isn’t enough shut-up in the world to keep these guys quiet. That’s part of what makes it so offensive. They think they have to tell women what to do and how to think and feel.

    OK, but how do they avoid seeing that it’s ridiculous (at best)?

    What do they hear from their own wives, daughters, etc.? Who puts up with them?

  134. 134.

    Keith G

    @mk3872:

    This is funny because most Republicans in Congress SUPPORT NSA surveillance. There is no subject that the GOP won’t try to use for short-term political gain. The GOP is absolutely not serious about reforming the NSA. But they are serious about finding ways to win the next election.

    As with so many things in politics, what one intends matters less than what one does. The current Democratic leadership has given room to be outflanked by the GOP on this issue, if the GOP wants to make the effort. (Not a easy bet).

    People here like to mock the libertarian efforts of certain conservatives, and that’s fair enough, but those libertarian issues only get traction because the Democrats, in part, have forfeited that ground.

    “The battle against the Gays” is no longer a productive issue in enough states. The “push” marketing braintrust of the GOP needs new red meat and they will go where they need to. If they see an advantage in running against “Obummer’s NSA” that is what they will do as long as Obama gives them the space to do so.

    If I were the GOP establishment leadership, I would be fanatically focused on 2014. There are decent odds that the next president will be a Democrat, so strengthening the GOP in the legislature is an imperative.

  135. 135.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Keith G: Oh for fuck’s sake. Do you really thing that someone like Rand Paul really will do a thing in favor of the civil liberties crowd? If so, I would suggest that you are naive. I am part of the civil liberties crowd, and I am pretty sure that that the the GOP is not on my side. The current Admin may not be good on those issues but can you conceive of an electable person who would be better?

    Yeah, I am talking pragmatism. There is no win on this issue with the current options available. I am viscerally opposed to the death penalty. Nonetheless, I voted for Clinton and Gore.

  136. 136.

    Keith G

    @Omnes Omnibus: “Oh for fuck sake” indeed. If what they do is to campaign (that IS an action, no?) on an issue that the Dems are weak on, then they get an advantage.

    Will that be enough to gain significant votes? I do not know. Maybe it will be enough to stem the hemorrhaging of support. Your mistake is the lack the flexibility to imagine that by “action”one can mean how one campaigns as opposed to how one legislates. In a short campaign cycle (now til Nov.) there is not a lot of time for more than just words. The public will hear Obama’s (how much will they believe?) and over time they will hear the other side.

    Yes we are lucky that the other side is fragmented, but a leadership policy that depends on the other side fumbling is no way to maximise support on this issue. Obama’s inadequate NSA solutions (if he sticks with them) are weak on Constitutional grounds and stupid on political grounds.

    It is timid and uninspiring leadership, if leadership it is.

  137. 137.

    Cacti

    @Keith G:

    “Oh for fuck sake” indeed. If what they do is to campaign (that IS an action, no?) on an issue that the Dems are weak on, then they get an advantage

    This announcement strikes me as a “ready, fire, aim” move from the RNC from a political standpoint. It doesn’t give a fig leaf of cover to the House GOP caucus, if they don’t bring it up for vote in the 10 months between now and the next election.

    122 Dems voted nay on renewing the sunset provisions of the Patriot Act in 2011 vs. only 31 GOPers. It takes 213 votes for a majority in the House. Of the remaining 203 House Republicans, only 60 would need to cross over for repeal to pass. If they don’t, what is their excuse?

    If one of the House Dems who voted nay tries to introduce legislation to repeal, how do they plausibly avoid letting it come to the floor, now that it’s the official RNC position? If it passes with mostly Dem support, how is it a political victory for the GOP?

    I think Reince got more than a few angry “WTF?” phone calls yesterday.

  138. 138.

    LAC

    @srv: so, we got you, corner stone, and Mandalay here, as usual. Why don’t you trifecta of twats surprise us and offer some reality based solutions other than your usual “Hillary in 2016” sparkle pony whinings?

Comments are closed.