I don't understand something....

[101A]

"Moderate" Republicans in the House cannot get anything passed because of a small fraction of "Radical" or "Tea Party" or "Crazy" members of their own caucus.

I understand that math.

What I don't understand is why, with 435 members, including 201 Democrats, how any small fraction can keep the body as a whole from doing anything.

If Moderate Republicans (ostensibly Boehner is included in this) bring up a "reasonable" - meaning agreeable to all but the fringe - shouldn't their be 218 bi-partisan members who would vote for that (or even a strong majority)? Or, will only moderate Republicans vote for such a bill? Will Dems NOT vote for any bill brought by Boehner?

Hell, couldn't the 201 Dems bring a bill that is palatable to them, and find 17 Republicans who could go along with it?

If this is truly potential economic, global Armageddon facing us in a few hours, why aren't cooler heads prevailing. Where is the leadership to slide something through. No super-majority is needed in the house, and the Senate isn't a problem. This doesn't make sense, frankly. The threshold isn't that high.

I can't help but think we are being worked - both sides are playing to their bases - hyperbole, name calling, outrage....for what? Distract us from the failed roll-out of the ACA?

The politicians in Washington are many things, but I don't believe them to be stupid. Things happen for a reason. If we go over this cliff (if it is a cliff), it will not be by accident.

[The Reckoning]

because they secretly pass resolutions that only allow one person to propose a measure to reopen the government.


it's political terrorism.

[boutons_deux]

"how any small fraction can keep the body as a whole from doing anything."

Steve Kornacki made a good point last night: tea bagger bitch and witch Christine O'Donnell beating Castle.

It's not just the math of seats, it's also the math of $Ms the VRWC, Kock Bros will throw against Repug candidates who aren't extremist.

[m>s]

It's not a small fraction, tea party is a sizable group that has the numbers to primary assholes who don't do their jobs. People are scared dude.

[baseline bum]

It's not a small fraction, tea party is a sizable group that has the numbers to primary assholes who don't do their jobs. People are scared dude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36i9DyAHwbs&t=1m11s

[boutons_deux]

tea baggers, VRWC, Kock Bros, primary REpugs who aren't extreme enough, don't fuck up govt enough, and of course compromise with Dems is IMMEDIATE primary

[m>s]

Can't watch YouTube at work what is it?

[CavsSuperFan]

Not spending more than you take in used to be called living within your means…Now it is called being a tea bagger…
The takers officially outnumber the givers…:depressed

[Th'Pusher]

Not spending more than you take in used to be called living within your means…Now it is called being a tea bagger…
The takers officially outnumber the givers…:depressed

Really? When was that?
http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

[baseline bum]

Can't watch YouTube at work what is it?

My boy Joey G.

[ElNono]

c5bgQ2hwDII

[hitmanyr2k]

"Moderate" Republicans in the House cannot get anything passed because of a small fraction of "Radical" or "Tea Party" or "Crazy" members of their own caucus.

I understand that math.

What I don't understand is why, with 435 members, including 201 Democrats, how any small fraction can keep the body as a whole from doing anything.

If Moderate Republicans (ostensibly Boehner is included in this) bring up a "reasonable" - meaning agreeable to all but the fringe - shouldn't their be 218 bi-partisan members who would vote for that (or even a strong majority)? Or, will only moderate Republicans vote for such a bill? Will Dems NOT vote for any bill brought by Boehner?

Hell, couldn't the 201 Dems bring a bill that is palatable to them, and find 17 Republicans who could go along with it?

If this is truly potential economic, global Armageddon facing us in a few hours, why aren't cooler heads prevailing. Where is the leadership to slide something through. No super-majority is needed in the house, and the Senate isn't a problem. This doesn't make sense, frankly. The threshold isn't that high.

I can't help but think we are being worked - both sides are playing to their bases - hyperbole, name calling, outrage....for what? Distract us from the failed roll-out of the ACA?

The politicians in Washington are many things, but I don't believe them to be stupid. Things happen for a reason. If we go over this cliff (if it is a cliff), it will not be by accident.


You must have missed when the Republicans changed the rules to make their government shutdown occur. Since the video in ElNono's post was removed here's another.

C1mylyBidZw

[m>s]

My boy Joey G.
I love that speech, dude was a real G

[101A]

You must have missed when the Republicans changed the rules to make their government shutdown occur. Since the video in ElNono's post was removed here's another.

C1mylyBidZw

Did miss that, thanks.

However, couldn't ANY house member propose a resolution abolishing THAT one; then vote on that resolution - go back to the original rules, bring the Senate bill up....the new resolution was (ostensibly) enacted with a simple majority, it can be dismantled in the same way...right?

My point is, when you there is blame laid by certain actors (Obama, Media, etc.) - "Fringe" elements of the Republican party have been blamed - a few people cannot stop or start things (unless many others also want that - or it serves their needs.

I think this episode was more about the House members ALL showing how crazy THE OTHER side is to solidify their own prospects for re-election...and to show that we HAVE to have a strong party to protect us from that other party.....

I am even more suspect as the entirely predictable occurs, and everything is set "right" again....so, in essence, nothing ever really happened.

I still think we're all getting played; go team.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think it is that simple, as Boehnor would have to give someone the floor to propose that, plus Republicans wouldn't want to pass it because of the Hastert rule.

[boutons_deux]

Hastert rule.

Hastert said there's no such thing.

www.nationalmemo.com/dennis-hastert-real-hastert-rule-is-218-if-we-had-to-work-with-democrats-we-did/

[RandomGuy]

"Moderate" Republicans in the House cannot get anything passed because of a small fraction of "Radical" or "Tea Party" or "Crazy" members of their own caucus.

I understand that math.

What I don't understand is why, with 435 members, including 201 Democrats, how any small fraction can keep the body as a whole from doing anything.

If Moderate Republicans (ostensibly Boehner is included in this) bring up a "reasonable" - meaning agreeable to all but the fringe - shouldn't their be 218 bi-partisan members who would vote for that (or even a strong majority)? Or, will only moderate Republicans vote for such a bill? Will Dems NOT vote for any bill brought by Boehner?

Hell, couldn't the 201 Dems bring a bill that is palatable to them, and find 17 Republicans who could go along with it?

If this is truly potential economic, global Armageddon facing us in a few hours, why aren't cooler heads prevailing. Where is the leadership to slide something through. No super-majority is needed in the house, and the Senate isn't a problem. This doesn't make sense, frankly. The threshold isn't that high.

I can't help but think we are being worked - both sides are playing to their bases - hyperbole, name calling, outrage....for what? Distract us from the failed roll-out of the ACA?

The politicians in Washington are many things, but I don't believe them to be stupid. Things happen for a reason. If we go over this cliff (if it is a cliff), it will not be by accident.


Wargaming that people have done on various kinds of brinkmanship shows that manuevering into stupid events happens very easily in atmopheres of distrust, and it is scary easy how fast such situations can deterioriate.

Diliberate, not quite. Stupid, certainly. I think the origins of the animosity that fuels the distrust is in the way a lot of conservatives view liberals, i.e. as deliberatly out to get them, and to destroy what they see as "their" American way of life.

The constant demonsization on the part of right wing demogogues takes a toll, and the statements of a lot of Congressional Republicans a lot more understandable.

[AntiChrist]

I think the origins of the animosity that fuels the distrust is in the way a lot of conservatives view liberals, i.e. as deliberatly out to get them, and to destroy what they see as "their" American way of life.

The constant demonsization on the part of right wing demogogues takes a toll, and the statements of a lot of Congressional Republicans a lot more understandable.


Damn, that's rich.

[boutons_deux]

Damn, that's rich.

that's true.

the demonization and polarization started with ST Ronnie, was really cranked up with the Gingrich Failed Revolution, and exploded when That Muslim N!gg@ got elected.

[DMX7]

"Moderate" Republicans in the House cannot get anything passed because of a small fraction of "Radical" or "Tea Party" or "Crazy" members of their own caucus.

I understand that math.

What I don't understand is why, with 435 members, including 201 Democrats, how any small fraction can keep the body as a whole from doing anything.

If Moderate Republicans (ostensibly Boehner is included in this) bring up a "reasonable" - meaning agreeable to all but the fringe - shouldn't their be 218 bi-partisan members who would vote for that (or even a strong majority)? Or, will only moderate Republicans vote for such a bill? Will Dems NOT vote for any bill brought by Boehner?

Hell, couldn't the 201 Dems bring a bill that is palatable to them, and find 17 Republicans who could go along with it?

If this is truly potential economic, global Armageddon facing us in a few hours, why aren't cooler heads prevailing. Where is the leadership to slide something through. No super-majority is needed in the house, and the Senate isn't a problem. This doesn't make sense, frankly. The threshold isn't that high.

I can't help but think we are being worked - both sides are playing to their bases - hyperbole, name calling, outrage....for what? Distract us from the failed roll-out of the ACA?

The politicians in Washington are many things, but I don't believe them to be stupid. Things happen for a reason. If we go over this cliff (if it is a cliff), it will not be by accident.

Speaker of the House determines what bills actually get voted on and to keep his office, he must pander to all in his party... that's why.

[Wild Cobra]

Moderate republican = democrat light.

Who needs them?

[DMX7]

Moderate republican = democrat light.

Who needs them?

lol, Tea Baggers, if they want to get anything passed in the House do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hastert said there's no such thing.

www.nationalmemo.com/dennis-hastert-real-hastert-rule-is-218-if-we-had-to-work-with-democrats-we-did/

There is no rule that the speaker has to rule as such. The dems hold to no such thing. It's informal but it's been GOP policy for 20 or so years.

It's in place primarily so GOP factions cannot ally with the dems and oust a sitting speaker. The GOP is set up to maintain power, it's not set up to govern. That should be obvious considering their antics the last 3 or so years. They just aren't as good at it now that Bakker, Rove, et al have moved on or been marginalized.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Moderate republican = democrat light.

Who needs them?

Who needs dumbed down oversimplifications and dimwitted false equivalencies?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Damn, that's rich.

I think US liberals are very much so against the antiestablishment and puritanical wing of the GOP. That is fair but then again so is about half of the GOP.

[exstatic]

"Moderate" Republicans in the House cannot get anything passed because of a small fraction of "Radical" or "Tea Party" or "Crazy" members of their own caucus.

I understand that math.

What I don't understand is why, with 435 members, including 201 Democrats, how any small fraction can keep the body as a whole from doing anything.

If Moderate Republicans (ostensibly Boehner is included in this) bring up a "reasonable" - meaning agreeable to all but the fringe - shouldn't their be 218 bi-partisan members who would vote for that (or even a strong majority)? Or, will only moderate Republicans vote for such a bill? Will Dems NOT vote for any bill brought by Boehner?

Hell, couldn't the 201 Dems bring a bill that is palatable to them, and find 17 Republicans who could go along with it?

If this is truly potential economic, global Armageddon facing us in a few hours, why aren't cooler heads prevailing. Where is the leadership to slide something through. No super-majority is needed in the house, and the Senate isn't a problem. This doesn't make sense, frankly. The threshold isn't that high.

I can't help but think we are being worked - both sides are playing to their bases - hyperbole, name calling, outrage....for what? Distract us from the failed roll-out of the ACA?

The politicians in Washington are many things, but I don't believe them to be stupid. Things happen for a reason. If we go over this cliff (if it is a cliff), it will not be by accident.

Self made drama, brought to you by the so-called Hastert rule. That rule is that if you don't have the GOP votes to pass something, it never even comes to the floor.