Support NeoGAF

[KingK]

They need to fire David Gregory, holy shit. His interview with Leon panetta was painful to watch. Basically he said that this is also the presidents fault for "playing" around with debt ceiling. W t f

News people would make terrible parents apparently. Child is screaming, throwing a tantrum, and threatening to smash the TV into pieces unless he gets his candy before dinner? Just give him the candy bar, for fucks sake! At least half of it!

 

[Diablos]

McConnell not budging on the Budget Control Act.

omg

 

[KingK]

Why are we talking about the sequester right now? I feel like it's muddying the waters. Deal with that after we've passed a clean CR and Debt limit increase.

 

[teiresias]

Yeah, the Dems should stick to original message and deal with a clean CR/DL and not bring the BCA into this.

 

[ridethepiggy]

McConnell not budging on the Budget Control Act.

omg

Nope. Wont happen.

 

[thepotatoman]

In my experience, now that ACA is finally out, people are a lot more likely to cut the political bullcrap and just ask about what obamacare actually is and how it effects them. They know to end the political talking points now that it's time to make real decisions about how they themselves use Obamacare in order to get the best out of it, and will seek out things like this kaiser foundation youtube video.

At this point you're doing direct self harm by not learning the facts, which is why I think Obamacare's popularity has risen despite the website sucking so much.

 

[Diablos]

Yeah, the Dems should stick to original message and deal with a clean CR/DL and not bring the BCA into this.

I tend to agree.

 

[ridethepiggy]

Reid is demanding changes to the sequester so in the end he can say 'fine, I wont demand that but you're not getting any change to the ACA and we'll just do a clean CR and debt limit increase.' Then McConnell can tell his base that he stood strong and made the dems give in. It's all one big game.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Conservatives tend to make two contradictory arguments about ACA. On one hand it's the worst law in recent memory, will bankrupt the nation, lead to people dying due to bad health care, etc. On the other hand they argue it must be stopped now, because if it goes into effect people will be hooked by government largess. Well which is it, you can't have both. Government subsidized "death care" is still death care, why would people be hooked to a plan that kills their older relatives and bankrupts their businesses?

I tend to think the law will work quite poorly for some folks, as seen in the GAF thread. A bare bones, bad plan is often all some people can afford, thus making $150 a month (plus large deductibles) unaffordable. Some of those people will be eligible for Medicaid obviously, but people in half the states won't be. Plus people who make around 32k a year won't be eligible, and may not be able to afford the exchanges.

That being said, it's going to help a whole lot of people. Especially the working poor, and people who previously made too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Many of those people, who were once essentially in a donut hole, will literally be saved by this law. I know someone from Alabama who moved to Kentucky specifically so she could be covered by Kynect; given her medical situation this is going to save her life.

Will these people become reliable voters, and will they vote to defend their health care even if they normally aren't democrats? That's the question. Also how will people react in states that didn't expand Medicaid; will they blame the law or blame their governors/state legislature? Because those people are going to get fucked financially.

 

[adg1034]

How about Q?

Close, but it's actually Joe McCarthy.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I'm so glad Harold ford is no longer in congress.

 

[thepotatoman]

Why are we talking about the sequester right now? I feel like it's muddying the waters. Deal with that after we've passed a clean CR and Debt limit increase.

I assume he was talking about doing something like giving the medical device tax and vitter amendment for the sequester, because the problem right now is republicans don't want to be embarrised by taking the plan that democrats have offered since before the shutdown.

I'd be very surprised if Reid was just moving the goalposts in such a visibly obvious way.

 

[teiresias]

I tend to agree.

Though I can see this viewpoint on the matter from a HuffPo article:

Senate Republicans would like to keep spending at $988 billion for one year, though in Friday's offer moderates in the party were demanding only six months. Democrats want spending at $1.059 trillion, but nearly all have said they would be willing to stomach $988 billion in the short term.

Such a deal was the basis of an initial agreement crafted over the summer between Reid and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), which fell apart after Boehner demanded changes to Obamacare as well. And while Democrats want to use that breakdown to reframe the current talks, they also seem open to a short-term deal that keeps sequestration in place with a promise of future negotiations.

"[Reid] gave that [$988 billion offer] to Boehner," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said on Saturday. "Boehner reneged on that. He rejected that, so we don’t start there. We clear back to a clean state and start where we were before -- that is where the appropriations and the budget negotiations need to start from. [Senate Budget Chairwoman] Patty Murray (D-Wash.) should start from negotiating from our standpoint -- $1.059 trillion. If they want to start from their standpoint, fine."

So seems like, unlike Obama, Reid has been presenting his top want at this point and will widdle down from there, rather than starting these "new" negotations at a low-ball demand like Obama has foolishly done in the past - Reid won't negotiate with himself. I can see the sense in that.

I agree, this whole thing seems like a way for Dems to say we gave a concession, which is keeping sequester at current levels, at least in some short-term state. I just wonder when will the Rs stop cockblocking every attempt to bring a conference committee to work on the actual budget if they're so interested in talking about these issues in an earnest manner.

 

[KingK]

Reid is demanding changes to the sequester so in the end he can say 'fine, I wont demand that but you're not getting any change to the ACA and we'll just do a clean CR and debt limit increase.'

The problem I have with this is that the sequester is something that actually does need to be negotiated over, and introducing it into the conversation now (a time where I don't think there should be any negotiations on anything whatsoever until the shutdown/DL are dealt with) just lends credence to the Republicans' claim that Democrats need to negotiate here.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Reid is demanding changes to the sequester so in the end he can say 'fine, I wont demand that but you're not getting any change to the ACA and we'll just do a clean CR and debt limit increase.' Then McConnell can tell his base that he stood strong and made the dems give in. It's all one big game.

I'm of this opinion.

 

[ridethepiggy]

The problem I have with this is that the sequester is something that actually does need to be negotiated over, and introducing it into the conversation now (a time where I don't think there should be any negotiations on anything whatsoever until the shutdown/DL are dealt with) just lends credence to the Republicans' claim that Democrats need to negotiate here.

It's more so a negotiating tactic that will allow the Dems to not give up anything and the GOP to tell the House it should vote for the bill because the Dems relented and are pissed. Neither Reid nor McConnell will let it kill a bill.

 

[ridethepiggy]

In more comedic news

Fox News correspondent Ed Henry walked out of a White House press briefing after being repeatedly ignored by spokesman Jay Carney on Friday.

Henry attempted to ask Carney a question twice, but Carney called on other people instead. After the first time, Henry could be seen shaking his head and muttering something to colleague Major Garrett. After the second time, Henry angrily got up and left the room. The briefing continued without him.

 

[Riki]

In more comedic news

This should happen ALL the time.

 

[KingK]

I assume he was talking about doing something like giving the medical device tax and vitter amendment for the sequester, because the problem right now is republicans don't want to be embarrised by taking the plan that democrats have offered since before the shutdown.

I'd be very surprised if Reid was just moving the goalposts in such a visibly obvious way.

I see the point. Republicans want some concession to save face, and Dems won't cave on the DL/shutdown, so they're introducing something they can negotiate over so that Boehner can say "See, concessions!"

However, I don't give a flying fuck if Republicans are embarrassed and neither should Obama or Reid. Republicans should be embarrassed, they deserve to be embarrassed, and the Democrats should in no way offer them the opportunity to save face. They shit in the bed, and they need to own it.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I'm sure republican congressmen in Virginia, Nevada, and other military/contractor states will be thrilled to tell their districts that at least they stopped democrats from eliminating the sequester...

 

[Cat]

That first page sure was silly. Hello Poligaf, long time no talk though I have been at least checking the thread lately.

So, is this shutdown ending in the next week or not? It's not clear to me, but as I understand it, it should be by the 17th or else something bad happens?

I feel so bad for people not being paid during this time.

 

[Riki]

I'm sure republican congressmen in Virginia, Nevada, and other military/contractor states will be thrilled to tell their districts that at least they stopped democrats from eliminating the sequester...

This is something I will never understand.
Congressional Republicans constantly do stuff that hurt their own part. But their own party still follows them blindly (except in rare cases).

Just makes no damn sense.

That first page sure was silly. Hello Poligaf, long time no talk though I have been at least checking the thread lately.

So, is this shutdown ending in the next week or not? It's not clear to me, but as I understand it, it should be by the 17th or else something bad happens?

I feel so bad for people not being paid during this time.

We have no idea when it will end. It could end today if Boehner wanted it to. But yes, we will default on the debt on the 17th if we don't see action.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

I'm somewhat legitimately concerned about the right wing in this country if Hillary wins in 2016. I don't know if they can take that after what they've deluded themselves into believing over these past 5 years already. I worry about what some of them might actually do.

It's time for the rational news media to start highlighting just how irrational and misguided these people are. It shouldn't just be Media Matters and MSNBC and Jon Stewart highlighting the idiocy. Every network newscast needs a segment each day just for the purposes of penetrating that bubble.

 

[thepotatoman]

I see the point. Republicans want some concession to save face, and Dems won't cave on the DL/shutdown, so they're introducing something they can negotiate over so that Boehner can say "See, concessions!"

However, I don't give a flying fuck if Republicans are embarrassed and neither should Obama or Reid. Republicans should be embarrassed, they deserve to be embarrassed, and the Democrats should in no way offer them the opportunity to save face. They shit in the bed, and they need to own it.

Sure, as long as that embarrassment doesn't lead us to either economic ruin or a 3 month long shutdown.

At what point do you become the one risking the health of the nation to play politics yourself?

 

[Riki]

I'm somewhat legitimately concerned about the right wing in this country if Hillary wins in 2016. I don't know if they can take that after what they've deluded themselves into believing over these past 5 years already. I worry about what some of them might actually do.

It's time for the rational news media to start highlighting just how irrational and misguided these people are. It shouldn't just be Media Matters and MSNBC and Jon Stewart highlighting the idiocy. Every network newscast needs a segment each day just for the purposes of penetrating that bubble.

The problem is, and it's been said many times, the mainstream media doesn't want to take sides. They won't report on the truth if it means one side will look bad. And it's infuriating. All it does is lead to voters not being informed.
It's just sad when comedy programs are more hard hitting and report the facts better than CNN and most other news agencies.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

The problem is, and it's been said many times, the mainstream media doesn't want to take sides. They won't report on the truth if it means one side will look bad. And it's infuriating. All it does is lead to voters not being informed.
It's just sad when comedy programs are more hard hitting and report the facts better than CNN and most other news agencies.

I agree, they won't do it, but they're just helping the country become even more divided by not directly defusing the extremes.

The second part of the problem, of course, is that the people highlighting the idiocy of the bubble won't be inside that bubble. But that's where I guess I'm hoping social media will help transport that message and have it "trickle down," so to speak. It's the Reagan plan.

 

[KingK]

Sure, as long as that embarrassment doesn't lead us to either economic ruin or a 3 month long shutdown.

At what point do you become the one risking the health of the nation to play politics yourself?

It's not about playing politics though. I don't want to idea of negotiating under these threats and circumstances to become an accepted norm. I feel like by bringing up the sequester before the rest of this is settled, they're legitimizing the idea that it's ok to negotiate here. Even if they don't actually give up anything significant, or even if they got a good deal out of it, I don't want this to be something anybody gets a "deal" out of. Allow to government to continue functioning, then make deals.

 

[thepotatoman]

I still have hopes Hillary will lose in the democrat primary. 3 years is a long way away for a challenger to rise, and democrats don't always stick to who the establishment tells them to pick like republicans do. I think it's just too early for people to know who that is so they don't have an anti-Hilary vote to cast at the moment.

I know I'm tired of Reagan era democrats who would be republicans 20 years ago.

 

[ridethepiggy]

I still have hopes Hillary will lose in the democrat primary. 3 years is a long way away for a challenger to rise, and democrats don't always stick to who the establishment tells them to pick like republicans do. I think it's just too early for people to know who that is so they don't have an anti-Hilary vote to cast at the moment.

I know I'm tired of Reagan era democrats who would be republicans 20 years ago.

Hilldawg needs to win so we get more HillFic from PD.

 

[Incognito]

In more comedic news

Ed Henry is a big ass baby. A few months ago he blocked me on twitter after I pointed out how childish he was for throwing a temper tantrum because the Obama WH wouldn't let him and the rest of the press corps take a picture of Obama and Tiger golfing together.

 

[KingK]

I still have hopes Hillary will lose in the democrat primary. 3 years is a long way away for a challenger to rise, and democrats don't always stick to who the establishment tells them to pick like republicans do. I think it's just too early for people to know who that is so they don't have an anti-Hilary vote to cast at the moment.

I know I'm tired of Reagan era democrats who would be republicans 20 years ago.

I hope so too, but I'm not betting on it. I can't think of any more liberal Democrats who have ever shown any indication of Presidential aspirations.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I still have hopes Hillary will lose in the democrat primary. 3 years is a long way away for a challenger to rise, and democrats don't always stick to who the establishment tells them to pick like republicans do. I think it's just too early for people to know who that is so they don't have an anti-Hilary vote to cast at the moment.

I know I'm tired of Reagan era democrats who would be republicans 20 years ago.

20 years ago? Like during the Clinton administration? I think your thinking of 40 to 50 years ago. Before the conservative movement. Presidents are shaped by the political reality around them. Clinton would be far more progressive than she would have been if she was elected in 2008 because the base and voting public is more progressive.

I was watching de Blasio the other day on Alec Baldwin's new show. I'd love for us to start putting up some really progressive and innovative mayors or governors like so we have a great bench for the 2020s.

I hope so too, but I'm not betting on it. I can't think of any more liberal Democrats who have ever shown any indication of Presidential aspirations.

I'm still upset Schweitzer didn't run for senate. Dude would be a great candidate.

 

[ridethepiggy]

Ed Henry is a big ass baby. A few months ago he blocked me on twitter after I pointed out how childish he was for throwing a temper tantrum because the Obama WH wouldn't let him and the rest of the press corps take a picture of Obama and Tiger golfing together.

Haha

 

[TacticalFox88]

As he made a discombobulated, shaky case for why Democrats were somehow responsible for Republicans’ failure of leadership, and fretted about Al-Qaeda coming after us while we were shutdown, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) huffed on CBS’ Face the Nation that Democrats better stop humiliating Republicans. He tried to sound scary from beneath the pin of GOP defeat, “Democrats better understand something, what goes around comes around!” So there.

“Al-Qaeda is not in shutdown!” Senator McCain, King of Fear-Mongering, intoned on Face the Nation. You’d almost think he was working for Democrats; however, he tried to lay our vulnerability and inability to defend ourselves at Democrats’ feet for being unwilling to let Republicans abuse the country. Mean old Dems.

John McCain has a warning for you!

“Democrats better understand something, what goes around comes around! And if they try to humiliate Republicans, things change in American politics, and I know what it’s like to be in the majority and the minority and it won’t be forgotten. Now is the time to be magnanimous!”

So there you have the best spin Republicans can put on their twin manufactured crises of shutdown and default. Democrats had better cave or else Republicans won’t be nice when they are in power.

Oh. So scary.

To clarify, are Republicans being “magnanimous” now? Because it’s been five years of Republicans calling Obama a terrorist, asking for his birth certificate, and shouting about impeaching him because of his skin color. They’ve crapped all over his nominations and stalled his entire agenda. In McCain’s chamber, Republicans as the minority have set records for filibustering. In the House, they have set the record for pretend votes to repeal ObamaCare. So, this is “magnanimous”, eh?

Democrats better watch out! When Republicans are in charge, they aren’t going to be magnanimous to Democrats. No more “you’re either with us or against us” or “you’re a terrorist if you don’t vote to invade Iraq” niceness.

John McCain and Republicans are banking on the public falling for this ruse that Republicans are the generous, magnanimous party and they are further banking on the idea that Democrats will buy into the very LIBERAL IDEA that negotiations are a function of reciprocity.

But Republicans do not function under the value of reciprocity. They function under the paradigm of power over or power under, which means every new power struggle (as they see it, or “negotiation” as Democrats see it) is an opportunity to take more control. Republicans are all about taking control even if it wasn’t given to them by the voters. They don’t give nice points for good behavior. They reward callous ruthlessness and then they crow about survival of the fittest, so Democrats have nothing to fear.

Also, Republicans are doing a fine job of humiliating themselves and they don’t seem to require any help. Democrats aren’t trying to humiliate Republicans when they ask Republicans to stop threatening the country, and only a party of defiant juveniles would see being asked to do their jobs that way.

There is no way to negotiate Republicans into playing fair or treating talks as a form of compromise where both sides give. These are not the old school Republicans. These are the Republicans born of their party’s refusal to admit their failures post-Bush. They make no sense, and they have no values. They can’t afford to have values because they haven’t the spine to admit that they sold out under Bush and still haven’t taken back “fiscal conservatism” or “keeping the country safe”.

Since the Republican Party can’t get its act together and is on the verge of a major meltdown between the House and Senate, they’re begging Democrats for mercy. Because they are Republicans, they don’t do this nicely or offer concessions in order to entice mercy. Instead they threaten if they don’t get mercy, everyone will pay next time around. This from the party that is currently threatening to destroy the global economy.

Yeah, Republicans already played that card, so Democrats have nothing to fear. To make matters worse for Republicans, Democrats are in the right, as they are defending the country against a Constitutional crisis manufactured by the “law and order” party of old.

John McCain was basically crying “Uncle” Republican style– that’s where you still point your finger at the other guy and cry that he’s done you wrong while you beg him to help you, because insulting people is always a win when you’re demanding that they not humiliate you.

Like clockwork. Goes from rational to crazy depending on the week

 

[Aaron Strife]

I hope so too, but I'm not betting on it. I can't think of any more liberal Democrats who have ever shown any indication of Presidential aspirations.

O'Malley's been pretty open about his ambition.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/martin-omalley-2016-95165.html

I'm still upset Schweitzer didn't run for senate. Dude would be a great candidate.

John Walsh is a decent candidate at least. And the GOP doesn't have any top-tier recruit of their own.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So the new republican talking point is the ACA is the law of the land but so is BCA, they'll accept no changes

Yeah, that's smart. Remind people the GOP is for the sequesters (remember the obamaquester?) will work out great for them when the cuts really kick in next year.

 

[ridethepiggy]

So the new republican talking point is the ACA is the law of the land but so is BCA, they'll accept no changes

Yeah, that's smart. Remind people the GOP is for the sequesters (remember the obamaquester?) will work out great for them when the cuts really kick in next year.

No. Erick Erickson says while the ACA is the law it was steamrolled through Congress without bipartisan support while the sequester was fully bipartisan so the ACA doesnt count.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Like clockwork. Goes from rational to crazy depending on the week

“Democrats better understand something, what goes around comes around! And if they try to humiliate Republicans, things change in American politics, and I know what it’s like to be in the majority and the minority and it won’t be forgotten. Now is the time to be magnanimous!”

Is this an actual direct quote? Nothing short of sad.

Twist that knife, Reid.

 

[thepotatoman]

20 years ago? Like during the Clinton administration? I think your thinking of 40 to 50 years ago. Before the conservative movement. Presidents are shaped by the political reality around them. Clinton would be far more progressive than she would have been if she was elected in 2008 because the base and voting public is more progressive.

I was watching de Blasio the other day on Alec Baldwin's new show. I'd love for us to start putting up some really progressive and innovative mayors or governors like so we have a great bench for the 2020s.



I'm still upset Schweitzer didn't run for senate. Dude would be a great candidate.

She'll maybe act more progressive to get elected, but that doesn't mean she'll act like that once elected. Saying she'll change her views to get elected doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/12/alan-grayson-government-shutdown_n_4089828.html?ref=topbar

WASHINGTON -- The House had a pretty light schedule on Saturday morning: Pass a funding bill for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Indian Education and Indian Health Services. But Republicans yanked the bill immediately after it came up as Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) tried to amend its title with language calling for an end to the government shutdown.

Here's the bill's official title: "Making continuing appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Indian Education, and the Indian Health Service for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes."

Under Grayson's amendment, the title would have an extra clause about what a great idea it would be to pass a "clean" funding bill: “Making continuing appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Indian Education, and the Indian Health Service for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, although we prefer -- and would support -- a comprehensive, clean continuing resolution to end the government shutdown.”

Grayson's goal was purely symbolic; he wanted to see how many Republicans would vote for the idea of passing a clean funding bill to reopen the government, with no strings attached. His confidence that his amendment would pass stems from the fact that at least 24 Republicans have said they would support a clean funding bill to end the shutdown, which, along with the support of all Democrats, means the votes are there to do it.

But Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who was in the speaker's chair when the bill came up for a vote, said it was postponed and moved on to other matters.

"They can’t handle the truth," Grayson said after it was pulled down.

Rory Cooper, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who controls the floor, said Saturday's events were just a blip and the bill would be back.

"Democrats were using dilatory tactics to delay the bill on the floor," Cooper said. "We moved off the bill and onto a vote on the Motion to Instruct. The Democrats can continue their show on Monday when the vote comes back up."

Lol

She'll maybe act more progressive to get elected, but that doesn't mean she'll act like that once elected. Saying she'll change her views to get elected doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

That's no what I'm saying. I'm saying political forces, the make up of congress, outside pressure, demographic changes will force her to be more progressive.

 

[Joe Molotov]

Like clockwork. Goes from rational to crazy depending on the week

Oh Sunday morning political talk shows, where would be without you? Besides in a better place, I mean.

 

[KingK]

I'm still upset Schweitzer didn't run for senate. Dude would be a great candidate.

You and me both. I can't say I'm a huge fan of Schweitzer (too conservative for my tastes), but he's easily my most liked of any of the red state moderate Democrats. He's good at explaining things, has the right amount of folksiness, and supports single payer health care. I've seen him on CNN a lot the past few days, and he's definitely a skilled politician and would make a great addition to the senate. No idea why he didn't run.

O'Malley's been pretty open about his ambition.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/martin-omalley-2016-95165.html

I was going to mention O'Malley actually, but I'm think the dude just doesn't have the charisma to beat Hillary in a primary. I do really like what I've read of his record as governor, but my only real exposure to him was his DNC speech last year, and like I said, he just did not give off much charisma. Obviously I could be rushing to judgment and a lot can change in 3 years, but I don't see him going anywhere in the primary. I could see him getting VP or a cabinet position though.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

These people

 

[pigeon]

Why are we talking about the sequester right now? I feel like it's muddying the waters. Deal with that after we've passed a clean CR and Debt limit increase.

Because we can't pass a CR that goes past December without locking in the sequester. This is why the Collins plan died -- the CR was actually too LONG.

Sure, as long as that embarrassment doesn't lead us to either economic ruin or a 3 month long shutdown.

At what point do you become the one risking the health of the nation to play politics yourself?

Keep in mind the Senate already passed a continuing resolution. No matter what, the House could end this in five minutes by holding a vote on it.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

The House could end the shutdown. They probably don't have the votes for the debt ceiling, though, do they?

The shutdown we can take, but a debt default we cannot. The latter is what I'm more worried about, and there's no obvious budging happening as of yet.

 

[Diablos]

Ahhh, really sucks that Schweitzer isn't running. edit: He confirmed this in July? Had no clue. He was the ace in the hole Dems needed to defend against most certainly losing seats in states like WV.

smh

Holding the Senate could prove to be an uphill battle.

 

[bodyofanamerican]

The House could end the shutdown. They probably don't have the votes for the debt ceiling, though, do they?

The shutdown we can take, but a debt default we cannot. The latter is what I'm more worried about, and there's no obvious budging happening as of yet.

If Boehner turned his caucus loose (lol), and told them to vote their consciences, the House would absolutely have the votes for the debt ceiling.

 

[thepotatoman]

That's no what I'm saying. I'm saying political forces, the make up of congress, outside pressure, demographic changes will force her to be more progressive.

That's still a very silly reason to rally behind someone. Wouldn't it be better to vote for someone that has the right policies, and not for someone who doesn't with hopes that she will be pressured into having the right policies?

Typically the president is seen as the leader of the party, and the president gets to pick which areas for the party to focus its attention on. Congress has the power to say no, but it's a whole lot more difficult for them to start something than it is for the president, because they face the same roadblocks the president does except without the star power the president has.

 

[pigeon]

The House could end the shutdown. They probably don't have the votes for the debt ceiling, though, do they?

The shutdown we can take, but a debt default we cannot. The latter is what I'm more worried about, and there's no obvious budging happening as of yet.

Sure, but if the CR passed the House, there's nothing for the Senate to fight about. So Reid returns to the clean debt ceiling increase, GOP senators overwhelmingly vote for it, it goes to the House, and then Boehner holds the vote because the Senate already passed it and it goes through with mostly Democratic votes. I'm not saying this is how government should work, but it's how Boehner handled these problems in the past.

There are certainly twenty Republicans or so who understand that the debt ceiling must be raised.

 

[Incognito]

Per robert costa, House r's think they are now winning the pr war..

@robertcostaNRO: This is a big story; House conservatives tell me it's a "game-changer," gives Right new momentum ahead of this week http://t.co/QRzlHrjOcf

Story is about reopening of wwii monument by veterans, etc

:lol